The Organ Of Sight

The following sample essay on The Organ Of Sight. “Knowledge is a true organ of sight, not the eyes” is a quite interesting quote by Panchatantra. To answer this question it would be easiest that one would first translate it into an easy understandable sentence with a clear message, since this quote can have multiple meanings. The way I found this quote to make the most sense is when I translated it into the following sentence; Knowledge is a real consultable source of seeing, not the eyes.

I find this the best translation to understand this quote, since it is very clear and straightforward. The next questions one could ask him/herself is: Is the quote true, and till what extent is this quote true. Is the quote “Knowledge is a true organ of sight, not the eyes” true or not? To say if the quote is true or not is a big statement to make right away, therefore I found It easiest to look at an example which could help to understand this quote better.

A good example to start off with is this: When one is watching television and one sees something on the news about an arrested murderer and one sees his face one might think, he looks like such a nice guy, but one knows that he did commit murder and therefore is probably not such a nice guy as one thought initially. What you know to be true and what might seem true to the eyes is not always the same, this does not mean that it is never true but the eye can be misleading.

Get quality help now

RhizMan

Verified

Proficient in: Communication

4.9 (247)

“ Rhizman is absolutely amazing at what he does . I highly recommend him if you need an assignment done ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

In this case the eyes failed to lead you to the truth, but because you linked your knowledge to what you saw a correct image got created, therefore we can say that cooperation between both sources “organs of sight” created a correct image, had one organ failed than we could say that a faulty image would be there. An obvious question one could ask himself/herself states: What about a blind man? This is a quite difficult question to answer, to answer it we will have to ask ourselves: what do we actually mean by “sight”.

If we interpret it the scientific way we can say that the blind man has no sight, since no light which is entering the eyes is being interpret correctly. If we look at it in an different way by interpreting “sight” to be analyzing what is around us, the blind man will have sight, since he can analyze specific objects, however he will need different sources “organs” to do so, for instance his hands. We know blue is blue, since we were told when we where little that the color we see is blue. Our sight was matched with what we know to be blue.

Our knowledge is being matched with our sight, so that we know what something is. If one of these organs also known as “sources” does not work, or doesn’t work properly a faulty image can be created. To prevent a faulty image to be created it is good to depend on both sources instead of only calling knowledge a true organ of sight. When taking this in account it can be said that the quote by Panchatantra “Knowledge is a true organ of sight, not the eyes” might not be fully correct, since the human depends on both the sources, knowledge and sight. It therefore only applies till a certain extent.

When we relate this quote to science a whole new view gets created, when we look at biology we can see that observation by eye sight is needed to gain knowledge most of the time. Eye sight is initially needed for the first researchers to have gained this information. How would we have had all this knowledge if we did not find it out initially, it was initially found out by observing by eye, and therefore the eyes can also be seen as a true organ of sight. If eye sight was not available human beings would not have gained a lot of knowledge, and therefore human beings have to rely on both sources of sight and not just one.