Objective truth

[Michael96]

This is a spin-off from another thread where we have been discussing whether we can “choose” what to believe. It ventured into objective and subjective truths which I find fascinating.

As a scientist I hold onto objective truth (thus discarding post-modern relativism) but do believe we never have a perfect view of that objective truth and so all description of that truth has a subjective element.

I have always found John Godfrey Saxe’s poem of six blind men (who are subjective) and an elephant (which is an objective truth) to be full of wisdom. What do you think?

THE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT

*It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach’d the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -“Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”

The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he,
“'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL.

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen! *

 

[Joe_5859]

There are different kinds of relativism. I do not think that most people believe in a total relativism. Most will recognize things like 2+2=4, and so on. I think the most popular type of relativism is moral relativism: that there is no objective truth pertaining to the morality of our actions. To this, I would point someone to Peter Kreeft’s excellent Refutation of Moral Relativism.

As for the poem, I have heard that before. What always struck me about it is that the unidentified narrator is not blind and does see the whole elephant. It assumes the viewpoint of someone who does in fact see the big picture (thereby striking me as a tad arrogant as if I can see the big picture but these silly religions are just blind men stumbling in the dark).

I do understand what the poem is getting at, but it ignores one very important thing: the action of God. As I interpret the poem, God is the “elephant” and each religion only understands part of Him. Thus, the moral of the poem seems to be: “If the different religions could just get together and admit that they only know part of the picture, then maybe we could make some progress! If only these religions would realize that they’re all partly right and partly wrong and stop claiming to be the only true religion!”

This all assumes that God is not doing anything. This poem might accurately describe man’s search for God, but it does not address God’s search for man, which is fundamentally what the Catholic religion is all about.

The Catholic Church has the fullness of the truth (the picture of “the whole elephant”) not because we’re smarter or that we’re one-eyed men in the land of the blind. The Catholic religion has the fullness of the truth because God gave it to us. God was not content to have us groping around in the dark. He reveals himself to us. He gives us our sight so that we can see the big picture.

Does this mean we undertsand that truth perfectly? Of course not. That’s why doctrine develops over time.

 

[fhansen]

I thought the poem referred to how we envision God while still on this earth. As in 1Cor.13 where Paul says that now we see “as through a glass, darkly” or as “a poor reflection as in a mirror” depending on translation. He’s speaking of the fact that now we know imperfectly and indirectly but “then”-by the beatific vision- “we’ll see face to face”. But if the poem is recognizing something like this while inferring that this means no theological system is better than another at describing God and His will for us, I’d disagree with it.

 

[Tick_Dawk]

Here’s the thing about objective truth: it exists. However, that poem is saying all those men are right; but, they’re not all entirely the most informed. Yes, the elephant is like a wall in some places, a spear in others, but that’s right in both cases. However, if they felt around all the way, they’d know the entire truth. That’s the same with life in general: the Catholic Church offers us truth, and much of it, but its not the exclusive owner of truth. We need to search, and not restrict ourselves to only one source of information, or we’ll end up like the men in the poem.

 

[Mersenne]

This is a spin-off from another thread where we have been discussing whether we can “choose” what to believe. It ventured into objective and subjective truths which I find fascinating.

As a scientist I hold onto objective truth (thus discarding post-modern relativism) but do believe we never have a perfect view of that objective truth and so all description of that truth has a subjective element.

I have always found John Godfrey Saxe’s poem of six blind men (who are subjective) and an elephant (which is an objective truth) to be full of wisdom. What do you think?

THE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT

*It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach’d the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -“Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”

The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he,
“'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL.

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen! *

I’ve always thought the elephant analogy is a good one. It emphazizes both the subjective reality that we all see different things AND the objective reality that there really is an elephant there between all the confusion.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’ve always thought the elephant analogy is a good one. It emphazizes both the subjective reality that we all see different things AND the objective reality that there really is an elephant there between all the confusion.

If you look at the poem only on that level, then yes, it is a good analogy, and one that I appreciate.

However, the poem is clearly speaking about the different world religions (“so oft in theologic wars”) with the elephant representing God. On that level, the poem puts all religions on the same level, and it does not consider the fact that God might choose to reveal Himself. Thus it leaves the impression (at least to me) that the moral is: all religions are equal and only have part of the truth, and those who don’t think so are ignorant. This is what I have a problem with.