Category: Ignorance

A lot of people say that ignorance is bliss, but what exactly does it mean? Well, the formal definition of ignorance, based on the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is the “lack of knowledge, education, or awareness.” And the definition of bliss is “complete happiness.” I believe the phrase ignorance is bliss, is unique and different for each person, based on their beliefs and circumstances. People compare ignorance to stupidity. Being stupid is acting deliberately on your own terms. You are aware of the way you’re acting. On the other hand, ignorance is based on circumstances. If someone was ignorant with no other means to gain knowledge, then they are truly ignorant. And that’s okay because they can’t do anything about it. They don’t even know the problem exists. But, if someone has the resources to enlighten themselves, and were deliberately acting ignorant, they are acting with stupidity.

A basic human nature is to keep on gaining knowledge, so by deliberately, of your free will, keeping yourself out of knowledge and into a false state of ignorance, you are stupid. “Ignorance is bliss” means something different to each individual. To me, the whole phrase is a sham. If you are completely unaware of something, how could you gain any happiness from it? You cannot gain any happiness from something that doesn’t even exist in your world. I believe that if someone were truly ignorant, the lack of knowledge wouldn’t affect them at all, positively or negatively.

But in the end, it simply doesn’t matter. Whether you are truly ignorant or making yourself ignorant, it still hurts the world we live in. This world runs on knowledge. From getting into a college to getting job opportunities, and even your status in life. Whether you are rich or poor, or happy or sad. Having more knowledge than someone else always gets you more opportunities. Choosing not to gain knowledge, it’s essentially like your choice to live life with a disadvantage. You are handicapping yourself. By not having knowledge, people cannot make smart decisions that will impact the future of not only themselves, but the future of everyone else including future generations to come.

Fear, on the other hand, is completely different than ignorance. Everyone will go through fear in their lives. For example, if you are put into a completely new situation you have never experienced before, no matter who you are, you will be in a state of fear. If you are ignorant, you will have much more to fear than someone else who has gained even the slightest amount of knowledge to prepare themselves. A lack of information to make good decisions can lead to unexpected outcomes, which will create chaos and disorder and lead to fear. Being truly or falsely ignorant is the opposite of bliss because you will be driven by fear when you are dealing with unexpected situations and outcomes.

Plato’s view on immorality is ignorance is derived from the argument put forward in ‘Protagoras’ by Socrates, who claimed that all wrong and evil is done due to a lack of knowledge. In this essay I plan to critically analyze this argument and evaluate an objection to Plato’s claim that immorality is ignorance by disproving the premise that every action performed by a rational agent is the action they believe is the best action. I will evaluate the argument in favor of the claim that we will never knowingly do wrong, “that if someone knows what is good or bad, he would never be conquered by anything… intelligence is a sufficient safeguard for man” (Plato, 2000, p.55). This Socratic opinion conveyed through Plato’s dialogues is also reciprocated in Aristotle’s ‘Nicomachean Ethics’, which I will use to aid my analysis and support of this philosophical concept.

I will firstly establish what Plato’s argument for immorality is ignorance entails, and how one is expected to avoid this ignorance. The dialogue ‘Protagoras’ is centered around the discussion of what it is to be ‘good’ between Socrates and Protagoras who have differing opinions on this. This discussion results in the contemplation of morality, in which Socrates illustrates the importance of knowledge to be moral. His argument is that if a rational human knows that an action is good and will produce further good, that is all the reason necessary to choose the moral action. He argues that it is in human nature when “you are forced to choose between two evils, nobody will choose the greater when he can have the lesser” (Plato, 2000, p.58). This belief that a rational being will always opt for the ‘lesser evil’ suggests that the choice in which they would achieve the most good is the naturally superior option. Therefore, to choose the least advantageous option is against the persons own self-interest, illustrating a level of ignorance which Plato argues is immorality, as he defines it as acting in a way in which is detrimental to one’s own self-interest. Furthermore, he believes that to act immorally is a failure of the rational reasoning all human beings are capable of. Alongside this, Plato places an emphasizes on ‘measurement’, as he believed that for a successful life it is crucial to measure correctly which actions will bring the most good, for both long and short-term decisions. This links to the cruciality of rationality as the careful consideration Plato is arguing is required is an activity linked to rational reasoning of decisions. Therefore, the reason for people’s lives going wrong is never done willingly but is due to a “lack of knowledge, and not merely of knowledge but… of measurement” (Plato, 2000, p.57). Thus, illustrating the importance of knowledge and measurement to produce good and rid ourselves of ignorance, the lack of these rational qualities results in immorality and, consequently, ignorance.

The soundness of Plato’s argument for immorality is ignorance is debatable and hard to define. I have evaluated the premises and conclusion and have deducted it is valid but lacks soundness due to the ambiguity concerning the premises. The concepts which Plato explores such as the certainty that a wrong action is in fact wrong. The situational aspects of a decision and the consequences vary in every circumstance. However, if we accept that all humans are rational beings, Plato’s argument gains more ground to achieve soundness. To conclude the soundness of this argument remains largely ambiguous.

I have evaluated the arguments of Aristotle in relation to Plato’s claim that immorality is ignorance and will outline the similarities and divisions in their beliefs. In ‘Nicomachean Ethics’ Aristotle develops Plato’s philosophy of immorality, whilst sharing his belief that immorality is conceived unwillingly and from a place of ignorance. “Hence, among those who act because of ignorance, the agent who now regrets his action seems to be unwilling, while the agent with no regrets may be called non-willing, since he is another case” (David Ross, 2009-07-15, p.378). This illustrates the importance of self-interest to both philosophers, as it is unlikely someone will willingly choose to bring themselves harm or regret. Therefore, such a decision is a result of ignorance which highlights the unwilling in a choice which goes directly against one’s self-interest. However, he differentiates somewhat from Plato’s philosophy of immorality is solely ignorance, as Aristotle acknowledges the presence of Passions and desires; “the possibility of having knowledge and yet in a sense not having it… this is just the condition of men underneath the influence of passions” (David Ross, 2009-07-15, p.122), depicting how passion can override reason resulting in choices which could go against self-interest. Alongside this, Aristotle delves deeper into the definition of ignorance and tolerates greater allowances in comparison to Plato who believed all ignorance resulted in poor and immoral choices. Aristotle also acknowledges that ignorance does not solely result in bad consequences, it is also likely the consequences will be good and moral. The question he uses to highlight this is: “Do we do the fine actions voluntarily and the shameful involuntarily?” (David Ross, 2009-07-15, p.380). This question is a tool to have the reader consider the absurdity of this and to contemplate how ignorance will result in good or bad consequences. However, his philosophy is still in line with Plato, as he acknowledges that we should still strive to reduce and remove ignorance in order to avoid the bad consequences.

I will now defend Plato’s concept of immorality being ignorance against two objections, which aim to disrupt the argument Plato has set out against ignorance and its dangers. The first objection is challenging premise one of Plato’s arguments: every action performed by a rational agent is the action they believe is the best action. The rational agent is defined as anything that makes decisions, specifically humans, however, even rational agents sometimes perform irrationally, they may sometimes commit an action which defies the knowledge they possess telling them which action is best. Whilst this is a reasonably strong objection to Plato’s original argument of immorality is ignorance due to his lack of accounting for irrationality in rational beings. It is inadequate in opposition with Aristotle’s more advanced argument, which accommodates for the irrationality of rational beings. This is done through his acceptance and acknowledgement of passions and desires that are capable of overriding the rational aspect of decision making.

The second objection I would like to address in my essay is in conjunction with premise three: a wrong action is never the best action. The morally wrong action is sometimes the overall best choice. This objection is easily overruled by Plato’s argument, as the moral choice is always superior due to its ethical supremacy, that is unrivalled by superficial reasons such as a financial claim. A utilitarian approach supports this rebuttal of this objection, as it “is a matter of having one’s interests factored into the calculus that determines which action brings about the greatest utility” (Jaworska, 2018). Therefore, the moral action is always the stronger choice.

I have concluded that Plato’s claim that immorality is ignorance is a convincing argument in that a rational being will always choose the option that contains the most good, the best moral choice. However, I have considered Aristotle’s expansion of this claim and allowance of a ‘weakness of will’ and found it to be a more plausible argument, as it accounts for the passions which cause distraction and the override of the rational choice.

Ignorance is usually an ability that any person would now not know. In truth, lack of knowledge is the having faith that there is any individual who can be aware of something, and that there is any man or woman who can be conscious of him or herself. Socrates and Plato had substantial and one-of-a-kind views on how they portrayed ignorance.

For Socrates, who was considered as the wisest man in the world, ignorance is a virtue in his eyes. Although Socrates said, “Know thyself”, he meant something else. He would have meant to know that which cannot be known. There is awareness, but it is not based on thoughts. It is not based on the fact that I am aware of it or that I can see it. The knowing that Socrates was referring to is none of these things. Thought is something that can be known, and it operates under the assumption that it can. Socrates devised the Socratic method, in which he would not respond immediately, but would instead assist a person in determining the answer. The Socratic method is a question-and-answer theory. It’s a universal fact. The Socratic method starts with a problem, then question and answer, and ends with a search, which means a search of the truth.

Plato was a key figure in the ancient Greek world. Aristotle studied under him. He illustrated ignorance with a parable from Book VII of ‘The Republic’, which examines concepts such as justice, truth, and beauty. Inside was the parable ‘Allegory of the Cave’. Where inmates are imprisoned and can only see shadows. One prisoner escaped and discovered the truth, but when he returned to inform the other prisoners, they were hostile and killed him with rocks. Plato may have argued in his allegory that the masses are too stubborn and ignorant to govern themselves. This parable analogy represents a philosopher attempting to educate the general public. This parable is related to his theory of forms, in which he illustrated the problem of grouping concrete things under abstract terms. Platonism is a solution to the universal problem that he proposed (Platonic realism or Platonic idealism). Plato emphasized that the task of the enlightened is not only to ascend to learning and see the good, but also to be willing to descend again to those prisoners and share their troubles and honors, whether they are worth having or not, and this they must do even if death is imminent.

When it came to Socrates’ ignorance, these two philosophers held opposing views. “No one does wrong voluntarily”, he says. “Evil is the result of ignorance; if people knew what was right, they would do it. We always choose what we think is best or good for us”, he added. Plato illustrated ignorance in his allegory by showing how our perspective can change radically when given new information, and how new information, when shared with others who are unaware of it, can give them a radically incorrect idea of truth when not taken in the proper context.

Both had similar perspectives on how a person changes if he or she is informed and knowledgeable about what is true and right, but they have different approaches to providing answers and solutions to ignorance.

Vaccination is the way how to prevent humanity before infection diseases. It is beneficial in reducing mortality and population growth. Is not only protection for us but also protection for our community. In the 18th century died 400 000 people on smallpox only in Europe. Therefore, vaccination is considered one of the greater achievements in the world. The most vaccine is for free or just for a little cost. Vaccines learn the body how to create antibodies before catching the real disease. The vaccine is including weakened or destroyed bacteria, viruses, or toxins. Also, include additives for better effectiveness and longer storage time. Vaccines were tested for years and therefore are safe. Greater danger for people is not take a vaccination and get sick as take the vaccination and get just a weak side effect. Vaccinates is not right for everyone and therefore somebody can get stronger side effect as another. Between side effects belong swelling or pain at the injection site, muscle weakness, or high fever. Sometimes can also be memory loss, hearing, or vision loss. Parents are afraid of potential long-term side effects. The biggest fear has parents from MMR vaccine. This vaccine is often time link with autism. Can be vaccination real dangerous for us or is it just ignorance of people? (Everything You Need to Know About Vaccinations.)

Autism is a neurological disorder. People with this disease have a problem with social life, communication skills; they are often upset, and is hard for them to understand information properly. They live in their own life. Some of them may need help all their life but others can live a “normal” life with a job and friendships. On the other hand, autistic people usually have a higher level of intelligence. Generally known, people with disabilities have a talent for something – is like a gift from God, which replaced loss in different things caused by disease. The first symptoms of autism are noticed around 15 months of the life of a baby. At the same time is administrated the first injection of the MMR. This is the reason why most parents are linking this disease with the MMR vaccine. Is hard for a parent to see how their child is healthy for a year or more and then start to notice symptoms of autism. Of course, they are looking for a reason why this happened. Therefore, was done quantum of researches with this problem. (Roberts and Harford, 2002)

In the year 1998, the study of Dr. Andrew Wakefield was published in the journal The Lance, where was presuppose link between autism and MMR. (Roberts and Harford, 2002) This study starts with one of the most significant controversies for the last years. However, it was found out that Andrew cheated on some children, who had symptoms of autism already before an experiment. The British doctor chambers decided to strike off him the list of doctors and the article was recalled from the journal. Unfortunately, the medialization of the study by Dr. Wakefield caused lower vaccination of MMR and more cases in the part of the world where was not before occurred. All studies after Wakefield’s had an obvious result – no evidence between MMR and autism. For experts is this link closed but is recommended to still pay attention. Studies are still in progress with new information but with the same result. The latest study with 650 000 children of which was around 1% affected by autism. Most of these children were vaccinated and results did not show any difference in rates of autism. Until today is not 100% defined, what can cause autism, singularly is, that if study disproves study, then people are taking it as incorrect, however, if it is proved that is taken as non-critic real. After many years of different studies, the link between autism and the MMR vaccine was wholly disapproved. Therefore, people do not fear this vaccine. Autism belongs to severe diseases but cannot be caused by vaccination.

Autism is not only a reason why parents are afraid to give their children vaccinations. World health organizations find out more misconceptions. (WHO | Six common misconceptions about immunization.) One of these is that people think, that they do not need a vaccination if the disease is already disappearing and they carry on better hygiene and sanitation. It is normal that amount of people with the disease is dropped after some time of using the specific vaccine. However, if people stop vaccinating themselves, the result can be fatal. In the year 1974 in Great Britain was cut vaccination for whooping cough. About 4 years later this step caused 100 000 cases and 36 death. This is an obvious result of what can happen after stop vaccination.

Another misunderstanding consists of the idea that multiple vaccinations can overload children’s immune systems and increase the risk of side effects. Can children’s small bodies handle these vaccines? Recommended vaccines are combined effectively and are not a greater risk for side effects. Moreover, children’s immune system is everyday receiving new antigens through eating food or bacteria live on the surface of their body. The vaccine is formulated to give the vulnerable baby from an early age the best immunization. Vaccination starting from the inactive form of the vaccine to live vaccine at a later age.

Often is the unknown cause of disease. People are trying found out the cause but sometimes not really successful. In the ignorance of truth, people can believe in any misconception. Publication in newspapers or the internet can bring educational information but sometimes can bring also false information. Results can be catastrophic. The publication of Dr. Wakefield’s research convinced people about the link between the MMR vaccine and autism. This causes lower vaccination and more cases of people with autism. Till today people still believe in the faked research of Dr. Wakefield. How one article changed the lives of people in the whole world. It is someone not sure about the safety of vaccination, he can ask his doctor and assure him about his attitude to vaccination. It is normal that we as a people looking for reasons of causes. But scientists are every day working on a different kinds of research to ensure us about truth. Therefore, is vaccination a big help for the world?

If somebody does not give her child vaccination, threatens the health and health of all society. People should be aware of facts and not believe in nonsense – vaccination safe life millions of people.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, ignorance is defined as the lack of knowledge or education. The knowledge question claims that with this lack of knowledge we are able to be confident in what we know. However, when we lack certain knowledge and attempt to gain more knowledge to fill in this gap, we are bound to fall into doubt, and this doubt merely confuses us. This leads us to question whether this statement is necessarily true in all cases. Hence, in order to understand the nature of ignorance and doubt we must first consider the implications caused in the deep abstractions that lie within what we know and what we do not know. I believe that by examining the areas of knowledge of religion, particularly Christianity, and referencing other belief systems as well, and mathematics, the statement of doubt leading to confusion and ignorance being a blissful state in our inner self should become more evident or, possibly, contradictory.

I shall first consider the implications in studies of religion. Suppose a person were living in contentment with knowledge that there exists only one religion that defines his or her life. It can be Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or whichever belief they have been acquainted with since the start. This person would live in peace knowing that they believe in the ‘true’ religion. However, as this person grows up and comes of age, he or she will realize that that religion need not be the only possible belief system that exists in the world, and that there are so many more systems that different people from different parts of the world choose to believe. At this point, two general scenarios can happen. Either they reject the knowledge that other people of different religions choose to believe in and continue to believe in the knowledge that they have, or, alternatively, they would begin to doubt their own religion and begin considering the beliefs found in other, completely separate, religious systems. Thus, it can clearly be seen that as knowledge about religious belief systems increases, it is possible that doubts about the knowledge that they have believed was truth for a long duration of time will arise and the confidence that they have claimed to have in believing in a religion amongst the person’s own ignorance will shatter. Consequently, they will begin to form contradictions within their own mind about the abstract nature of religion. This includes the way of life they have been inclined to live in as a result of the teachings they learned in their religion and the ideal nature of a God or of Gods found uniquely within a belief system. For example, Christianity offers belief in one God, Islam offers belief in one as well, however religions such as Hinduism and Greek mythology offer contradictory polytheistic beliefs to the nature of divine beings. This supports the statement that increase in knowledge leads only to doubt and confusion. It seems that ignorance is bliss in this case, as lacking knowledge leads to a more confident, peaceful life.

Furthermore, conflicts in knowledge may exist within a single belief system as well. Suppose the case of Christianity. Within Christianity, there exist multiple denominations of the same belief. For example, fundamentalist Christianity, Roman Catholicism, Evangelism, Protestantism and many other forms of belief. Hence, it can be seen that having knowledge about the abstract nature of one religion itself is insufficient in claiming to have confident knowledge about it. The person will have to be faced with a choice in deciding what denomination they want to lead their lives in, not to mention the contradiction found in having multiple belief systems as well. For these reasons, I believe that it is clear that in studies of religion and the abstract nature of this subject, the statement that knowing little leads to confidence and knowing more leads to doubt is strongly supported. Of course, one may choose simply not to believe in any religious system due to the plethora of complications that exist in choosing to believe, and thus they may turn to atheism or agnosticism as a source of their knowledge and henceforth live in confidence that what they chose to believe in is the truth and nothing less.

In a similar vein, I will now examine the case of mathematics. When people begin to study math, they are usually introduced to the concepts of numbers, shapes and simple operations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. In my own experience, this was the case, and since my knowledge of the subject was very limited, I interpreted these topics as step-by-step algorithms that need to be applied to get an answer, which, sometimes, I might not even understand why it is done. The knowledge that I should apply to simple mathematical problems is very small and the whole process almost seems mechanical. Yet, at such a small age, it seemed sufficient enough to know what to do and how to solve problems, rather than understand why they are relevant. A young child need not know why the formulae for various areas of shapes and volumes of solids work the way they do, neither do they need to know why something as complex as the quadratic formula to solve second-degree polynomials manages to always give the right answer. They are happy and confident as it is by just knowing how to use them. However, when they begin to pursue mathematics at a much higher level, such as through undergraduate and postgraduate studies, they learn a lot more and they are mentally tasked to understand the abstract nature behind the things that they learned. It is often the case that they are not able to fully grasp the abstract knowledge behind simple concepts that they had claimed to know when they were first introduced to them in high school and middle school. Subsequently, they begin to doubt their knowledge. Ignorance clearly seems to be the opposite of blissful in this case.

Yet, in modern times, new branches of mathematics have evolved and are evolving even today, such as abstract algebra and category theory. These branches are concerned with the underlying core abstractions that are found in every branch of mathematics and it tries to form links between different studies of mathematics. However, these branches of math emerge simply from having the doubt that the knowledge that one has about the simple concepts learned in one’s younger years is insufficient. Thus, it can be seen in the case of mathematics, in contrast to that of religion, having little knowledge does lead to doubt, but this doubt leads to some more knowledge that attempts to understand math in a new light, enabling one to be even more confident about the knowledge that they have, unlike religion, which simply leads to more and more doubt about one’s own beliefs. This distinction between the subjects exists because when it comes to religion, following a belief system implies leading a way of life that the belief system entails, yet by having more knowledge about more belief systems, one will simply become confused as they perceive different religions, following different things which their own religion does not follow. In this case, it all matters on their faith. Nevertheless, this does not mean the conflicts in religion will last forever. If studies of mathematical abstractions lead to doubt and hence more knowledge which one can believe confidently, there might be a time when studies of religion and doubts within multiple belief systems will be able to provide more knowledge about the whole nature of religion and eventually lead to something that is clearer to all. This will most likely not appear anytime soon. In the course of time, however, the possibility does exist.

In conclusion, religion and math are two cases which show a sharp difference between more knowledge leading to doubt and more knowledge leading to confidence, with doubt acting as a prerequisite to it. As to the question of whether ignorance is bliss or not in studying abstractions, it is generally the case that it is in the short run. However, in the long run, by doubting and attempting to answer these doubts by discovering new knowledge successfully, one may live in confidence with the newly gained information without having to live in the state of ignorance any longer. As Mark Twain sums it all up, “All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure”.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, ignorance is defined as the lack of knowledge or education. The knowledge question claims that with this lack of knowledge we are able to be confident in what we know. However, when we lack certain knowledge and attempt to gain more knowledge to fill in this gap, we are bound to fall into doubt, and this doubt merely confuses us. This leads us to question whether this statement is necessarily true in all cases. Hence, in order to understand the nature of ignorance and doubt we must first consider the implications caused in the deep abstractions that lie within what we know and what we do not know. I believe that by examining the areas of knowledge of religion, particularly Christianity, and referencing other belief systems as well, and mathematics, the statement of doubt leading to confusion and ignorance being a blissful state in our inner self should become more evident or, possibly, contradictory.

I shall first consider the implications in studies of religion. Suppose a person were living in contentment with knowledge that there exists only one religion that defines his or her life. It can be Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or whichever belief they have been acquainted with since the start. This person would live in peace knowing that they believe in the ‘true’ religion. However, as this person grows up and comes of age, he or she will realize that that religion need not be the only possible belief system that exists in the world, and that there are so many more systems that different people from different parts of the world choose to believe. At this point, two general scenarios can happen. Either they reject the knowledge that other people of different religions choose to believe in and continue to believe in the knowledge that they have, or, alternatively, they would begin to doubt their own religion and begin considering the beliefs found in other, completely separate, religious systems. Thus, it can clearly be seen that as knowledge about religious belief systems increases, it is possible that doubts about the knowledge that they have believed was truth for a long duration of time will arise and the confidence that they have claimed to have in believing in a religion amongst the person’s own ignorance will shatter. Consequently, they will begin to form contradictions within their own mind about the abstract nature of religion. This includes the way of life they have been inclined to live in as a result of the teachings they learned in their religion and the ideal nature of a God or of Gods found uniquely within a belief system. For example, Christianity offers belief in one God, Islam offers belief in one as well, however religions such as Hinduism and Greek mythology offer contradictory polytheistic beliefs to the nature of divine beings. This supports the statement that increase in knowledge leads only to doubt and confusion. It seems that ignorance is bliss in this case, as lacking knowledge leads to a more confident, peaceful life.

Furthermore, conflicts in knowledge may exist within a single belief system as well. Suppose the case of Christianity. Within Christianity, there exist multiple denominations of the same belief. For example, fundamentalist Christianity, Roman Catholicism, Evangelism, Protestantism and many other forms of belief. Hence, it can be seen that having knowledge about the abstract nature of one religion itself is insufficient in claiming to have confident knowledge about it. The person will have to be faced with a choice in deciding what denomination they want to lead their lives in, not to mention the contradiction found in having multiple belief systems as well. For these reasons, I believe that it is clear that in studies of religion and the abstract nature of this subject, the statement that knowing little leads to confidence and knowing more leads to doubt is strongly supported. Of course, one may choose simply not to believe in any religious system due to the plethora of complications that exist in choosing to believe, and thus they may turn to atheism or agnosticism as a source of their knowledge and henceforth live in confidence that what they chose to believe in is the truth and nothing less.

In a similar vein, I will now examine the case of mathematics. When people begin to study math, they are usually introduced to the concepts of numbers, shapes and simple operations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. In my own experience, this was the case, and since my knowledge of the subject was very limited, I interpreted these topics as step-by-step algorithms that need to be applied to get an answer, which, sometimes, I might not even understand why it is done. The knowledge that I should apply to simple mathematical problems is very small and the whole process almost seems mechanical. Yet, at such a small age, it seemed sufficient enough to know what to do and how to solve problems, rather than understand why they are relevant. A young child need not know why the formulae for various areas of shapes and volumes of solids work the way they do, neither do they need to know why something as complex as the quadratic formula to solve second-degree polynomials manages to always give the right answer. They are happy and confident as it is by just knowing how to use them. However, when they begin to pursue mathematics at a much higher level, such as through undergraduate and postgraduate studies, they learn a lot more and they are mentally tasked to understand the abstract nature behind the things that they learned. It is often the case that they are not able to fully grasp the abstract knowledge behind simple concepts that they had claimed to know when they were first introduced to them in high school and middle school. Subsequently, they begin to doubt their knowledge. Ignorance clearly seems to be the opposite of blissful in this case.

Yet, in modern times, new branches of mathematics have evolved and are evolving even today, such as abstract algebra and category theory. These branches are concerned with the underlying core abstractions that are found in every branch of mathematics and it tries to form links between different studies of mathematics. However, these branches of math emerge simply from having the doubt that the knowledge that one has about the simple concepts learned in one’s younger years is insufficient. Thus, it can be seen in the case of mathematics, in contrast to that of religion, having little knowledge does lead to doubt, but this doubt leads to some more knowledge that attempts to understand math in a new light, enabling one to be even more confident about the knowledge that they have, unlike religion, which simply leads to more and more doubt about one’s own beliefs. This distinction between the subjects exists because when it comes to religion, following a belief system implies leading a way of life that the belief system entails, yet by having more knowledge about more belief systems, one will simply become confused as they perceive different religions, following different things which their own religion does not follow. In this case, it all matters on their faith. Nevertheless, this does not mean the conflicts in religion will last forever. If studies of mathematical abstractions lead to doubt and hence more knowledge which one can believe confidently, there might be a time when studies of religion and doubts within multiple belief systems will be able to provide more knowledge about the whole nature of religion and eventually lead to something that is clearer to all. This will most likely not appear anytime soon. In the course of time, however, the possibility does exist.

In conclusion, religion and math are two cases which show a sharp difference between more knowledge leading to doubt and more knowledge leading to confidence, with doubt acting as a prerequisite to it. As to the question of whether ignorance is bliss or not in studying abstractions, it is generally the case that it is in the short run. However, in the long run, by doubting and attempting to answer these doubts by discovering new knowledge successfully, one may live in confidence with the newly gained information without having to live in the state of ignorance any longer. As Mark Twain sums it all up, “All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure”.