Freedom or peace

I choose peace... but Inner Peace. If everybody had Inner Peace then freedom comes along naturally. Greed, violence and hate would disappear and we would be free.

I strongly disagree. Most people I know would never kill even if nobody was going to prevent them. I think the ultimate experience of freedom and inner peace is Happiness. But then again happiness is not stable, otherwise it would be boring.

 

Oh, I thought you meant peace as in non-war. Like, with countries and all. Then it would be right what I said, at least more than it is now. Right?

When it comes to peace of mind and personal freedom, I'd go for the peace, because not being free ain't so bad when you're at peace with it.

 

No, I meant peace in any way indeed. Exchanging freedom for peace, as in no war with other countries (and no other kinds of peace are guaranteed), sounds like you could even be living in a fascistic country to me. I guess the choice is easier that way, no?

 

Yeah, but not everybody will ever have inner peace at the same time, so a peaceful (global) freedom probably neither. It sounds like utopia to me. Ultimate happiness, which you most likely experience when you're at inner peace, gives an ultimate feeling of freedom indeed, or maybe you forget your freedom at that point, because you're so happy? When you take a heroïnshot in prison you can be happy as well, for at least awhile alright.
Maybe when you have inner peace though, you don't really mind that we're not totally free, because you probably feel, or just are, free enough when you're so peaceful at mind.

 

You know...
"You can't seperate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom." -Malcom X

 

To a certain extent you can be at peace without being free as a bird. Doesn't the amount of people relaxing and living their everyday lives ignoring all those things going wrong in the world already prove that you can be at peace without worrying about your freedoms getting restricted?
Of course we still have more freedom then in a lot of other places in the world, but I'm not sure if that's an excuse.

 

i choose both... it's not possible to raise a choice between two terms when one of them is a condition of the existence of other one. both are necessary to each other.

 

It's not that if you choose one the other is totally absent. The question is what you value/would want more. You can prefer freedom above peace don't you? And peace above freedom. Doesn't mean there isn't any freedom left if you choose peace above all and vice versa.

 

I value both very much, but I would say I value peace the most. Freedom has restrictions, in my opinion. For example, I wouldn't want there to be freedom of harming others or doing other cruel acts. Peace, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any restrictions. We can never be too peaceful or have too much peace. When there is peace, there is also freedom, but freedom alone doesn't necessarily mean there will be peace. I hope what I said made at least a bit of sense.

 

It makes sense for sure, I just don't know if I can agree with it :tongue:. Actually I've put a rather difficult poll up, I can't answer it myself really. I agree with you that there can never be too much peace, I get that. The problem with it is that there probably never will be too much peace. So far in human history most kinds of peace are with restrictions, otherwise they wouldn't work. Humans are too pigheaded to create a real kind of peace. There are always several groups that want different things and they stand in between peace as we would really want it. That's why it actually such an interesting question, otherwise everybody would choose peace, I assume. When you choose for realistic peace, you choose for certain limitations (like early pub closing times for a small example).
'Peace' and 'freedom' can also be interpreted in far too many different ways...

 

to be free is to do what you want, when you want, where you want, and because you want. but does absolute freedom exist? freedom has an end? I want to say if the freedom can have barriers, if the freedom is a freedom only up to a limit, already it stops being a freedom. how can i fight to be free? here the problem is, we don't know how to fight....
the same with the peace. the absolute and brotherly peace among human beings is unthinkable, a utopia, pure mystical and political advertising. the peace has political price: democracy. just this way clear and simple. the peace is not a given state but a process in constant construction that needs the commitment and the implication of the whole world.
and for this, i choose/value (or whatever you want to name it) both because they are things we constantly need in our lives. but then, we'll have to deny some other things...

 

So, in the end, you seem to me to choose peace as well. Ever heard of the line "you can take my life, but you can never take my freedom"? I think there's some real truth in that. Total freedom goes beyond restrictions, I even think going over the restrictions and breaking the rules are creating a stronger and more true sense of freedom.

 

Freedom.

 

true. i think that timothy leary said something like that: to think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open mindedness, chaotic, confused vulnerability to inform yourself. yeah! without the will to break the rules there is no progress, we would be turning in circles eternally. sadly or not, to break these established rules, the revolutions and the blows to the system always generate more rules, new classifications, and new systems. i guess this is what makes possible to coexist in our society.

 

I'm gonna say freedom, because epace can come under a very heavy dictatorship or a "blind the masses" government. I read this one book, "The Giver" where the people live in a perfect society with no war, but they are so blinded that they don't even question who is behind the speaker (which tells them all what to do) and never questions anything that happens, and if you break the law, you die. I don't want that. With freedom, yes, people can run rampant and perform disgusting acts of inhumanity, but I would trust that at least some people would act as vigilantes and stop the psychopaths. I thought of a way anarchy might work last night, but that's too complicated for this post.

 

who's the writer, man?

 

Lois Lowry. Great book, but the sequels kinda defeat the purpose of the first novel.

 

the pretense that either (in any meaningful sense of either word) can be gained by giving up the other is simply a brainwashing bald faced lie.

and it is only the thoughtfullness and consideration of not robbing each other of them, on any level, including the personal, is the only way in which either can exist or be preserved.

no idiology nor form of government can nor does do so.

=^^=
.../\...

 

There can be no peace without freedom.

 

I think that to a certain extent there can be peace without freedom.