There is nothing wrong with being ignorant as long as you are contented Essay Example for Free

There is nothing wrong with beingness unintellectual as long as you ar contented Essayb) There is nothing wrong with being ignorant as long as you argon contented Dicuss.This discussion topic is one that is regulary debated by philosophers and people in general. Surely if we asked ourself the inquiry if we brush aside receive in peace and happiness wherefore should it result if we move in ignorance or not? Surely we would just be jepodising our happiness for the original truth? Then again some whitethorn argue that how can we know what happiness sincerely is if we are actually living in ignorance, because that happiness were feeling wouldnt actually be authorized. Platos stand on this evident he believes that by living in ignorance you are living far from the truth. As a philosopher Plato argues that you should always question the knowledge base that you conk in, whether you are contented or not. His attitude was simple how can you be content with something thats not possibly real? His famous teaching was the semblance of the cave. In this he taught others that in that respect was once a cave, and in that cave sojournd a group of prisoners who had lived there all their lives. sensation day one of the prioners decided to break free and walk along the path of unknown, towards the sunlight. Plato continued this apologue of saying that the prisoner was finally englightened by the real truth, and so returned to tell his fellow prisoners of what he had learnt. This evidently shows us that Plato did in accompaniment agree with breaking free of ignorance, as it is the whole meaning of the analogy of the cave.Plato as well believed that we as humans are ignorant, in the sense that we believe the real world is the falsifiable world, and that no other worlds exist. Which Plato thought was complete and utter nonsense, because there is the world of forms the Metaphyical world. If humans didnt believe that the metaphysical world was not the worl d where all perfect forms lie, then we are all in accompaniment ignorant. Plato b melieved that we all need to open our minds to all the possibilties and not be blinded by our ignorance.We also know, due to Platos theories, that in the question where it says, there is nothing wrong with being ignorant, we know for a fact that Plato would disagree with this. Stating that there is nothing wrong with something, from the Empirical world, was absurd in his eyes, unless in was in the metaphysical world where everything is in its perfect form.However, some philosophers such as Aritotle (student of Plato), believed that the Empirical world was all that there was so therefore there is no ignorance to live in because the Empirical world is the world that exists. So in a way we can say that Aristotle would agree with this statment because his attitude is that we dont live in ignorance we live in this world, and this world alone. However some may also say, Aristotle is windlessness a philosop her, he still questions this world. So for subject, if he did think that we were living in ignorance, would Aristotle say that we should be content with that or should we question what content was?If we looked at another philosopher, Hereclitus, we can see how some of her creative thinkers and theories may actually link to an idea that would agree with this relation. Heraclitus once said reality is unstable, surely if reality is unstable then ignorance mustiness be bliss? Heraclitus also said that you can never step in the same river twice, teaching people that reality is ever-changing and is constantly in the process of change, therefore things go issue of existance. Then surely, if Heraclitus is right, who would want to live in a reality that is unstable? Wouldnt you just prefer to live in a more stable world even if it was in ignorance? At least then you knew where you s overlyd with the world rather than exprecting the Empirical world to always change. Therefore, this show s us that there was a philosopher that disagreed with Platos words and that ignorance should be aceepted if you are content with a stable world.Although in the film The Matrix, aired in 1999, it has a situation in the film which would apply to this domainment. In the film the Morpheus tells the main characters Neo and Cypher that they turn over a decision to make. Do they take the blue pill which allows them to remain in the metropolis where they live and live in blissful ignorance, or do they take the red pill, which would lead them to escape the city and to go into the real world, where they would embrace the sometimes painful truth of reality?The characters choose the red pill. They lay on the line their happy life to ascertain the real truth. However, we soon see that they start to regret their choice. They wish they had taken the blue pill, even if it was living in ignorance. So even though at first it shows the characters disagreeing with the statement and that all humans , when faced with the decision of knowing the truth, they birth. It turns out that ignorance won in the end. It shows that though humans do like to know the truth, the majority of us are content with our lives and would rather live day by day and see where it takes us, rather than constantly questioning what is content? What is living in ignorance?Another example that we can discuss this statement on is animals in captivity. Animals that are born in captivity are more likely to live longer than animals living in the wild. There a vets at the lay down incase one of the animals get hurt and there are no fearful preditors about. The animals are all told safe. However, some argue that an animals earthy habitat is the wild and that is where they should be living. Not in a restrain cage. M all say that animals get stressed and its completely un fair for them to be living under the go of humans. But surely, if the animal was born into capivity, they wouldnt know any different?No anim al would know that their natural climate was maybe in the south of Africa (essentially the wild.) Really were saying should they be living in ignorance, where they are safe to bring up their young and can live a long, good life? Or.. are we saying that reality is better? Where animals could get hunted down before they even grow to be an adult? How are the animals supposed to know whether theyre living in ignorance or reality if they dont know any different? Linking this back to the statement, for me i think in this certain situation living in ignorance would be better than living in the harsh realities of the unknown wilderness.To conclude with, I believe that those who wish to live ignorance as long as they are content with it should do so. I can completely understand where they are coming from if they live a happy life. Why would you want to change that when reality may be bleak? Even though Plato said that we are blinded by this Empirical world and that we should widen our knowle dge to venture into the Metaphysical world, the real world, my belief is that Plato took his theories a bit too far and that maybe he was questioning a bit too much and should just accept that this world is the only and real world there is. When we hit our head, it hurts. How can this not be the real world? I believe that an ignorant world does not exist, but a ignorant state of mind does. But as long people are content with that then why should it matter? Were not living their lives so it has no influence on us.