The Art of Peace (Originally published on September 17, 2006)

I have just finished reading the Art of War and something occurred to me. There is and has always been a divide in the societies of the world. The clearest example is the split between Sparta and Athens. A trading, democratic cultured empire was defeated by an oligarchic militant state. It’s not that simple, however. The culture of Plato, Herodotus, Euripides, and Socrates existed simultaneously with war and slavery.

Short-lived examples abound in modern history. From the monks of Cambodia, peaceable resistance against Vietnam, the peaceful protests of the civil rights movement, the massacre at Tiananmen Square. The people of peace arise, band together, and come in to conflict with the people of war.

It differs from the dichotomy of love and hate. War is not necessarily fueled by the intensity of hate. It is often more practical and more long lived. Peace is not synonymous with love. Peace requires planning and must be sustained consciously. Love is raw and must merely be allowed to exist.

The split arises, in my humble opinion, from a difference in philosophy.

To some, the world must be conquered. The Art of War has remained a popular allegory among this group. They conceive others as competition and nature as either an enemy or a tool. They feel as Hobbes did. That if society was taken away, chaos would ensue. That mankind in a state of nature is constantly in conflict and only civilization can bring peace of mind.

The others see the world as something that must be merely understood. They could see nothing worth remembering is Sun Tzu work other than some interesting historical references. They speak of harmony with nature and although they compete, it does not appear to me that they connect the competition with the competitors. Conflict is unavoidable but they try to circumvent it. Diplomacy is there way and governments are handy inventions for arbitration and facilitating the sharing of resources. In their view, humans in a state of nature would work together for mutual benefit.

It is always an error to try to break the whole of humanity in to a few groups. There are an infinite number of variations between any two points. However, occasionally things do polarize people. If one could find a question that warranted only a Yes or No response without any conditional statements, one could split the group. I have never come across this question.

But perhaps one only need ask, “Who are your enemies?” There are many possible answers, and this question would strike many as odd, but the answers you receive would give light to answers to another question: “Can you conceive of another human being as your enemy?”