btw, this isn't my thread-i orrowed it off another message board...
Two men, both seriously ill, occupied the same
hospital room. One man was allowed to sit up in his
bed for an hour each afternoon to help drain the
fluid from his lungs. His bed was next to the room's
only window. The other man had to spend all his time
flat on his back.
The men talked for hours on end. They spoke of
their wives and families, their homes, their jobs, their
involvement in the military service, where they had
been on vacation.
Every afternoon when the man in the bed by the window
could sit up, he would pass the time by describing
to his roommate all the things he could see outside
the window.
The man in the other bed began to live for those
one-hour periods where his world would be broadened
and enlivened by all the activity and color of the
world outside.
The window overlooked a park with a lovely lake.
Ducks and swans played on the water while children
sailed their model boats. Young lovers walked arm in arm
amidst flowers of every color and a fine view of
the city skyline could be seen in the distance.
As the man by the window described all this in
exquisite detail, the man on the other side of the
room would close his eyes and imagine the
picturesque scene.
One warm afternoon the man by the window described
a parade passing by. Although the other man couldn't
hear the band - he could see it. In his mind's eye
as the gentleman by the window portrayed it with
descriptive words.
Days and weeks passed. One morning, the day nurse
arrived to bring water for their baths only to find
the lifeless body of the man by the window, who had
died peacefully in his sleep. She was saddened and
called the hospital attendants to take the body away.
As soon as it seemed appropriate, the other man
asked if he could be moved next to the window. The nurse was happy to make the switch, and after making sure he was comfortable, she left him alone.
Slowly, painfully, he propped himself up on one
elbow to take his first look at the real world outside.
He strained to slowly turn to look out the window
beside the bed. It faced a blank wall.
The man asked the nurse what could have compelled
his deceased roommate who had described such wonderful
things outside this window. The nurse responded
that the man was blind and could not even see the wall.
She said, Perhaps he just wanted to encourage you.
Epilogue: There is tremendous happiness in making
others happy, despite our own situations.
Shared grief is half the sorrow, but happiness
when shared, is doubled.
People will forget what you said...
People will forget what you did...
But people will never forget how you made them feel...
G
Your story makes clear that the surviving patient was made happy temporarily by the blind man. But what it does not really examine is what his feelings were when he found out that he had been lied to all that time. Would he have been crestfallen to learn that none of those stories he had cherished were true? The blind man's motives are only speculated upon. Perhaps he was sincere in his efforts to ease the suffering of the other patient. But perhaps he was really of the vindictive sort, who merely played an elaborate joke on the other patient by building up his expectations of the scene outside, knowing that eventually he would he would look for himself and be shocked to see that it was only a brick wall. I think he might have been better off in being told the truth from the start, rather than being told some comforting stories that turned out to be false. Indeed, I think mankind as a whole would be better served by a few harsh truths than with a host of comforting, but self deluding lies.
Originally posted by rwingettWhat if the man not next to the window had died first? Since neither of them was likely to leave the hospital, they could both initially have been pretty unhappy, but the conversations kept them going, outside the window simply being the old man's favourite topic of conversation. You could argue they served no further use to society and should have died more quickly, but then you have to start wondering about the point of life in the first place.
Your story makes clear that the surviving patient was made happy temporarily by the blind man. But what it does not really examine is what his feelings were when he found out that he had been lied to all that time. Would he have been crestfallen to learn that none of those stories he had cherished were true? The blind man's motives are only speculated upon ...[text shortened]... d be better served by a few harsh truths than with a host of comforting, but self deluding lies.
I've even heard a version of this story where the moral is the surviving patient shouldn't have looked out the window! You should always have something to look forward to, or something like that.
The trouble with saying 'just tell the truth' is the sheer size and complexity of our self-delusion - for example, optical illusions are ample demonstration that our brain 'cuts corners' when it comes to vision (to a quite shocking extent, it turns out, eg we only really have colour vision over a 10° arc!), and yet 'seeing something with one's own eyes' is seen as the most reliable form of experience! It takes real effort to try to work out what's really going on, and most of us, most of the time, find it too much effort. What is unfortunate is when people don't make the effort on things they might feel are important, like politics or religion.
Originally posted by rwingettfunny, it must be a trait among of chess players to try analyzing the impact & motive of the blind man's "move." i won't speculate on motive, but will assume that the blind man was not a chess player, lived moment to moment, did not reflect on future consequences, and created moments of happiness for two lonely people.
Your story makes clear that the surviving patient was made happy temporarily by the blind man. But what it does not really examine is what his feelings were when he found out that he had been lied to all that time. Would he have been crest ...[text shortened]... rsh truths than with a host of comforting, but self deluding lies.
😲 SNL
Originally posted by AcolyteAccording to this interpretation, the surviving patient should have accepted the blind man's story as an article of faith. He should not have attempted to verify its truthfulness by examing the evidence for himself. If he had just accepted the version of things as they were told to him, he would have remained happy, even though his whole belief system was based around a falsehood.
...I've even heard a version of this story where the moral is the surviving patient shouldn't have looked out the window! You should always have something to look forward to, or something like that...
I disagree with that interpretaion. Despite the patients feeling on the matter, he does not need the blind man's false tales of the paradise that awaits him outside the window to be happy. There is no reason that he cannot experience happiness in his present condition with the full knowledge that there is only a brick wall outside his window. In fact, there will NEVER be anything but a brick wall outside that window. Any true measure of happiness that the patient will be able to find must be found within the confines of his room.
Originally posted by geniusGood point, but I wasn't saying it couldn't be fooled. I just meant that if we see something out of the corner of our eye but then can't see it when we look around we assume that we didn't see it. If we hear a faint noise but can't locate where it came from we assume we imagined it. But if we feel something touch us, no matter how faint, we are SURE something touched us even if we can't identify what it was. I just wondered why..
put your hand in v.hot water. then in v.cold water. then in v.hot water. then in normal water. and touch can't be fooled! phfft!!!
Originally posted by rwingettMaby the blind man wasnt telling a *lie* maby he was telling the other patient what he *saw* in the world not by site with eyes but how he picitered it
Your story makes clear that the surviving patient was made happy temporarily by the blind man. But what it does not really examine is what his feelings were when he found out that he had been lied to all that time.
Originally posted by UncleAdamPerhaps the blind man was right, maybe the things he described were actually true. But there was no evidence to indicate that it was so. Neither of them could know for certain what lay beyond the brick wall. Wanting an idyllic scene with a parade to exist does not make it so. The blind man deliberately fostered a belief in the other patient that lacked any credibility. The patient should have demanded more rigorous proof, rather than accepting the blind man's tales as an article of faith.
Maby the blind man wasnt telling a *lie* maby he was telling the other patient what he *saw* in the world not by site with eyes but how he picitered it
Has anyone heard of the word "FAITH" ? It is not wrong to have a belief system in which to can not prove or disprove its reality.
The blind man was simply trying, rightly, to make his fellow human more comfortable in an time of need.
If I was told those stories I truely would be thankful for the comfort they gave me
mike
😀 🙂 😀
Originally posted by rwingettso basically, what your saying is that we shouldn't belevive anything anyone tells us without proof? in maths were doing calculas, and most of our year wouldn't understand the proofs of intergration and differentiation-so they have to trust their maths teachers. trust is a good thing-why do you not like it???
The patient should have demanded more rigorous proof, rather than accepting the blind man's tales as an article of faith.
G
Originally posted by geniusThe difference is that your calculus equations can be demonstrated to be true. It would be a simple matter for your instructor to verifiably prove that they were in fact true. The results could also be validated by a variety of independant sources. That would be a reasonable appeal to authority on your part.
so basically, what your saying is that we shouldn't belevive anything anyone tells us without proof? in maths were doing calculas, and most of our year wouldn't understand the proofs of intergration and differentiation-so they have to trust their maths teachers. trust is a good thing-why do you not like it???
G
What flies in the face of reason, and enters into the nebulous realm of "faith" is accepting claims on face value from sources who are unable to provide any proof, or evidence, to bolster their questionable position. That would be an unreasonable appeal to authority.