In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement.
As usual The Commander and Kadizzle are starting the day with their first argument, fight, disagreement, call it what you like. The Commander, at least in Kadizzle's view has a hard time realizing different people see things in a different way. Yesterday on the great trail improvement hike The Commander accused Kadizzle of being a slacker. For the purposes here Kadizzle is the Elephant, and The Commander is the blind person. The old fable of the blind men and the elephant perfectly illustrates the point, and shows how so much human disarray occurs. Cliff and The Commander were to start on one end of the trail and work towards Kadizzle who was to start at the other end. The problem arose when the trail split and came back together again. This was unbeknownst to all. Kadizzle was in a conundrum when he realized this was the case. If Kadizzle took one route and it was not the same route the others took it would cause a problem. They might by pass each other. So Kadizzle turned back at the intersection. Of course The Commander interpreted Kadizzle's actions as sheer laziness. Which was not the case, Kadizzle worked his way out and bak removing sinful catus from the trail. Now to the parable. The blind men all try to figure out what an elepahant is, but each only feels one part of it. You probably know the story, but you need to review it, it will be on the test.
The stories differ primarily in how the elephant's body parts are described, how violent the conflict becomes and how (or if) the conflict among the men and their perspectives is resolved.
In some versions, they stop talking, start listening and collaborate to "see" the full elephant. When a sighted man walks by and sees the entire elephant all at once, the blind men also learn they are all blind. While one's subjective experience is true, it may not be the totality of truth. If the sighted man was deaf, he would not hear the elephant bellow.
It has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies; broadly, the parable implies that one's subjective experience can be true, but that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth. At various times the parable has provided insight into the relativism, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth, the behavior of experts in fields where there is a deficit or inaccessibility of information, the need for communication, and respect for different perspectives.
However, if the story is used by someone as an analogy for religious relativism (namely, that all religions are equally true, since it is claimed that none can see the whole picture), it breaks down. The only way a person could know this fact is if they claimed to have an objective view on religious truth - that is, above all other views. This is of course, is self-refuting since the self-proclaimed relativist believes that there is at least one perspective that can see above all others, despite claiming that none can see the whole picture. In other words, the story of the five blind men is told from the perspective of someone who is not blind.
No comments:
Post a Comment