After the craziness that was everyone doubting their existence and reality in general, I would like to pose a question. Is ignorance bliss (concerning semantics, not current events/whether or not your stock market portfolio is going to die)?
As Steve put it "Reading all of these makes me question my sanity." While we may be more informed at the present on the nuances of language, would we have been more happy/stable without it? I've never seen the Matrix, but it comes to mind.
We now know that there is nothing certain about language. Like in math where limits approach but never actually reach a specific number, we lost stability once we read Hayakawa. We know so much more yet so much less than when we started. Is ignorance or perpetually limited omniscience preferable?
Liking Calculus but really missing Algebra I,
Grace Yuan
8 comments:
"...the unexamined life is not worth living." (Socrates 399 BC)
Ignorance may seem to be blissful in some respects, but it can also be regarded as a danger. Take Plato's Euthyphro for example: a head-strong prophet believes himself to be wise and all-knowing and therefore finds himself above the concept of examining his decisions and perceptions of his extensional world.
This blatant ignorance of the world - both intension and extensional - around him leads the man to bring charges against his own father for murder. Plato records the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro as they debate the definition of piety. Socrates, using his inductive method of argumentation, leads the man to contradict himself repeatedly, proving that he has no solid grasp on the concept of piety. In the end, the prophet's refusal to examine the (semantic) situation before pressing such charges becomes his downfall.
Furthermore, mankind is endowed with the urge to make progress which Hayakawa has established as a concept closely tied to language. It enables us to "...go on from where others left off." (Hayakawa 7) Thus, better understanding of the nature of semantics only helps us to harness our capabilities.
We also have a strange attachment to the concept of truth. By choosing ignorance over enlightenment, we stop the process of thought. Just as "[p]remature judment often prevents us from seeing what is directly in front of us," (Hayakawa 27) opting for ignorance is similar to living a lie. Does that not defeat our search for the truth?
How do we know what is true if what is true is usually determined and accepted by us as individuals? Or are you talking about conventional truth?
Obviously many people go on in their lives without ever extensively exploring semantics. Does their ignorance mean they do not search for "truth" or think as "enlightened" individuals do?
I guess I am a bit partial on this question. I would always choose to not be ignorant, even though many of these posts and comments of others confuse me to the point where my head may explode. However, everyone is different. I think that it really comes down to whether the person wants to deal with the great responsibility that knowledge comes with. After all, "with great power comes great responsibility" and knowledge is power.
I am not exactly sure how the thought of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance came to my mind upon reading Grace's post, but I will try to establish a coherent connection to the best of my ability.
Men and women of the Middle Ages (1000 to 1450) believed life on earth to be some sort of a purgatorial stop on their journey to the divine afterlife. Based on the research available presently, we will never know if they were ignorant in their beliefs or not, for we are unable to prove the existence of a Heaven. However, in this unproven belief, they found content. They were thoroughly convinced that their toil and suffering of life on earth would be taken into account in time for their deliverance to the Right Hand of God. This speculation can tie in with just about any belief.
I know, however, that you are speaking in linguistic terms. Our recent dissection of the English language has left me analyzing almost ANYTHING I set my eyes on, including the phrasing of scientific facts. Unlike the men and women of the Middle Ages, we are questioning everything that we once believed ourselves to be fully acquainted and familiar with. This temporary instability is startling; yet our growing store of knowledge will assist us in the "real world", which I am sorry to say does not include Moorestown High School.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way" (Bokonon). Yes, we may be regretting our evolving and complex views at the moment, yet "Wonders are many, and none is more wonderful than man" (Sophocles 497 B.C.).
I truly hope this post made sense to any of you. Thoughts?
(Sam Maliha)
I agree with Mary that "it really comes down to whether the person wants to deal with the great responsibility that knowledge comes with." Every person has a different perspective about what would be most beneficial to him or her. Without this difference in perspectives, where would we be today?
Not only does the answer to Grace's question depend on an individual's perspective, but it also depends on the situation at hand. For instance, if ignorance is something that you can CHOOSE to embrace in order to ease your worries or stay care-free, then perhaps you will choose to do so. There always remains the choice of whether or not to be ignorant, as in the movie The Matrix, mentioned by a couple of you before: you are offered both the blue pill and the red pill; the choice of which to take is completely up to you. (I apologize if you never watched the movie and are unable to follow my thoughts.)
Oh by the way, Sam, I did understand the connections you drew between Grace's post and the Middle Ages and Renaissance. I think that these time periods are a good example of what we are discussing.
(Janet Lee)
Proverbs 12:15 "The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice."
Proverbs 18:2 "A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions."
This topic of conversation brought these Bible verses to mind. Whether you believe in the Bible as a source of truth or not, I think these verses still have merit.
My answer to Grace's original question would be that, even though ingnorance may be bliss, it is only temporary. Take politics, for example. I really don't like watching debates or keeping up on current events because they frustrate me, but if I were a voter and didn't keep up with the presidential campaign, where would I be? Would you really want me voting? I might have been better off for the year leading up to the campaign (temporarily), but say, for example, the entire country made uninformed decisions like this and ended up choosing a terrible president. That would be four terrible years that would probably have a ripple affect through the following presidential terms. That's a while to suffer for just one year of bliss, isn't it?
I agree with Mary that "it really comes down to whether the person wants to deal with the great responsibility that knowledge comes with." All knowledge has a price. A TV show called "Early Edition" comes to mind. The show is about a man who receives the newspaper a day early. He is daily faced with the choice to read the paper and keep murders, accidents, etc., from happening, or living his day ignorantly of what is going on around him and not having to deal with other people's problems. He has the chance to make a difference, but he has to be willing to accept a great responsibility in addition to the knowledge.
Whether or not to have knowledge is a choice. Do we want responsibility? Do we want to be well informed? Do we want be better equipped for making a difference in our world or in the lives of others? I think the choice between ignorance and knowledge ultimately comes down to fighting our own selfishness.
Thoughts? Comments? Questions?
(Emily T.)
I think we are confusing blissful ignorance in respect to the individual with ignorance from the perspective of an enlightened person. To be ignorant is not necessarily the cause of happiness, but it makes life a whole lot easier to deal with.
The ignorant do not know that they are ignorant. In fact, what distinguishes a learned scholar from the naive commoner? The scholar knows that existence is far too complicated to understand and interpret, yet he tries in vain to figure it all out, and therefore has greater trouble dealing with his own being. The commoner on the other hand has nothing at all to worry about, except of course the stresses of everyday living.
He doesn't need to know anything to enjoy the fruits of life and labor.
Although I do enjoy being an intellectual, I think we all yearn for simpler minds occasionally, minds that see the beauty without the explanation.
(By the way, I'm sorry for using the masculine voice in all my examples, I don't mean to offend the ladies, it's just more convenient.)
(Taylor Burke)
Post a Comment