Dialectics: War and Peace

The recent uprisings in the Middle East, as well as the very recent offensive in Libya have brought up the question: how do we attain, and maintain, peace? In this dialectics blog I would like to discuss how sometimes war and peace are at times, inextricable.

Peace: the normal, non-warring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world. Based purely on definition, peace is essentially the lack of war. But when it comes to attaining peace, many times it seems like war is the only option, or at least the only one the world has turned to in recent history. For example, World War II. The only way to stop Adolf Hiter and bring peaceto Europe was essentially for the entire world to get involved in the biggest conflict in history for almost ten years. Tens of millions had to die, simply to assure people didn't have to die. Obviously that is a very simplified version of what happened and other issues were involved, but the fact that people were killed just to assure peace seems counterproductive. It makes you wonder, is peace worth all the trouble it causes to maintain it? If Kurtz is right in claiming the human race is inherently bad, then why do we try so hard to be something we are not?

On the flip side, you can't have war without peace either. What would you be fighting for? The sake of fighting? The Latin American liberator Simon Bolivar once said, "I fear peace more than war." At first this sounds crazy, but if one really looks deeper into his circumstances and motives, it is very profound. When at war, his people were unified under nationalistic pride. At peace, citizens were infinitely more likely to try to better their position with revolts, rebellions, or even revolutions. In fact, following the unified effort to defeat the common enemy, the imperial Spain, or France, or Britain, the region of Latin America broke up into dozens of small states. Generally in war, you know what is coming. Fighting. But in peace, there is no common cause. Anything could erupt at any time.

To conclude, war and peace are both incredibly important and necessary in today's culture. Obviously if war is avoidable than we should take that route, but sometimes it isn't. In situations like those, war can be a terrible yet effective way to facilitate peace. Once that peace is achieved however, the cycle begins anew.

iMedia: Faster (SPOILER ALERT)

This past weekend I watched the movie Faster starring Dwayne Johnson and Billy Bob Thornton. Although it was advertised as a typical "blow stuff up and kill people" movie, I found it to have incredible insights into the inner workings of the human mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Buf4_Crt27c

Essentially, the plot of the movie is as follows. Dwayne Johnson's character, recently released from prison, obtains a list of people involved in the killing of his brother. His brother was killed sitting right next to him, after they were set up following a bank robbery. A story of revenge, the man, fearless, travels all around the West Coast in search of these murderers, who he single handedly mows down one by one. He experiences no emotion in the killings, and doesn't care who sees him, going as far as murdering a man in the middle of an office building and another being operated on in the hospital, as seen in the trailer above. As long as these villains get what they deserve, The Rock doesn't care what happens to himself.

I experienced some cognitive dissonance while watching, as I wondered what Dwayne Johnson really was. Is he a murderer for avenging the death of his brother? Or is he a hero for ridding the Earth of these cruel fiends? Several incidents support the latter, as he is only interested in killing those directly involved with the murder, and even finds it in himself to forgive one of the killers, who didn't directly participate and had since taken up the role of a preacher, advocating the importance of forgiveness in people's lives. His lack of emotion throughout both scared me, and reminded me of "Stone Boy." Either it showed that in his mind, what he was doing was not a bad deed, or he was so far down this vengeful path that he had blocked out emotion.

To combat this apparent serial killer, two different entities (representing multiplicity) are assigned to the difficult task of bringing him down. The first, a troubled police officer (Billy Bob Thornton), who is dealing with drug, marriage, and retirement problems. I interpreted his involvement in the case as his quest for competence, trying to prove to himself, his wife, and his department that he is an able bodied policeman. However, you later learn that he played a major role in Johnson's brother's murder, unbeknownst to the main character. He is determined to face up to his past actions and kill The Rock before The Rock puts two and two together and goes after him.

The final player is a British secret agent hired by his boss to assassinate this killer. The man is essentially perfect, having won awards in science and technology, overcome polio, married his dream girl, and been rich beyond his wildest dreams. He had never failed before, but did so multiple times in chasing after the serial killer. He becomes incredibly frustrated, having been able to take out so many people in the past, but unable to kill this man who is simple enough to walk into a hospital and shoot. The fact that The Rock is not doing anything to avoid capture and the agent still can't get him causes a great internal struggle within the agent.

This movie is a testimony to something that Mr. Allen talked about early in the year. I felt like I was able to 'get' all this different insight in real time, and focus on the deeper issues at hand rather than the superficial explosions and gunshots.