The Blind Men and the Elephant John Godfrey Saxe (1816–188

[Nickman]

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 approached 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 an 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,

Than, 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!

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 1 by Nickman]
Sounds to me that John Godfrey Saxe may have been ignostic.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 1 by Nickman]
Sounds to me that John Godfrey Saxe may have been ignostic.

I think that you are correct. I also think that he has a great point.

[bluethread]

One did not approach the Elephant,

Saxe spoke not of him.

He thought the journey waste of time,

"What simpletons, how dim,

For I know the Elephant's

A myth, a lie, a whim."


Upon return he told the first,

"What unmitigated gaul,

To expect me to have gone with you,

To follow the wanderer's call,

You could have stayed and in three steps,

Ran into this here wall."


To the second he made a sigh,

And stated loud and clear,

Your views seem to based upon,

Cowardace and fear,

For what you did encounter,

Was nothing but a spear."



To the third he stood his ground

"Oh, for heaven's sake,

Your mind is clearly poisoned,

By the vemon that you take,

There is no doubt in my mind,

You're just a handler of snakes."


Then the fourth brought forth his claim,

"A dolt", he said, "Are ye,

You fashion wood into dreams,

You never will be free,

You made it up this Elephant'

When it was just a tree,"


To the fifth he did retort,

"Explain it, if you can,

Use elequence and reason to,

A child can understand,

The difference between your claim,

And a real fan."


Then to the sixth was his tired reply,

"You are such a dope,

You think you see an elephant,

Though in darkness you all grope,

The undisputed fact is that,

It actually was a rope."



"Bring to me this Elephant,

I demand to see,

For if it is so large and grand,

'Twill be obvious to me."

So, he just ridiculed the thought,

That an Elephant could be.

[Nickman]

One did not approach the Elephant,

Saxe spoke not of him.

He thought the journey waste of time,

"What simpletons, how dim,

For I know the Elephant's

A myth, a lie, a whim."



"Bring to me this Elephant,

I demand to see,

For if it is so large and grand,

'Twill be obvious to me."

So he just ridiculed the thought,

That an Elephant could be.

The poem is about communication and how we all perceive things differently. Not about whether or not a god exists.

[bluethread]

The poem is about communication and how we all perceive things differently. Not about whether or not a god exists.

Yes, I was not opposing Mr. Saxe, but was speaking of how some do choose to communicate. By the way, why didn't you say it had nothing to do with whether a god existed or not when McColloch surmised that he was ignostic, but agreed instead? Also, sorry that I posted before I though to complete the parody. I'm done now.

[wiploc]

We read this poem in grade school, but they didn't include the final verse.

[Nickman]

The poem is about communication and how we all perceive things differently. Not about whether or not a god exists.

Yes, I was not opposing Mr. Saxe, but was speaking of how some do choose to communicate. By the way, why didn't you say it had nothing to do with whether a god existed or not when McColloch surmised that he was ignostic, but agreed instead? Also, sorry that I posted before I though to complete the parody. I'm done now.

I actually enjoyed your parody. It is pretty good. I think that the poem by Saxe can be implied on many different subjects even the theological. That is why I agree with McCulloch about its ignostic overtones. But not that it is meant to diminish any deity. My main point is that we all come here to debate just as the blind men and each of us make our claims.

[bluethread]

In my experience it has more often been used as a lesson in prospective than communication. We all have our own vantage point on things and tend to see things from our own vantage point. That is not a bad thing. However, when we insist that any one prospective explains everything, we are in error.