Ignorance: Is Tabula Rasa the Key to Happiness?

[the number 42]

If we truly knew nothing -tabula rasa style - would we be happy?

 

[abitofnothingleft]

how could anyone be happy knowing nothing?i mean, yes you could say that they could be carefree etc but in reality, wouldn't you want to know the truth?

 

[russ_watters]

I think there really are people who are happy knowing nothing and there may even be a correlation between happiness and knowledge - the more you know, the more you have to worry about.

 

[dekoi]

I think there really are people who are happy knowing nothing and there may even be a correlation between happiness and knowledge - the more you know, the more you have to worry about.

I would disagree. It is human nature to search for truth. If we do not search for truth, we are going against our human nature, and thus, face consquences of not being happy.

 

[selfAdjoint]

dekoi, I fear you are judging others by yourself. I know lots of people who have no interest in learning anything beyond gossip and sports results. If we were such a questing species as you imagine, how could aristocracy and tyranny ever have become established?

 

[dekoi]

dekoi, I fear you are judging others by yourself. I know lots of people who have no interest in learning anything beyond gossip and sports results. If we were such a questing species as you imagine, how could aristocracy and tyranny ever have become established?

Firstly, those people are only lying to themselves.

Secondly, aristocracy and tyranny are only some of the results of the perverse methodologies by which humans find themselves trapped in. Quite simply, these things are produced because people feel that in some cases, going against their nature is easier than going along with it.

As an example, let's look to homosexuality. Humans naturally strive for love, or unity. It is evident that opposite sexes are complimentary [in that each one provides what the other does not have]. When a male and a male decide to have a sexual relationships, and thus go against their nature, they face consequences. Therefore, to refer back to our situation: Those who are ignorant are going against their nature, and thus facing the consequence of not being truly happy.

 

[franznietzsche]

No dekoi,those people are genuinely happy in there ignorance.

The lower the IQ, the lower the desire to learn. The higher IQ the more you want to learn. The more you learn, the more miserable you are.

Just look at all the miserable and insane geniuses out there:

Van Gogh
Nietzsche
Poe
Plath
Camus
Kafka
Nash

the list goes on...

 

[Tom McCurdy]

how could anyone be happy knowing nothing?i mean, yes you could say that they could be carefree etc but in reality, wouldn't you want to know the truth?

if you didn't know anything you wouldn't know about wanting to know the truth... you would be ignortant that there was a truth out there to know... Ignorance would be bliss... oh to believe in religon

As IQ rises so does the percentage of the population that is athiest

Smarter people question more

 

[Tom McCurdy]

I would disagree. It is human nature to search for truth. If we do not search for truth, we are going against our human nature, and thus, face consquences of not being happy.

thats not true if you are ignoranatn... a lot of people could careless about science or what is discovered all they care about science is what gadgets they can get, but they don't care how the gadget was made. A lot of people are content having fun... drinking smoking and trying to have sex.

 

[the number 42]

A lot of people are content having fun... drinking smoking and trying to have sex.

I sometimes think that sex (especially orgasm) and excessive drinking are nothing more than ways of losing ourselves, and in that sense of achieving a state of 'knowing nothing/caring about nothing'.

 

[dekoi]

No dekoi,those people are genuinely happy in there ignorance.

The lower the IQ, the lower the desire to learn. The higher IQ the more you want to learn. The more you learn, the more miserable you are.

Just look at all the miserable and insane geniuses out there:

Van Gogh
Nietzsche
Poe
Plath
Camus
Kafka
Nash

the list goes on...

What makes you think that the more you know, the more miserable you become? Perhaps that is true for some degree of high knowledge, but when one achieves true, elite knowledge, they are no longer miserable -- because now, they know about human virtue and nature.

Still, no one has truly justified why my point regarding the search for truth being human nature is wrong.

Humans who are ignorant are going against their nature. You all give examples of people who state that all they want is sex, or '"gadgets"; what makes you think they are not miserable? Just because they put on a happy face when you see them does not mean they are happy.

Like i said, and i repeat myself for the sake of emphasizing the point, ignorance is easy, which is why so many are mislead by it.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

if you didn't know anything you wouldn't know about wanting to know the truth... you would be ignortant that there was a truth out there to know... Ignorance would be bliss... oh to believe in religon

As IQ rises so does the percentage of the population that is athiest

Smarter people question more

dont you naturally have a drive to want to learn more...and isn't that drive independant of ignorance of the truth? and no matter how much you don't want to learn, you're never truly ignorant of everything.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

I think you are looking at a community of special cases... our technology and knowledge is progressed by special cases. The majority of people don't care about the world, and in their ignorance comes the bliss of never knowing the worlds troubles.

 

[dekoi]

I think you are looking at a community of special cases... our technology and knowledge is progressed by special cases. The majority of people don't care about the world, and in their ignorance comes the bliss of never knowing the worlds troubles.

Perhaps in that sense, ignorance is "bliss". But we have to be careful of what we mean by "bliss". We of course can not give bliss equality with happiness.

 

[juju]

Hi,

Some of the most happiest people are those who are simple people.

They may not know, but they do understand.

juju

 

[dekoi]

Hi,

Some of the most happiest people are those who are simple people.

They may not know, but they do understand.

juju

Exactly. But these happy people are usually those who have no access to such knowledge (as opposed to us).

By 'understanding',they are still fulfilling their human nature. You don't have to know.

 

[loseyourname]

I don't think there is any causative correlation between happiness and knowledge. You can be happy and ignorant, happy and informed, miserable and ignorant, miserable and informed. They have little bearing on one another.

 

[the number 42]

I don't think there is any causative correlation between happiness and knowledge. You can be happy and ignorant, happy and informed, miserable and ignorant, miserable and informed. They have little bearing on one another.

If freedom brings happiness, and "the truth will set you free", and the truth is that you have recently been lobotomised... er, got a bit lost there.

Try again: what if you found out that the truth is that life is a fantastic opportunity to learn, grow, and develop as a person? And what if you found out that life is a bowl of cherries, but you really prefer bananas? No, that's rubbish too. Dang I'm shootin' blanks today...

 

[AiA]

Happiness is knowledge

When we say ignorant people can be happy and miserable, and that knowledgeable people can be happy and miserable, this is true, but there is one factor people are missing.

When we look at what happiness is, we will conclude it is the trandsendentals, (beauty (metaphysical beauty) justice, unity, goodness,and truth) Truth is knowledge and logic, hence a factor in happiness, so knowledge does bring happiness if it is true knowledge. (no person can be sad by learning. If they are they are not logical.)

 

[dekoi]

I don't think there is any causative correlation between happiness and knowledge. You can be happy and ignorant, happy and informed, miserable and ignorant, miserable and informed. They have little bearing on one another.

No. AiA answers the above in his post:

When we look at what happiness is, we will conclude it is the trandsendentals, (beauty (metaphysical beauty) justice, unity, goodness,and truth) Truth is knowledge and logic, hence a factor in happiness, so knowledge does bring happiness if it is true knowledge. (no person can be sad by learning. If they are they are not logical.)

He rightfully explains that knowledge (or rather, wisdom) is a part of happiness.

I don't think many people really understand what happiness really is.

 

[the number 42]

When we look at what happiness is, we will conclude it is the trandsendentals, (beauty (metaphysical beauty) justice, unity, goodness,and truth) Truth is knowledge and logic, hence a factor in happiness, so knowledge does bring happiness if it is true knowledge. (no person can be sad by learning. If they are they are not logical.)

Will we make this conclusion, indeed? Sounds like you are just making a lot of assumptions. Care to provide any grounds for these?

 

[dekoi]

When we look at what happiness is, we will conclude it is the trandsendentals, (beauty (metaphysical beauty) justice, unity, goodness,and truth) Truth is knowledge and logic, hence a factor in happiness, so knowledge does bring happiness if it is true knowledge. (no person can be sad by learning. If they are they are not logical.)

-->

Will we make this conclusion, indeed? Sounds like you are just making a lot of assumptions. Care to provide any grounds for these?

We can determine what happiness is by analyzing human behavior during their existence. No human is happy without justice; yet justice is also goodness, and truth. therefore, we deductively state that humans are not happy without justice, goodness, or truth. Beauty is a natural inclination of human beings; no one wants an ugly looking car, nor an ape for a spouse.

Logic is a part of truth. We can see that without needing any proof. therefore, we conclude, like AiA said, "knowledge does bring happiness if it is true knowledge."

 

[the number 42]

No human is happy without justice

I only need to find one instance to prove this generalisation wrong. Also justice is subjective, don't you think. I reckon Hitler thought he was just.

...yet justice is also goodness, and truth.

:zzz: On what grounds do you base this?

Logic is a part of truth. We can see that without needing any proof.

:rofl:
Okay, I'm not going to waste words on this one.

 

[AiA]

What are you saying...

number 42, you couldn't be more wrong about anything.

If a human is unhappy with justice then there out of the right mind, you want to find an instance where someone is unhappy with justice, well a great and common example is someone being punished for justice. But that person is just being selfish and arrogant.

"Justice is subjective", WHAT!

Hitler may of thought he was just but we can determine with logic (very easily) that he wasn't just, he was the opposite of justice, now isn't that a standard making it no longer subjective. You must realize that justice nor any of the trandsendentals are contingent on man, they exist beyond man, as apart of human nature. Now even if the world thought Hitler was just, it doesn't make him so, logically we can decide that Hitler was unfair to the Jews and was a tyrant dictator.

Is justice bad? If you think so you need to be slapped, we know that if something isn't bad it must then be...(I'll give you all a second to figure it out.) GOOD. Is justice a lie, (Come on, you can figure it out.) No, so it must be truthful.

Your not going to comment on what Dekoi said, "Logic is a part of truth. We can see that without needing any proof." Then I will, again, using logic, does that bring about a lie, no, so it brings out truth.
A man sais I'm going to kill this guy for absolutely no reason, I logically convince the man that killing is wrong, so I brought about truth via logic, and justice as well, justice in the sense that killing for absolutely no reason is wrong, logic dictates this as true, if it didn't, it wouldn't be logical, it wouldn't be truth, and it wouldn't be justice.

 

[the number 42]

... we know that if something isn't bad it must then be...(I'll give you all a second to figure it out.) GOOD. Is justice a lie, (Come on, you can figure it out.) No, so it must be truthful.

:zzz: Okay, this really is getting old now. Are you saying there is either justice/injustice truth/lie? Do you see in black and white as well as think that way?

Is justice bad? If you think so you need to be slapped

Right. This coming from Mr Justice. What's the penalty for disagreeing with you twice - the firing squad?

 

[juju]

Hi,

If justice is defined as you get what you deserve, then there is not much justice in this world. Most people don't get what they deserve, be it good or bad.

As to truth, there are two kinds of truth. That based on objective external data, and that which is subjective but self-obvious.

juju

 

[dekoi]

I only need to find one instance to prove this generalisation wrong. Also justice is subjective, don't you think. I reckon Hitler thought he was just.

:zzz: On what grounds do you base this?

:rofl:
Okay, I'm not going to waste words on this one.

1.) Of course you only need to find one instance to prove this wrong. But isn't that common in everything -- science in particular? Either way, justice is not subjective, since human nature is objective. Thus, to say justice is subjective (part of human nature) is to contradict human nature. On what grounds can you prove yourself right by saying justice (or human nature for that matter) is subjective? Your hitler example isn't very sound.

2.) I said, "yet justice is also goodness, and truth." I deductively (not theologically or philosophically) thougth of this by thinking whether to be 'just' is good or not. Would you say it is bad to be just? A bit of a contradiction there. Therefore, we say justice is goodness. Yet to be good is to be truthful, and to be just is as well to be truthful to humans; thus, we say, "yet justice is also goodness, and truth."

3.) How can you possibly disagree with the fact that logic is a part of truth. Wow, that's one hell of an antic.

 

[dekoi]

:zzz: Okay, this really is getting old now. Are you saying there is either justice/injustice truth/lie? Do you see in black and white as well as think that way?



Right. This coming from Mr Justice. What's the penalty for disagreeing with you twice - the firing squad?

1.) Yes. Taking the example of 'good' and 'bad'. There is no such thing as "sort of good" or "sort of bad". The law of non-contradiction causes us to state that it is either good or bad, good or evil. There is no such thing as "partial injustice", it is only injustice.

2.) "Is justice bad?"

I already replied to this in my above post.

 

[honestrosewater]

1.) Yes. Taking the example of 'good' and 'bad'. There is no such thing as "sort of good" or "sort of bad". The law of non-contradiction causes us to state that it is either good or bad, good or evil. There is no such thing as "partial injustice", it is only injustice.

2.) "Is justice bad?"

I already replied to this in my above post.

LNC: $$\neg (P \wedge \neg P)$$

The LNC applies to the truth-values of well-formed statements in a formal, axiomatic system. It does not say there is no middle ground between good and bad. Unless I am mistaken. Can someone vouch for that?
____
And I know you have heard of fuzzy logic.

 

[honestrosewater]

No human is happy without justice

I only need to find one instance to prove this generalisation wrong. Also justice is subjective, don't you think. I reckon Hitler thought he was just.

1.) Of course you only need to find one instance to prove this wrong. But isn't that common in everything -- science in particular? Either way, justice is not subjective, since human nature is objective. Thus, to say justice is subjective (part of human nature) is to contradict human nature.

In other words, your theory is unfalsifiable?

I like juju's defintion. I don't believe life is just, but I am still happy. How do you explain my belief away?

 

[dekoi]

honestrosewater: I am not familiar enuogh with your LNC statement to argue with you on that.

You asked whether my theory is "unfalsifiable". My theory relies on human nature. Human nature, contrary to other subjects such as science, is a constant. It does not change. Thus it is not falsifiable, since to try to challenge what justice is, is to challenge what human nature is.

 

[honestrosewater]

Would you say it is bad to be just? A bit of a contradiction there. Therefore, we say justice is goodness. Yet to be good is to be truthful, and to be just is as well to be truthful to humans; thus, we say, "yet justice is also goodness, and truth."

Are you equating these three concepts? I happen to agree that they are similar, but that doesn't prove anything. For one thing, I think coffee is good, but that doesn't mean coffee and goodness are equivalent concepts. Can you explain your reasoning in more detail?

If everyone here just made bare assertions, what kind of discussion would we have?

 

[honestrosewater]

honestrosewater: I am not familiar enuogh with your LNC statement to argue with you on that.

I apologize. It says: not (P and not P). "It is not true that a proposition and its negation are both true (at the same time)."
LNC is only about truth-values (true, not true, false, undecidable, etc.).
You can still, of course, make another argument assuming LNC, but you would need to go through the steps.

You asked whether my theory is "unfalsifiable". My theory relies on human nature. Human nature, contrary to other subjects such as science, is a constant. It does not change. Thus it is not falsifiable, since to try to challenge what justice is, is to challenge what human nature is.

How is human nature constant? What about it is constant?

You did not answer my last question:

I like juju's defintion. I don't believe life is just, but I am still happy. How do you explain my belief away?

 

[dekoi]

Are you equating these three concepts? I happen to agree that they are similar, but that doesn't prove anything. For one thing, I think coffee is good, but that doesn't mean coffee and goodness are equivalent concepts. Can you explain your reasoning in more detail?

I am not equating the concepts. I am simply creating an assertion, with a subject and predicate. I am stating that Since justice is good for humanity, and what is good for humanity is true goodness, then justice is goodness. Again, I'm not equating (although it sure seems like it), i am relating.

Either way, justice remains to be good.

Human nature is constant because human essence is as well. The essence of everything is constant. Thus, the essence or form of a human being is a constant. For example, Triangleness is the essence of a triangle; sure, you can create isosceles and scalene triangles, but the triangle with always have triangleness. Thus, although me and you are from different cultures, we still have humanness (or humanity).

I don't believe life is just, but I am still happy. How do you explain my belief away?

Sure; but would you not agree that you would be happier if the world had perfect justice?

 

[the number 42]

I am not equating the concepts. I am simply creating an assertion, with a subject and predicate. I am stating that Since justice is good for humanity, and what is good for humanity is true goodness, then justice is goodness. Again, I'm not equating (although it sure seems like it), i am relating.

Nonsense on stilts, dekoi.

"Since justice is good for humanity" i.e. you are assuming the correctness of your premise without giving evidence - therefore it may be a false premise. And since justice is subjective - the proof is that people have different ideas of what is just - it will differ across humanity, therefore your premise is false.
Of course your argument may be logically correct, but given the false premise, nonsensical.