One of our society's worst problems is that so few people know enough. They cannot define enough. They cannot even describe enough. They wouldn't know enough if they had it. The closest many can come to having enough is ignorance of others having more.
Ignorance has ALWAYS been a problem within human societies. To me what you are driving at is that the ignorant are unaware they are ignorant. Today its termed Dunning Kruger syndrome.
If their ambition is to be content, they have an ambition and can therefore be content rather than complacent.
This is by intent. When Church gained power under Constantine they started to attack knowledge. The centuries old schools of Philosophy were closed and literacy went into the toilet. Ideas that conflicted with Church dogma became heretical. Technological innovation stopped and went backwards - as people with new ideas faced torture. You just did not know what some Church leader was going to label - "The Devil's work". Shipbuilding was forgotten. It took roughly 1200 years for society to relearn the shipbuilding techniques of Ancient Greece and Rome. Kings and Queens were illiterate and many bishops could not read the Bible. Sure we have advanced after the enlightenment but, the lessons for control of the raging masses were not forgotten. 12 years of school and we fail to teach a kid the "basics" of Philosophy (Logic, Logical fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument). 12 years of school and we manage not to teach a kid the principles on which this nation was founded - Individual liberty is "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't, legitimacy of authority and so on. Without these basic tools, how is the average citizen supposed to wade through the cacophony of fallacy and bad argument raining down on them on a daily basis from Politicians and the MSM. Ignorant sheep are much easier to control.
If you achieve contentment, you will find that it is a process. It requires maintenance. In this way, contentment is much more akin to life than death.
And....how do you "Know" that? Knowing something is subjective and many people think they know many things that others dispute or consider ignorance. The OP is case in point.
Science is the process wherein doubt is removed by testing. Religion is the process where in doubt is suppressed by resistance to testing. That is why the reformation brought about a scientific revolution. The ONLY remedy we have for doubt is testing. We, human beings, approach certainty by testing. To us, the closest thing we will ever have to proof positive of anything is experimental repeatability. To us, nothing is really ever so much proved to us as it is that all of the other ideas, that we have considered, have been, to our satisfaction, disproved. Then, that is tested, and so on, and so on. That is why I am careful not to write, or say, "I believe". I am care to report that "I am left to believe", or that "I am currently left to believe".
Not necessarily, just like everything you "know". We are contingent beings. We know contingently. We emote contingently. We will contingently. Indeed, we are contingent in our being. There is nothing about us that is necessary. We are a complex of actuality and potentiality. We actually exist, but we also have the potential to change, including to potential to not exist. We are contingent in our being, and if contingent being exists, necessary being must exist. For us contingent beings, knowledge is what we are left to believe. We don't know anything necessarily. Everything we know, we come to know. Necessary being is simple actuality; it has no potentiality. It has no potential to come to know, come to emote, come to will, come to be or not be. Necessary being is what it is necessarily. We are not necessary; we are contingent.
No one here expects you to get their points. We don't write here to you. You're a troll, straight up. Your above post will be the last one that I ever see. ignore
Careful not to wander too far down the path of existentialism. It is fine to believe that water is wet and the moon is not made of green cheese. Believe it or not I have had debates with folks who - in defense of some religious axiom - have gone to such mind bending lengths as to deny the existence of objective reality. One argued that the depth of a hole was not objective because the symbols on the measuring stick were arbitrarily chosen.
How often do you see anyone below the upper end of the middle classes who IS content with what they have? And by content, I mean CONTENT. As in, never complaining.
The depth of a hole is not objective. It is necessary. It is necessarily what it is. It is not objectively anything. Furthermore, your perception of the depth of the hole is contingent, not objective.
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you.
