Tuesday, September 17, 2019
The Truth Will Set You Free -- Or Ignorance Is Bliss?
In Chapter 12 Socrates argues that a moral person is a happier person than an immoral one. Since a moral person is guided by reason, that person has a greater understanding of reality, which is the basis for true happiness. As Socrates states in the dialogue: " . . . [T]he more real something is, the more it can be a source of true satisfaction"(585d). Yet is Socrates correct? Is knowledge the key to happiness? Is it better to base one's happiness on things that are stable, long-lasting and not deceptive? Is pleasure based on false information ever a source of happiness? Or is ignorance bliss?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In chapter 12 of Plato’s Republic, Socrates claims that that a moral person is happier than an immoral person is. He argues pleasure acquired from knowledge and reality is the highest form happiness, and that “people to whom intelligence and goodness are unfamiliar, whose only interest is self-indulgence…aren’t really satisfied by anything real; they don’t experience steady, pure pleasure” (586a). Socrates compares these “self-indulgent” people to cattle, who focus only on temporary pleasures such as food and sex, only to end up “killing one another because they’re seeking satisfaction in unreal things for a part of themselves which is also unreal—a leaky vessel they’re trying to fill” (586b). In other words, Socrates believes that wanting temporary pleasures leads to unhappiness, while desiring more-permanent, real pleasures such as knowledge—the pursuit of philosophers, in fact—leads to happiness. While Socrates’s argument is strong in claiming knowledge is the highest form of happiness, taking it a step further could lead to the truest form of happiness—the core belief of Buddhism, perhaps the most enlightened religion on the topic of happiness and satisfaction, is to avoid desire of anything. To Buddhists, seeking pleasure will too often lead to failure, and failure to suffering and unhappiness. In other words, to live a life without desire is to live a happy, satisfied life without suffering. While Socrates is correct in claiming temporary pleasures only lead to unhappiness, he fails to realize that not even a philosopher can know everything; knowledge is not a stable source of happiness and can lead to dissatisfaction. In all, a Buddhist perception of happiness is a more stable, pure happiness than that of Socrates.
ReplyDeleteIn Plato's novel, The Republic, there are multiple flaws regarding Socrates belief that moral people are happier than immoral people. Socrates believes that a moral person is guided by the reason of reality throughout their life, and therefore, has a greater understanding of reality. When a person has a better comprehension of the real world, Socrates believes that this is the basis for actual happiness. Socrates thinks that a person who does not strive to learn and obtain knowledge is also morally corrupt. The premises Socrates creates for the basis of happiness through Plato’s book are foundationally incorrect. Socrates never takes into account societal standards and values throughout a normal person's daily life. Socrates states that the quest for knowledge is the key to happiness, and this idea is false. In real life, the determination to learn and obtain knowledge is considered a wonderful characteristic. In Socrates' "world", a person's sole goal in life is to obtain knowledge and information about reality. Eventually, a person will learn something that will become counterproductive towards a person's true happiness. For example, a person could learn about the time the end of the world takes place. Or, their beloved wife has cheated on them for years. Socrates believes that seeking knowledge is necessary truly have happiness. Instead, it is necessary for a person to have a variety of characteristics. People and objects of sentimental value can also help a person be happy in their life. To truly be human, a person needs to feel and express love, compassion, and friendship. Socrates also thinks that a stable, unchanged life leads to happiness. If a person has a stable, long-lasting, and not deceptive life, they will never understand the true meaning of happiness. In order to feel happy, a person must feel sad. If someone constantly feels the same way with no change, the person will never know what it means to feel truly sad, and he or she will lose what it means have human tendencies. Socrates also says thinks pleasure cannot be based off false information. Throughout life, basic human interactions are founded on false information. False information can absolutely be a source of happiness. For example, if a friend made dinner for me when trying to be nice, I would say, "it is delicious" or "I love it" even if it were inedible. In our society, we occasionally reward people for good ethics and morals by supplying them with false information. Socrates belief that moral people are happier than immoral people is naturally incorrect. If someone does not strive to obtain or learn knowledge, Socrates considers him or her immoral. Socrates also completely forgets about social norms and basic human needs throughout his premises in the novel, The Republic.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 12 Socrates argues that a moral person is happier than an immoral person. A moral person is known to have everyone’s best interests in mind and only complete tasks for the good. Additionally, they have an understanding of reality and everything that is going on around them. An immoral person is someone who is guided by there own abortion or worse. Although, one can not be moral unless they are highly educated. A moral person would never lie, but an immoral person would. This gives one the question of can the truth set you free? Can being immoral make a great impact on your life? What is the best life to live? Truth can set you free is a strong statement because it’s not true in all cases. For example, when the holocaust was going on many brave people would hide Jews in there home. This was strictly forbidden in any situation, but was it immoral? Yes, it was dishonest but they were saving innocent lives that were being taken away. What they did was helpful and caring. To this day the people who hid Jews in their homes are still talked about because what they did was honorable. This demonstrates how being immoral is highly debatable.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 12 Socrates argues that a moral person is happier than an immoral person. A moral person is known to have everyone’s best interests in mind and only complete tasks for the good. Additionally, they have an understanding of reality and everything that is going on around them. An immoral person is someone who is guided by there own ambition or worse. Although, one can not be moral unless they are highly educated. A moral person would never lie, but an immoral person would. This gives one the question of can the truth set you free? Can being immoral make a great impact on your life? What is the best life to live? Truth can set you free is a strong statement because it’s not true in all cases. For example, when the holocaust was going on many brave people would hide Jews in there home. This was strictly forbidden in any situation, but was it immoral? Yes, it was dishonest but they were saving innocent lives that were being taken away. What they did was helpful and caring. To this day the people who hid Jews in their homes are still talked about because what they did was honorable. This demonstrates how being immoral is highly debatable.-real one
DeleteContrary to the Socrates claim, I don’t believe that knowledge is the key to happiness. I believe in the exact opposite. Ignorance is in fact bliss and your advancement of knowledge does not in fact make you happier. Even though it brought that, “we’d better resist the notion that pure pleasure is escape from pain, and pure pain is escape from pleasure”, (584c), it is for the wrong reasons. Plato discusses in this chapter how ignoring the truth in things and buttering it up a bit is a form of deception, which should not be a part of our everyday landscape of thinking. Grazing on another philosophy, I would say some deception is good deception. If something is brought up about you that you wish not to know because it will hurt your spirit, stabbing a theoretical knife into your heart, ignorance of that will make you the most pleasure. On the matter of pleasure on false information, I believe that has a strong possibility of producing long-lasting happiness. Being ignorant of the validity of the information will help your inner pleasure trend in the direction of being sustained. Leading this discussion back to into the area of ignorance being bliss. Not caring or not going to certain lengths to find out whether the person sharing the information with you is telling the truth or not will keep you with the greatest form of bliss. There is a certain disorder called dysphoria, which entails that a person thinks too much on things and starts to get some derivatives of depression or mental anguish. Too much knowledge of something can drive someone down a dark hole. Stay ignorant...
ReplyDeleteIt is my belief that Socrates's claim that only those of high moral character are capable of experiencing true happiness is incorrect. The issue of morality in relation to happiness is that both ideals can be felt different at the individual level. Socrates argues that in the enlightening pursuit of knowledge, philosophers develop a sense for what is "real". Socrates continues that only those who can detect the truth in life can understand its full pleasure. Additionally, Socrates argues that all other experiences of happiness are merely the absence of pain. This argument is flawed be who is to determine how an experience may impact another. By this I mean, something that you, a philosopher, may find ignorant or merely lacking in pain may bring me great pleasure, pleasure equal to that of what you derive from your seeking of truth. While this experience that brings me pleasure is trivial to you, who are you to determine its impact on my life. For this reason I do believe that ignorance is bliss. Not because it is important for someone to be uninformed and ignorant, but because there is no reason to avoid happiness caused by mediums that you do not fully grasp. I do not know how to code an app, but I still enjoy using them on my phone. While it may seem ignorant to a philosopher to go about daily life not fully grasping the ideas and thoughts that make us so happy in our lives, I believe that their is nothing wrong in taking pleasure in the little things. Small and simple pleasure that can brighten ones day may be short lasting and not as fulfilling as some unknown truth, this does not mean that we must avoid them all together.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Socrates' claim that knowledge is the key to happiness. I believe that ignorance is bliss because the more knowledge you have, the more likely you will become cynical. In reality, the world is a very unfair place and there are many people who live in unfortunate situations that do not deserve it. With more knowledge, you will become aware of all of society's ills, and how people in power reinforce these weaknesses. There are many examples of extremely intelligent people who became very depressed, like Vincent Van Gogh, Sylvia Plath, Abraham Lincoln, and Emily Dickenson. Many connections have been made between people who are very intelligent, and their risk of developing depression. Basing one's happiness on things that are stable, long-lasting and not deceptive would be a very static and emotionless way of life that would not guide you to happiness. Humans need to experience lows in order to feel highs. Always thinking reasonably about issues is unnatural to us because we are emotional creatures. The key to happiness is a balance between the emotional and rational part of the mind, not the rational mind completely taking over. People find true happiness in escapism all the time. There are healthy ways to escape like having a deep interest in fantasy novels or drawing fictional scenes. These may not be the most "real" concepts to focus on, but they can bring satisfaction to an individual. Sometimes to bring happiness to someone else, you might have to tell a white lie. Similar to the example in class, when someone makes you a meal that they put lots of effort into, but it didn't taste that great, you may lie and tell them the opposite to make them feel good.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 12, Socrates argues that a moral person is happier than an immoral person is because reason and a greater understanding of reality guide the moral person. Within Socrates argument, he is incorrect. While knowledge may the key to the truth, it does not promise happiness. With knowledge comes more people that are upset because they know about most things, and can recognize all bad, and immorality that is happening within the world. Knowing all this will eventually make people depressed, and cause the people with knowledge to become more apathetic. Then with this comes the question is it better to base happiness on things that are stable, and factual, or the more appealing lie? What most people would like to believe is that their happiness is based off factual knowledge; however, this is incorrect. Most people would prefer living the appealing lie. Even with looking at today most knowledge in things such as current events, everything is deceptive, and true knowledge is hidden under thousands of other pieces of knowledge that may not be factual.
ReplyDelete