# Ignorance is bliss?

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
the number 42 said:
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
the number 42 said:
: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
Gold Member
dekoi said:
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
Gold Member
dekoi said:
No human is happy without justice
the number 42 said:
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.
dekoi said:
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
Gold Member
dekoi said:
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
Gold Member
dekoi said:
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
honestrosewater said:
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?

dekoi said:
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.

dekoi
the number 42 said:
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.
Fair enough number 42.

Are you challenging the fact that justice is good for humanity, or that justice is subjective?

If the former --> When was the last time you went to court hoping the judge will not be 'just' in his 'judge'ment? I mean... i don't understand how you could question that. Justice is a self-evident truth.

The latter --> To say justice is objective is to rely on my above statement (regarding justice being good). If justice is good, then it is good for all humans, and thus is universal.

Hi,

True justice requires understanding, wisdom, and strength that is lacking in all but a very few people on this planet.

It means being loving and compassionate when the situation calls for it, and being warlike and vengeful when the situation calls for it. It means having the right action/reaction for all situations inbetween these extremes.

The first requirement for justice is truth.

juju

dekoi
juju said:
The first requirement for justice is truth.juju
Thank you; you have shown the interconnection and dependency of these transcendental virtues -- justice and truth.

dekoi said:
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.

Human virtue is an oxymorn, unless you are referring to lack of.

The more i learn about people, the more miserable reality is. The more the truth of 'human virtue and nature' is revealed to me, the more i wish i was anything but human.

I've seen far too much stupidity in the world, everyday of my life, and far too many people ridicule those who do love knowledge, to believe that the quest for knowledge is a fundamental drive. And biologically why should it be?

However--

'Will to power' is a fundamental drive. And the quest for truth, the 'will to truth' is a manifestation of it. It is not the fundamental drive itself, it is an affect of the fundamental drive, the 'will to power.'

For different people the 'will to power' manifests differently. For some it is the power of knowledge, others the power of wealth, others the power of sexual and/or psychological dominance. But all of these are simply outlets, manifestations of the 'will to power'

franznietzsche said:
'Will to power' is a fundamental drive. And the quest for truth, the 'will to truth' is a manifestation of it. It is not the fundamental drive itself, it is an affect of the fundamental drive, the 'will to power.'

"But seeing as true power only resides in truth, and truth is justice, hahaha, thank you, for you have proved my point exactly. hahahahaha"

There you go, Dekoi. I have written your post for you so you can take a day off now.

dekoi said:
No. AiA answers the above in his post:

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.

but isn't "happiness" something different for everybody?

the tao te ching says "the more we know the less we understand." - ignorance is bliss. i don't think either of these statements are saying anything negative about anyone who wants to learn more. i just think it's saying, be aware of what you are getting into, because it will probably make life more complicated for you and there will always be more questions to be answered. i don't think it is trying to say that it is better to be ignorant and worse to be knowledgeable.

dekoi
the number 42: I qualm you have anything meaningful to say. It seems that as soon as your "arguments" are challenged, you reside in your little world of humor, to hide your confusion of the real issue. I will do better than to degrade myself to your level and ruin the real philosophical discussion on this forum.

I got an idea everyone. Perhaps we should stop the search and hunger for truth and become ignorant proletarians?

If we ignore knowledge, we might as well be programmed like automata. I have never met a man who was happy he knew of nothing.

And no one has objected (and i then assume that you accept it as true), to my statement:

...ignorance is easy, which is why so many are mislead by it.

dekoi said:
the number 42: I qualm you have anything meaningful to say. It seems that as soon as your "arguments" are challenged, you reside in your little world of humor, to hide your confusion of the real issue. I will do better than to degrade myself to your level and ruin the real philosophical discussion on this forum.

:rofl:

Dang! Didn't I give you the day off?

Hi,

In the realm of Will there are three elements.

Will to good and goodness
Will to freedom and peace
Will to power and ability.

The attainment of power and ability guarantees the peace and freedom to pursue and experience the good and the goodness.

There is no other guarantee. There are other beliefs, but really no other guarantee.

juju

jammieg
"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. "-dekoi

But then it is also human nature to seek out a loving relationship...
Sexual orientation is primarily formed in early childhood...
Children are highly impressionable in youth to experiences such as where phobias come from...
The world is not always as pretty a place as we often see with the eye or the mind...
And lastly we(society) teach our children how to behave without saying anything...
Why do some people become gay? Is it really out of rebelliousness or a desire to be different,
or faulty wiring perhaps or genetic abnomalies, or purely chance, or
is it the byproduct of various factors and drives placed in certain situations, or something else?

Everyone already knows the answer to this if they really want to know it, we all are born with
The Ultimate Knowledge!!!... but often choose not to see it for rather seeing what we want to see.

Mabye the question would be better phrased, "if ignorance is bliss,
why is this true, and if ignorance is not bliss why is this also true?" like that song
"we are siamese if you please, badum bum bum, we are siamese if you don't please badum bum bum".

honestrosewater
Gold Member
Welcome to the forum, Y.T.!

dekoi said:
And no one has objected (and i then assume that you accept it as true), to my statement:

...ignorance is easy, which is why so many are mislead by it.

Someone must either object to your statement or believe it? Google "false dilemma".

Last edited:
If only there were an Infallible Human Being award...

Just to settle this quickly, ignorince is not bliss, you can still be happy while be ignorant, but being ignorant itself in no way brings bliss, I don't understand why anyone would argue this.

jammieg
So you are saying that there is no relationship between happiness and ignorance? Hmm that's a good one... so people are happy if they want to be happy, and if they want to be sad be sad, or look at knowledge that they think will make them sad...
But then what is sadness? It has suddenly occured to me that I don't undestand a single word of the quote, and there is little agreement as to what they mean!