Ignorance is Bliss

I will also endevear to make this round brief. Idiom or not? Con claims I am contradicting myself when I say that even if we conceded that the phrase is not an idiom, we should still pay close attention to how it is used to determine its meaning. The problem is that 'not an idiom' does not mean 'completely literal'. It is obviously not completely literal because the phrase is not extensive enough to understand in itself - although perhaps one could deduce the meaning. Con correctly identifies the issue (although he phrases it so as the favour his position) as this: "the point is whether my opponent is allowed to fudge on the literal meaning to prevent it from supporting my argument". We must uncover the correct way to understand the phrase to work out if it is true or not. Con claims the following interpretation of the phrase is this: "(my) Ignorance (of something that applies to my current situation) is bliss. ". Compare to my original interpretation: "If one does not know about a problem or unpleasant fact, one will not worry about it". I have already argued for this interpretation, and Con never directly addresses it. Is Con's interpretation correct? Let us look at the example he gives: "I was able to enjoy the party because I didn't know someone was stalking me. Ignorance is bliss, after all. ". He argues that any bliss is temporary. Here we see that the interpretation is absolutely crucual - on my definition "ignorance is bliss' is correct - for the girl does not worry about the stalker as long as she does not know about him. But I think a case can be made that the phrase is correct even on his interpretation. For it is only false if we make the assumption that the phrase means said person will be blissful permanently - which seems absurd. Why would the phrase mean something so obviously false? Counterexamples I agree that Con's burden is not to "provide every possible example of a situation in which knowledge of a bad situation leads to happiness" and that rather it is to "demonstrate how this phrase is wrong in several instances and show how these are representative of a general principle" - for that would demonstrate that the principle is generally false. But does he succeed? He appeals to common sense, and asks if people's knowledge would have helped them avoid "tragedies, disappointments, embarrassments, and failures". Again, this example fails given the interpretation as "if one does not know about a problem or unpleasant fact, one will not worry about it" since people do not worry about the things they do not know about. But I actually think there is a broader point to be made here even if I concede this - would our lives really be happier if we always avoid misfortune and sorrow? Surely part of what makes us stronger, more resiliant and interesting people is the hardships that we go through. Would we really be better off if we avoided all misfortune? It is true that ignorant and false beliefs are often links - but this does not save Con of the charge. For those people's sorrows were not caused by ignorance, but its close cousin false beliefs. If they have been ignorant alone, those misfortunes would not have befallen them. I shall stop here, and props to any voters who have read this far. Thanks for the great debate!