Robert Frost

This is a video from a course on American Modernism.

I was not sure where to post it. And I am not sure if there is any interest.

It does seem to be an interesting discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdFqR1igY9Q

Not exactly the topic under discussion, but if you read the poem carefully (or have it pointed out to you as was my case), you'll notice that there is no actual visible difference in the paths. Frost merely contemplates making up an excuse for his choice long after the fact.

Maybe our reasons for "choosing" theism or atheism aren't what we think they are? Maybe we need to reexamine them carefully for ourselves? Maybe we need to attempt to look at the views opposing our "choice"? (Yes, I can speak thus quite unironically as I do make attempts at discovering what (supposedly) convinces theists.)

I agree, not much difference other than what he might have imagined as he looked at them both.

The question seems to be the question of free will vs determinism, given the contingencies of evolution and genetics.

As far as the choice of theism or atheism, I think there is not much choice. And I think little in the choice of religion.

Geography, culture, environment, heritage, family.

Not to deny that there are those who break from influences.

>3 richardbsmith:

I was given this insight (vis a vis Frost) recently. In connection with an explanation of Sartrean "bad faith". Interestingly, I decided that Sartre's "reasoning" to "free will" is itself a case of "bad faith" (it looked that way in Existentialism is a Humanism), but maybe I need to read more of his work...

I get the fact that without any god/s, I am free to make my decisions independently of what any god/s supposedly would want me or encourage me to do. That however does not free me from material determinism.

I also get the fact that I have a degree of "social freedom". Still not free from material cause and effect, from accumulated cultural, social, philosophical, etc, knowledge, but free in an important social sense. Yet 'accumulated' is a very important word there. In many ways, my "social freedom" is not innate, but needs to be acquired by some means or other.

The phenomenon of people wandering from one church to another is quite sad. These may look to some as people "looking for the truth", but they are people who think they already know the truth, but just need to find others who share their understanding. ie They are not choosing at all, at a fundamental level. They're stuck with whatever they've been convinced of without ever thinking of reexamining their foundational belief.

Not that I consider theism foundational at all in the bigger picture, only vis a vis the choices they make in attempting to accommodate the foundational belief.

>5 zangasta: Wandering from church to church

To find folks who agree. That is an interesting perspective.

And one that I can accept. I left my Episcopal church over some gripe which I can hardly now remember. And went to a few others, to discover that the Episcopal Church is the only one that would have me.

Free will is one of those questions. I tend to think we do not have free will, except that we can consciously have an input to our decisions.

Only one of many inputs, and our conscious input may not win in the decision.

Gods or no God, or gods or no gods.

It seems to me that Dawkins, like so many others completely missed the point of "The Road Less Taken

http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2015/09/11/the-most-misread-poem-in-america/

He offered a take on the poem that the professor for the course found interesting. And one that I had not considered. To involve a question of free will.

It is a bit striking though to have any reading of a poem be called a misreading, at least any reading that mostly refers to the actual lines.

It can be called a misreading if it isn't what the poet intended to communicate. And Frost explained what he meant when he got frustrated at everyone misreading his poem.

rrp,

I agree with you. The poet's ideas and the context of the writing of the poem are important to a good interpretation and reading.

However, I am not sure that all poetry critics will agree with us.

The poet's ideas and the context of the writing of the poem are important to a good interpretation and reading.

Strike "important", substitute "all that is required ". No one has ever been able to persuade me that is not true.

Except that there is the reader. And the reader input makes the poem poetry.

Yes, that's one of the parts that never persuades.