No human (barring brain injury situations) can remain truly ignorant, even if they try their hardest to do so. The human mind will form connections and reach conclusions on it's own, despite the human making no attempt of their own. Perhaps the last time man was recorded as an ignorant creature was in the Bible (if one chooses to believe in it), as Adam and Eve's fall from grace was about just this subject - once they had eaten from the tree, they formed free-though, and it was all downhill from there. Indeed to some, bliss is an Eden-like state in which pain or discomfort are complete unknowns, and so toiling through difficulties to get there would be working against the goal in the first place. Ones who feel in such a way as this stand as evidence for the fallibility of Plato stating ignorance is not bliss, as if knowledge is painful, neither is it. Following this train of thought, bliss would not exist at all, and thus making any argument for or against it would be pointless.
Looking at modern society, the cave dwellers, and Plato, and then thinking logically about what ignorance stood/stands for to each, I can reach only one, perhaps not very satisfying, solution. Ignorance must be both bliss as well as misery, and intellect must be both happiness and desolation, and most individuals probably feel less severely than any of these extremes about both. Like any choice, the perfect solution is different for most every person. Plato made up the Parable of the Cave, and so if the story indicates ignorance not as bliss but as misery or discomfort, etc, then he, I am sure, felt that way himself. For Plato, living a life without the cornucopia of free, wide-ranging thought would have been the most wretched existence possible, and he took this perception to his very end, preferring to die a free thinker than live without such thought. Who knows how many others would have made the same choice.
For, on the other hand, there is the very real logical proof to indicate that ignorance can be blissful. Without the burden of free thought, looking into why and how and where and when, one can also live without the gravity of knowing the often depressing answers these questions deliver. One who has not thought about why humans exist in the first place would be carefree enough to live without even religion, as there would be no fear of the likely pointlessness of it all and thus need to create something which can give it one. Not to get into a theology argument, it is merited to point out that there was no need for religion in the pre-serpent Garden of Eden either, as all facets of living were governed by God himself, and thus humans, in a way, were one with God. It was after they gained their own freedom of choice and action when a religion was needed, as they no longer had the security of purpose in everything. Again, not only is this slightly off subject, but it is also paradoxical as the story of Adam and Eve only exists within religion anyway, however, it does depict how damning knowledge can be, thus strengthening the argument for ignorance.
So, ignorance is bliss, but then, so is intellect. My personal feelings on this issue, like I'm guessing most people's are, is that ignorance is a little bit of both, and so is knowledge. I certainly cannot say that Plato was wrong in his views on ignorance, as far as he was concerned he was right. I also could not fault one who was blissful in ignorance, or tell them that they are wrong for feeling so. Everyone, in my opinion, is right in what they personally feel, and none has the authority to tell them otherwise. There are things I simply would rather not know, and living life without knowing these things makes survival each day easier. However, I love the quest for knowledge, and sharing ideas and views with others, so certainly a life without the ability to do such things, would to me be quite grey and listless. It all depends on the scope and range of the knowledge one must have or want to attain in order to no longer be able to be classified as ignorant. If ignorance is simply the absence of a drive to learn, then I most certainly am not so, and seeing as I enjoy life, knowledge must be pleasant.
If ignorance is preference to stay in the dark about some things which one would rather not know, I prefer to stay ignorant, it helps me enjoy life. If a good chunk of mediated society lives life through the lies of opinion and image the media delivers, well, if they are happy then more power to them. Modern society is not a good reflection of the cave, but as far as either's choice of life is concerned, they both have equal right to their chosen way of living. Plato as far as I am concerned was a great man, but his commentary on ignorance was self indulgent and personally motivated, seeking to place upon others his own definitions of things. This in mind, his parable should serve as a basis only for those who desire such a life as it offers them, and to all others as no more than a story.
