To illustrate the point through an example, one can be at peace (with oneself, and no external reference) but one has to be ‘in harmony with’ (something or someone or whatever, an external reference point).
Some dictionary definitions of the two terms do not seem to address this element of their difference clearly –
- Peace
o is a state of harmony characterized by the lack of violent conflict and the freedom from fear of violence
o the state existing during absence of war
o a state of harmony between people or groups; freedom from strife
o harmony in personal relations
o absence of mental anxiety
o a state of stillness, silence or serenity
o a state of tranquility or quiet
o freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions
- Harmony
o A situation in which people live and work well with other people, or in a way that does not damage things around them
o Pleasing or congruent arrangement of parts
o Correspondence, accord
o The attractive effect that is created when objects, colors etc combine well together
o Joint, concord, agreement
o To fit together, to join
o A feeling that you are happy and your mind and emotions are well balanced
o Internal calm or Tranquility
A couple of points about the differences that is interesting and noteworthy. One, the etymology of the words suggests that the usage had a strong bias towards the definitions in italics above during their origin. This is in support of the singular or plural view (or to extend the argument, internalized and externalized views) I had expressed right at the beginning. Second, it is worthwhile to think if one can exist without the other and if yes, which one – meaning, can there be peace without harmony or harmony without peace. The former does not seem probable whereas the latter definitely does!
No comments:
Post a Comment