The debate on whether or not ignorance is bliss has two sides: the proposition argues that ignorance is bliss, and the opposition argues that “ignorance isn’t bliss”. Both sides came up with developed arguments to prove their position in the matter. One key idea supporting “ignorance is bliss” was, life is brutal and harsh to a person who doesn’t realize they are being ignorant. Some of the evidence given to support this claim was, from being ignorant, one could continue their normal happy life without the overbearing damage and sadness that could come from being ignorant. This means that being ignorant of something is a way to maintain the most happiness (bliss) one can have in such a brutal and harsh world.
A key rebuttal brought up by the opposing team whom argued that “ignorance isn’t bliss” was that being ignorant of a problem will create a false reality, a facade of happiness. Evidence that was used to support this claim was that “ignorance is a facade that humans put up for themselves that leads to detrimental outcomes initially masked by a temporary sense of security” (Jackie). Meaning that being ignorant of a problem leads to “bliss” for a short amount of time until reality (the problem) catches up to you, leading to a crash in your life, leading to a stop, leading to a bigger problem than there was before.
The side that argued “ignorance isn’t bliss” won. I believe this is because they were more focused on real-life events and more realistic events of occurrence. (you could also say they took a more realistic approach against the motion while mentioning more practical situations) They talked about how when a person stays ignorant, and then the problem temporarily solved comes (and when temporary solutions come) crashing down, it can lead to problems within the person such as drinking, drugs, parting, etc. Which cause the problem to become more significant than it was. While the side that argued “ignorance is bliss” was talking in circles. They mainly talked about what the questions meant and the definition of bliss while mentioning unrealistic events and things within the realm of children in different ways but always coming to the same conclusion. All in all, this made the side for “ignorance isn’t bliss” seem more organized and knowledgeable on the subject than the “ignorance is bliss” side. Because the points brought up were more likely to occur, and I didn’t always understand the other side’s issues because they weren’t explained thoroughly.
This being said, I stand on the side of “ignorance isn’t bliss” because their evidence and support came from more realistic events and occurrences, this persuaded me to agree with their arguments because they were logical. Another reason would be that, I was able to connect the dots between the critical discussion about ignorance being a facade of happiness to my own experiences.
Regarding responsibilities when it comes to acquiring knowledge, I think we first have to think of what knowledge means, if it means what we learn at school as in the logical approaches to thinking or what we know about life. Our responsibilities would be to collect research and data about a topic and to prove our points for school. But in terms of what we would be responsible for in real life, we would be reflecting on the past, using our language skills, logic, and senses to come to conclusions about right and wrong. This being said, depending on one’s perception of the meaning of knowledge would depend on the responsibilities of acquiring knowledge to be.