Peace through surrender (Congress, ethics, highway, racist)

[buenos]

The idea of "Peace through surrender".
Where doe sit come from. Is it learned from Buddhism, or is it just cowardice?
For example in the Republican party, the so called Rinos practice this every day.
They work really hard to be called racist, or not have to argue with democrats on anything.
Instead they surrender. On every congressional bill, on the stolen election, on everything they surrender on day one. Why?
I see them bragging about some kind of moral high ground every time they do it. Morality always have a source, in a religion or philosophy. In this case, which one?
What philosophy teaches peace through surrender? Christianity? I don't think so, but maybe they think so. Buddhism? Possibly, but it is a foreign religion. Marxism? I don't know. Secular humanism?
It is not just Democrats vs Rebubli-rinos, in case of the CCP threat, Islamic jihadist threat, there is kind of a peace through surrender also by many people.
They want peace at all cost, but why? All cost?
The biggest genocides (over 100 million people) took place during peace time. Simply because no one waged war against the genocidal maniacs. Why is peace so valued?

[ukrkoz]

This belongs to Politics, not to Philo forum.

[buenos]

Originally Posted by ukrkoz

This belongs to Politics, not to Philo forum.

It is philosophy.
When we discuss politics, we discuss a particular elected official who said/did a particular thing that was relevant on a specific date. Philosophy and religion are 1-2 levels upstream from politics.
What philosophy teaches peace?

[ciceropolo]

Your citing a political example and then asking what is the philosophy behind the tactics is simply political 'survival' in keeping their $elf enrichment gravy train machine running. The politicians must follow their 'funders' wishes. Examine who their funders are and then it will make more sense.

For your second question, the problem becomes historical distance from the atrocities and recognition of techniques used to migrate (Hegelian Dialect) group think to what elites/leaders desire. They will cherry pick aspects of any respective philosophy / religion to continue narratives they want to become part of the mindset for herding people.

The sign they are up to no good is the silencing of free speech / press no matter how much some don't like it or are offended by it. Likewise when the "peace' they advocate for is a one way street, "our way of the highway", well you have a corralling the herd surrender technique. Much like what China has done already implemented in "Social Credit".


"I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees" - Euripides

[ukrkoz]

Nope. It's politics. And you know that. But, this subforum is known to host all kinds of "philosophical" topics far far away from actual philosophy.


Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom')[1][2][3] is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about reason, existence, knowledge, values, mind, and language
Today, major subfields of academic philosophy include metaphysics, which is concerned with the fundamental nature of existence and reality; epistemology, which studies the nature of knowledge and belief; ethics, which is concerned with moral value; and logic, which studies the rules of inference that allow one to deduce conclusions from true premises.[14][15] Other notable subfields include philosophy of science, political philosophy, aesthetics, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind.



Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. The academic study of politics is referred to as political science.


You posing a political science, not philosophy, Q.

[buenos]

I understand that many politicians are protecting their personal gravy train. But, larger events involving hundreds of people, at least some are acting on their principles.

I heard of a case when at one large corporation, one team was managed into always practicing non-confrontation, another was not, and every meeting between the 2 teams was "won" by the one who didnt practice non-confrontation. When 2 teams work together on a project, the goal is for the project to succeed, so the company succeeds. But if one team always rolls over, then the other team is not accountable, will not deliver, and blame the other team for their own failures, the project fails, the company loses profit. Clearly no gravy train there. Some people are driven by philosophy, some philosophies are garbage.

[purehuman]

the idea of "peace through surrender"...I don't like it, and can't see how it could/would ever possibly work.

[Thoreau424]

You might have peace with a scammer / blackmailer who won't hassle you if you give into their demands, but the surrender won't be a plus / positive. What's lost to the surrender is more significant that the surrender itself.

It's hard to use philosophy though with something as perverted and asinine as politics. With a faulty pairing you'll only get faulty results / conclusions.

[Lodestar]

Literal physical peace through surrender externally is political.

Inner peace through surrender to the inevitable forces of life is philosophical.

I think one is applied as a strategy and temporary and the other as a way of life and a discipline.

[lchoro]

You're misquoting a Biblical phrase which is about yielding to God and finding inner peace. It is about surrendering your beliefs and having faith in a spiritual leader. The premise is that everything is right within that philosophy.