1. The present choice close to life and death and peace is the most lasting and simple pursuit of mankind. Peace means a chance to survive. Only in a peaceful state can people normally engage in all constructive activities conducive to survival and development, and only in a peaceful state can the dignity of life be universally displayed. However, the persistent pursuit of peace itself illustrates an unfortunate fact: human beings have been accompanied by war for a long time. War is one of the greatest disasters invented by human beings themselves. No matter what causes the war, it is not only the killing of people by weapons, but also the innocent suffering of civilians. The tragic consequences of the war-the loss of life, the burning of villages and the ruins of cities-have always been borne by the people. For the people, war means the shadow of turmoil, terror and death. But wars are always happening and the people can't stop them. In human history, peace and war are like a pair of conjoined children. On the one hand, the extensive and frequent use of war means makes it almost a routine activity of human beings. Aristophanes once expressed his feelings through the drama "Peace": "I have been looking forward to you and have been looking for you; Extraordinary expectations, extraordinary search. " This is proof that frequent wars lead to the scarcity of peace. On the other hand, people have never stopped trying to create a peaceful situation and a life between wars. In the alternation of peace and war, it is a tragic alternation of creation and destruction. If in the past, in this tragic alternation, human beings could rebuild their lives in the gap between wars, then now when biochemical weapons and nuclear weapons that can destroy the whole world are invented, the factors that induce wars are increasing day by day, and nuclear war is on the verge. The seemingly metaphysical question of "to be or not to be" has approached our sight and become a realistic problem that all mankind must face. Under the cloud of devastating nuclear war, the opportunity for survival and development lies in efforts to stop the war and strive for lasting and stable peace. 2. Reflections on peace and anti-war. War makes mankind look forward to peace after suffering. However, a lasting and stable peace depends on many conditions. It is helpful to create conditions for peace, reflect on war, an activity that runs through all human history and can be called human routine, and explore the causes of war. In the history of human thought, peace and war are a pair of eternal themes, and the exploration has never stopped, involving a wide range of contents. Especially those well-known outstanding thinkers, who are deeply humanitarian, love peace and oppose war. But as thinkers, they did not simply praise peace and condemn war, but devoted themselves to the excavation of the root causes of war and the analysis of the essence of war, and devoted themselves to exploring the possibility of getting rid of war and the conditions for achieving lasting peace. Explaining the thought has important enlightenment for us to rationally understand the war and strive for peace. 1. Thinkers have explored the roots of war from many aspects, such as economy, politics, culture and human nature, and revealed the connection between poverty and war. Conflicts between races, cultures and religious beliefs often become the factors leading to wars, and wars are related to people's aggressiveness and adventurous spirit, especially their strong desire to conquer and ambition. But I think the most important exploration of the root cause of war is to reveal the internal relationship between authoritarian regime and war. This idea has a long history in the west. As early as 2400 years ago, Socrates pointed out that autocratic tyrants made people need a leader by provoking war. Later, Aristotle judged that the autocratic regime relied on war to maintain stability. /kloc-in the 8th century, enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire and Rousseau exposed the truth that autocratic rulers and clergy pushed people into war for lust for power, conquest and so-called teachings, and pointed out the fact that foreign wars and conquest supported domestic dictatorships. Contemporary thinkers, politicians and social activists invariably point out a fact in modern times: authoritarian countries not only provoke wars everywhere, but also often break out internally. Even if their ideologies are similar or even the same, they will inevitably meet each other, which forms an intriguing contrast with the fact that there has never been a war in democratic countries. This contrast provides a unique and powerful evidence that war is the inherent nature of authoritarian regimes. The autocratic regime has become the root of war because the arbitrary power, which is the characteristic of this regime, is basically in a state of unrestricted and sanctions-free, which is essentially the injustice, expansion and conquest tendency of this regime. In fact, the unjust rule of the power holders itself is brewing a civil war. Externally, because the authoritarian regime's power source, the way to choose whether to wage war and the way to obtain war funds are different from those of the * * * regime, the weight of public opinion and the weight of people's lives are very different under the two regimes, which makes the war decision, as Kant pointed out, the most difficult decision under the * * * regime, but it can be "the most thoughtless thing in the world" for the autocratic monarch. Therefore, once we have or think we have the strength, war is almost an inevitable choice. For those who started the conquest war, this war may bring them something different from what it brought to the people. Victory brings them the expansion of wealth, land, glory and sovereignty, but the price that must be paid for victory must be paid by the people; If defeated, the initiator of the war will not be responsible for the consequences, and all the tragic consequences will be passed on to the people, although the people have never had the opportunity to express their opinions on whether to go to war; If faced with extinction, it is not uncommon in history and reality to "kidnap" the whole country as a "hostage" or even take all the people away. The absurd asymmetry between power and responsibility under the autocratic system determines that it is the nature of every autocratic ruler to make war permanent. But it is not only because of the above reasons that the autocratic system has become the fundamental cause of war, and this system has a tendency to stimulate and tease some factors into the possibility of war and lead to war. In fact, whether it is the aggression and adventure inherent in human nature, the ambition and conquest of some people, or the differences in race, culture and religious beliefs, they do not necessarily lead people to war, they are just some potential possibilities. But the autocratic system is destined to turn these potential war factors into reality. Because this system not only gives the rulers the conditions to force people to work on the battlefield by virtue of their power, so that their ambitions and conquest can be realized, but also enables them to use deception, incitement and the indoctrination of violent thoughts, so that aggressive adventures that might have been released in a creative and constructive way in human nature can be violently and destructively vented. As for creating barriers between different races, cultures and beliefs, provoking hatred, deepening misunderstandings and conflicts, and turning differences into reasons for war, this is the usual practice of authoritarian countries. Regarding the relationship between autocracy and war, it is one aspect of the problem that autocracy leads to war, and the other aspect of this problem is that war poses the greatest threat to the freedom of democratic countries. The threat not only comes from the war tendency of external autocratic countries, but also because war will inevitably destroy the balance of power of democratic countries as the institutional guarantee of people's freedom. This is the kind of danger pointed out by Tocqueville: war will inevitably make the participating democratic countries forcibly concentrate the command of all people and the management of all things on the administrative authorities. A protracted war will inevitably concentrate dangerous power on the administrative authorities. The multifaceted relationship between war and political system shows the most important way to avoid war and achieve lasting peace. 2. To distinguish just wars from unjust wars, we need to adopt a rational attitude towards the war itself, so as to avoid wars and strive for peace. Not all thinkers who plan peace are opposed to war. Many of them agree with and defend war in some cases. The most important defense is to distinguish between justice and injustice in war. The division of war into justice and injustice is as long-standing as the condemnation of war. Not only many thinkers make this distinction, but also the general public spontaneously tend to this distinction. Although there are many differences on the question of "what is justice and what is injustice", mankind has gradually gained some basic knowledge, such as: the war of aggression and conquest, the war of oppression and plunder is unjust; Based on self-defense, the war to defend peace and land, freedom and dignity is just. Outstanding thinkers distinguish right from wrong on some principles of war, which promotes the formation of basic knowledge. For the Greeks, the Sino-Persian War, which lasted for a hundred years from the middle of the 6th century BC, was not only to resist aggression, but also to defend their city-state and fight to the death with the powerful autocratic empire. The victory of the struggle enabled the Greek independent city-state to survive and created a cultural and political system that had a far-reaching impact on all mankind. Based on this double justice, Greek philosophers and poets, including three tragic poets who deeply exposed the cruelty of war, are proud of war and defend it. Even the most explicit anti-war stance, the poet aristophanes used a series of comedies to satirize politicians who fooled people and advocated civil war between city-states, and praised the warriors who fought against Persian invaders in the Persian War. The founders of the world's major religions are all against war, but they also recognize the right to self-defense, especially some famous Christian theologians, such as St. Augustine Thomas Aquinas, who have made strong arguments on this right. Aquinas not only sorted out the conditions of war from the causes and purposes of war, but also pointed out that the tyrant committed a serious rebellion by creating struggles and disputes among his subjects, thus defending the action of overthrowing tyranny. In the eyes of Locke, a thinker in the17th century, the state of war is a state of hostility and destruction, which shows his aversion to war, but at the same time, he resolutely opposes letting innocent people suffer violence for peace. In his view, this kind of peace composed of rape and plunder is tantamount to asking people to be tame lambs and let wolves bite their throats without resistance. Hugo, a humanist, advocates promoting peace through fraternity, and yearns for the prospect of peace in which there will be no more soldiers with swords and shadows, no more national borders, and a whole family in the universe. However, he firmly stated that we should never bow our heads and knees to peace, peace under autocracy and peace under dynasty. 1869 At the Lausanne Peace Conference, Hugo proposed that the first condition for peace is liberation, and that "the last war may be needed". At the beginning of the 20th century, French Socialist Party leader Raoleith put forward a dual task for socialists in view of the approaching war: when war is only a distant threat, we should fight to stop it, but in times of crisis, we should wage war to defend national independence. For the necessity of a just war, Einstein made a thorough statement by taking the anti-Nazi war as an example.