Pacifism Vs. Peace.

[Smart_Guy]

Hello.

Are they perfect synonyms? (Geez, I used this word too much lately)

I.e. does pacifism always equal peace and peace always equal pacifism?

Does being a pacifist necessarily mean being peaceful or peace maker (by definition and ethics, not necessarily by action)? What about the other way around?

I personally believe that they are two different things with just some similarities depending on case. I think some people confuse the two as perfect synonyms. They could be synonyms, but conditional/contextual only, not perfect by any means.

Views?

 

[Deathbydefault]

One is a path while the other is a destination.

That's how I see it.

 

[Shrew]

Too much pacifism can lead to war.
Like before World War 2, when Chamberlain gave in to Hitler too often.

 

[Augustus]

I.e. does pacifism always equal peace and peace always equal pacifism?

Pacifism is an opposition to violence, whereas peace is an absence of violence.

Peace can be the result of the threat of violence (you might not attack a country with a strong military for example), but pacifism cannot, as it involves a rejection of the threat of violence.

 

[psychoslice]

Sometimes we need to fight for the better, its sad but its a fact, sitting back and pretending everything is fine, can be the downfall of you and your country.

 

[Ana.J]

Pacifism is practicing peace as I see it.

 

[psychoslice]

Pacifism is practicing peace as I see it.

Yes i wish it was that simple.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Hmmm....

Thanks for the input, guys.

Which one do you believe is better for humanity, knowing the overall general nature of humanity? I personally believe pacifism should come first, but if it does not work, seeking peace without resorting to pacifism should be practiced, specially when there is possibility that harm is caused while pacifism is practiced.

I'm under the impression that when people talk about peace in religion/theocracy/rule/theology/etc., they do it confusing peace with pacifism. Let's say that X religion is believed to be of peace by its followers, those against it say it is not a religion of peace because it by default does Y action that involves a variant of force and physicality.

Does that make sense?

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks...

Hmm - complicated....Not the same thing I dont think...Pacifism does not lead to peace in my experience - it leads to domination, nearly always so.. In fact pacifism - is a spiritual no no - you are not supposed to be pacifist at all - you are supposed to be your own AUTHORITY and become RESONSIBLE for the Self and your own actions - that means if something out there before you is seen as "wrong" then it is your "duty" to try to put it right - and this is NEVER a "sitting by idly" issue for the Soul....Christ Himself makes that VERY clear - doesnt He...??....From Thomas..

"I have cast fire upon the world, and look, I'm guarding it until it blazes."

See that He knows there WILL BE CONFLICT and see that He even INTENDS for the conflict to happen - it is unavoidable so He prepares us accordingly..

"Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.

Again see clearly He KNOWS the situation we face in life, fully, and is telling us to prepare for conflict..

For this reason I say, if the owners of a house know that a thief is coming, they will be on guard before the thief arrives and will not let the thief break into their house (their domain) and steal their possessions. As for you, then, be on guard against the world. Prepare yourselves with great strength, so the robbers can't find a way to get to you, for the trouble you expect will come. Let there be among you a person who understands. When the crop ripened, he came quickly carrying a sickle and harvested it. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!"

He says ALWAYS BE PREPARED for the world out there is the enemy always and is constantly looking to confront you...When the time comes He says - ACT - do what is NECASSARY whenever it BECOMES necasary to do.. NOT passive but ready and dynamic always...

"A city built on a high hill and fortified cannot fall, nor can it be hidden."

Folks -That is US that He speaks of..WE are this "city" that should be fortified with our truth, stand it tall and show it to the world always - never hidden - never a pacifist...

"What you will hear in your ear, in the other ear proclaim from your rooftops. After all, no one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket, nor does one put it in a hidden place. Rather, one puts it on a lampstand so that all who come and go may use its light."

Again a clear call for ACTION and not idle pacifism - ACTIVELY show your truth always.. Do not hide it away...PROCLAIM your truth He says - you can not be passive here - but again always be ready and able to act ON that truth you hold...

"If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not have that within you, what you do not have within you will kill you."

Again we are to be ACTIVE and bring forth our truth on purpose - this is desired, good, beneficial always - but if we do not do this then we will "die" to he Self - lose our Self - inevitably this means we will be DOMINATED by these others around us again....Clearly - be ACTIVE and ready always - NEVER be a pacifist..

And Hes right isnt He..??..YES - look at the world...We all KNOW what type of world we desire and its actually easy to achieve if we all cooperate - and yet - we all collectively FAIL TO ACT to make that come about - and worse - we sit idle and passive as all manner of atrocious things are done around us - things that go directly against our most sacred inner truths - yet we fail again to act - cowed and submissive now - pacifism is a nefarious tool of domination that we have learned ot accept as normal and "good" - but Christ Himself came to shake us OUT of that enforced morose and to have us CLAIM our Self once again - SAVE our Self - and our world of course......We dont do that by sitting passive as the world fks up around us...Take RESPONSIBILITY for the Self...If we meekly ALLOW these things to happen then rest assured they WILL happen - and that means we will NEVER attain that world - that PEACE - that we all seek.....NEVER be passive - it just invites domination always - we want to attain that state for us all then we MUST act WHENEVER the world confronts us with injustice and domination ALWAYS act to remedy it.. Only when such injustice and domination ceases - only then will the peace be authentic..

His disciples said, "Show us the place where you are, for we must seek it." He said to them, "Anyone here with two ears had better listen! There is light within a person of light, and it shines on the whole world. If it does not shine, it is dark." , "Love your friends like your own soul, protect them like the pupil of your eye."

LOVE them - PROTECT them - REQUIRES us to be pro active, ever ready - never passive or idle when those we love are still vulnerable..Always let that Light shine or that Dark will come and engulf us again...

 

[FearGod]

Hello.

Are they perfect synonyms? (Geez, I used this word too much lately)

I.e. does pacifism always equal peace and peace always equal pacifism?

Does being a pacifist necessarily mean being peaceful or peace maker (by definition and ethics, not necessarily by action)? What about the other way around?

I personally believe that they are two different things with just some similarities depending on case. I think some people confuse the two as perfect synonyms. They could be synonyms, but conditional/contextual only, not perfect by any means.

Views?

Pacifism is derived from pacific which is derived from the words peace + facere.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pacific

What's the difference between a pacific student and a peaceful student?

 

[LuisDantas]

Too much pacifism can lead to war.
Like before World War 2, when Chamberlain gave in to Hitler too often.

I heard the claim, but I don't think it is justified.

 

[LuisDantas]

Peace is a circunstance, and it may be fragile and unstable.

Pacifism is an active choice and stance.

 

[Tumah]

Pacifism is derived from pacific which is derived from the words peace + facere.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pacific

What's the difference between a pacific student and a peaceful student?

The former comes from Japan and the latter from India.

 

[LuisDantas]

Which one do you believe is better for humanity, knowing the overall general nature of humanity? I personally believe pacifism should come first, but if it does not work, seeking peace without resorting to pacifism should be practiced, specially when there is possibility that harm is caused while pacifism is practiced.

I actually disagree. Peace without pacifism is not much of a goal. It amounts to trusting luck to hold.

It makes a lot more sense to accept harm if necessary while pacifism is pursued. As Badshah Khan did.

I'm under the impression that when people talk about peace in religion/theocracy/rule/theology/etc., they do it confusing peace with pacifism. Let's say that X religion is believed to be of peace by its followers, those against it say it is not a religion of peace because it by default does Y action that involves a variant of force and physicality.

Does that make sense?

Hmm, not really, sorry.

 

[LuisDantas]

What's the difference between a pacific student and a peaceful student?

A peaceful student has his or her mind at ease. He is untroubled, but not necessarily opposed to violence.

A pacifist student actively pursues peaceful situations and stances for himself or herself and those around him.

Pacific as an adjective can have either meaning. It is not usually very clear which. Of course, the word is also used as a noum to designate the Ocean or things related to it.

 

[Tumah]

Hmmm....

Thanks for the input, guys.

Which one do you believe is better for humanity, knowing the overall general nature of humanity? I personally believe pacifism should come first, but if it does not work, seeking peace without resorting to pacifism should be practiced, specially when there is possibility that harm is caused while pacifism is practiced.

I'm under the impression that when people talk about peace in religion/theocracy/rule/theology/etc., they do it confusing peace with pacifism. Let's say that X religion is believed to be of peace by its followers, those against it say it is not a religion of peace because it by default does Y action that involves a variant of force and physicality.

Does that make sense?

Its kind of hard for me to imagine what would be considered a "peaceful religion" that engages in force and violence as a means to that goal. Like forced conversions and destroying one's enemies so that no one stands opposed and one can live peacefully? That doesn't sound peaceful. Can you give an example of how that would work?

 

[FearGod]

A peaceful student has his or her mind at ease. He is untroubled, but not necessarily opposed to violence.

A pacifist student actively pursues peaceful situations and stances for himself or herself and those around him.

Pacific as an adjective can have either meaning. It is not usually very clear which. Of course, the word is also used as a noum to designate the Ocean or things related to it.

Does " a pacific resolution" mean the same as " a peaceful resolution" or they got
different meanings?

 

[Thief]

Hello.

Are they perfect synonyms? (Geez, I used this word too much lately)

I.e. does pacifism always equal peace and peace always equal pacifism?

Does being a pacifist necessarily mean being peaceful or peace maker (by definition and ethics, not necessarily by action)? What about the other way around?

I personally believe that they are two different things with just some similarities depending on case. I think some people confuse the two as perfect synonyms. They could be synonyms, but conditional/contextual only, not perfect by any means.

Views?

in my old neighborhood......
anyone might shove a fist in your eye.....just to say hello

seriously....as if to knock you down

I have in return offered the other cheek.....more than once....
and I warn you all.....THAT is not a safe thing to do

you need to be wary.
that same guy might well take another swing

but if you turn and walk away thinking you are a pacifist....
you will never know peace

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks...

Surely a "pacific resolution" (to any conflict) can ONLY result in the total domination of the pacifist who yields completely to the other and so is dominated fully BY the other - hence for sure conflict will stop eventually and that IMBALANCE will remain permanant....

BUT - there is no PEACE in that approach - for the pacifist has NONE and can NEVER attain peace by that approach...All he has now is that which the aggressor FORCED upon him, yes..?...WHERE is his peace..?.. How is HE satisfied..?..In what way..??... Can he EVER attain such satisfaction for the Self by adopting this passive attitude..??..

Peace - is COMMON ACCORD - BOTH (all) existing in HARMONY - each equal and deserving...Pacifism is NOT peace as we see clearly - it leads directly to the opposite state that we wished to avoid....Just as Christ said - TURN THE OTHER CHEEK

But look - that does NOT mean accept meekly all that is done to you - that does NOT mean be a pacifist in the face of such aggression and confrontation - it means just as it says -OPPOSITE - turn the OTHER cheek and refuse to take that treatment any longer !!!

It comes (for those who dont know) from an ancient master / slave custom and protocol.... The master is superior always - even when punishing his slave he would show his supposed superiority... To chastise the slave he would strike him with the BACK OF THE HAND to show contempt and derision - a back handed slap ALWAYS comes from a SUPERIOR... A fight among equals is always an eye to eye face to face encounter.. Thus to emphasise this status the master would slap the slave back handed - right hand across slaves right cheek... A meek submissive slave would learn and be taught to tilt his head accordingly ready to accept this chastisement - accept this back handed cuff and understand its significance of status... The rebellious slave though, would turn the OTHER CHEEK at the last moment - thus forcing the master to slap the slave as he looked him eye to eye as EQUALS..

And so my mate Christ advised always - when the world confronts and dominates you so - TURN THE OTHER CHEEK - understand and see you are ALREADY being dominated in that instant, so TURN from it - do NOT accept it unquestioningly..NEVER a pacifist...

 

[metis]

I have long sympathized with non-violence as a sense of direction, but I can't take it to an extreme as there are times when one should confront aggression. However, it should be done only as the last resort, imo.

BTW, Gandhi did not call himself a "pacifist" because the root word implies not to do anything. Instead he preferred the term "non-violence. To him, cooperating with evil is also an evil.