Here is a great quote from Max Ehrman’s 1927 poem Desiderata , one of my favourite. One of the reasons I enjoy this poem so much is the great wisdom packed in so few words. Very parsimonious! Every stanza is worthy of discussion, or at least a blog post! It is heartening to see that, despite our leaps in technology, things are not that different now than they were in 1927. Much of the wisdom that applied then still applies today!

So on with this week’s blog post. The passage I wish to discuss is, “As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons”. So what does this mean to me?

It means that I should not let differences of opinion prevent me from being on good terms with others in my life. I can agree or disagree with you on issues of the day, even deeply divisive topics like politics and religion, yet still retain a positive connection through our shared humanity.

This is particularly relevant today in our age of social media bubbles. More and more we seek out the company of those who agree with us on everything, and view anyone with whom we disagree with suspicion at best or even outright hostility at worst. So often we cherish our beliefs and our opinions so dearly that we see any disagreement as a direct attack on our own sense of identity. I am my opinions!!

But.... am I? Must I identify so closely with my beliefs that any questioning is automatically viewed as a threat? This brings us to the middle part of the quote, and one which I believe forms the core of the stanza, "without surrender".

What does Ehrman mean by this? In my opinion, Max is saying that you should not have to sacrifice your beliefs in order to maintain good relations with others around us. You can speak your truth quietly and clearly (another great Desiderata quote!), but there is no necessity for others to agree with you. Nor is there a need for you to change your views in order to be part of an 'in' crowd, whatever it may be.

Like most of you, however, I tend to surround myself with people of the same religious, political and sociological perspectives as myself. I get used to having my friends and acquaintances agreeing with me, and so they should because my views are obviously the correct ones!

Imagine my shock and horror when I found myself having dinner with another friend, and discovered that she held a different perspective! How could that be? I was obviously in the right, so the only possible reason for her to disagree with me was that she was misguided and misinformed. As a friend, it was my duty to help shine the light of truth on the situation and show her the error of her ways. After all, what are friends for?

So, I did what most of us will try in such situations: I tried to convince her I was right. I trotted out my best arguments, equipped myself with deadly logic and struck her down with rationality. To my ears my position was sound and unassailable, and I waited for her to change her views.

And of course, she was doing the exact same thing. She probably even shared my shock that I disagreed with her, because I suspect she has also surrounded herself with those of like mind. Like me, she hit me with her best debating weaponry, waiting for my walls to crumble as I saw the superiority of her arguments.

So what happened? Nothing. I did not change my views, and she did not change her's. In fact, despite our best efforts at convincing each other neither of us were any further ahead (although I remember the pizza was delicious).

The good news is that I am still friends with her, and we still hug and smile at each other when we meet at social functions. I still shake my head occasionally, and more than once I have considered breaching the topic again with her. What stops me from doing so is my awareness that my main reason for doing so would be to change her views and win the debate. I have too much respect for her to do this, so I am happy to agree to disagree.

But does it have to be a debate?

Hegel, the German philosopher, employed the dialectical method wherein two people discuss an issue with the goal of discovering the truth. Unlike a debate where the goal is to convince the other party that we are right, a dialectical exchange has no goal but the discovery of what is true. So it is very likely that you will leave the exchange with a different position then when you started, and that is good! You do not enter the exchange with a certainty that you are correct, but rather with the hope that your views will be more accurate than when you started the exchange.

Is this what Max meant by "without surrender"?

The problem with engaging in an honest dialectical exchange is that you cannot hold your beliefs too dearly. In a time when many of us closely identify with our beliefs and values, and even base our entire sense of self on these values, it can be very difficult to let go of them. Contrasting beliefs can even become threatening, eroding the very ground on which we stand and causing within us a flight or fight reaction. The complete opposite of dialectics!

When I pursued the discussion with my friend over pizza, I had no intention of changing my beliefs. I knew I was right, and only wanted to help her shed her wrongful views. She felt the same, and since neither of us capitulated we called it a draw.

In order to properly pursue the dialectical method, both parties have to hold truth above all else. We have to be ready to lay aside ego and just focus on coming out a better, or at least better informed, person. Not easy!

But I digress a little. While a comparison of a dialectics with debate is helpful and interesting (at least it is for me) I don't think it truly explains what Max meant by not surrendering. I believe he means that you should be true to yourself, your opinions, beliefs, and values. Conversely, we should not expect others to sacrifice their beliefs and values in order to share our company. What you believe is no threat to them, or vice-versa.

As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.