In Ancient Indian philosophical treatises, one of the
favorite mind games to play with someone is the question of whether it is a
Snake or a Stick. Nagarjuna, sometimes called the Indian Socrates, was famous
for this conundrum.
Essentially, the question is posed, if the mind thinks a
stick is a snake, is it then really a snake, or is it a stick? In other words,
what is more important, the perception of reality, or the reality itself?
That seems like a rhetorical question on the surface, but
not quite. If one were to see a stick, and thought it was a snake, and turned
and fled in fear and ran to the neighbors to tell them there is a snake in the
road, and they then decided to go and investigate after calming the ophidiophobe down and assuring him that
it was probably just a stick. However, in the meantime, an actual King Cobra
has decided to mosey on down the lane, just about the same spot that the branch
had been, that had been mistaken for a snake, and then lo and behold, there is
a snake.
So, the “Truth” that will then be recorded from that day on
is that it was indeed a snake and not a stick. It would have to take an
eyewitness observer to have seen the whole incident to ever prove this “Truth”
to be a fallacy, but if there were no perfect eidetic eyewitness to be found,
this fallacy would forever be considered a truth.
For me, the take-home message is that we should be wary of
what we are too quick to call THE Truth, and moreover, just because many people
engage in that fallacy, does not make it any more truer than before. Not that
we should doubt everything we see, but sometimes, things might need a closer
look before we create the dogma that surrounds it. And, as my illustration
suggestions, numbers do not necessarily make it any better.
So, next time I see a stick and perhaps think it is a snake,
or vice versa, I might need to pause a bit longer, though we always run the
risk of being bitten if the Truth is a snake and not a stick, so we take our
chances in life.
