Skip to main content

Please: a Simple Concept

The simple graces are riveted in my mind.  I can hear my dad and mom still asking me those questions.  “Did you say please?”  “Did you tell them ‘thank you?’”  And on went the courtesy lessons, as I might call them now.  I do not know that I really cared whether I said “please” or “thank you,” but I did care not to make my folks unhappy with me.  It was one of those deals where happy parents were the primary thing and if “please” and “thank you” did the trick, then doing the trick seemed like the right way to go!

This early lesson probably came when I was only three or four years old.  Logic was a skill that was only in its baby form.  As I grew a little older, I began to make some connections to why saying, “please,” was a good thing to do.  In my adult logic, I can offer at least two good reasons for saying “please.”  In the first place, it has utilitarian value.  That means we actually have a better chance to get what we want if we say “please!”  And in the second place, saying “please” has social value.  What this means is the social fabric of our relationships are nurtured by this kind of social grace.  If I say “please” when I am wanting something, it is more likely you and others will say “please” when you want something from me.

If we go to the root of the word, please, we get to the idea of “wish” or “want.”  It is easy to think of the phrase, “if you please.”  One could just as easily say, “if you want.”  I think of this as the normal usage.  Of course, the petition, “please,” in its extreme form can suggest “begging.”  However, I think when it means begging, we usually hear it more in the form of “pleeeeaaaaase!”  In most cases when we say “please,” we are not desperate.

It really is a simple concept, but I fear it is not as important in our culture as it was when I was a kid.  Maybe this is merely the lamentation of an old guy, but in an increasingly technological driven society, face-to-face social graces are more threatened.  “Please” is much more gracious than alternative phrases (or implications) such as “just do it” or “give me.”  “Please” expresses my wants or wishes; it is not command or demand!

And now I purposely am turning a corner.  I am not sure I have had this insight until recently.  I now see the connection between the words “please” and “pleasure.”  And that is remarkable to me!  Knowing that, however, makes so much sense.  If I am experiencing pleasure, more than likely it is rooted in something “pleasing.”  Knowing this leads me to some significant insights.

If I ask you for something, I will say, “please.”  That means I hope you will give me the pleasure of my petition.  If authentic, “Please” is truly a request.  You could say “No”…or imply the negative.  “If you please” is a request of the future.  “No” is denial of a future!

This is interesting, but what is spiritual about any of it?  The easiest connection is prayer.  I understand prayer as my connection to the Holy One.  Although I may not actually say, “please,” I am implying “if you please.”  I invite you to see a basic form of prayer to go something like this: “Holy One, if you please…”  And if the Holy One so pleases, then surely there is some form of pleasure in store for us.

It may not be the pleasure of earthly or material proportions, but it surely will be pleasure of spiritual proportions.  It will deliver meaning and purpose and deep contentment.  And this leads me to one more insight.

Verbalizing “please” is a good thing.  But if we can somehow turn this verbalizing into an attitude or, even, a way of life, what pleasures are in store for us!  Such a simple concept---such a profound outcome!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I-Thou Relationships

Those of us who have read theology or, perhaps, those who are people of faith and are old enough might well recognize this title as a reminder of the late Jewish philosopher and theologian, Martin Buber.   I remember reading Buber’s book, I and Thou , when I was in college in the 1960s.   It was already a famous book by then.   I am not sure I fully understood it, but that would not be the last time I read it.   It has been a while since I looked at the book.             Buber came up in a conversation with a friend who asked if I had seen the recent article by David Brooks?   I had not seen it, but when I was told about it, I knew I would quickly locate and read that piece.   I very much like what Brooks decides to write about and what he contributes to societal conversation.   I wish more people read him and took him seriously.             Brooks’ article focused on the 2016 contentious election.   He provocatively suggests, “Read Buber, Not the Polls!”   I think Brooks puts

Spiritual Commitment

I was reading along in a very nice little book and hit these lines about commitment.   The author, Mitch Albom, uses the voice of one of the main characters of his nonfiction book about faith to reflect on commitment.   The voice belongs to Albom’s old rabbi of the Jewish synagogue where he went until his college days.   The old rabbi, Albert Lewis, says “the word ‘commitment’ has lost its meaning.”    The rabbi continues in a way that surely would have many people saying, “Amen!”   About commitment he says, “I’m old enough when it used to be a positive.   A committed person was someone to be admired.   He was loyal and steady.   Now a commitment is something you avoid.   You don’t want to tie yourself down.”   I also think I am old enough to know that commitment was usually a positive word.   I can think of a range of situations in which commitment would have been seen to be positive.   For example, growing up was full of sports for me.   Commitment would have been presupposed t

Inward Journey and Outward Pilgrimage

There are so many different ways to think about the spiritual life.   And of course, in our country there are so many different variations of religious experiences.   There are liberals and conservatives.   There are fundamentalists and Pentecostals.   Besides the dizzying variety of Christian traditions, there are many different non-Christian traditions.   There are the major traditions, such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on.   There are the slightly more obscure traditions, such as Sikhism, Jainism, etc.   And then there are more fringe groups and, even, pseudo-religions.   There are defining doctrines and religious practices.   Some of these are specific to a particular tradition or a few traditions, such as the koan , which is used in Zen Buddhism for example.   Other defining doctrines or practices are common across the religious board.   Something like meditation would be a good example.   Christians meditate; Buddhists meditate.   And other groups practice this spiri