0
Peace
Peace is literally the absence of war but can also mean a state of harmony in an individual person. The United Nations was formed in 1945 to promote international peace and security.
1,243 Questions
What did john Lennon do to promote peace?
To prove to his Aunt Mimi that she overlooked his potential, among other things. He also didn't want to spend his life working a regular job; his friends who had done so "looked like old men in six weeks". When he saw girls screaming for Elvis Presley and other early rockers, he told himself "That's a good job."
- What can you do will depend on what exactly you want to change in this world.
- No singular individual or group has the right to determine how or why the world should or should not change. You only have the right to determine what is acceptable to you and to act accordingly ensuring that you do not transgress upon the rights of others in the process. People can choose to support each other with a common set of ideas, beliefs or values but they have absolutely no right to compel others to conform to their ideologies. If everyone respects the rights of others and is not plagued by envy, selfishness and greed then there would be no need for change. If you truly want to change the world you have to start with yourself and those within your circle of positive influence.
- This idea is born out of the conflict between the perceptions of your higher and lower selves with respect to the prevailing circumstances and the dreams. As you evolve and merge with truth you realize that this idea of "change and its nature" is subjective and is born due to developing but not yet developed perceptions. Actually the life (which is beyond time and intelligence) has been pervading and vitalizing us from time immemorial. This energizing or electrifying of our existences is associated with our instincts, emotions, thoughts and our overall passage through time. The life however acts without any claims of credit! Its actions are universal, ubiquitous and impeccable. As a result of ongoing evolution associated with your practice of NAMASMARAN you realize that when human intelligence merges with "this cosmic life" the knowledge of reality, realization and the change in the world manifest simultaneously. In fact; the most just change in the world manifests through your merger with cosmic life (i.e. the nature i.e. God) that enlivens you. Awareness of this leaves nothing else to do but NAMASMARAN. This apparent inaction is combined culmination of most fulfilling and universal thinking, being and manifesting or doing! This is the essence of changing the world!
- It is very difficult to make big changes in the world, but very easy to make small changes. If you pick up a piece of litter from the sidewalk, you have made that sidewalk neater. The sidewalk is part of the world. Change the sidewalk and the world is changed, at least to some tiny degree. Everything that you do causes some change in the world. However, if your objective is to solve major global problems, bring peace to the middle east, stop global warming, feed the hungry, cure HIV, and so forth, those things are much more difficult. The usual strategy would be to join some organization that is working on those problems (whichever problem most concerns you) and then do what you can to support that organization. You may not personally change the world, but you can contribute to that process.
- If I could change the world at this point in my life, I would change the way people perceive themselves and the world around them. Rather than seeing one's own needs as a priority, the focus would be on taking are of their loved ones and those less fortunate. The emphasis would be on common enrichment as opposed to personal enrichment. You know, the golden rule - "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." How is this a change? Because even though there are a lot of people who live this way, just the fact that there are those who don't NEGATE the power of those who do. Until EVERYONE can live this way, there will always be someone who will take advantage of others, lie, cheat, steal to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Those who take more than their share, those who waste when others go without. Those who are never satisfied with seeking satisfaction. Those whose hunger goes unchecked despite their ravenous consumption. Those who take from the commons and don't give back. If I could change the world, we would all work together to the benefit of mankind, and thank God for what He has given us. But that is what is in store for those who are destined for Heaven in the afterlife.
Now there is always Ying and Yang. When in life should I be the opposite, when should I be Intolerant? I believe I should be Intolerant
When someone is being a Bully!
When someone is being abused!
When someone is being gossiped about just to be put down.
When someone is being lazy! But not how you are thinking about lazy. What I mean is socially lazy.
When a person would rather talk to you to find out about another person instead of taking the time to find out about them themselves!
When someone is Intolerant to another person for what they believe in. The definition in the dictionary of a bigot is a person who is intolerant to another and/or their creed, what they believe in.
Or when someone is being selfish!
A good person should speak up because if you only do the first part of just being a good person you are only half a person. What I have also noticed is after I have explained what I have done and what that person has shown about themselves is that they change for the better, treating everyone else better than they did before. Because someone has spoken up, people start to look inward at them selves and at the word they might have used to answer this question. I put this sign in my car. In one word what makes a good person. Overnight people's attitudes changed for the better. The bullying has decreased towards others, there is no more abuse, the gossip is less and the selfishness has slowed down. At the same time though the people that I have proven one or more of the 6 things about them, is they hate me for the rest of their life. But this is OK they have changed for the better for everyone else.
If you happen to know of someone who hates me ask them "what did you prove about yourself to Wayne and did he have to speak up to you".
"What word would you chose to describe a good person."
This is the only thing that I can think of on how to explain why I am so lucky in the things that I do and the things that have happened to me after I have spoken up when someone has been this way. I cannot give any other Explanation. In having the courage to speak out when it is needed.
It is very difficult to make big changes in the world, but very easy to make small changes. If you pick up a piece of litter from the sidewalk, you have made that sidewalk neater. The sidewalk is part of the world. Change the sidewalk and the world is changed, at least to some tiny degree. Everything that you do causes some change in the world. However, if your objective is to solve major global problems, bring peace to the middle east, stop global warming, feed the hungry, cure HIV, and so forth, those things are much more difficult. The usual strategy would be to join some organization that is working on those problems (whichever problem most concerns you) and then do what you can to support that organization. You may not personally change the world, but you can contribute to that process.
Earthellism (EHM), the new philosophy of the 21st century,revisits this great question. The answer is to stop using religion as one's philosophy and help find/develop the great philosophy of the 21st century. The Old Testament was written 5000 years ago and the New Testament is close to 2000 years old, and to this day people use these scriptures for modern day advise. The world was still flat and the sun revolved around the earth back at that time and we have advanced as a species to enourmous knowledge. Religion is the foundation of a house but philosphy is the design and furniture of that house. To see politicians pretend to be philosphers is sickening and they should be called what they really are: pseudo-leaders who follow the polls to stay in power. The great true philosophers would be insulted if you called them a politician and they avoided political office. Currently there is no living great philosopher to guide us at this time but hopefully we will find one and do not ever let a politician become our great philosopher.
Peace is an abstract noun it has these meanings:
1. freedom from war; a cessation or absence of hostilities between nations.
2. a state of harmony between people or groups; freedom from dissension.
3. freedom from civil commotion; public order and security.
4. freedom from anxiety, annoyance, or other mental disturbance: peace of mind.
5. a state of tranquillity or serenity.
6. silence; stillness.
7. (often cap.) an agreement or treaty that ends a war or hostilities.
Did Bill Cosby win the Nobel Peace Prize?
Exactly 64 awards in all... not counting when he was nominated. :) I had a report on him in 6th grade.
War are not solution of peace?
yep fr me war is nt the solution fr all the problems n peach 2 .. its lyk istead of fighting wid each other we should love each other because of these wars the people nt related to it is also affected so i ll suggest tat we should stop fighting with each othr n start loving..:)
Which was more effective the Congress of Vienna or the Paris Peace Conference?
The peace brought by the Congress of Vienna following the Napoleonic Wars lasted much longer than the peace brought by the Treaty of Versailles, which dictated the terms of German surrender following World War One. Even though there were a few regional wars between the Napoleonic Wars and World War One, none of them were of huge consequence to Europe. There were 99 years between the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 and the outbreak of World War One in 1914. The only wars of significance during that time were the Crimean War (1853-1856), The Austro-Prussian War (1866), and the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871). None of these wars threatened the Concert of Europe or the stability of Europe. Therefore, arguable the Congress of Vienna built a peace that lasted 99 years from 1815 to 1914. On the other hand, the Treaty of Versailles, which aimed to contain German aggression, lasted only 20 years from its signing in 1919 until Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
The major difference between why the Congress of Vienna was much more successful comes from how the loser of the war was punished. France received relatively light punishments following its defeat in the Napoleonic Wars and was still able to function on the same level as the other major powers in Europe. On the other hand, The Treaty of Versailles imposed harsh penalties on Germany coupled with an indemnity that Germany could not possibly pay, and it effectively limited Germany to a second-rate power in Europe that could in no way compete with Britain, France, and the USSR. This bred German resentment and led to war resuming a short two decades later.
What does Nobel Peace Prize mean?
One could argue that, since it was given to B. Obama for speculative changes that he promised before taking office, it has become a sort of political endorsement. Its meaning has certainly changed from Alfred Nobel's intent.
What did Gandhi sacrifice to achieve peace?
He got assassinated by a Hindu nationalist who thought that Gandhi was giving too much to the Muslim populace of India.
If you think this answer is good, please rate it :)
What did some colonists do in an effort to keep the peace?
No one really did anything once the first shot was fired at Lexington. The game was on at that point.
You want material for debate topic war is necessary for peace?
War and peace are to opposite words but sometimes the formal one preceded the later.
in short term peace can be attained by war but in long term it doesn't sustain this is the culture of India where war isn't d necessary for maintain peace.
In today's world there are a number of terrorist groups remain in this country. War is not the long term strategy against them because they are our people. we have to understand their mind & need.
For the case of Pakistan war is not the perfect solution because the bone of contention is Kashmir which should be solved by the people of Kashmir.
India & Pakistan should understand the feelings of Kashmiris. the priority should b given to them.
for the case of Iraq. The war can't attain the peace. it produces more bloodshed
so let us take d path of Gandhiji who is the pathfinder of peace.
War is not a solution of any kind of problem. it is more to show our anger than to find a solution. No war has ever helped in attaining peace rather it always reduces the possibility of peace. Forcing war on someone is easy but forcing peace is impossible.
We can take example of USA which is trying to force peace in many parts of the world by waging war against them be it Africa, middle east, Europe or Korea and Vietnam in the past and there is not a single place where it has succeeded in bringing peace instead Americans have created mess everywhere. Those places after the war have become more unstable then before. I am also not averse to wars, but I don't believe it helps in attaining peace or finding a solution of a problem.
How do you solve world war problems?
Ideally, this is done through peace negotiations. However, this is not, practically speaking, an easy task. Incentives, for peace, are often required to be put on the negotiating table so that the alternative to war may be famorably counterbalanced. Even though this does not always work, peace negotiations, often through the strengthening of diplomatic missions and ongoing (hopefully continuous) discussions among the warring parties, can have a positive impact and lead, at least, to temporary (if not permanent) truces.
What was the significance of the 1931 Manchurian crisis to the future of world peace?
The Manchurian crisis did not have a huge impact on world peace; however, it was the first incident leading up to the second Sino-Japanese war. The Manchurian crisis was the first invasion of the war (or, rather, before the war), and it is arguable that it led up to the WWII Japanese invasion. Manchurian crisis was japan government trying to take over chian. There plan was to make an empire.
What are people who refuse to use force or to fight wars called?
One who refuses to use force or fight wars may be called a pacifist. Other names include:
- Conscientious Objector
- Disarmer
- Hippie
- Non-aggressor
- Scaredy Cat
Why didn't Gandhi win the Nobel Peace Prize?
The rise of Gandhi on international stage has made many colonial powers fear that the freedom revolution could spread to other European colonies. They didn't want to encourage that by honoring Gandhi.
Was Hitler a part of world war 1?
He was a lance corporal equivelant as well as an NCO non commissioned officer. Is role was that of a runner, running messages between the front lines. He fought for the Germans despite being Austrian. He was ironically wounded in a gas attack in 1918 and as a result sat out the last of the war. His awards were the Bronze Wound Badge and the Iron Cross 2nd Class.
Why did Ferdinand Buisson win The Nobel Peace Prize in 1927?
The Nobel Peace Prize 1907 was awarded jointly to Ernesto Teodoro Moneta and Louis Renault
How did the peace of World War 1 contribute to the rise of Hitler and World War 2?
Hitler did not agree with the Treaty of Versailles - which was the official peace settling document that ended WWI. He thought it was unfair and promised to renounce it. German people, already desperate, now turned to him for hope. They hoped that he would restore German pride, power and peace. It also blamed World War I on Germany
Did hilter win the Nobel Peace Prize?
No, Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1939 on the basis of the peaceful resolution of the Sudetenland Crisis; but the nomination was rejected by the Nobel Prize Committee. This all took place before Hitler started World War 2.
In addition to never winning, Hitler forbade any German to accept any Nobel Prize. When the Nobel Committee announced that the 1935 Peace Prize had been awarded to German journalist Carl Von Ossietzky, The German Government forbade him to accept the award.
What was Martin Luther king's leadership qualities?
Martin Luther King's leadership qualities were quite desirable. He was aggressive, determined, committed to his cause, courageous and did not use violence among others.
How has the lives of women changed since the 1800s?
1 women can vote
2 woman can own their own property
3 boys and girls learn the same
4 women earn as much as men at work
5 women can be in the army
6 dont marry who father tells them to
Why did Shirin Ebadi win the Nobel Peace Prize?
This is because shirin Edabi had protested for children's right and women's rights campaign and when she was protesting she had got arrested and what she had said is that this is not something bad and if you go to you-tube and type in why did shirin Edabi go to prison you will find clips and you may find your awnsers there.
What were the big four peacemakers at the Paris Peace Conference?
Thirty Two different countries met in Paris on January 1919 to decide what to do with defeated Axis Powers. Four men took charge, called 'The Big Four' - David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of The United Kindom Georges Clemenceau - Prime Minister of France. Woodrow Wilson - President of the United States of America and Vittorio Orlando, Prime minister of Italy.They were the dominant diplomatic figures at the conference. The conclusions of their talks were imposed on the defeated countries. Germany was not invited, and Russia was not to receive anything because it retired from war.
