1

As philosophy is the basis for all science (through the philosophy of science) and as it seems to implicitly denote the devices* of religion and any other abstract and concrete things (this and that), this seems to be the appropriate place to ask this question.

Forgive me if it is not.

*devices - in multiple but mostly the rethorical sense.

Assuming you are you and I am me and we are us and assuming that this works inter-species and inter-race/language and we can decide to either be-aware-of or ignore each other. Ignoring the fact that we can ignore each other for brevity:

it seems to make sense be able to understand (make sense to) each other as-soon-as-possible (more efficient/ASAP) any- and every- time (always), unless you're playing a game or telling a story in which there is a controlled timeline for the sensemaking process.

Now as these characters arose from Egyptian hieroglyphs through the Phoenician alphabet, Greek alphabet and Latin/Roman alphabet there were also people making sense using Written Chinese, the Arabic alphabet, the Hebrew alphabet or any other communication system available.

There are caves (-50000 years), walls (-10000 years), tablets (-5000 years), scrolls (-2500 years), to the use of paper (-2500 years to now), and decentralized communication ranging from telegraphy to the printing press and the emergence of mass media culminating in the internet.

If I'd read this in my cave 50000 years ago, I'd try to get my story straight and denote what's required for other to understand what I'm trying to say. But I'd like to also be able to ignore what someone's trying to say because I might be working on a different story. After 50000 years there will still be the choice to define something else as an interpretation of this story.

Now my question(s): does peace (read: harmony) require a shared unambiguous language (mathematical or musical assuming Latin/Chinese won't reconcile anytime soon other than over sound) and can it thus not be reached beforehand? And would it make sense to be able to "get people* into a frame of reference" ASAP to convey this sense of harmony or at least the sense of "making sense" or "ignoring"?

*people - any people should be able to identify with the story device.

p.s. Happy Storytelling Day

  • Other species get along without language so I would think language is not required for peace. However, the question suggests to me that we are assumed to be individuated and now need some mechanism to put us in a group and a universal language is that mechanism. Am I close to what you are asking? Would empathy also work? Also some people who speak the same language are not peaceful toward each other. Just notes to see if I understand this and could answer it. – Frank Hubeny Mar 20 '18 at 13:02
  • 1
    Yes empathy would work perfectly! (assuming the definition is clear). Personally I would put kindness forward also. To address your points, yes this is about an inter-species mechanism that allows the group to function as a whole while respecting each and every individual (peaceful or not). The goal is to allow for justification without defining what's just upfront. – Ropstah Mar 20 '18 at 13:12
  • @FrankHubeny: Doesn't empathy actually generate peace when combined with respect? – Ropstah Mar 22 '18 at 15:33
  • It looks like empathy is a way to bind individuals. Although it is only on the edge of your concern and I don't quite agree with it, consider Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind". It describes moral foundation theory and discusses our non-rational behavior and an evolutionary approach to groups. It is through those ideas that I would try to answer this, but I agree with you that empathy is a way we connect and that leads to peace. – Frank Hubeny Mar 22 '18 at 15:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.