Desiderata

Adi wrote:

JamesSand wrote: I'mma say y'all missing the point for the sake of semantics

I "get the point" since I've loved this poem for years, but I'm sad if someone else can't appreciate it simply because this poem includes a brief theistic sentiment by its Christian author. I enjoy poetry from religious traditions different from my own (especially Islam.) This isn't even a particularly "Christian" poem, either, despite being written by one.

Well, the OP specifically asks for our opinion of the poem. While the points you raise are absolutely valid, I would like to ask you not to be saddened by diverging views. This is my opinion and I've given you the reasons why I'm of that particular opinion. I didn't give those opinions to take away from how you view / appreciate this poem. I can only tell you this: I don't mind that our opinions aren't the same. I welcome that, as a matter of fact - otherwise there wouldn't have been a discussion in the first place!

JamesSand wrote: I'm more than happy to read "whatever you conceive him to be" as "The Force"

If the "him" upsets you, copy it into Notepad, swap the word for "It" and then print it out

Absolutely - but then we're not talking about the same poem anymore

Cyan Sarden wrote: The way I read that particular line of the poem, I'd say that the author simply presumes that you believe in God (because this is what people do in that particular society).

The author had an intended audience that was probably, given the events, location and times, predominantly Christian:

Max Ehrmann is the undisputed author of the prose poem Desiderata. In 1927, he obtained a federal copyright in the work. At Christmastime of 1933, Ehrmann sent out Christmas cards including the text of Desiderata. [...]

[...] [U.S. Army psychiatrist Merrill] Moore first wrote to Ehrmann in 1942 from Denver and indicated that he had distributed an estimated 1,000 copies of Desiderata over the years while in civilian practice in Boston. Their letters reveal that Moore requested and received permission from Ehrmann to distribute Desiderata to the soldiers as part of his treatment.

In short, I imagine he chose these words because 1) it was what he believed, as a German Methodist living in the late 1920s, and 2) it was what he believed his intended audience believed. In any case, I *still* do not see how Ehrmann's Christian background and language renders this poem "all messed up" because of a single line, short of a hostility to anything that might be remotely Christian. Which is a pity, because I remember enjoying this poem when I was still a Buddhist!

Cyan Sarden wrote:

JamesSand wrote: I'm more than happy to read "whatever you conceive him to be" as "The Force"

If the "him" upsets you, copy it into Notepad, swap the word for "It" and then print it out

Absolutely - but then we're not talking about the same poem anymore

I would say only that I don't think many of us view the Force as the same as "God" in this sense.

But Cyan, if we can reconcile our views of God to at least something non-interventionist. Does that change the meaning of the poem at all? Or has my meddling made it meaningless?

Adi wrote: In any case, I *still* do not see how Ehrmann's Christian background and language renders this poem "all messed up" because of a single line, short of a hostility to anything that might be remotely Christian.

I'm starting to think that it was mainly my wording that upset you. I concede that "all messed up" might not have been the right way of saying this. I can assure you that my response has very little to do with Christianity. I didn't even think about that aspect until you raised the topic of Abrahamism here, as a matter of fact I simply don't believe that a deterministic god (no matter what religion that deity is assigned to) is compatible with the rest of the poem. All of my opinions were about this particular poem only and not about religion in general. I had not read up about the author, nor about his religious background before I posted. Maybe I should have, but maybe not - as the latter allowed me to read the poem as it is, without having to take into consideration an additional myriad of religious and philosophical questions.

Also, that's why I mentioned that I don't like where this is going - because I read between the lines that you were taking this argument as one against Christianity.

Atticus wrote: But Cyan, if we can reconcile our views of God to at least something non-interventionist. Does that change the meaning of the poem at all? Or has my meddling made it meaningless?

Indeed, a non-interventionist notion of God would make a fundamental difference in how I read the poem; my argument is based on my opinion that being self-determined and feeling a need to "make peace with God" don't work together.

A different reading of "making peace with God" could be "accepting things as they are rather than opposing circumstances that can't be changed". That way, I could fully appreciate the poem - which I otherwise find to be of great value, btw.
That ship has sailed for me now, but I hope that other can see it that way

Cyan Sarden wrote: Also, that's why I mentioned that I don't like where this is going - because I read between the lines that you were taking this argument as one against Christianity.

If you're going to read between the lines to find that, you will find nothing there whether such an argument is being made or not, though if it was I would at least probably point out the absurdity of using a rather nice poem as an excuse to begin arguing against Christianity!

I'm not "upset," I just think deeming an entire poem as worthless (at least, that's how I read "all messed up") because of a single line is an unfair assessment of it. Someone might deem the poem too self-centred, or its prose too sugary, and I could understand that. But dismissing it for committing the crime of simply reflecting its author's religious views feels like a low blow.

I don't see the line as antithetical to the rest of the poem. Ehrmann, a deeply spiritual man whose poems were frequently about spiritual subjects, writes in this poem of being at peace with people and oneself as well as with God. The way I see it, he's just covering all his bases in saying, "You should be at peace with all things, whether of this world or not."

Adi wrote: I'm not "upset," I just think deeming an entire poem as worthless (at least, that's how I read "all messed up") because of a single line is an unfair assessment of it. Someone might deem the poem too self-centred, or its prose too sugary, and I could understand that. But dismissing it for committing the crime of simply reflecting its author's religious views feels like a low blow.

I don't see the line as antithetical to the rest of the poem. Ehrmann, a deeply spiritual man whose poems were frequently about spiritual subjects, writes in this poem of being at peace with people and oneself as well as with God. The way I see it, he's just covering all his bases in saying, "You should be at peace with all things, whether of this world or not."

I've already said that I'm not arguing against Christianity - only about a particular point in the poem that I personally find contradictory, which takes away from an otherwise great message. And I already conceded that my wording might have been off. As for your last paragraph and your personal opinion in general: fair enough - I can accept that and I can see the merit in it.

Please accept that I don't wish to discuss the personal aspects this has brought up any further. I'm more than willing to continue the discussion of the poem, though.

JamesSand wrote: I'mma say y'all missing the point for the sake of semantics

The line is

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be.

I'm more than happy to read "whatever you conceive him to be" as "The Force"

If the "him" upsets you, copy it into Notepad, swap the word for "It" and then print it out

Or swap the word God for "The Force"

If my use of the word "notepad" upsets you because you're a Mac or Linux or whatever user - Then you're really, really missing the point :lol: :lol:

I am easy like that too , so don't worry loll

Believing in God / a god can be a free choice, determined by a freely thinking person. However, it can also be an expectation by society and / or something that is forced on a person for fear of consequence.

Outside of orwellian dystopias, there is little consequence for belief or lack of belief - more for conducting the physical and observable acts or phrases that have become tied to a belief.





interesting side discussions not withstanding - Be at peace