The Blind Men and the Elephant: Aesop and Subjectivity

[SidneyCarton]

The storyteller Aesop once told a tale in which seven blind men had a dispute as to the nature of what an elephant was. Unable to agree, they sought one out and each took hold of a different part of the elephant in order to prove their point. One took hold of the elephant’s ear, and declared that elephants were clearly like parchment, thin and flexible. Another took hold of the elephant’s tusk and disagreed, stating that he clearly could tell that elephants were like spears, sharp and pointed. Yet another, having taken hold of the elephant’s trunk declared the others to have failed in their perceptions, declaring that elephants were clearly like snakes. And so it continued, with the other men each seizing a part of the Elephant, be it the legs, the tail, or the broad flanks and declaring that particular part to define the whole, never truly comprehending the true nature of the unique creature in whose presence they were standing.

So often it seems that such is the nature of human perception in general. We see the world through our own incomplete subjectivity, we perceive details and elevations that are specific to us and our particular experience, culture and lifestyle, and mistake our perceptions for objective reality, which is far more complex than the simplified vision we create. As such, in a very real sense, we are blind, for we are unable to get beyond our limited perceptions to see the whole. Reality is the elephant, a creature that, were we not to have documented evidence (and at times the privilege to have seen it with our own eyes) it would be difficult to believe existed. It is complex, bizarre, and often a bit surreal, comprising (much like the fabled elephant) each of the elements which the blind men perceived, but arranged in a form the likes of which they would have been unable to imagine on their own.

I fail to remember whether or not Aesop has a sighted man approach the blind men and attempt to explain to them the true nature of the creature they ignorantly sought to describe. If that did occur in the story, I can clearly imagine the response of the blind men to have been disbelief, if not scorn. Yet this reaction would be mild in comparison to the opinions held today. It seems that all too often when we are confronted with the idea that our own perceptions of reality may be limited and flawed, we react with violent outrage, lashing out at anyone who seems to challenge our own sacrosanct views. Were this fable to be repeated today, and a sighted man to approach the blind men, I can imagine it ending with the blind men attacking their sighted assistant, and (supposing they could lay hold on him) beating him to death to rid themselves of his disquieting rhetoric.

We do indeed see through “a glass darkly” and our perceptions of reality, as often as they are correct, are still limited. The trick is realizing that our perceptions are not universal, they do not define the whole of existence, but only our part. As soon as we believe otherwise, and seek to impose our perceptions of the universe on those who think differently, we court tragedy. Indeed “misunderstanding the elephant” may well lie at the root of much of the wretchedness we suffer in this world.

[tabatha]

1. Absolutley.

I as the same person, when younger would not at first understand why one person would like me and another not - and decided that since I was the same person in each case, the difference must be in the viewer. People see what they will.

[SteppingRazor]

2. Which is why we should teach intelligent design in science class, right?

I understand what you're saying, that people have different perceptions and other people's opinions may be just as valid, but I also think there is such a thing as objective truth.

[tabatha]

4. Agreed, too.

But objective truth can only be seen if there are enough facts available, as clearly the blind men did not have.

[mzteris]

5. sometimes it's just as simple

as understanding that the other person HAS a "different perception" - indeed, almost a different "reality". It doesn't necessarily mean that they are right, of course - just as each of the blind men were "wrong".

Being able to understand where another person is "coming from" may - just MAY - help to reach them with the truth.

[SidneyCarton]

6. No, in fact it is why we should not teach intelligent design in class.

Intelligent design is mistaking the ear for the elephant. If the kids want to learn about creationism, they do not lack for resources to find out about it. Understanding basic science helps them move on to the more complex stuff that hopefully help them to get jobs.

I'm a believer, but I want my child to understand the Theory of Evolution, because should she want to become a Biologist, or a Doctor, Nurse, etc. She will have to understand these things. May this risk her faith? Yeah, but it is better that she have understanding and knowledge to choose for herself, than for me to willingly keep her ignorant. She will find out about this stuff eventually, whether I like it or not.

Edited to fix title.

[SteppingRazor]

9. OK, except that you write in your OP...

"The trick is realizing that our perceptions are not universal, they do not define the whole of existence, but only our part. As soon as we believe otherwise, and seek to impose our perceptions of the universe on those who think differently, we court tragedy."

I suppose I interpreted that to mean that we should be open to all other views, which led to the statement in the title of my previous post. I don't want to be open to all other views when some of those views are plainly moronic.

Obviously, though I misinterpreted your words ... which actually illustrates the story nicely. :)

[SidneyCarton]

10. No problem.

In fact, I've been mulling on this topic for a while, and didn't even realize you had a post on the above named topic.

Ahhh... Irony.

As to being open to moronic views, believe me I'm not saying that all ideas must be considered with equal courtesy, note that Aesop did not include the madman who claimed that the Elephant was like a Xylophone because the little man who lived in his thumb told him so, even the blind guys wouldn't buy that. I do believe in an objective reality, and much like darts and horseshoes, some of us come closer to it in our perceptions than others.

[Fumesucker]

3. Erasmus thought that in the country of the blind the one eyed man was king..

Erasmus was a flaming optimist.

[SidneyCarton]

7. Exactly.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man learns to speak carefully, lest the blind destroy him for heresy.

[Fumesucker]

8. I'm stunned..

Someone actually got my point without me explaining it..

Kudos.

Edited to add: I've had this particular point hammered into me with a 1000 ton forging press over the last nine years or so, there seems to be virtually no one in my real life that wants to see what's going on.

[Uncle Joe]

11. I'm more optimistic in regards to enlightening those with limited vision and provincial views.

It just takes a lot of patience and understanding, if the teacher can't put him/her self in the role of the student, then blindness isn't exclusive to the student.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3211874

Thanks for the thread, SidneyCarton.

[SidneyCarton]

12. Anne Sullivan was truly inspirational.

She took the time to figure out how Helen Keller saw "the elephant" and then helped her to realize there was so much more. She was also fortunate to have an exceptional pupil, though I know it was monumentally difficult for her to teach.

Helen Keller herself lamented that we who could see did not fully appriciate the world that lay open before us, I remember reading an essay in high school on this entitled "the seeing see little" I think that is true in both the literal and metaphorical sense.

[Fumesucker]

13. It's easy to be overwhelmed by our vision..

I mean that both literally and figuratively.

A great deal of our sensory processing power goes toward winnowing the inputs of our sense organs, without that processing we would be overwhelmed with sensory data and would get nothing done at all. ISTR that Autism may have something to do with an inability to winnow or sort data into manageable chunks.

Likewise, we have to sort through the great amount of data available to our minds to pick out those bits that are significant to what we are trying to accomplish at any given moment.

When one of our senses is diminished our extra processing power gets at least somewhat diverted to the other senses. I recall reading that Ray Charles always wore hard shoes so he could echo locate things with the sound of his shoes on the floor/ground..

[laconicsax]

14. There was one more blind man present.

He sat in the shade of a nearby tree and declared, "it has wings."

As the other seven argued about the nature of the elephant, one of them suggested that they trade places and on doing so, confirmed the others' observations and after climbing all over the elephant, concluded that it was a large, wonderous animal without wings.

The eighth, still sitting under the tree said, "It has large wings, I can feel their divine effect." He then left to write about the majesty of the elephant's wings and gathering followers who went around telling others of their beauty.

Centuries later, the work pioneered by the other seven blind men led to advances in other fields, yielding truly amazing discoveries and technology. Descendants of the eighth's followers and their converts, upon seeing elephants in pictures and zoos, began insisting that maybe the wings were metaphorical while others came up with increasingly convoluted explanations to adhere to the orthodoxy of their beliefs.

Eventually, orthodox Wingists made a concerted effort to discredit the work showing that elephants had no wings and get wing-friendly textbooks into the schools. This led some who had dedicated themselves to elephant biology to write books such as "The Elephant Has No Wings." Immediately, Wingists denounced these books as shrill, mean-spirited, and intolerant attacks on their personal beliefs and denounced these authors as having no authority on the subject of elephant wings.

[Fumesucker]

15. Are you sure those people weren't called "Wingnuts"? n/t