The Elephant in the Dark: Does Everyone Have Their Own Truth?

Bölüm metni

They put an elephant in a dark room, and everyone who walks in reaches out a hand. One touches the trunk and says "this is a waterspout," another touches the ear and says "no, it's a fan" — and not one of them is lying. So does this story say "everyone is right in their own truth," or exactly the opposite?

They had brought an elephant from India. Nobody in the town knew what an elephant was; not one person had even seen a picture of one. They put the animal in a dark house and let the curious crowd in, one at a time. Inside, the eye is useless. You have a hand, you have a palm, and in front of you there is an enormous something, breathing.

The first man goes in, stretches out his hand, touches the trunk. He comes back out and reports: this animal is like a roof gutter. Long, thick, it curls, and it blows air from its tip. The second goes in, and his hand meets the ear. He comes out and reports as well: no, it is nothing like a gutter, this is a fan. Broad, thin, it sways. The third finds the leg: what are you all talking about, this is a straight upright post, like a marble column. The fourth lays his hand against the back: a flat surface like a throne, wide and firm.

Not one of the four is lying. All four describe accurately what they touched. And all four are at each other's throats.

The man who wrote the story in this form was Mevlânâ Celâleddîn-i Rûmî, in the thirteenth century. He tells it in the third volume of the Masnavi. But the story is older than he is. A century earlier, Sanai stages the same scene in his work The Walled Garden of Truth, and there the townspeople are blind; no one has seen the elephant, because no one has eyes. Let us go back further still: in a narrative found in the Buddhist Udana, the Collection of Inspired Utterances, the king of Savatthi gathers together people blind from birth, has an elephant brought before them, lets each of them touch a different part, and then asks: what is an elephant? The one holding the head says "it is a pot," the one holding the tail says "it is a broom," the one holding the ear says "it is a winnowing basket." Then they turn on one another; the account says the men came to blows. The same elephant wanders through Indian thought as well, especially in the Jain doctrine of many-sidedness, where the lesson is that no single account can encompass the whole of reality. In the nineteenth century, through John Godfrey Saxe's poem, The Blind Men and the Elephant, the story crosses over to the West, and today it has become a parable that everyone in the English-speaking world knows.

Now notice the small but shattering change Rumi makes. In Sanai, the people are blind. Rumi erases the blindness and puts darkness in its place. The eyes are intact. The flaw is not in us, it is in the room. And this is not a detail; it is a move that changes the entire meaning of the story. Because blindness is a fate, whereas darkness is a condition. For a blind man there is nothing to be done; for a man in the dark, there is something to be done. We will come to what that difference is.

But first, let us see this: we walk into that room ourselves, every day. Think of a traffic accident. Four witnesses, four statements. One says "the car was going very fast," because he heard the sound and when he turned to look, the damage was severe. Another says "it was slow, but it braked suddenly," because she was standing right beside it. One swears the light was red, another that it was amber. These people are not counted as liars in court. Each of them has taken hold of some part of the elephant.

Or take a closer example: family. Two siblings who grew up in the same house describe their childhood thirty years later. One remembers the father as harsh and distant, the other as self-sacrificing and quiet. Both are honest. Both have touched a different part of the same man; one was the first child and came along during the father's exhausted years, the other was the last child and grew up with a man who had softened. What happens when these two memories collide at the dinner table? Nobody says "we are both right" and feels relieved. Each of them feels the other has stolen their past.

And this is exactly where the story leaves us. What we touched is real. What we reported is honest. But the descriptions do not match. And at this point a very tempting sentence comes to mind, a sentence that looks like a rescue: "Everyone has their own truth." That sentence appears to end the quarrel. It calls no one a liar, it belittles no one, it brings peace to the table.

Now we are going to test how well that sentence holds up. Because the first time it was uttered, roughly twenty-five hundred years ago, by a thinker on the Aegean coast, people noticed that there was a trap underneath it.

The man was Protagoras of Abdera. He lived in the fifth century before Christ, and he was among the most expensive and most sought-after teachers in Athens. The sentence that has come down to us from him is this: man is the measure of all things; of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not.

That sentence sounds modest, but it is not. What Protagoras is saying is this: there is no independent bench that decides how a thing is. The measure is the one who measures. Plato, while discussing this view in the dialogue Theaetetus, gives a very everyday example: the wind is blowing. We are both standing in the same wind. I feel cold, you do not. Now tell me: is the wind cold? Protagoras's answer is clear. The wind is cold for me, and not cold for you. And beyond that, there is no referee we can turn to and ask "how many degrees is it, really"; or if there is one, we can reach it only through someone's senses, someone's measuring instrument, someone's way of looking.

Let us concede this much: it is not a foolish view. On the contrary, it sounds like the most honest summary of what those four men in the dark room actually experienced. Everyone speaks by the measure of their own palm.

But Plato puts one question to that sentence, and one of the most elegant moves in the history of philosophy comes into view. The objection that appears in the dialogue is known as the turning of the tables. It works like this: Protagoras says that whatever seems true to a person is true for that person. Well then, what does the great majority of people in the world think? They think Protagoras is wrong. As they see it, truth does not change from person to person. Now Protagoras is obliged to apply his own rule: if whatever seems so to a person is true for that person, then their seeing that "Protagoras is wrong" is also true for them. Which means his doctrine, by the terms of its own rule, is forced to concede its own falsehood.

This is no pious play on words. It is something we live through at the kitchen table. Someone, at the moment the argument heats up, says "everyone has their own truth," and lays it on the table like a peace offering. But notice what they are doing as they say it: they are declaring a rule that holds for everyone at that table, a rule that does not vary from person to person. They are doing precisely the thing they have just forbidden. And when the person across from them says "no, some things really are the case," they are forced to reply "you are wrong," even though by their own rule no one can be wrong.

The second trouble with that sentence cuts deeper still. If everyone has a separate truth, then no argument means anything. And not only argument: apologizing becomes meaningless, because there is no longer any such fact as "I hurt you"; there is only your feeling that I did and my not feeling it, and the two carry equal weight. The courtroom becomes meaningless, because witnesses contradicting one another ceases to be a problem. Going to the doctor becomes meaningless, because there is no referee standing between the patient's opinion of themselves and the result of the test.

And now go back to the story of the elephant, because there is something in it we tend to miss. The story gives us four different descriptions and says, look, no one knows the whole. But who is saying that? The person telling the story. That person knows there is an elephant in the room. They know the trunk is a trunk and the ear is an ear. Which means the story itself only makes sense if somewhere there really is an elephant and someone can see it whole. If there is no elephant, the four men cannot be mistaken. To be mistaken, there has to be something to be mistaken about.

And this undercuts the very lesson people popularly draw from the tale. The fable of the elephant is not saying that there is no truth. It says the opposite: there is a truth, and our grasp of it is partial. These are not the same sentence. The first comforts us. The second gives us work to do.

So what happens if we lose that distinction? Let us look at the moments when two great thinkers, seven hundred years and thousands of kilometers apart, felt the ground pulled out from under their feet.

At the end of the nineteenth century, Friedrich Nietzsche jots a short note into his notebook. Objecting to positivism, he writes: they say "there are only facts"; no, facts are precisely what there is not, there are only interpretations.

That line circulates today like graffiti on a wall, and in almost every argument it sits in someone's hand as a weapon. Two things are worth remembering. First, the line appears not in a book Nietzsche published but in notebook entries compiled after his death; the compilation known as The Will to Power is not a work he assembled himself, but a selection arranged by his sister and by editors. Second, and more importantly, Nietzsche does not leave the sentence sitting there and walk away. Immediately afterward, as though he knows exactly what his reader is about to say, he adds: and what if this too is an interpretation? You will be impatient to say so, will you not? Well then, so much the better.

So the trap that was laid beneath Protagoras, Nietzsche lays with his own hand beneath his own sentence, and walks on smiling. It can look like an evasion. But in the book On the Genealogy of Morality he says what he means far more plainly. There he writes that seeing is only ever seeing from a perspective, and knowing only ever knowing from a perspective. And the sentence that follows is the whole point of this chapter: the more eyes, the more different eyes we can bring to bear on a thing, the more complete our concept of that thing will be.

This is not "everyone has their own truth, let us drop the subject." It is the exact opposite. Nietzsche is saying that a single palm is not enough, and his solution is more hands, more contact, more looking. The limit of perspective is not an excuse for laziness; it is the reason to get to work.

Now let us go back seven hundred years, to eleventh-century Khorasan. Abu Hamid al-Ghazali stands at the head of the Nizamiyya Madrasa in Baghdad; he teaches from the most prestigious chair in the Islamic world, his students number in the hundreds, his word carries weight. And in ten ninety-five, he falls apart. By his own account he loses the power of speech, becomes unable to lecture, his throat seizes up, he cannot eat. After a while he leaves Baghdad, gives away his wealth, and sets out on a withdrawal from the world that will last for years.

He tells the story of this collapse himself, in the account of his life called al-Munqidh min al-Dalal, Deliverance from Error. And the path he takes as he describes what happened to him is exactly our dark room. First he doubts his senses. My eye shows me a star the size of a coin, he says; yet the calculations tell us it is larger than the earth. I look at a shadow and think it is standing still; I come back an hour later and it has moved. So the senses make me grasp one part of the elephant and say, this is all there is.

But al-Ghazali does not stop there, and he opens the real abyss. He says: it was reason that showed me my senses had erred. But what if there is a judge above reason as well? Just as, when I am asleep, I take my dream to be entirely real and only understand my error upon waking, perhaps this waking state is itself a kind of sleep, and the true awakening comes after it. In that case, the things I now call self-evident may be things I will laugh at once I wake.

This thought puts him, by his own account, into a state lasting roughly two months in which he could trust nothing at all. Note this well: it is not a thesis advanced in a student debate; it is a crisis that destroys the man's life, his work, and his health.

And what did al-Ghazali draw from that crisis? He did not say, so everyone has their own truth. He did the exact opposite. He named the thing he was looking for: yaqin, certainty, a knowledge in which the thing known is laid open in a way that leaves no room for doubt. And he set the standard for it harshly: even if someone came and turned a stone into gold before my eyes, I should not fall into doubt about what I know. And when he regained that trust, he says he did not win it through a proof; in his own telling, through a light that God cast into his heart.

Now set these two men side by side. Both lost their footing. Both saw that every gaze is a gaze from somewhere. But neither of them stayed sitting in that room. One said, more eyes; the other said, a deeper certainty. Both of them moved. Perhaps that is the moral of the story: noticing the darkness is not an arrival, it is a reason to set out.

The trouble is that today there is a brand-new device that hands us this darkness, and that device does not want us to go outside at all.

In Rumi's room, everyone was touching the same elephant. In today's room, we cannot even say that much.

Think of the phone in your hand. Two friends sit side by side, open the same app, search the same word. What appears on their screens is not the same. The first person to state this claim with real clarity was Eli Pariser; in his book The Filter Bubble, published in twenty eleven, he described how search engines and social networks no longer show everyone the same page. In his well-known example, two acquaintances searched the name of the same country: one screen filled with street protests and political news, the other with holiday and travel suggestions. Nobody had lied. The system had simply given each of them more of whatever they had clicked on in the past.

Let us take the picture The Filter Bubble describes one step further. In the dark room there were four men, and at the very least they could hear each other shouting. They could quarrel. Today each of us is in a room of our own, and the walls of that room are built out of our own past choices. What is more, that room is not dark; it is brilliantly lit. Inside, everything looks perfectly clear. Hundreds of confirmations arrive every day telling us that the piece in our hand is not a trunk but the whole elephant: likes, applause, comments saying the same thing, videos confirming the same thing. This is a worse condition than holding one part of the elephant. Because there is no friction left to show you that the piece in your hand is a piece.

Here we have to be honest: researchers also say that this bubble is not as sealed as it is thought to be. Most people do still encounter content that runs against their own views. But what do they do when they encounter it? Usually they see it not as a description worth understanding, but as proof of the other side's bad faith. So the real problem may not lie in access to information, but in the reaction to the touch. Think of two people watching an election night in two different houses, or two generations in a family group chat telling the story of the same event in completely different ways. What the other person is saying is heard. It is simply not listened to.

And this makes visible the real work the story leaves us. After listing the four men's descriptions, Rumi does not end the story by saying, this is the truth, and everyone has their own. His ending is this: if each of them had held a candle in his palm, this divergence in their words would have disappeared.

The whole matter is in that single sentence. Rumi had turned blindness into darkness, remember, because darkness has a remedy. The candle does not change the fate of the gaze, but it changes the room. And the question of who is to light the candle is the one real responsibility this story hands down to us.

So what is that candle? It is easy to say what it is not: nobody has a candle called "the full view" in their pocket. Nobody stands outside the room and sees the elephant whole. But the antidote to darkness does not have to be the sun. One candle is enough. And in this story, the candle is most often someone else's palm.

When you ask "which years did you get?" instead of contradicting the father your sibling remembers, a candle is lit. When the testimonies of accident witnesses conflict, and instead of declaring one of them a liar you ask who was standing where, a candle is lit. When you wonder what kind of life stands behind that sentence on your screen, the one that makes your blood boil, a candle is lit. None of this shows you the elephant whole. It merely brightens the room a little, and shows you what it is you are actually holding.

And let us keep this possibility honestly on the table too: when the candle is lit, seeing that what we hold is not an elephant but only an ear wounds our pride. Perhaps this is the saddest part of the story. We choose to remain in the dark, because in the dark everyone is right. In the light, somebody has to correct their description, and that somebody might be us.

In the very first pages of the Masnavi, while describing the sound of the reed flute, Rumi says something like this: everyone became my friend according to their own assumptions, but no one went searching for the secrets within me. The story of the elephant is really the long version of that. We come to know the person before us, the event, the country, the book, by the measure of our own palm, and we give that measure the name truth.

But the elephant is there. In the middle of the room, breathing. If everyone's truth were separate, there would be no point in correcting one another, in wondering, in asking, or even in arguing. The fact that we argue at all shows that deep down we all know there is an elephant. The quarrel is a sign of hope. As long as, in the middle of the quarrel, it occurs to someone to light the candle.

Nöron Philosophy'de bugünkü bölümün sonuna geldik. Yeni bir hikâyede yeniden buluşmak üzere.