총 48페이지

Essay Contest
Eastern societies, especially ones rooted in Confucianism, put great importance on the philosophical belief of “harmony
withoutuniformity,”orinotherwords:arighteousmanwillfindanequilibriumandmaintainit,inaworldbrimmingwith
disputeanddisagreement,toachieveharmony.ItseemsthatfortheEasttheconceptofpeaceisnotsomethingoneisborn
with;itisnotadefaulthumanstatetobe‘atpeace.’Itisinsteadalifelonggoaltoattain.Mostofusarebornintoconflict-
fromourveryconceptionthereareconflictsbetweenhavingto-andwantingto,possibility-impossibility,spiritual-carnal,
momentary,transientdesires-andeternalaspirations;theworldinandofitselfisaperpetualconflictofinterests,ideas,and
beliefs.
Similarly, western philosophers would view peace as a counteragent of conflict, but unlike the East, they do not attempt
togiveitmeaningasaseparateword.Itsdefinitionisviewedthroughitscontrastwithwar.Warisanessentialprerequisite
for peace, without which the latter will never come about - and both, the eastern and western perspectives seem to agree
on that. From the Chinese General Sun Tzu, who advised that “in peace prepare for war, in war prepare for peace” to
Aristotle, who stated that “we make war that we may live in peace”; while on the opposite side of the Greek front, the
RomanGeneralVegetiusarguedthat“Ifyouwantpeace,prepareforwar”;itisobviousthatinmanycultureswarandpeace
arenotcompletelydichotomousconcepts.Evenincontemporarytimesitisevidentthat‘peace’moreoftenthannotisvery
interconnectedwithitsopposite.Take,forinstance,pacifistmovementsand‘peacekeeping’groups.Conventionally,pacifism
isknowntobearejectionofwarandkilling.Ironically,muchoftheterminologyrelatedtopacifism,suchas“pacification”
and “pacified” are regularly employed in militant groups to justify a violent process of engaging in conflict with another
groupinordertoachievepeace.EvenGeorgeOrwell,whowasmuchopposedtosucheuphemisticdescriptionsofviolence,
had to agree that war can be a suitable way to bring about peace. Now, what this perspective communicates about the
definitionofpeaceisthatit(initsmosttraditionaldefinitionsconceptualisedbytheEastandWestwheretheformerbelieves
that peace is harmony, and balance of conflict, and the latter conceptualises it in the framework of what it is not) is very
vulnerable to human exploitation, and by that very human nature, peace is something not intrinsically familiar to us. It is
moreofasocialconceptthananythingabsolute.
What is, arguably, an axiom, however, is that peace starts within ourselves. Peace, in its most profound yet rudimentary
meaning - is nothing more than contentment. Or that is at least according to many religious thinkers like the followers of
Buddhism or 19th century philosophers like Albert Camus. A red thread of satisfaction in one’s life and appreciation of it
weaves through the polar groups and unites them in that specific definition of peace with oneself and the world. Imagine
Sisyphus, who without end pushed a rock uphill, happy - Camus would argue in parallel to the Buddhists accepting the
Dukkha(perpetualchaseforpleasureandfulfilment)and,thus,achievinginnerpeaceandenlightenment.Thesoundofyour
morningalarm,thebittertasteofcoffeebeforeclass,anhour-longlecture,thenfoodyoufrequentlycall‘bland.’andfinally
yourFridaynightdrinks,anditallbecomesabluruntilyoucomebacktothesoundofyourmorningalarmanditallstarts
again.Theceaselesscycleofthemundanekillsallthatwasoncealiveinus.Thereasonforgreed,hedonism,andangstis
perhapsourrefusaltoacceptthemundane.Butwhenonefeelshappyandappreciativeofthesimplestthings-iswhenone
achievespeaceinitspurestform.
43
JUNE 2022

현재 포커스의 아래내용들은 동일한 컨텐츠를 가지고 페이지넘김 효과및 시각적 효과를 제공하는 페이지이므로 스크린리더 사용자는 여기까지만 낭독하시고 위의 페이지이동 링크를 사용하여 다음페이지로 이동하시기 바랍니다.