War for peace or education?

"If you hate someone, even then, you cannot kill them. Because no matter how much you search the entire universe, you will never find another person exactly like them." – Carl Sagan.

If a belief requires killing someone to be established, what good is that belief? If you wish to destroy an opposing belief to establish your own, are you certain that one day no one from your side will turn against you? This has happened throughout history—in every religion, in every political party. Does that mean this war will continue endlessly?

Looking at the history of human civilization, the number of wars fought on this planet is staggering. The list I found on Google left me in shock. From the Battle of Uruk in 2271 BC to the Battle of Benghazi in 2011—spanning eight and a half points in history—the list fills 65 A4-sized pages! Counting them all would be an almost superhuman task. And yet, there have been even more wars. Wars are still raging in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, and Ukraine. Every few days, conflict erupts between Palestine and Israel.

After all this time, if humanity still hasn’t found a way to resolve these issues, then when will we?

2.
A victorious warrior once said, "I do not fight to relish the joy of victory, but rather because war has freed me from the burden of thought." (The Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus).
Is this really true? Does war free people from the burden of thought? Is that why wars are fought? But Karl Marx argued that war is a manifestation of class struggle—a battle between the oppressors and the oppressed.

The League of Nations once requested Albert Einstein to engage in a discussion with someone of his time who could offer insights into saving humanity from the catastrophic consequences of war. Einstein chose none other than the most capable thinker of his era—Sigmund Freud.

Einstein wrote a long letter to Freud:
"Please shed light on the problem of world peace in the context of your latest discoveries, for such a discussion may help uncover new and more effective measures to address this crisis."
Freud responded with an equally extensive letter, writing:

"...Wherever there is a conflict of interest, we resort to violence to resolve it. Almost every dispute has historically been settled through force. Such wars usually end in the complete destruction of one side or the victory and overthrow of the other... War will only cease when humanity is able to establish a central authority responsible for ensuring justice in all conflicts." (Ebong Mushayara, Freud Special Issue).

At this very moment, the world holds enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet multiple times over. Perhaps humanity will never detonate them; some even believe that. But then, what is the purpose of keeping them? To instill fear in others? In reality, this too is a destructive tendency, no less terrifying than suicide.

What if Hitler had possessed nuclear weapons? Would he have annihilated the entire world before taking his own life? Human civilization has been growing under the shadow of this suicidal impulse.

Now, humanity stands at a crossroads. Two paths lie ahead: A future soaked in blood—another devastating world war, a flood of destruction so immense that it might finally awaken humanity.

A future of learning—where humanity chooses wisdom over violence, reason over war.

3.
"Every problem is fundamentally an epistemological problem." – Jordan Peterson

Given the advancements in human knowledge and science, it is theoretically possible for people to lead a rational life. Yet, human life remains far from purely logical. One doesn’t need to be a scholar to recognize this. The intense competition among people, the endless wars, the bloodshed, the violence—none of this reflects a healthy society.

A country can be torn apart simply due to a difference in ideology or belief. One group can unleash barbaric attacks on another just to establish its own ideas. If, after all this time, humanity has still not become truly rational, then it is reasonable to conclude that education has not evolved properly.

A person is not simply good or bad—what is more important is whether they are mentally sound or unsound. But even that is secondary. What truly matters is whether they are educated or uneducated. And by education, I do not mean formal, institutional learning. Education means having linguistic awareness—the ability to understand what is universally beneficial for society.

If I intend to kill you, it is natural that you would want to kill me too. If one person kills another, it ultimately threatens the entire human race. Yet, people continue to murder others. They do so because they believe they can escape punishment. But they fail to realize that in doing so, they are not just breaking a law—they are destroying a fundamental principle of universal justice. To kill a universal principle is, in essence, to commit an act of violence against all of humanity.

They do not think this way because they lack linguistic awareness. A lack of linguistic awareness means they are unwell. And being unwell ultimately means they are uneducated.
Ultimately, the idea of personal comfort is almost laughable. A truly conscious individual inevitably carries the burden of humanity’s responsibilities. The real challenge for humans is not merely survival, but rather defining a greater purpose for existence.

Before death, one should at least be able to say: “The world I was born into was habitable for humans—or at least, I tried to make it so.”

Are problems truly automatic, or are they imposed? If they are imposed, then they must be intentional. Sociologists have shown that capitalists have devised numerous ways to exploit people—one of which is maintaining artificial disorder in society, keeping the masses in a constant state of confusion.

The most dangerous tactic of all is preventing people from becoming aware, from realizing the truth, and from receiving proper education. If that is the case, then it has become more essential than ever for us to seek out and understand the true meaning of education in our lives.

4.
You cannot speak of peace while keeping weapons factories running. The moment a bullet is invented, a human death is guaranteed. In Iraq, Syria, France, Palestine, and Kashmir, people die, while in different corners of the world, others grieve in silence. From their respective positions, people discuss, criticize, and protest as much as they can. But does our protest change anything? Whose ears hear the cries of ordinary people?

This is merely an attempt to absolve ourselves of responsibility. But can we truly be free of responsibility? Freud was right—every individual in society is, in some way, accountable for war.

When a soldier chooses to be a soldier, they inevitably become a representative of war. One might argue that economic necessity forces people to join the military. But it is also true that if they were more socially aware, they might have chosen a different path.

A nation-state requires law enforcement agencies for internal security. But why is internal security threatened in the first place?
Primarily, due to the lack of equitable distribution of resources.

Secondly, because of ideological conflicts. We may eventually achieve an equitable distribution of resources. In the socialist and communist society envisioned by Karl Marx, such a balance is possible. However, even if the world were to become a paradise, ideological conflicts would likely never completely disappear.

History offers thousands of examples where people, after forming a state based on a shared ideology, later splintered into different ideological factions. This has happened in every religion, every philosophy.

If you set out from one end of the world to establish your belief—killing nonbelievers along the way—by the time you reach the other end, you will find that the very beliefs you fought for have already changed. And then, you will have to start killing all over again.

One must always remember: there are 8 billion people on this planet, and 8 billion people have 8 billion minds. “Many minds, many opinions”—nothing is truer than this. Even if ideological differences cannot be completely erased, a common ground can always be found. It is this shared understanding that allows people to coexist peacefully.

Yet, these ideological conflicts are deliberately kept alive to sustain the monopolization of resources and power. It is commonly believed that people acquire wealth based on their merit. Even if I were to accept this as true, I would still say, without hesitation, that if someone accumulates more wealth than they need and hoards it for themselves, no matter how intelligent or virtuous they may be, I refuse to consider them a civilized human being.

If a person could live for 500–1,000 years, perhaps we could justify their need for billions. But for someone who comes into this world with a lifespan of just 60 or 70 years, how much wealth is truly necessary for survival? Some people cling to their immense fortunes as if they will never die.

Most people, in reality, do not deeply contemplate the essence of life. They spend their days pursuing biological desires—satisfying their greed and ambitions. In his Apology, Socrates addresses the citizens of Athens, saying: "Oh, my dear friends of Athens! Do you not feel ashamed that you care so much about acquiring wealth, honor, and fame, but pay so little attention to wisdom and the growth of your soul? … In my daily conversations, I speak of justice, self-examination, and other matters that truly benefit humanity, for an unexamined life is not worth living." (Apology of Socrates, Plato, translated by Sardar Fazlul Karim)

Here we are, born into this world, and yet sometimes it feels as if life itself is something we never truly deserved. But then, in a sudden moment of awareness, we ask ourselves: Why am I here? Why me?

Among the 8 billion people alive today, am I just another number? How many billions have come and gone before me? How many will come after me? And in all of this, what is my role?

Most people answer these questions through the lens of their own beliefs. The problem is, there are so many conflicting beliefs in the world that one belief often cancels out another. At the core of all philosophical debates, two fundamental and opposing worldviews emerge: theism and atheism.

Becoming an atheist is quite easy. If I can’t see it, I don’t believe it. If every creation has a creator, then inevitably, the creator must also have a creator. Who is that? If everything happens according to the will of the Creator, then who is responsible for human actions? If He does exist, in what form does He exist? Such questions arise endlessly. On top of that, Darwin’s theory of evolution is readily available, arguing that humans are simply a product of evolution—there is no fundamental difference between humans and animals. A few books are enough to turn someone into a staunch atheist.

Being a theist is even easier. One simply follows the religion of their ancestors—practicing rituals if they wish, ignoring them if they don’t. Belief requires no effort—just attributing everything that happens to a higher power and relieving oneself of responsibility.

Both atheism and theism are easy. The real challenge is to internalize the vastness of creation, to feel oneself as an integral part of it.
Humans are both matter and consciousness. Every element of our physical body is derived from this Earth. When food is on the plate, it is merely an object; when consumed, it becomes a part of our being. As long as air fills our lungs, we remain alive. With every breath, we connect with the universe. Consciousness, too, arises from material reflections.

In a silent, dark place, if a sudden sound occurs, every creature on Earth instinctively reacts—ears perk up, bodies tense. This is an ancient survival trait, a built-in alert system. But beyond mere survival, only humans have the ability to extend their awareness beyond the present moment, to contemplate eternity.
Humans alone possess the intelligence to understand that they are alive now but will not be here forever. They witness the passing of those around them—parents, grandparents, loved ones. Yet no living person has ever truly known where the dead go. The only certainty is that once someone dies, they never return.

This awareness of death creates a profound emptiness within us. One day, I will no longer exist. My very being will be erased.
Religion offers the promise of immortality. This is why those who outright reject religion often face hostility from believers—because, to them, such rejection threatens the very foundation of their existence. Religion is a refuge, a supreme shelter.

But what is the point of offering false consolation? It is from this thought that atheists oppose religion. There can be arguments for and against it, but what is the purpose of declaring war over it? Do religious people believe that if someone becomes an atheist, God will simply forgive them? Does anyone become an atheist for fun? Is atheism a political party that offers some kind of advantage?

In reality, atheists are not trying to deny God; they are trying to establish themselves. They want to become gods in their own right. Why else would atheists be so eager to invalidate religious beliefs? Do they believe that if someone follows a religion, their life automatically loses meaning? The truth is, they do not wish to abolish God—they wish to assert their own ego.

Ultimately, the conflict between atheists and theists is not really about God at all; it is a battleground for personal egos.  At its core, this struggle stems from an unwillingness to understand the other. From a humanistic perspective, shouldn’t a believer feel sympathy for an atheist? Poor soul, who knows what ignorance has led them to be deprived of the blessings of the Almighty! Shouldn’t this be the mindset? With love, one could try to guide them toward the right path, extend an invitation to faith. If they refuse, so be it. One could listen to their opposing views as well. In the end, the only option is to keep the discussion alive.

Just as no one can be forced into belief, no one can be forced out of it either. Faith develops through personal education and environment.
The conflict between religion and science has persisted for thousands of years. One is founded on belief and obedience, while the other demands immediate logic and proof. This is why Bertrand Russell once said that between religion and science, there exists a no-man’s land, and that space is controlled by philosophy. Both religion and science fall under the domain of philosophy.

The primary role of philosophy is to establish balance in society, to resolve conflicts and contradictions. Philosophy, by its nature, encourages debate—but it is a nonviolent debate. In fact, societies that lack a culture of healthy debate are often the most violent. A lack of debate means a lack of philosophical discourse. And inevitably, when philosophy disappears, the language of society becomes one of weapons, conflict, bloodshed, and war.

5.
Human thought, philosophy, and consciousness have advanced significantly. Technology has progressed, yet peace has not entered human life. The very reasons our ancestors were unhappy remain the same reasons we are unhappy today. In fact, restlessness and anxiety are increasing day by day, along with fierce competition among people. Human civilization now stands on the brink of self-destruction.

The world is facing the possibility of a third world war. Some argue that the Cold War, which followed World War II, was itself the third world war. But how can we prevent another world war? The outbreak of another global conflict would almost certainly lead to the destruction of the planet. Bertrand Russell spoke extensively on this issue. In his book Has Man a Future? he conducted a detailed analysis, demonstrating that the amount of nuclear bombs currently stockpiled by nations is sufficient to destroy the world multiple times over.

The only way to counter the stockpiles of weapons in human hands is with the stockpile of knowledge in human minds. If 3,000 years of accumulated wisdom have not yet made humanity truly civilized, then when will it ever?

At the same time, it is also true that knowledge has gone beyond human control. Throughout history, countless ideologies and "-isms" have emerged, and just as many have faded into obscurity. Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Zen, Samkhya, Yoga, Maya, Jainism, Idealism, Materialism, Dadaism, Magical Realism, Surrealism, Skepticism, Atheism, Existentialism, Libertarianism, Monism, Pluralism, Dualism, Non-Dualism, L'Art pour l'Art (Art for Art’s Sake), Nationalism, Internationalism, Imperialism, Capitalism, Democracy, Fascism, Socialism, Modernism—and now we are in the era of Postmodernism.

These ideologies are dismissed by each group as mere beliefs. Those who follow a particular belief system think that if everyone adopts their views, the world will be peaceful, and all other ideologies are utterly irrelevant and meaningless. It is this very belief that causes turmoil. For the sole purpose of establishing their own ideologies, countless wars and bloodshed have occurred for centuries. Many books have been written in support of each ideology. If you were to read the history of the world over a thousand years, you still wouldn't be able to finish it. But is it true that humans need all this knowledge? A person with a lifespan of sixty to seventy years is burdened with three thousand years' worth of knowledge! So, when will a person become capable of truly living life?

I say that if we can love life, humanity, this earth, and this universe in a generous and selfless way, there will be no problem. For this, some knowledge is required. Without knowledge, love is not possible. Knowledge itself is the highest form of love. The primary condition for acquiring knowledge is to feel one's insignificance in this vast universe. When a person begins to search for their own existence, they begin to feel this. A proud person shows that they are blind and asleep. Most people live their lives in a state of slumber. The majority of people die before they are even born. To step onto the path of knowledge is to awaken from the eternal sleep. Without knowledge, nothing can change a person from the inside. Without knowledge, I have no faith in any revolution, law, court, or forceful actions. A person must undergo a transformation from within, and only knowledge can achieve this. Knowledge is the greatest form of worship, the highest form of jihad, the only true revolution. The question is, what is knowledge? Knowledge is what teaches us to love the entire creation more deeply.

In the name of knowledge, we are burdened with an overload of information. For thousands of years, there have been debates about the same topics, yet if we delve a little deeper, we will see that it hasn't advanced human civilization even a step. Mere accumulation of information is not knowledge. Information can be shared with everyone. Very few people actually acquire knowledge. Knowledge is not for everyone. Knowledge belongs to those who, on their own, dig into their own ocean. Information can be circulated, but knowledge cannot be fed to anyone. Knowledge is like a reservoir into which one can dive. Only after diving and resurfacing, when the world appears like a magical riverside country, can one say they have immersed themselves in the ocean of knowledge.

6.
The conflict that arises is not only due to differences in thought but mainly due to self-interest. It is primarily self-interest that gives rise to opposition. Because of self-interest, we fail to understand the language of others. A person is first and foremost biologically an animal. For physical needs, they require some comfort and ease. Most people waste their lives trying to satisfy the hunger of the body. This is why sages speak of the liberation of the soul. Liberation of the soul means complete awareness of life and the world. If there is excessive wealth, the soul’s liberation does not happen. Extra wealth brings additional tension. One has to pay attention to these tensions and maintain an account of them.

A businessman came to Hafiz and said, “I seek the search for God.”
Hafiz replied, “First, give me an account of your wealth.”
The businessman said, “I don’t have much, I have 60 camels, 200 sheep, 600 date palms, 7 wives, and 27 children.”
Hafiz said, “With all that to manage, when will you call upon God?”

In the name of enjoyment, some people end up violating their own lives. A person truly becomes human through their consciousness. Without moving beyond bodily desires, the development of consciousness is impossible. Since every person lives with their body, they are selfish out of physical necessity. How many people truly understand profound knowledge? Society, in reality, functions on superficial knowledge. Hearing and seeing, people acquire vague knowledge about life. They manage their lives with this limited knowledge. The knowledge that becomes established in a society is the knowledge of that society. The number of scholars in that society doesn’t measure the amount of social knowledge. The problem is that this social knowledge is controlled. Rulers feed the people with knowledge according to their wishes. The proper development of education has not occurred. The primary condition for acquiring knowledge should have been the quest for existence, but that hasn’t happened. In society and the state, we need doctors, engineers, clerks, and salespeople. A massive workforce has been created around the world. People have not been developed, but robots symbolizing machines have been created. Since the development of human knowledge hasn’t occurred, we see that a doctor becomes a thief, an engineer turns into a robber, and a writer becomes the biggest political agent.
Who should we blame?

This is not the fault of any individual, nor is the individual free from fault. It is individuals who make up the greater society.

In hotels and buses, I see people constantly criticizing society and the state. Many people think personal criticism is blameworthy; however, criticizing the larger society essentially elevates oneself. Through criticism of the larger society, I absolve myself of responsibility and establish myself above society. I catch the fish but never touch the water. Criticism is necessary, but before that, it’s important to connect oneself with this greater society. Simply criticizing does not absolve responsibility; rather, it is the human duty to take on that responsibility and try to change society. Many think, "Does it matter what we say? Nothing shifts or changes with our words. How many famous people have come and gone, yet their words were unheard. Who will hear our cries?" Still, everyone, in their own way, should try to contribute to the development of society. If you only think of yourself, then you live only for yourself. But if you think about all of humanity, you become a part of the entire human civilization.

What kind of society has been built where every person now suspects every other person? I don’t know what will happen, but we must let this be known: "I am not afraid of you." Without love, kindness, compassion, affection, respect—without all of these human feelings—everything else is meaningless. I remember Shahzad Firdous's novel Lamed Waf. In it, a man loses his parents, relatives, and friends, and gains the sick soul of this world. A madman on the street tells him, "You must heal this sick world because you are a Lamed Waf." Lamed Waf means a pure person. Everyone in this world is a pure person, but no one knows it.

Kamrul Ahsan: Fiction writer.