Ignorance or Knowledge

If you were given the choice to forget something/everything, or to unlearn something, a la Eternal Sunshine or using the Neuralyzer,

A conscious choice to forsake knowledge in favor of a more simple life with more simple beliefs, would you? Could you? Even if the knowledge was causing you pain, could you knowingly choose ignorance?

See, I believe Ignorance is bliss. It makes logical sense. But..I just couldn't do it. I need to know. Which surprises even me, because I can be very selfish..and in Cypher's position in the Matrix, I imagine I'd choose as he chose, but the more I think about it the less I believe I'd choose that route.

Though his position was a little different, it's easy to reject a reality that completely contradicts your own.

Can I forget you exist?

Ignorance.

I was waiting for that flame. :) At least I had the decency to put the useless thread on the veterans' board.

I'm reading Plato (again) for a class and had the issue brought to my attention again. Would you give up the metaphorical light to be happy again in the darkness of his cave? Or would you live with the burden of your knowledge, and aim to teach. Etc.. goes on and on.

knowledge is relative and no one cares about facts, they are merely tools or obstacles to the goals we make for ourselves

The man is correct. Everything, not just knowledge, is relative.

I'm at odds with Plato and other greek and contemporary philosohpers about a number of things. My 2 big sticking points - Everything is relative, and based on that principle you can break down any number of principles.

And the second is the lack of objective morality, or god, or similar force in the universe.

Following along from that we are all merely selfish animals who create our own self-importance through a variety of means. I've written pages on this stuff with some friends of mine.

This question though is supposed to be just an interesting little exercise. Would you give up the truth to be happy?

Why I thought it was a good idea to bring these thoughts here is beyond me.

What's happened to me, even (especially) the bad things, has made me who i am today. So if you asked me would i not want to be the person i am today i would say no. I owe a lot to the people who've hurt me and learned both good and bad things from them, and those are things that would make me feel incomplete if i lost. If i did forget them, I'd probably just fuck up and repeat the whole process over anyway, so there's no point. I'm over them to the point where they don't make me unhappy anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cowutopia

Following along from that we are all merely selfish animals who create our own self-importance through a variety of means. I've written pages on this stuff with some friends of mine.
.

---

Eh you're letting the christian form of selflessness make you feel bad.

In all actuality it is impossible for a human to be completely selfless. It is how we work. Even when we do good, it is because either we feel good by helping others, are trying to preserve someone who makes us feel good, or the alternative of doing nothing would make us feel bad, and we hate that.

Searching out positive stimuli and avoiding negative stimuli is how humans work. We can not be selfless or we would be doing things for no reason, and that would be insanity.

Ultimately the real difference between what we consider a good person and a bad person to be is the amount of awareness they have of others. Most bad people are considered so because they don't think about anyone other than themselves while good people are those who are aware of others. Both people are doing what they think is best for them, but it is only the good person who realizes that other people can play a part in that.

The Christian form of ethics and morals is weird and yet makes some sense with in itself. Being selfish is a sin, and yet it is impossible for us to not do one act with out it, on some level. And yet the Bible even admits such, that all men Sin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

In all actuality it is impossible for a human to be completely selfless. It is how we work. Even when we do good, it is because either we feel good by helping others, are trying to preserve someone who makes us feel good, or the alternative of doing nothing would make us feel bad, and we hate that.

Searching out positive stimuli and avoiding negative stimuli is how humans work. We can not be selfless or we would be doing things for no reason, and that would be insanity.

---

Exactly.
I don't feel bad, these are simply the facts of life.
Religion and other various modes of aggrandizement make ourselves feel better. They are ways to justify our actions and satisfy our "conscience."

I don't spurn religion. I think it's a useful social tool, but it is also very dangerous in the hands of people who can't or won't think for themsleves, and who can't or won't understand it symbolically and take it literally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

Ultimately the real difference between what we consider a good person and a bad person to be is the amount of awareness they have of others. Most bad people are considered so because they don't think about anyone other than themselves while good people are those who are aware of others. Both people are doing what they think is best for them, but it is only the good person who realizes that other people can play a part in that.

---

You evidently agree with me.
You are describing the general rules we follow in deducing wether a person is good or evil. Not everyone follows these rules, but it is one set that is taught to us at a young age, and you have broken it down to its basic parts.

The entire conception of good and evil, and of a person being good or evil, is societally taught, and ultimately relative. There is no reason to believe that there is an objective moral good for people to aspire to. However a lot of philosophers, old and new, do believe in objective moral good.

Quickly on the Bible: My family growing up was split. Dad was Jewish, Mom was Roman Catholic. For a while neither were very religious. Recently they're getting back into it, and Mom converted to Judaism. Her number one quoted reason? "The Bible has a basic premise that all men are sinners, and sin, and this is the default. Essentially, we are evil sinful creatures that need to spend life trying to atone for our sins and avoid or sinful nature. Judaism believes we are all essentially good, but we do make mistakes and we have to own up to them and ask forgiveness, not just from god, but from the people we offend."

I'm not religious personally.

Quote:

---

In all actuality it is impossible for a human to be completely selfless. It is how we work. Even when we do good, it is because either we feel good by helping others, are trying to preserve someone who makes us feel good, or the alternative of doing nothing would make us feel bad, and we hate that.


Searching out positive stimuli and avoiding negative stimuli is how humans work. We can not be selfless or we would be doing things for no reason, and that would be insanity.

---

I don't think selflessness is ruled out simply because everything we do is something we want to do for a reason. If you want to do something for the sake of someone else, then it's selfless. Whether or not you are happy that you've done something for them doesn't negate that unless you do it for that reason and not for them. It's rather like the question at the beginning of this topic. If you did not feel good about doing a "good" deed and so forth, would you still consider it something that ought to be done? I believe there are plenty of people that would answer that with a yes, and I believe there are people that sacrifice themselves or put themselves through torment for the sake of other people. Giving up your life to save someone isn't an unselfless act simply because you want the other person to live. You wanting that other person to live is the reason why you would perform a selfless act. Saving them so that you can be remembered as a hero is a different story, perhaps. 's how I look at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cowutopia

You evidently agree with me.
You are describing the general rules we follow in deducing wether a person is good or evil. Not everyone follows these rules, but it is one set that is taught to us at a young age, and you have broken it down to its basic parts.

The entire conception of good and evil, and of a person being good or evil, is socially taught, and ultimately relative. There is no reason to believe that there is an objective moral good for people to aspire to. However a lot of philosophers, old and new, do believe in objective moral good.

---

No, I do not think it is taught. How others see each other is relative to that person’s perspective and how much they know about the other person. While that person in reality could be much better or much worse than what we currently think of them.

Huge social issues may be taught. Such as political things, business and laws. However I still think there is a true concept of good and evil.

People have a certain amount of knowledge of what is bad and good already in them. Their ability to gage it, incorporate it into their life and live up to it, completely depends on that person’s personal strength and intelligence. But there is a limit of how much a person can realize either ideal in their life. Every person has a limited amount of awareness and intelligence.

For example, the golden rule itself is a logical statement. It makes perfect sense when you realize that you are you, and other people are much like you, and since you do not like certain things to happen to you, that others would not like for them to happen to them. Since you do not want people to bother you, you will use yourself as a gauge as what to do and what not to do when you encounter others. At this point the Golden rule seems very natural.

The ideas of good and evil are passed on and are taught socially. That is just something humans do, we have a desire to pass things on to those younger than us, just as those younger than us have a natural ability, if not a desire, to pick those things up and function in the world they were born in.

Life is so complicated because regardless if there already is a true idea of good and evil in each person, we all have a limited ability to think and a limited awareness. Also, both of those variables change per person. So you have one person from one background thinking one thing is good, while someone from another background thinks that same thing is bad, because he is aware of things the other person is not aware of, and could also possible be dumber or smarter than the other person. Then you have what each person has be taught is wrong, and what they feel is wrong.

Life is filled with us constantly sifting through this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cowutopia

Quickly on the Bible: My family growing up was split. Dad was Jewish, Mom was Roman Catholic. For a while neither were very religious. Recently they're getting back into it, and Mom converted to Judaism. Her number one quoted reason? "The Bible has a basic premise that all men are sinners, and sin, and this is the default. Essentially, we are evil sinful creatures that need to spend life trying to atone for our sins and avoid or sinful nature. Judaism believes we are all essentially good, but we do make mistakes and we have to own up to them and ask forgiveness, not just from god, but from the people we offend."

I'm not religious personally.

---

Maybe that is why they seem to do so much better than Christians. They don't have all that self hate.