Smoke Signals

Yesterday was UNESCO World Philosophy Day! What better way is there to celebrate, then, than to ponder a deep question? This one comes from the most recent meeting of ECHS’ ever-philosophical Debate Club on Tuesday:  Is ignorance truly bliss? If it is, would we want to know?

Ignorance does not positively exist, similarly to how “cold” doesn’t positively exist. These are, rather,  names given to states of something’s absence (in these cases, knowledge and heat respectively). This being the case, in order to evaluate whether a state of ignorance begets the experience of bliss, or perfect happiness, an evaluation must be made of knowledge. If knowledge is good on the whole—which in this sense means it is more capable of creating and maintaining joy—then ignorance necessarily cannot be the path to bliss.

So, should we pursue knowledge? Is this analogous to a pursuit of happiness? There are two ways that knowledge may best be examined for our purposes: knowledge as a function of wellbeing and knowledge as a function of truth. It is important to distinguish between these two, because many may see truth as a necessary value in a moral system that promotes wellbeing. This is not always the case, however. The reason for this lies in the existence of, or even potential existence of, highly unpleasant truths. It is true that the world is often a cruel place without justice in the lives of its inhabitants. It is true that each individual person is, objectively, of no considerable consequence in the grand mechanism of the universe, that each person’s life is a blink in the cosmic expanse of time, yet this truth does not directly promote the wellbeing of those that possess it. Rather, when faced with unpleasant truths, one must achieve wellbeing by living in spite of it or adjusting to it. While it could be argued that such adjustment and wellbeing could not exist without that truth, surely one would be better off without having to deal with such a truth at all. Having truth does not equal having happiness.

With that distinction established, now knowledge as a function of wellbeing will be evaluated. Even if truth itself does not necessarily generate wellbeing, perhaps in a world with unpleasant truths, knowledge, the apprehension and understanding of truth, is a useful tool to this end. Suppose a person has a terminal illness which will kill them in six months. While this truth, in itself, is highly unpleasant and will negatively affect the wellbeing of the person, knowledge of it may be more valuable. If the person knows that they will die soon, then they are able to ensure that they make the most of their final days, rather than die full of regrets. Given this hypothetical, many people would say that they would prefer to know about the disease. A similar principle applies when considering a relationship. If someone is in a relationship wherein their partner is cheating on them, many would say that they would prefer to know, rather than be subjected to living a lie to preserve short term happiness. In these examples, it seems like knowledge is the best bet instead of ignorance in ensuring lifelong wellbeing, but can it really be called bliss?

Knowledge allows for happiness to be attained in spite of unhappy scenarios in life (note that it does not prevent these scenarios, only reacts). If this is its sole utility in the pursuit of bliss, then it can only be successful in a world where there is a plurality of joy instead of suffering that can be experienced. Is this the case? 

Arthur Schopenhauer was a 19th-Century German philosopher, famous for outlining what is considered to be the most pessimistic philosophy ever penned. His evaluation of the world runs boldly counter to the notion that there is even close to an even amount of good and evil in the world, let alone more good than evil. In his essay, On the Sufferings of the World, he opens with the assertion, “Unless suffering is the direct and immediate object of life, our existence must entirely fail of its aim.” He sees life and suffering as directly intertwined, one directly characterized by the other. Happiness, says Schopenhauer, may only exist where pain has ended, rather than the other way around, like so many theologians and philosophers have proposed. To anyone who doubts his assertion that suffering infinitely outweighs joy, Schopenhauer encourages them to “compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other.” 

This sharp and concise witticism perfectly summates his view. The animal that is doing the eating is happy, enjoying its meal, but the pain of the other being ripped apart until it dies, struggling all the time, is incomparably greater. The same applies, according to Schopenhauer, to the rest of the world.

Taking this view into account, an interesting parallel appears. If happiness, and therefore the wellbeing it characterizes, is actually negative, exists as the state of its opposite’s absence, then it is directly related by this quality to ignorance. Just as cold is the absence of heat, ignorance is the absence of knowledge, and wellbeing is the absence of suffering. In light of this framework, it now seems natural to conclude that pursuing ignorance is more aligned with pursuing happiness. Even if knowledge allows people to attempt to cope with a world of suffering, the attempts will always ultimately be fruitless, as there is no greater happiness that this pursuit may attain. Instead, the quest for knowledge is a desperate clawing for escapes from the truth of overwhelming suffering. To live with an unpleasant truth, we seek more truth. The path ever leads in an endless circle without real reprieve.

Yes, knowing about a fatal disease may help one live their life to the fullest, but their final suffering comes from the destruction of their ignorance. The person must live with the fact that they will soon die, and can only hope to distract themselves by finding some more profound truth in their final days. Coping with knowledge is nothing but looking for more knowledge to cope with. Yes, knowing that one is being cheated on will allow them to move on from a failed relationship, but if that truth is a bad one, and knowledge the vehicle by which it arrives, then the knowledge of the cheating, not the ignorance, is where the pain is introduced. No greater good is ultimately served by destroying ignorance in these cases, because there is no good in the world greater than the suffering.

Wait a moment. If all of that is true, then a terrible thing that has just happened to you. You are now farther from ignorance, farther from snatching what little joy, the absence of pain, you can. Instead, you have gained knowledge, and quite likely some of the suffering that comes along with it, even if it is a little. Was it ethical for this article to be published?

This is an example of what is called an “information hazard,” or “infohazard,” which is true information that may cause harm if known. Infohazards are interesting in their own right, but 1) writing more about them would only be more dangerous, and 2) can come in many more forms than could be concisely defined.

Here is just one famous infohazard, as a final celebration of World Philosophy Day—be warned, reader, once you know it, you cannot un-know it, and that principle may have already caused you some pain, or at least annoyance: Do you know about The Game? It is a thought experiment. Everyone in the world is playing The Game. There is only one rule: if you think about The Game, you lose. 

You just lost The Game.