As Newton's Third Law of Motion states, "For every action in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction." I believe this idea applies to life beyond mathematics and physics. I believe it applies to ideas and concepts as well. For examples there are those who believe in god and there are atheists, those who believe in free markets and socialists. This brought me to the intriguing idea of the relationship between unity and separation.
Unity represents a sense of togetherness and being united. But, how could we understand unity without the concept of being separated or in conflict. Separation gives meaning to unity, while unity also gives meaning to separation. We cannot know unity unless we have been separated for a time.
Unity is also the end goal of most conflicts, while at the same time unity can be used to create separation and conflict. One could argue that the unity of the Nazis was not a positive thing. In this case, unity was the negative force, and diversity and being separate needed to be embraced. In the Civil War separation led to conflict, which ultimately led to unity in the end. This brings me to another point, when is unity the positive force, and when does it cause harm? Similarly, when should we embrace separation and diversity?
For human kind to have a relatively peaceful existence, there needs to be a balance of unity and separation. Unity can be destructive, so people should only unite themselves under peaceful pretenses. In the same way separation can be dangerous, so people should not try to separate themselves, while at the same time embracing natural separations such as gender, race, and culture. With this balance of separation and unity a peaceful equilibrium can be achieved.
No comments:
Post a Comment