Meaning of Peace

American Heritage Dictionary -
peace (pēs)
n.
1. The absence of war or other hostilities.
2. An agreement or a treaty to end hostilities.
3. Freedom from quarrels and disagreement; harmonious relations: roommates living in peace with each other.
4. Public security and order: was arrested for disturbing the peace.
5. Inner contentment; serenity: peace of mind.


To state that I desire an end to war, as I have in my previous article, implies directly that I desire peace. This being true, I wish to explore what is meant by the term “peace”. So that we, whomever may deign to read my thoughts, may consider what it is we claim to desire so fervently.

What is peace that makes it so preferable to the condition of war? A condition long the source of romantic and heroic tales in every culture of humanity. If we have for so many eons claimed that war is where boys become men, where men become heroes, where evil is defeated by good, then on what basis do those of us who herald the cause of the olive branch make such a claim? Is there truly something about the condition of peace that serves the human condition better? Or are we merely the cowards we have often been called by our detractors? For, to be fair, the enemies of the cause of peace do not seek to dismantle society. They do not seek their own doom. They fervently believe that when the righteous man is beset by the tyranny of the wicked the only recourse to preserve said righteousness is the sword of fire. Are they delusional? Misguided? Hypnotized by the master of lies into acquiescing to their own destruction? Or are they in fact correct? Is war both inevitable and necessary?

I believe they are misguided by fear of the unknown and a reluctance to accept the reality of that fear. I believe that Peace is the only hope for humanity’s society to evolve beyond its current state, of which nothing fundamental has changed since the Republic of Rome other than technology and labels.

So what is Peace? Above is a definition of which a similar version can be found in most English lexicons. I would argue that 2,3, & 4 are merely subsets of the first and as such will not spend time on them. 1&5 offer the two most commonly perceived definitions of the term, to which I would add to the list a 6th definition provided by the civil rights leaders of the twentieth century such as Martin and Mahatma; a condition in which citizens suffer neither violence nor injustice.

The 1st and 6th of these definitions share a common theme. They deal in negatives, stating that peace is merely the absence of conflict between people. These are not useful definitions, for if all we are striving to be is NOT something then we shall forever be defined by that thing. It will remain a fundamental part of who we are and, inevitably, we shall return to it. Just as the religious devote chooses celibacy as a sacrifice, not claiming to have lost the carnal urge, but instead attempting to demonstrate devotion by restraining themselves. Throughout their life they struggle to hold fast to a discipline against their nature. They acknowledge this resistance to their own nature as the significance of the sacrifice. I reject the notion that it is intrinsic to the nature of humanity to do harm to one another. We need not sacrifice to attain peace. I believe, I am convinced, that malevolent conflict is the impediment to the fulfillment of our potential.

Which means we require a definition that offers a positive goal. Not an antonym of the unwelcome but a signifier of possibility. This is where the 5th definition becomes a launching point for discussion. “Inner contentment, Serenity” These terms themselves are enigmatic, so lets begin by parsing them. Contentment: Desiring no more than what one has; Serenity: a calm, undisturbed state of mind free from anxiety, tension, or restlessness.

As Peace is defined as a combined understanding of these terms, I would suggest that a more exact, useful form of the 5th definition would be: The personal calm that comes with the recognition that nothing can be taken from, or given to, one by another which would affect the merit of the person.

Every religion has various laws, prophecies, parables that teach three basic precepts: do not violate people, do not desire what is not yours, and expect your actions to return to you in time. World cultures are also replete with secular tales, oral and written, that teach moral lessons with common themes: the unhappy miser and the happy generous man, the man who does not value what he has till it is gone, the deceiver who ultimately falls prey to his own deceits, the tragedy of greatness shared lost to greed, loss due to lack of foresight, ego destroying excellence, and the strength of the humble hero.

The failure to learn the wisdom of our elders can be seen in the events of history. Individuals, tribes, cities, nations grow and prosper. Then, among them, one or more feels that what they have is not enough and they desire to gain the prosperity of another. So, in their greed, they violate the other(s) with hostile force and take what is not theirs. After initial success in this action, they seek to repeat it, feeling they deserve such rewards, as they are strong enough to take them. Not understanding that they are increasing resentment that will be visited back upon them. At some point the resentment grows so that they are alone, without friend or ally. Now, out of a desire to protect what they have gained, they begin to violate any who point out the negative impact of their actions. Making false claims that their enemies are fomenters of fear and violence. Eventually their efforts outstrip their resources, and they crumble, losing more than they had before they even began the struggle. A possibility they never foresaw, although all of their forbearers had warned of it. If they had simply been content with what they had, they would still have it and need not fear its loss.

“But what of progress?” Some will ask. If the prehistoric man had been content with fire, there would be no wheel. If content with the wheel, there would be no Internet for you to share you philosophy on.

I would argue that desiring to improve what you have, is not the same as desiring to have more than you have. That avarice and inventiveness are not only not similar, they are in fact antithetical. Further, I would argue that being content with oneself breeds intellectual growth as self-exploration and understanding is required to attain it.

In my previous article I stated that war was a result of an attempt to alleviate fear by imposing control on a chaotic universe. That pursuit of the illusion of control of things outside of self was the source of hostile strife. Allow me to be clear that I am not downplaying the benefit of overcoming challenges. The human ability to see an obstacle as a puzzle to be solved is a positive in no way akin to the issues surrounding war. The ability to adapt and improvise is, in fact, germane to the exploration of self. The human mind is capable of incredible leaps of imagination and logic. From this springs forth the fantastic innovations of history. Those who have explored this area of their person to its fullest have become giants of human history. The tyrants of history were well aware of this fact, and often created strife by acting to control through suppression or domination of the intellectual.

It is my proposition that should we ever achieve peace among humanity we shall see intellectual progress unparalleled in human history. The great research institutions of the world, public and private, are all protected from the strife of the world for a reason.

It is my conclusion that in order for humanity to reach societal peace, we must first reach individual peace. All attempts in history to impose peace on warring factions from the top down have eventually failed. Once released from the constraints of the controlling parties, the factions have again returned to their hostilities until the conflict was resolved one way or another amongst them. Every example of a peaceful society is made up of like-minded members who joined together for the purpose.

To this end, I reiterate my position, that we should cease teaching our children that the great people of history are warriors and conquerors. That the passage of time is marked by wars won and lost. We should instead hold up as heroes the teachers of peace, the healers, the geniuses, and the artists. We should mark time with paradigm shifts in technology, developments in the arts, momentous realignments of philosophies. Let our monuments no longer be to individuals who led men into battle, but instead the very institutions of education that foster the hopes of the future.

I shall begin contributing to this cause, in my own small way, with a series of articles entitled “Heroes of Peace” which shall offer examples of this philosophical approach to improving the world we live in.

Peace be with you.