Let us thank Gen Z’s favourite poet, Mr. Thomas Grey, whose 1742 poem is still held with strong devotion in 2026, only because it sings this generation’s favourite melody claiming that “ignorance is a bliss, ’tis folly to be wise”.
Human beings, like every other species on Earth, are remarkably well adapted to their shifting environment; as the world became extremely digitised, psychological retreat also rose. It is clearly seen nowadays how young people prefer escapism over realism, sometimes by shifting it through extreme dosage of dopamine, also known as the hormone of happiness, and many times by numbing it through simpler yet questionable acts like blocking people in just a snap of fingers.
The digital sphere seems like a manifestation of Thomas Grey’s loyalists that came into execution. Back in the old days, people who found themselves in deep water used to wish for their agitators to vanish completely out of their lives; they yearned for a magic spell to take their pain away, and today’s algorithmic age is the exact materialisation of their desires.
Are we running away from reality?
Have you ever realised that the philosophy of muting people instead of confronting the argument is a school of thought that would create a heated feud among various philosophers, as it contradicts the principles of various philosophies but also acts as a framework for many ideologies. Socrates, an ancient Greek philosopher, would have scowled at Gen Zs after learning what this generation is doing, because he never viewed disagreements as a downside in one’s life and believed it to be the sole way for growth and learning. His student, Plato, advocated for a similar outlook and appreciated uncomfortable questioning, asserting that comfort and wisdom cannot coexist. Running away from disagreements is like a tree that wants to grow strong but seeks days devoid of storms.
In addition to that, the school of thought of Friedrich Nietzsche who introduced the philosophy of Existentialism accompanied by the Father of Liberalism known as John Stuart Mill most certainly would be viewing such people who mute others with a digital click as “spineless beings”, as Nietzsche preferred death over ignorance when he said, “What does not kill us makes us stronger”, while Mill valued a spectrum of beliefs, and claimed that even false opinions can help oneself in building their understanding, in his famous book of On Liberty, chapter II he commented, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”
So, are the ideas of Gen Z being judged by earlier philosophers? Absolutely.
Advancements in technology have created an echo chamber for young people; they tend to run away from their realities and try to live in a world that feels comfortable for them. As much as the millennials disregarded their mental health, the Gen Zs are inversely more conscious and overly protective about their mental state, to the extent that they often feel strangled when their teachers, parents or even friends call out their shortcomings, labelling it as an act of perfidy.
Not every battle deserves a warrior
But wait, there is much more left to be added to this philosophy. The philosophers might call today’s generation feeble or avoidant; however, their personal school of thought might give today’s generation the authority to be heard before declaring it a psychological retreat. Socrates argued that wisdom begins with the realisation of how little we know, and judging someone without understanding them reflects overconfidence in wisdom, which suggests that Socrates is not scowling at us from above the clouds.
Because every mute click has a different story, and not every argument could be called a respectful two-way conversation, sometimes it’s not even an argument but scapegoating wrapped as an argument. The noise inside the brain is much more exasperating than the accumulated noise of the universe alongside the world, which is why building boundaries in specific arguments is the highest form of self-reward one could give to themselves, because what comes from the other person through the virtual conversation can’t by any means be predicted nor controlled. As Marcus Aurelius, a famous emperor of the Roman Empire, advocated for Stoicism, by writing in his diary about how arguing with certain minds is profitless, and persuaded about the significance of having control of our minds, by practising the art of distinguishing what is yours to manage. Marcus’s teachings reflect how setting boundaries is important and provide justification for why it’s healthy not to indulge in all forms of debate, since different arguments do not warrant the same level of consideration. Not just him, but many Stoic philosophers, including Epictetus and Seneca the Younger, preach similar beliefs. They both were never initially the backers of Stoicism; however, their personal circumstances forced them to become Stoic thinkers.
Thus, the philosophy of muting people instead of facing heated arguments can not be generalised, for every human experience varies considerably, as illustrated by Epictetus’s life. Epictetus was born a slave in the Roman Empire, where he endured a lot of physical torture to the extent that his master even broke his leg. His writing concluded with emphasis upon mental freedom by stating that, “We cannot choose our external circumstances, but we can always choose how we respond to them”. His life journey taught him a fruitful lesson about how external influences can’t hurt you unless you allow them.
Correspondingly, Seneca the Younger enlightened all philosophical readers with a widely cited line which states, “every new beginning comes from some other beginning’s end” he hoped for mental liberation from oppression at his time when he was serving as an advisor for a tyrant emperor named Nero, who later ordered forced suicide for Seneca due to baseless suspicion. Throughout his life, he emphasised managing emotions for survival in the power-dynamic landscape. Both Epictetus and Seneca advocated for mental freedom against exploitation and harassment, and pointed out that enduring any form of torture is not bravery; neither does it contribute to growth and development, but only leaves prolonged scars on one’s soul which take years for healing.
What if blocking is actually good for your brain
While philosophers gave insightful wisdom through self-reflection about human nature, modern psychology provided logical reasoning through experiments to understand human behaviour. Studying the philosophy of muting people digitally is explained beautifully by one of the key frameworks in cognitive science. According to the JADE ( justify, argue, defend, explain) rule, any sort of engagement with toxic individuals will only worsen the debate, as any of our justifications, arguments, defensive statements or mere explanations are fuel for them to mentally hurt us further, and such conversations can’t be declared productive.
Interestingly, our brains are naturally programmed to dismiss people who are a threat to our mental well-being. Imagine our brain as a maintenance-free machine which automatically sends warning signs urging us to distance ourselves from energy drainers; in psychology, this phenomenon is called Energetic Return on Investment. Thus, the act of muting people instead of arguing with them can’t be universalised either as fruitful or profitless. While open confrontations are often portrayed as a path towards emotional growth, it is not universally productive. When an argument is one-sided and not constructive, it can only deteriorate mental wellness and can never contribute to one’s learning.
Hence, it’s safe to conclude that the philosophy of muting others instead of arguing with them is an adaptable study, with no fixed deduction.