Every one of us must be in, at least, one of these three states — TheMadFool

I am sorry, but when did you establish this, and the validity of your limited and grossly oversimplified categories?

It would also be a challenge to find a person who doesn't fit into all three. I think you need to reconsider your inquiry, it is very ineffective. If your concern is your happiness maybe it should be focused on you.

I am sorry, but when did you establish this, and the validity of your limited and grossly oversimplified categories? — Jeremiah

Well, these are the only three epistemic states I can think of. Can you think of others? I'd be happy to know.

It would also be a challenge to find a person who doesn't fit into all three. — Jeremiah

This above statement contradicts the previous statement you made.

You say I've oversimplified it but isn't simplification necessary for comprehension? Perhaps you can do better. I'd like to see it.

Anyway, I'm quite sure that if you zoom out of individual beliefs and examine the beliefs of humanity itself, you'll find the only label we can give it is confusion. For instance atheism-theism, realism-idealism, subjectivist-objectivist, etc. etc. Isn't this confusion?

The existential situation of humanity is that we are sloshing around in a bath of water that is dirty and getting cold. We have to make a decision. We can remain in the tub and get colder. Or we can drain the tub and start over with fresh, hot water. Or we can get out of the tub and dry off. Why don't we pursue one of the happier choices, instead of just sitting there in the cooling water?

I don't have an answer (sorry) but we seem to spend a lot of our time in situations like this, or wondering about things like "Which is better? Ignorance, Confusion or Wisdom?" It would seem obvious enough that wisdom is preferable to confusion and ignorance. Ignorance might be bliss if there is nothing that can be done to avert the impending doom. Don't worry about the impending doom you can do nothing about it. It is going to get every one of us in due time.

TMF: get out of the tub and pursue wisdom.

Now you have something worthwhile to wonder about: What is wisdom?

I think it is experiences from which we learned something useful, common sense, good advice, and a certain amount of reflection boiled down into nice golden brown gravy which goes well on mashed potatoes. Wisdom tastes like fried chicken gravy. It's delicious.

There is actually quite a bit of reasonably good canned wisdom around. Some of it is on the eye-level shelves where the highest profit items are displayed. Sometimes it's on the bottom shelf where the products that don't move go.

I gave you an example of reasonably good wisdom above: Ignorance is bliss when there is nothing you can do about the impending doom. Don't worry about it. If you happen to know what your impending doom is, then embrace it. You might as well, because it's yours to keep. Otherwise, occupy your mind with more pleasant matters, like the delicious chicken gravy smell of wisdom. Follow your knows [accidental pun, but it's worth keeping]. If something stinks, leave it alone.

Thanks for your advice. I'm just trying to make sense of the world and that runs into problems because every viewpoint seems to have an equally reasonable antithesis. ''Weed out inconsistencies'', philosophers chant their mantra but they ignore, deliberately(?), the inconsistencies that litter their field. Given this is so, wisdom seems unattainable.

Perhaps everybody knows this philosophical condition (thesis-antithesis) and may be this isn't confusion but something else. I don't know.

Anyway, thanks for your post.

Well, these are the only three epistemic states I can think of. Can you think of others? I'd be happy to know. — TheMadFool

Well two of your "epistemic states" are really the same thing, and your categories are so broad they are useless, plus you are just making up crap off the top of your head with no real research involved.

This above statement contradicts the previous statement you made. — TheMadFool

No, it doesn't it.

Well two of your "epistemic states" are really the same thing, and your categories are so broad they are useless, plus you are just making up crap off the top of your head with no real research involved. — Jeremiah

Ok. I don't see why you disagree.
Knowing proceeds from ignorance to knowledge. Am I correct? And then we have confusion. These are real words from the dictionary and I simply want to categorize people into them and find out which of them are happiest?

In a sense, all of them means each other. Let you scruntize Cusanus's notion of "learned ignorance" (See: De Docta Ignorantia).

I don't care about your categories, I thought I made that abundantly clear. I think they are worthless.

Also you have yet to demonstrate any cause/effect relationship to happiness. Your explanatory variables are so wide they each included everyone, and your response is as well. You need to stop "zooming out" and come back in for a closer look.

So, the categories

1. Ignorant people
2. Confused people
3. Knowledgable people

don't exist?

That is a weak straw-man.

I never said they didn't exist, I said several times that they are too broad to be of any use. I said it directly, more than once, in plain simple English.

These categories also exist:

People with skin.
People who breathe.
People with a face.

Show me one person who does not have some knowledge of something, is not ignorant of something, or is not confused about something.

They are worthless categories, as they encompass everyone.

I said several times that they are too broad to be of any use — Jeremiah

The categories ignorance and knowledge are ''too broad''? Isn't all human endeavor, philosophy in particular, an attempt to move from ignorance to knowledge?

Show me one person who does not have some knowledge of something, is not ignorant of something, and is not confused about something.

They are worthless categories, as they encompass everyone. — Jeremiah

You make a good point and that's what is odd.