|
|
|
|
|
|
by fsckboy
1112 days ago
|
|
|
> If someone thinks peace is lack of violence, how do you even communicate with them when you think peace is the presence of justice. how about just say "justice" or "presence of justice" instead of trying to redefine the word peace? Then, for example, the catch phrase "no justice, no peace" will make sense, it means "if we don't get justice, we will not be peaceful" |
|
|
In the context of Taiwan, I wouldn't call China's coercion of Taiwan peace even though guns aren't firing.
In the context of Ukraine, I wouldn't call the period after Russia's invasion of Ukraine to seize Crimea "peace" even though it was just "little green men" walking into Crimea.
I wouldn't call the south china sea situation peaceful.
So you're unwittingly making the point I'm making.
I am not redefining any words, the reference in my head points to a different idea altogether. To me, you are redefining peace in the same way to you I am redefining peace. Both of us came into this conversation with the word peace being an indirect reference to a different idea. For me it's an indirect reference to the idea of justice. For you it's an indirect reference to lack of violence.
When I try to answer if a situation is peaceful, I try to estimate the injustice. When you try to determine if a situation is peaceful, you look for the amount of physical violence. That means to me oppression/coercion is violence, but you might be the type of person to justify oppression because to fight oppression means to violate "peace."
The idea of what word references what idea is a social process. So if you want to communicate or achieve understanding, you have to understand what the ideas represented by various words are. That's why so many philosophical conversations start with "well how do you define ____?" "how would we test that definition?".
> "if we don't get justice, we will not be peaceful"
So it leads us to different understandings, because the way I read it, they feel attacked and are saying if there is not justice we will defend ourselves. "no justice, no peace" -> "if there is not justice, there cannot be peace" -> "we will fight for justice".
Your phrasing emphasizes the lack of peacefulness. My phrasing emphasizes the lack of justice.
Why is it a "catch phrase" to you, but a "battle cry" to me? What do those words betray about the ideas that exist in our heads.
What happens if two people in geographically distinct locations learn different definitions for words. What happens if people in Florida learn that the definition of "woke" is "a crazy liberal idea" while the people in California learn that the definition of woke is "understanding systemic racism." The word "woke" literally points to a different idea based on the social context you grew up in. The idea of peace is different if the social context that taught you vocabulary is one of being the oppressor rather than one of being oppressed. To the oppressor, peace is violated when someone doesn't want to be oppressed anymore. To the oppressed, peace is violated when someone used the threat of force in a bid to control them.