The Oracle of Delphi told Socrates that of all men in Athens he was wisest. This must have come as a surprise to Socrates because he, as all you no doubt know, always declared: "I know that I know nothing" (and most likely he was not even sure of that).

People often say that "ignorance is bliss" and, in a way, I agree with those people. Things take place as they do and we make of those things what we will. Some face death with more chear and joy then some others face life; truth is in the eye of the beholder, if you will.

Combining those thoughts, was Socrates not blissfull?

Hi Boagie, I think I like your vision on this. The suggestion that people are merely reacting seems very much the case. Sometimes people can also be a cause of an effect I think; but to do that one needs a gideline; an idea of what is right to do (ethics?). Socrates seems more effect then cause because he knows that he knows nothing in that sense.

Somehow the parallel doesn't seem to fit though. It seems as though Socrates takes a place that is neither cause, nor effect; as if he absorbs the "vector" (if you will). Do you see what I mean?

It certainly has been a long time Boagie, lets just say my attention was focussed elsewhere. It is good to be back though.

I like your thought on the matter, but I would like you to considder this:

If humans would only react, there would be no "creation" by humans. I think that there is. If all humans would do was react to causes would not everyone merely be experiencing what was pre-ordained?

Perhaps what I mean is best illustrated by the difference between empirism and rationalism. Rationalism holds that there are two parts of the mind: a metaphysical part and a part that is a priori. If humans would only react, would that not mean just metaphysics: cause and effect? However, the a priori also holds within it a promise of human creation; because it stands outside reason (and thereby cause and effect?). What do you think of that?

There is something to be said for ignorance and perhaps unawareness, example, if there is a condition developing in the world say the population explosion and there is nothing you can do about it, your fate tied to the folly of the population as a whole. You are better off not being stressed with concern about it. --the more one increase one's sorrow.

I'd say we are pretty on-topic with the epoche and absence of "goals" in the sense that this is the ignorance ment in "bliss". Also I think we are pretty much on-topic with the question wether "bliss" is an emotion (metafysically formed) or a feeling (transcendental). Then again, what do I know? What would on-topic be to you?

Are we then trying to discern emotions from feelings and to what end?

Without goals, I believe this means without dreams, a form of poverty.

We are moving forward in direction, but to what object? What understanding are we reaching for? Ignorance is not the source of bliss, ignorance is the source of oblivion, unawareness, but again, to what end, is it bliss we are trying focus in on? Does not bliss mean ultimate satisfaction? A summation of fulfilment. so, perhaps it is just my own orientation which is temporally in need.

Yes, I think your right, satisfaction is the better term, even more pointenly as one looks back upon ones life. Apparently a certain amount of stress is said to be healthy, not enough and things start sluggishly to slow down. Sensory deprivation you might say is an extreme case, there is no stimulus for a given time, then, the individual starts to breakdown, the lack of stress becomes overwhelming stressful.

"Wisdom promotes contentedness", yes, do you think this comes of greater control over oneself or over ones environment?

It seems to me a person intent on avoiding something, is already aware of its unpleasant nature maybe not realistically, it maybe nothing at all-------unawarness is bliss then!

I think we've left Socrates all alone.

1) I do not think that satisfaction, happyness or eudaemonia are or should be humanities goals in life. If indeed that were the case men such as Joseph Mengele (a.k.a. the angel of death) could very well be closer to it than you or I. I refuse to accept that. In that sense I even refuse to think of life as having "goals"; if life consisted of goals we would be misled in trying to find truth of any kind. Is it not in epoche that we view that which takes place most accurately, thanks to the absence of "goals"; of definitions?

My thought is that feeling exists a priori, our frame of reference (metaphysical) "bends" (if you will) feeling into the emotion (empirics) that takes place.

Life doesn't consist of goals, it consists of living. But I do not think we should have any trouble saying that happiness should be a goal of human life. Whatever we do, wouldn't it be better to be truly happy than otherwise?

As for radicals, who cause much harm to others, I do not think they can be happy. They might be blissful, they might even be entirely content with their disposition. But to be content with a violent disposition is, I think, psychological disease. I am not healthy if I am sick, and my mind is not healthy enough to be truly happy if I am insane.

Feeling exists by pure reason? I think you are making this more complicated than it needs to be. What is with metaphysical bending? An emotion is the way I feel. No need for metaphysical speculation.

So, to answer your question, bliss is an emotion; people feel blissful.