Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

Ashley C

Should you fight for peace?

41 posts in this topic

It's no doubt that peace is something greatly desired and sought for by (most) nations. In today's (mostly) democratic society, more demonstrations of solidarity are popping up as people are fighting for their rights... but isn't this phrase a paradox? In many cases, "fighting" for peace and freedom has led to civil war in the modern age: examples would included the ongoing war in Syria. Something else: protest marches can sometimes lead to the death of people, such as the Black Lives Matter march where one individual shot and killed 5 policemen. The phrase itself is a paradox as the word "fight" contradicts the word "peace". So really, is fighting for peace a contradictory action/statement? 

I am all for democracy and people fighting for their rights. But how can we strike a balance and make sure that, whilst we fight for peace, we do not precipitate war in the end? 

I'm interested in hearing your response, even if you may think your opinion is offensive. Do let me know your thoughts on this matter! Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the existence of different definitions of peace ensure that struggles will always be present. 

For some, peace may mean that they are the ruling class that can effectively prevent people of other classes from having hopes or social mobility. 

For some, peace is an egalitarian community. 

For some, peace means they can trust their leader to take care of the population.

And so many other definitions and ideas about what peace constitutes.

34 minutes ago, Ashley C said:

But how can we strike a balance and make sure that, whilst we fight for peace, we do not precipitate war in the end?

I have no idea- war just keeps happening, and often for the same reasons over and over again. The solutions may also depend on the specifics of each community or culture; they are probably not one-size-fits-all. Each country's political strategies and internal policies are unique probably for this reason too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, zonsop said:

Maybe the existence of different definitions of peace ensure that struggles will always be present. 

For some, peace may mean that they are the ruling class that can effectively prevent people of other classes from having hopes or social mobility. 

For some, peace is an egalitarian community. 

For some, peace means they can trust their leader to take care of the population.

And so many other definitions and ideas about what peace constitutes.

 

So you're saying that peace has many definitions, therefore, because of the fact that "peace" is so unspecific, struggles will always be here? Because peace means something different to everyone?

I agree with that. Though, my question is, if someone were to fight for:

An egalitarian society, and it ends up with people taking revenge on those who have committed injustice on them, does that contract the whole movement?

A trustworthy leader, where they are in a country of a tyrant and are trying to overthrow the government but it ends up in civil war, is it worth it?

Basically, fighting for peace is a good cause. But with the risk of an outbreak of war and potential deaths, is this fight for peace worth it?

Also sorry but I don't quite get what you mean by: "peace may mean that they are the ruling class that can effectively prevent people of other classes from having hopes or social mobility." Do you mean that to some, peace is being the one who is all-powerful? Not disagreeing with your statement, just want to clarify that that is what you meant. Thanks for response!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What on earth are you talking about? Who's fighting for peace?

People fight because they want something. People fight because they oppose something. Shit happens. People die.

You got a problem with violence? You got a problem with insurrection? You got a problem with butchering your oppressors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ashley C said:

So you're saying that peace has many definitions, therefore, because of the fact that "peace" is so unspecific, struggles will always be here? Because peace means something different to everyone?

Hm, this is just my personal opinion, and I've not experienced significant strife or civil unrest; having experienced such might lend credibility to opinions about this matter. Anyway, here goes: 

Many definitions to peace-->
A particular group/ community has a specific idea of what peace is to them-->
Because it isn't what they're currently experiencing, they fight-->
(1) They get what they want, so the fight was, on the whole, worthwhile;
(2) They do not get what they want and lose for instance, many lives, so it wasn't worthwhile. 

45 minutes ago, Ashley C said:

Do you mean that to some, peace is being the one who is all-powerful?

There is the element of social classes in many places. I'm not sure about the description of 'all-powerful' because there are varying degrees of the association of 'peace' with 'being in the ruling class'. The concept of social classes in communities is, in some cases, overt, in others, covert, with the middle ground covered too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think @rickster has the right idea. "Fighting for peace" is a misleading expression. You fight for your rights, you fight against another nation taking over, you fight against your own nation becoming a dictatorship, etc. Now, you may believe that if you don't fight, there will be wars to come anyway, but that would probably just be part of the reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ashley C said:

So really, is fighting for peace a contradictory action/statement?

Yes.

But much of life is contradictory. Tomatoes contain lycopene, which fights cancer and lengthens life. They also contain nightshade, a deadly poison in large quantities and so also somewhat harmful even in the small quantities found in tomatoes.

There are usually pros AND cons in the same things. I think this is very well illustrated in the image of Yin and Yang, that shows a white dot in the black side and a black dot in the white side. Even when you get mostly white, you still get a bit of black with it, and vice versa.

Thus, the aim is to consider both sides, and to try to achieve a balance, by constantly adjusting your levels. Like riding a bike. You don't stay exactly straight on a bike. You're always going a bit left or a bit right, and constantly trying to counter-balance a bit.

49 minutes ago, rickster said:

People fight because they want something. People fight because they oppose something. Shit happens. People die.

You got a problem with violence? You got a problem with insurrection? You got a problem with butchering your oppressors?

Well, yeah.

You butcher them for oppressing you. Then their kids swear vengeance on the men who killed their fathers, and when they grow up, they butcher you and your friends who helped. It's like shooting a gun with a bullet moving very slowly and then moving in front of the target and waiting to get hit.

Probably be more useful to try to find a solution with less harmful long-term consequences to yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace for whom? Peace isn't necessarily inclusive; one fights for so-called peace insofar as it pertains to one's identity. An identity that could also happen to appeal to particular groups; adherents of ideologies.

The people standing in the way of peace must be eliminated for the sake of said peace. Not peace for them. For the others.

Peace is the non-existence of strife against oneself. Oneself being a more expansive term in this context.

An aesthetic of peace is one of the absence of conflict; one that either entails a prelude of conflict, or eternal passivity.

And thus the absolutist quest for ultimate peace becomes incoherent; one must aim for a functional system, whereby peace is dictated by said functionality.

Good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pedantic semantics for our reference-

fight

(verb):

1. take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons.
2. struggle to overcome, eliminate, or prevent.

(noun):

  •  a violent confrontation or struggle.
  • a boxing match.
  • a battle or war.
  • a vigorous struggle or campaign for or against something.
  • an argument or quarrel.

By the way, this is also why I used 'struggle' instead of 'fight' because the latter is arguably more frequently associated with violence than the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, zonsop said:

Pedantic semantics for our reference-

Not pedantic enough!

Encyclopedic references as primary for concept definition, dictionary for secondary if you don't mind! :laugh:

Spoiler

a96.jpg

Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, rickster said:

Not pedantic enough!

Maybe I should indulge in more sophistry. Usually entails pedantry. 

Love 'em both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NSchet said:

Maybe I should indulge in more sophistry. Usually entails pedantry. 

Love 'em both.

Of course you do. Now behave yourself. We're on to you INTPs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rickster said:

We're on to you INTPs!

Every day, one INTJ realizes that they're actually a confused INTP. This is usually contingent upon the discovery of their IQ, and consequently realizing that they're much too smart to be INTJs.

Your numbers are diminishing, and the so-called INTJs are unwittingly joining the insurgence.

Beware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, rickster said:

Not pedantic enough!

Encyclopedic references as primary for concept definition, dictionary for secondary if you don't mind! :laugh:

Please login or register to see this link. Reveal hidden contents

a96.jpg

Carry on.

Pedants! :clown:

Edited by scorpiomover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, scorpiomover said:

The main reason why INTJs are diminishing, is because anyone with the kind of attitude that evokes the almost universal hatred that INTJs seem to say they evoke in many people, usually ends up either in prison or dead.

Extinction is imminent, I suppose. 

3 minutes ago, scorpiomover said:

There were probably a lot more INTJs that were born than the 1-2% that make it to adulthood.

A lot of these are actually traumatized IxFPs in denial. Lower that number. At least for the sake of coherence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I did say "Carry on".

And they certainly did.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NSchet said:

A lot of these are actually traumatized IxFPs in denial. Lower that number. At least for the sake of coherence.

Nah. Fi is supposed to be related to your own feelings, such as following your desires and achieving their goals. But if you notice, FPs tend to not be that bothered about achieving their goals, while TJs are virtually obsessed with achieving their goals. But that doesn't make sense, because TJs have Te in common, and Te is supposed to be about thinking, not following your desires. So people try to ascribe it to the Feeling function instead.

Fi should be about what FPs have in common, which isn't following your desires and trying to achieve your goals, but listening to your inner feelings and empathising with other people's inner feelings, empathising on a deep level.

Te should be about what TJs have in common, which is frequently not about being practical (the stereotype of Te, when SPs are far more practical), but about following your desires and trying to achieve your goals in a very single-minded way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, scorpiomover said:

<snip ironic pedantry>

Hence:

1 hour ago, NSchet said:

 in denial. 

----

1 hour ago, rickster said:

Well, I did say "Carry on".

And they certainly did.

 

Such foolishness, no?

Edited by NSchet
No offense is intended; brace yourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, rickster said:

What on earth are you talking about? Who's fighting for peace?

People fight because they want something. People fight because they oppose something. Shit happens. People die.

You got a problem with violence? You got a problem with insurrection? You got a problem with butchering your oppressors?

"butchering your oppressors" :

Do I have a problem with butchering my oppressors? Well yes, kind of? It's like asking whether you believe in a eye-for-eye approach to problems. For example, the BLM protest in Dallas, Texas caused the death of 5 policemen because another man was pursing a vendetta against while policemen (he shot them). Morally, isn't that wrong? Because the gunman's here saying "don't be racist" but he shoots 5 white policemen because of their race. Same thing with 'fighting' for 'peace'. It's a moral dilemma, because people are fighting for no more fighting?

"Who's fighting for peace?" :

Right now, a lot of people are. It's just that there are different definitions of peace depending on the individual. HeforShe, BLM, and other organisations are all fighting for a more equal society where there is no more discrimination because to them, a peaceful society is an egalitarian society, is it not? When people feel oppressed by a higher power, they aren't at peace. There's a lot of tension. So yes, people fight because they oppose something, and essentially, they're fighting for peace.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, Ashley C said:

"butchering your oppressors" :

Do I have a problem with butchering my oppressors? Well yes, kind of? It's like asking whether you believe in a eye-for-eye approach to problems. For example, the BLM protest in Dallas, Texas caused the death of 5 policemen because another man was pursing a vendetta against while policemen (he shot them). Morally, isn't that wrong? Because the gunman's here saying "don't be racist" but he shoots 5 white policemen because of their race. Same thing with 'fighting' for 'peace'. It's a moral dilemma, because people are fighting for no more fighting?

"Who's fighting for peace?" :

Right now, a lot of people are. It's just that there are different definitions of peace depending on the individual. HeforShe, BLM, and other organisations are all fighting for a more equal society where there is no more discrimination because to them, a peaceful society is an egalitarian society, is it not? When people feel oppressed by a higher power, they aren't at peace. There's a lot of tension. So yes, people fight because they oppose something, and essentially, they're fighting for peace.

 

 

Seems like you went your way to pick the poorest example you could get. The Texas shooter was a deranged extremist and only other deranged extremists think his actions were for a greater good.

A better example would be Guy Gabaldon, a Mexican-American marine who was able to talk out to surrender over 1500 Japanese in WWII. He had grown up with a Japanese Family so he knew how they thought. It casts a doubt on the pretty much universally accepted fact that the Pacific Theatre's level of cruelty was unavoidable due to Japanese unyielding will of never surrendering.

Or we can look at the Colombian peace process. FARC, ISIS-grade terrorists, are getting little to no jailtime and will be allowed in politics. The catch? The military hospital, usually filled with war casualties, to the point of having to perfom an emergency removal of an unexploded 40mm grenade from a soldier's leg in the hospital's parking lot, has been nearly empty for the last two years, and they're considering transferring to civilian service to not go underused. Recruited children are slowly reduced to civilian life, and overall violence has been greatly reduced. But many consider the impunity as unacceptable and an unavoidable obstacle towards true peace, therefore wanting to nullify the agreements. Not through violence, but both sides are fighting due to the incoming elections, and both consider they are fighting for peace. Who's In the right? Who's to say?

Edited by Arthur Dent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that "stand for peace" is better. Please login or register to see this link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been said, nobody fights for peace. 

You fight when you'd rather lose peace than some other alternative outcome. Like being enslaved/conquered/oppressed or (in the case of imperial powers) becoming poor.

 

Most of the British colonial armies were ex-prisoners and poor who had no "peace" in their old lives back home, led by minor nobility trying to prove themselves abroad. For them, regularly fighting the natives abroad was preferable to rotting back in London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea behind protests is to get your voice heard no matter what. It may spark violence, but that doesn't stop anyone. It's the same concept as a women being raped. She protests because she needs to show resistance, whether that harms her more in the process or not. That's truly the principle behind it. It's regardless of the outcome. Silent protests have never brought about change. History needs to record that the people revolted against XYZ. It can restore our faith in humanity. 

There are those that believe in only attending peace marches. That we should never protest, however endorse what we want to see in the world. I personally like this sentiment more, though I've never looked at any stats to say which is more effective. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fighting for peace is indeed a paradox. Actually, it sounds like bullshit propaganda.

Nuke Hiroshima? That was "for peace". To "end the war with as few casualties as possible." Same bullshit can be said about blitz of London and basically any kind of military move that is intended to win the war. 

Whoever wins fought "for peace" and the other guys are the bad guys.

Morals have nothing to do with it. No one wants "peace". Everyone actually wants "peace on my terms" which actually translates to "I want to win".

On the other hand, OP can be read as "when are things bad enough that you are willing to risk your life to change shit?" which is a very high bar to clear, however, in practise what happens is "when are things bad enought hat you are willing to risk someone else's life?" which is a lot easier to handle.

That's why people protest and strike - they dont have the guts to actually risk their lives for their cause and why nations attack other nations - leaders have the guts to risk someone else's lives for their cause.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An old funny quote that I recall: "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now