Knowledge vs Ignorance

[rousseau]

I hear this dichotomy thrown around quite a bit, with the common adage being 'ignorance is bliss'. I guess you get where I'm going with this: many people believe that an increase in wisdom doesn't necessarily mean an increase in happiness or contentment. However, I think that adage is bullshit for a couple of reasons.

1) Having more wisdom than less means that you're good at more things. Basically you're living life on super-power mode.

2) Anxiety isn't exclusive to smart people. Very unintelligent people also experience anxiety, just often for more superficial reasons, and often times those same people don't know how to think themselves out of it.

3) You actually understand your environment to a large degree, which, let's face it, is far more interesting and better than not understanding it.

4) There is a tight coupling between lack of wisdom and a fear of death. The ignorant man spends his life wondering what's going to happen next, worrying if he's going to get into heaven, the wise person realizes that this is it, they make sure they enjoy their lives, and when it's time to go.. they just go without regret.

 

[Bronzeage]

Are the words wisdom and knowledge interchangeable in a sentence?

The total quote is, "If ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." This is not a declaration there is some advantage to ignorance.

 

[Unbeatable]

Insufficient self-knowledge and/or psychological knowledge in general(ETA: in addition, apparently, to insufficient knowledge of the quote's source) is to blame for the popularity of the adage. Knowledge makes reality predictable, explainable, and therefore amenable to intentional manipulation. Feelings are an aspect of reality. Insufficient knowledge of how to intentionally manipulate one's own feelings puts them at the mercy of random factors and people who know how to manipulate the feelings of others. That makes it look like the way to avoid feeling bad is to avoid the thing that "makes" you feel bad, when the possibility they don't sufficiently understand is breaking the causal chain between the thing and the feeling.

 

[Underseer]

If you're smarter, you are more likely to question whomever is in power, which will almost certainly lead to unhappy things.

Dumb people are easier to manipulate, thus more obedient, thus less likely to run afoul of whomever is in charge of your society. It is no coincidence that a political control mechanism like Christianity openly claims stupidity/ignorance is a virtue.

 

[fast]

I think the saying may have more to do with the idea that being oblivious is blissful because there's no burden of worriation.

Not every instance of ignorance lacks trepidation.

Imagine Gomer Pyle traversing a mine field with a map thinking he's on a treasure hunt. He's clueless of the dangers and so doesn't shoulder the anxiety one more knowledgable of the situation would.

 

[surreptitious57]

All knowledge must as far as possible be treated with complete neutrality
And so facts should not be regarded as either convenient or inconvenient
but simply as data points. If something is true then it should be accepted
and regardless of any consequences and likewise if something is false too

 

[Underseer]

"Worriation"?

Fast, you need to be teased for that one.

 

[fast]

"Worriation"?

Fast, you need to be teased for that one.

The stupid Ipad gave me the red line thingy, and I tried (I really did), but I couldn't go look it up because the last few times (yes, I'm learning), I lost everything I typed switching between tabs.

 

[ryan]

I hear this dichotomy thrown around quite a bit, with the common adage being 'ignorance is bliss'. I guess you get where I'm going with this: many people believe that an increase in wisdom doesn't necessarily mean an increase in happiness or contentment. However, I think that adage is bullshit for a couple of reasons.

1) Having more wisdom than less means that you're good at more things. Basically you're living life on super-power mode.

2) Anxiety isn't exclusive to smart people. Very unintelligent people also experience anxiety, just often for more superficial reasons, and often times those same people don't know how to think themselves out of it.

3) You actually understand your environment to a large degree, which, let's face it, is far more interesting and better than not understanding it.

4) There is a tight coupling between lack of wisdom and a fear of death. The ignorant man spends his life wondering what's going to happen next, worrying if he's going to get into heaven, the wise person realizes that this is it, they make sure they enjoy their lives, and when it's time to go.. they just go without regret.

We have periods of satisfaction when we achieve what we set out to accomplish. If it's knowledge, then find knowledge. If it's a million dollars, then make a million dollars.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I hear this dichotomy thrown around quite a bit, with the common adage being 'ignorance is bliss'. I guess you get where I'm going with this: many people believe that an increase in wisdom doesn't necessarily mean an increase in happiness or contentment. However, I think that adage is bullshit for a couple of reasons.

1) Having more wisdom than less means that you're good at more things. Basically you're living life on super-power mode.

2) Anxiety isn't exclusive to smart people. Very unintelligent people also experience anxiety, just often for more superficial reasons, and often times those same people don't know how to think themselves out of it.

3) You actually understand your environment to a large degree, which, let's face it, is far more interesting and better than not understanding it.

4) There is a tight coupling between lack of wisdom and a fear of death. The ignorant man spends his life wondering what's going to happen next, worrying if he's going to get into heaven, the wise person realizes that this is it, they make sure they enjoy their lives, and when it's time to go.. they just go without regret.

I don't know which one to choose between the two options you give. Both are acceptable to me since I would be maintaining an acceptable life.

I'm learning things all the time but it's not because of some clever calculation on my part. I learn what I like learning.

On many occasions, I also learned that what I had previously learned was simply wrong.

Overall, my knowledge seems to increase as I got older and some of it helped me have a better quality of life. Yet, mostly, better quality of life came through a large amount of good luck, while many previous miseries just came from bad luck. I also improved my quality of life merely by being more suspicious of what I thought I knew rather than what I actually knew, if anything, and even more by being suspicious of other people claiming to know.

I also remember being indeed somewhat blissfuly ignorant despite the difficulties of life when I was younger. I had way more positive assumptions about people then. Unfortunately, I came to realise very gradually how fucked up many people really are. My personal life is much better now but I do miss this part of the equation and I won't ever get it back, not unless I loose my marbles. And other people of course do matter. If they were any better, the world would immediately improve as a direct result but I could also be more knowledgeable while having a more positive view of them. There's of course nothing I can do short of meddling with the DNA of the species and I don't have that kind of knowledge.
EB

 

[PyramidHead]

I hear this dichotomy thrown around quite a bit, with the common adage being 'ignorance is bliss'. I guess you get where I'm going with this: many people believe that an increase in wisdom doesn't necessarily mean an increase in happiness or contentment. However, I think that adage is bullshit for a couple of reasons.

1) Having more wisdom than less means that you're good at more things. Basically you're living life on super-power mode.

2) Anxiety isn't exclusive to smart people. Very unintelligent people also experience anxiety, just often for more superficial reasons, and often times those same people don't know how to think themselves out of it.

3) You actually understand your environment to a large degree, which, let's face it, is far more interesting and better than not understanding it.

4) There is a tight coupling between lack of wisdom and a fear of death. The ignorant man spends his life wondering what's going to happen next, worrying if he's going to get into heaven, the wise person realizes that this is it, they make sure they enjoy their lives, and when it's time to go.. they just go without regret.

As a species, we are encumbered with self-knowledge. Even the ignorant have far too much of it to avoid anxiety.

 

[rousseau]

I hear this dichotomy thrown around quite a bit, with the common adage being 'ignorance is bliss'. I guess you get where I'm going with this: many people believe that an increase in wisdom doesn't necessarily mean an increase in happiness or contentment. However, I think that adage is bullshit for a couple of reasons.

1) Having more wisdom than less means that you're good at more things. Basically you're living life on super-power mode.

2) Anxiety isn't exclusive to smart people. Very unintelligent people also experience anxiety, just often for more superficial reasons, and often times those same people don't know how to think themselves out of it.

3) You actually understand your environment to a large degree, which, let's face it, is far more interesting and better than not understanding it.

4) There is a tight coupling between lack of wisdom and a fear of death. The ignorant man spends his life wondering what's going to happen next, worrying if he's going to get into heaven, the wise person realizes that this is it, they make sure they enjoy their lives, and when it's time to go.. they just go without regret.

As a species, we are encumbered with self-knowledge. Even the ignorant have far too much of it to avoid anxiety.

I don't know if I believe that self knowledge is related to anxiety. I'd rather expect that anxiety is a primitive mechanism which keeps us solving problems so we don't die.

Even animals have anxiety. Think of cats that have been abused and spend their lives slinking around, avoiding people. They're living in fear just as much as many people do.

ETA: Although, there is likely a relationship between brain-power, and how intense anxiety can be felt. For instance, it'd be hard to say if a mouse is conscious of it's anxiety

 

[PyramidHead]

As a species, we are encumbered with self-knowledge. Even the ignorant have far too much of it to avoid anxiety.

I don't know if I believe that self knowledge is related to anxiety. I'd rather expect that anxiety is a primitive mechanism which keeps us solving problems so we don't die.

Even animals have anxiety. Think of cats that have been abused and spend their lives slinking around, avoiding people. They're living in fear just as much as many people do.

ETA: Although, there is likely a relationship between brain-power, and how intense anxiety can be felt. For instance, it'd be hard to say if a mouse is conscious of it's anxiety

That's it, I think. The most intense and miserable anxiety (and suffering in general) is reserved for beings capable of self-reflection.

 

[fromderinside]

If you're smarter, you are more likely to question whomever is in power, which will almost certainly lead to unhappy things.

Dumb people are easier to manipulate, thus more obedient, thus less likely to run afoul of whomever is in charge of your society. It is no coincidence that a political control mechanism like Christianity openly claims stupidity/ignorance is a virtue.

Smirk. Any suckers?

After review. Nope.

 

[rousseau]

I don't know if I believe that self knowledge is related to anxiety. I'd rather expect that anxiety is a primitive mechanism which keeps us solving problems so we don't die.

Even animals have anxiety. Think of cats that have been abused and spend their lives slinking around, avoiding people. They're living in fear just as much as many people do.

ETA: Although, there is likely a relationship between brain-power, and how intense anxiety can be felt. For instance, it'd be hard to say if a mouse is conscious of it's anxiety

That's it, I think. The most intense and miserable anxiety (and suffering in general) is reserved for beings capable of self-reflection.

True, although the opposite is also true. As people, we're able to experience immense and rich pleasure in a variety of ways.

 

[Bronzeage]

If you're smarter, you are more likely to question whomever is in power, which will almost certainly lead to unhappy things.

Dumb people are easier to manipulate, thus more obedient, thus less likely to run afoul of whomever is in charge of your society. It is no coincidence that a political control mechanism like Christianity openly claims stupidity/ignorance is a virtue.

In any situation, there are limited smart options. Most of the time we are fortunate to have a single good option. This limits a smart person's choices. It's often very easy to predict a smart person's behavior, which is more useful than manipulating their behavior.

Dumb people have unlimited options and are much harder to predict, no matter how smart you are.

In any case, declaring people dumb because they don't agree with oneself is seldom a smart choice.

 

[PyramidHead]

That's it, I think. The most intense and miserable anxiety (and suffering in general) is reserved for beings capable of self-reflection.

True, although the opposite is also true. As people, we're able to experience immense and rich pleasure in a variety of ways.

Maybe. But I think the misery our intellect has burdened us with is worse than the pleasures are good. To illustrate my point, the question I pose is this: if you were given the opportunity to experience 12 hours of the richest pleasure imaginable followed by 12 hours of the most horrible pain imaginable--where pleasure and pain can be substituted with happiness and sadness if you like--would you take it? Assume there are no lasting effects like injuries or emotional trauma, just the two sensations. I certainly wouldn't do it, and nobody I have asked disagrees with me, even if the order is switched. Yet, if our ability to appreciate the joys of life were equivalent to our ability to suffer its hardships, there would be no reason not to take the opportunity. After 24 hours, you would be right back where you started. But if you're like me, those 12 hours of the worst possible agony aren't cancelled out by the same amount and intensity of perfect bliss. I would even refuse the offer if there were only 1 hour of the bad stuff. This doesn't definitively prove anything, but it suggests our brains have evolved to avoid pain more than they have evolved to seek pleasure. This manifests itself as a visceral anxiety that seems to serve no purpose, often persisting long after the real or imagined danger has come and gone. The most wonderful pleasures, on the other hand, are usually fleeting and easier to spoil.

 

[rousseau]

True, although the opposite is also true. As people, we're able to experience immense and rich pleasure in a variety of ways.

Maybe. But I think the misery our intellect has burdened us with is worse than the pleasures are good. To illustrate my point, the question I pose is this: if you were given the opportunity to experience 12 hours of the richest pleasure imaginable followed by 12 hours of the most horrible pain imaginable--where pleasure and pain can be substituted with happiness and sadness if you like--would you take it? Assume there are no lasting effects like injuries or emotional trauma, just the two sensations. I certainly wouldn't do it, and nobody I have asked disagrees with me, even if the order is switched. Yet, if our ability to appreciate the joys of life were equivalent to our ability to suffer its hardships, there would be no reason not to take the opportunity. After 24 hours, you would be right back where you started. But if you're like me, those 12 hours of the worst possible agony aren't cancelled out by the same amount and intensity of perfect bliss. I would even refuse the offer if there were only 1 hour of the bad stuff. This doesn't definitively prove anything, but it suggests our brains have evolved to avoid pain more than they have evolved to seek pleasure. This manifests itself as a visceral anxiety that seems to serve no purpose, often persisting long after the real or imagined danger has come and gone. The most wonderful pleasures, on the other hand, are usually fleeting and easier to spoil.

I get what you're saying, and sadly I'm starting to agree with you.

That said, I feel like you're presenting a false dichotomy. The opposite of depression is mania. Squarely in the middle is contentment. So pleasure isn't the opposite of pain, it's the absence of pain.

Where that type of logic fails, in my opinion, is that life is a unique opportunity. We're not uniquely defined by our ability to experience pain or lack thereof, we also get to experience a rich array of things and meaning throughout our life. So the question then becomes: is the pain inherent in life worth it for the experience alone?

 

[PyramidHead]

Maybe. But I think the misery our intellect has burdened us with is worse than the pleasures are good. To illustrate my point, the question I pose is this: if you were given the opportunity to experience 12 hours of the richest pleasure imaginable followed by 12 hours of the most horrible pain imaginable--where pleasure and pain can be substituted with happiness and sadness if you like--would you take it? Assume there are no lasting effects like injuries or emotional trauma, just the two sensations. I certainly wouldn't do it, and nobody I have asked disagrees with me, even if the order is switched. Yet, if our ability to appreciate the joys of life were equivalent to our ability to suffer its hardships, there would be no reason not to take the opportunity. After 24 hours, you would be right back where you started. But if you're like me, those 12 hours of the worst possible agony aren't cancelled out by the same amount and intensity of perfect bliss. I would even refuse the offer if there were only 1 hour of the bad stuff. This doesn't definitively prove anything, but it suggests our brains have evolved to avoid pain more than they have evolved to seek pleasure. This manifests itself as a visceral anxiety that seems to serve no purpose, often persisting long after the real or imagined danger has come and gone. The most wonderful pleasures, on the other hand, are usually fleeting and easier to spoil.

I get what you're saying, and sadly I'm starting to agree with you.

That said, I feel like you're presenting a false dichotomy. The opposite of depression is mania. Squarely in the middle is contentment. So pleasure isn't the opposite of pain, it's the absence of pain.

I very much agree about pleasure being largely defined by pain's absence. However, what I posted does not depend on any dichotomies, or at least I don't think it does. Contentment is rarer than pleasure, and there is good reason to believe we are wired to actively subvert contentment (otherwise, why would there be such a thing as boredom?).

Where that type of logic fails, in my opinion, is that life is a unique opportunity. We're not uniquely defined by our ability to experience pain or lack thereof, we also get to experience a rich array of things and meaning throughout our life. So the question then becomes: is the pain inherent in life worth it for the experience alone?

We didn't get to decide that for ourselves, unfortunately. My thinking on the matter is probably clear by now.

 

[rousseau]

We didn't get to decide that for ourselves, unfortunately. My thinking on the matter is probably clear by now.

Yes, although it's still a relevant and interesting (albeit tangential to this conversation) question that we can still ask ourselves now.

When speaking about pain/pleasure, if you want to get down to the nitty gritty, neurophysiological roots of the two phenomena you need to understand a few things:

1) The brain is structured in a way that actively avoids pain at all times
2) The level of 'stimulus' that every brain needs to not be bored is different

What this means in terms of pain is that 'contentedness' arises when all of our needs are being met, whatever those needs are. For one person that could mean dancing at a rave until 3 am after having a nice dinner, for another person that could mean having a tea and sitting in their back yard.

Further, this means that the example you've presented is a bad one because 12 hours of the most excruciating pain imaginable does not have a corresponding opposite of 'unimaginable pleasure'. Some better examples would be:

- Would you put up with 3 really annoying years in school where you experience a fair bit of pain and stress, for 30 years of life security
- Would you put in three months of excruciating hard work, to get a lottery win in return and spend the rest of your life not working

Once you frame the problem like that, you realize that life isn't made up of a fluctuation between pain and pleasure, it's made up of a fluctuation between pain and lack of pain. And in (many) real life scenarios, at least in this century, most people experience contentment for the vast majority of their lives, with the odd moments of extra stress / pain.

So, again, it comes back to whether you consider a predominantly contented life valuable. Personally, I tend to think that life can be a pain in the ass sometimes, but there are other times when I'm absolutely awe-struck by the beauty of the universe, and being a part of it, and I'm incredibly glad to be alive.