No. Example: I don't know when I'm going to die. I'm ignorant of when I'm going to die, but I don't want to know, therefore I am in blissful ignorant. However, I am aware (therefore not ignorant) that I don't know when I'm going to die.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What if you've studied the wrong notes for the test tomorrow, (so you're ignorant of the answers on the test,) but if you're not ignorant of the fact that you've studied the wrong answers you won't be blissful.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, that would be one example where it wouldn't be so great. However, the post implied that there was no was to be blissfully ignorant while knowing that you were, and I just gave an example that there was.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oic, so therefore, the post is only true some of the time. OP just needs to add "Sometimes," to the beginning and everybody wins, amirite?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Haha, that's usually the way it works on Amirite. Actually, I'd prefer it without the "sometimes". Saying a definite statement, even if it gives room for pedantic wankers like me to disagree, shows more conviction.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, I hate how every post is "Sometimes," or "Almost every time," "At least once," etc. so there are always exceptions. But in this case it's crucial for the post to be correct, because of your counterexample. Anyway, I changed my vote to NW now.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I just thought of another example, that's less dramatic then "The Time You're Going To Die": When you go to McDonalds and order a meal, you know it probably has some god-awful amount of fat and sugar and calories in it. And, you know that you can look at the nutrition pamphlets and find out exactly what you're eating. However, it would probably make you happier and enjoy your meal more not to know. Therefore, you choose not to know how many calories your grease-fest is, but you are conscious that you choose not know. I actually thought it was a good post, but I'm the kinda guy who tries to find some wrong, or an exception, in everything.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's kind of redundant. If you are aware that you are ignorant, most people would try to change it. So by default, generally all ignorant people are ignorant of the fact that they are ignorant.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ignorance isn't just being stupid, see http://www.amirite.net/509086/993596

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I didn't say ignorance was being stupid. Ignorance is a mental state of being unaware of something, although ignorant people do generally give off the stupid vibe.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But then being ignorant isnt always a bad thing, so they wouldn't try to change it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If they know that they are ignorant, they are no longer ignorant. Being aware of and understanding something, such as one's own ignorance, is the opposite of ignorance; it's a paradox.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, you don't have to be completely ignorant about everything to be ignorant. I'm ignorant of the date at which I'm going to die - I'm not ignorant that I'm ignorant of that date, though. You can be unaware of things while being aware that you're unaware of them.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Not knowing something is different than being unaware of it. Awareness implies a kind of back-of-the-head concept; you know that the date you are going to die could be at any time, but you understand its existence, you know that it is impending, even if the time does vary. You don't have to know something to be aware of it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

meta ignorance is bliss?

by Anonymous 13 years ago