"Ignorance is bliss."

So why do we choose to shun ignorance? What reason is there for resenting those who choose not to shun ignorance? Is comparative enlightenment a superior state of being than ignorance?

Ignorance can be considered a zen state of being, a way of interacting with the world that is simple and clean, focused only on the immediate here and now, uncluttered by concerns thousands of miles away, or concepts foreign to daily life. It can be a way of focusing attention only on those things that matter immediately. Even if we choose to flee ignorance, we inevitably find ourselves even more ignorant. As John A. Wheeler said, "as our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." Why pursue an impossible objective: obliteration of ignorance in favor of absolute knowledge, especially if that knowledge will not make us fundamentally happier beings?

Perhaps the question can be simplified into constituent components. What is ignorance? What is the opposite of ignorance? What are the properties of each? Is one superior to the other, and if so, what factors determine that? If not, is their equality an inherent property or a function of individual preference?

Any system under consideration must have some axiomatic basis upon which all discussion can rest. Thus, in this discussion, it is perhaps best to choose a definition for ignorance upon which everything else can rest. Let us define ignorance as general destitution of knowledge and the state of being generally uninformed. This definition is a derivative of the OED definition of "ignorant," and is more applicable to this discussion than ignorance of a specific subject or fact, for all mortal life is necessarily ignorant of some subset of possible knowledge. From here, we can define the opposite of ignorance as the general possession of knowledge and the state of being generally informed.

It is often said that ignorance is bliss, and in my personal experience, I have found this to be true. Not having knowledge of the world around me simplifies life into only those things that are immediately apparent and of personal importance. It is a very self-oriented way of looking at the world, because it is unlikely to successfully avoid having knowledge and information about one's personal life and surroundings, and in a state of ignorance, one will not have general knowledge of the world outside of one's self. Thus, a person who is ignorant is aware, informed about, and knowledgeable of only himself. Complications and interruptions to daily personal cycles are fleeting and ephemeral, because one need only consider issues from one perspective in order to make sense of them. Decision-making involves simple sets of constraints and objectives, and the path to personal contentment has only personal roadblocks. The stressors and complications of others are a non-issue, because the ignorant person is not aware of them unless they are immediately present. It is not necessarily a selfish way of living, only self-oriented. A selfish way of living implies that the person cares and is concerned only with himself, but an ignorant person will still have concern for friends and family and others with whom he interacts. An ignorant person will simply not be aware of the concerns of other people, and so not concern himself with those problems.

A person in the state opposite of ignorance will live a much more complicated, messy life. (For simplification of discussion, let us assign the term "knowledgeable" to this state, ignoring widely-accepted connotations of the word.) Knowledgeable people tend to be widely conscious of current events and the goings-on in the world around them. Questions don't have simple black-and-white answers for the knowledgeable person, because he is aware of all the billions of different possible perspectives for each issue. As such, life is complicated, difficult, and at times overwhelming. Every issue must be examined from multiple angles, and there can at times be so many different perspectives and issues to consider that the knowledgeable person does not have time to grow personally in his own life. Because there are so many different perspectives and events that the knowledgeable person is aware of, inevitably there will be contradictions and opposing lessons to be learned, which may ultimately lead to stagnation of the knowledgeable person does not choose consciously to reject certain ideas. Knowledge can sometimes produce a state of limbo.

Knowledge and ignorance are continually at odds with one another in the world. In trying to determine the superiority of one over the other, we must consider what traits of each contribute to assessing its value. This becomes a difficult question, because each individual person values aspects of life differently. Rather than devolve into a discussion of relativity, the inevitable path that this question must take is a realization that, ultimately, it is a personal decision that everyone must make as to which is a superior way of living. Perhaps the best choice is, as in everything, a balance between knowledge and ignorance, a weighing of what parts of life must one be aware of in order to be an educated contributor to society, and what parts of life can one simply rely on personal faculties and experience.