Tuesday, September 25, 2018
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)
I think Plato is partly correct. I agree that "[T]he more real something is, the more it can be a source of true satisfaction"(585d). In other words, true pleasure can only come from true sources. Like we said in class, this would not allow us to classify drugs as true pleasures because it is a synthetic pleasure and not based in reality. However, I think that true displeasure is caused only by reality as well. If pleasure based on false information is never a source of happiness, then the opposite must also be true, and unhappiness can only come from true information as well. I think that having the greatest understanding of reality doesn't guarantee happiness because there are so many facets to reality. All knowledge would consist of goodness, but also, among other things, it would include things humans are capable of that we hear about on the news constantly. Like Plato acknowledges, his "perfect" community could not exist. Thus, the world can never be perfect and reality will never consist of only goodness and sources of happiness.
ReplyDeleteThat is a really interesting argument on how knowledge of reality must breed displeasure just as much as pleasure. However, I do not think that that argument necessarily disqualifies Socrates'. Socrates' statement relies in part on relativity; he is only saying that a moral person has more happiness than an immoral one. Since Socrates based his argument solely on the comparison of two unknown quantities of happiness, one cannot refute it by providing a single quantity of unhappiness.
DeleteI agree with Socrates' statement that "... [T]he more real something is, the more it can be a true source of happiness,” which boils down to knowledge being the key to happiness (585d). Knowledge is the key to happiness because it is the foundation of reality. Reality is all things that exist and has the ability to be known as a certainty. Happiness, pleasure, satisfaction or any other synonym is simply a human emotion born out of an interpretation of reality. If this interpretation is incorrect, the happiness felt in return cannot be “true”. On the other hand, if said interpretation of reality is correct, true happiness is attainable. Yet if nothing is left to interpretation, what is seen/heard/felt must be actual reality, which, in turn may breed the “true” emotion of happiness that Socrates references. Any type of pleasure that is felt based on a false reality, or a misinterpreted reality, cannot be real in its entirety; however, the difference between ‘true’ happiness and false happiness can be almost indistinguishable if the certainties of reality are not clear or if any part of reality is left to human interpretation.
When Socrates says " . . . [T]he more real something is, the more it can be a source of true satisfaction", the key word is can. (585d). In this case, reality and truth are a sufficient condition of happiness, but based on this statement it’s not completely necessary. Reality and knowledge can lead to happiness, but there are many people who can find pleasure in other things that aren’t based on realities of this world. Many people find comfort and satisfaction through God and the idea of achieving an even “truer” happiness in an afterlife, but those beliefs are not based on fact or realities of this world. Yet no one can say that the emotion they are feeling is not happiness. Since there is no quantifiable way to actually measure happiness, and no one can say that one person’s happiness is greater than another’s, “true” happiness is completely subjective. However, I would argue that there is a difference between “true” happiness and long-term happiness. People can feel truly happy and in utter bliss for only a passing moment, but long-term happiness is something that many strive to achieve but most never actually reach since it comes from within. Long-term happiness (which could be what Socrates is defining as true happiness) is something that should not depend on physical things, such as people or objects, because the minute that person leaves or you lose your material belongings, your happiness leaves with it. In this sense, the only way to achieve long-lasting happiness is for it to come intrinsically from within oneself. This kind of intrinsic happiness is what would come from living a moral life and having a greater understanding of the world and knowledge. Overall I agree with Socrates that it is better to find happiness in truths and reality, but that is not to say that this is the only way you can be truly happy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the notion that knowledge is the key to happiness because knowledge is necessary to truly appreciate happy moments. We discussed in class that a knowledgeable person must know about both happy things and unhappy things. While one may argue that this knowledge results in the knowledgeable person being less happy than an ignorant person who knows only of happiness, I maintain that knowledge of unhappiness is necessary to appreciate happiness. If one is in a constant state of bliss, then this happiness becomes the baseline reality for that person, thereby losing its meaning. On the other hand, knowledge of unhappiness lets one be thankful for the happy moments in their life. My argument agrees with Socrates’ statement that “. . . [T]he more real something is, the more it can be a source of true satisfaction” (585d). Unhappiness serves as the contrast that lets one view happiness for what it truly is, making happiness more valuable. In class, we discussed the example of a constantly-high drug addict. I would argue that this person is not as happy as a knowledgeable person—the high provided by drugs will grow stale if it is the sole experience of the addict. Even though the addict is technically always happy, there is little meaning to this happiness without experiencing an opposing state of unhappiness. A possible counterargument is that knowledge also works in the other direction: knowledge of happiness makes unhappiness more severe in comparison. However, a knowledgeable person is well-equipped to deal with unhappiness. Knowledge allows one to see the causes of unhappiness and place it into perspective, reducing its severity.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways, yes Plato is correct in that “The more real something is, the more it can be a source of true satisfaction” (585d). Satisfaction should stem from real life pleasure. It would be a great and a pleasant world if everything stemmed from truth and knowledge but sadly there are dark secrets the world holds. It should be best to base your happiness on real things that are stable because that’s how you can attain a long lasting happiness. But Plato has yet to acknowledge the dark side of the world. Most people who are not knowledgeable can easily go through their whole life with basing their satisfaction on real life happiness. But once you learn about death, jealousy, manipulation, it is hard to keep basing your pleasure on real life objectives because you are aware it is tainted. But part of Plato’s argument he states that, “any desire in which succeeds in attaining its objective will get the truest pleasure available to it when it is guided by the truth, which is to say when It follows the leadership of knowledge and reason in its quest for those pleasures” (336). This brings me to question that who says that all things are true are pleasurable and moral? What if the pleasure stems from immorality? Thus the outcome is unhappiness, according to Plato. So not every pleasure is moral, not every truth is moral. So again, it comes down to the situation of the pleasure and truth. As we said in class, drugs and alcohol can be a false pleasure but it can be very real to certain types of people and truly bring happiness.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Socrates’ argument that a moral person is the happiest. I think it is more complicated than this and it depends on the immoral person. I believe that Socrates’ is completely correct when discussing the happiness of a dictator. He says “What about a mind is ruled by an inner dictator, then? Treating the mind as a single whole, it’ll hardly ever be free to do what it wants, will it? It’ll constantly be subject to the overpowering whims of its lust, and this will make it highly inconsistent and fickle” (322). In this passage Socrates explains why a dictator is almost impossible to please, since he is constantly in control, hears only positive feedback, and gets nearly everything he desires. However, I do not think that this supports the broader argument that Socrates makes, which is that a moral person is happier because they are guided by reason. He presents his argument by saying. “Then again, an ambitious person would regard enjoyment of money as vulgar, and would think that only some concomitant respect could redeem enjoyment of intellectual activities from being an impractical waste of time wouldn’t he?” (325). I believe that someone can be guided by reason, yet still be immoral. Understanding that an action is wrong and knowing the consequences while still partaking in that activity can go together. This is a false sense of immorality because immoral people will often get what they are doing is vulgar and wrong, and disregard that fact.
ReplyDelete