“Ignorance is bliss” is an imprecise statement.
Is = to be.
Ignorance = lack of knowledge.
So basically, “ignorance is the equivalent of bliss” or “ignorance is the root/cause of bliss”.
Which is false, since I know plenty of ignorant people that are really unhappy, and…well, actually NOONE isn’t ignorant. Of SOMETHING. Unless you know everything there is to know…and I don’t think any one person does…you are, in at least one sense, ignorant.
Therefore, the statement implies all people are blissful, which is not only imprecise it’s also COMPLETELY inaccurate.
I suppose it makes sense as a metaphor, perhaps…but are metaphors really logical? And even if they are, are they appropriate for “logic statements”?
I mean, according to this analogy (Hey! That’s what it could be!) the more ignorant a person is, the happier they are. Therefore, the opposite must be true: the more a person learns, the less happy they become.
Hmmm…maybe there’s more to the Cthulhu mythos than I thought…