Ignorant is a person who does not know. It has nothing to do with intelligence or potential.
We are all ignorant because there is so much we don't know.
-
simple...
-
Ignorant Carl G Arse
-
Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
-
Ignorant Carl G Arse
-
ExpectantlyIronic
- Posts: 411
- Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:11 pm
What is knowledge beyond a justified belief that we happen to think is true (the Gettier problem aside)? There's more out there to know then we could ever learn in our lifetime. I think it's actually quite rare for people to have beliefs that they don't feel to be knowledge. There is, of course, an exception to every rule (even this one), and some religious folks do say that they simply have faith. We should imagine that this is because they simply value faith in the same way that the philosophically inclined value knowledge.Why do we form beliefs if we're limited in knowledge and understanding?
Last edited by ExpectantlyIronic on Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Why do ask questions as if you don't know the answers then speak as if you do have the answers when you get responses you don't like? Anyway, how are you defining "belief" (I don't give a toss what's in the dictionary)? And do you see a difference between a belief and a working hypothesis? "Beliefs" in the sense I was thinking of are notions that are generally held to be true. What sense are you thinking of?Ignorant Carl G Arse wrote:Beliefs may be easy and flexible, but you do not see the big picture Dan.
Go look in a dictionary. We can only gather and understand knowledge by belief. Do you know the poem: "Taking turns shiting ina bowl" There are bennefits...
-
Ignorant Carl G Arse
Dan Rowden wrote:
Belief- is anything that is held to be true.
The difference between a belief and a working hypothesis. In other words was it God or the Big Bang that created it all? A Hypothesis and a belief are both not proven, but can be... A 'working' hypothesis means it's all adding up through studies and expermentation (It's being or has been proven?).
A belief may be proven to someone, but not by experiments...Do I see what you mean?
Are you implying everything came to be the way it is today by not having a beliefs? Knowledge is based on belief, the fact that we have experiments to prove a hypothesis proves we have belief.
belief in the something crazy and deluded is not what I mean.
Wow, your brilliance is awesome. You engage me in the same way the stains on my underwear do. although it is a lot more pleasent conversing with you, the previous really stank!I don't give a toss what's in the dictionary
Belief- is anything that is held to be true.
The difference between a belief and a working hypothesis. In other words was it God or the Big Bang that created it all? A Hypothesis and a belief are both not proven, but can be... A 'working' hypothesis means it's all adding up through studies and expermentation (It's being or has been proven?).
A belief may be proven to someone, but not by experiments...Do I see what you mean?
Are you implying everything came to be the way it is today by not having a beliefs? Knowledge is based on belief, the fact that we have experiments to prove a hypothesis proves we have belief.
belief in the something crazy and deluded is not what I mean.
-
Ignorant Carl G Arse
*sigh*
I would say beliefs are firm personal acceptances of conclusions in the absence of personal experiential evidence although based in and of reasoning, but a reasoning that relies heavily on the unreasonable acceptances of what others say their experiences are.
That is the reason I find that one should rely heavily on his own experiences only, and reason them out so that his experiences conform to, and do not escape logical reasoning to its core; conclusions which, absolutely no external thing can confirm or deny, for there is no “external†to ones own experiences, i.e., consciousness, and each one is absolutely unique, for no two causal conditions are absolutely the same.
The only way we could have some sort of external “objective†confirmation is, through agreement of what others say, and THAT conforms to your logical reasoning based in and of your own experiences and logical reasoning thereof.
If two people have never had the same or similar experiences, no “objective†conclusions can be reached. So say scientific conclusions are “objective†conclusions considering that the majority of logical reasoning’s conform to similar experiences that logically co-inside and hence conform. But, on an absolutely individual basis, there are possibilities that all experiences may not conform to each and every individual experience of another, whereby the uniqueness of each individual thing is maintained in and of duality, existence, reality…. so on and so forth.
The highest form of objectivity lies within ones self, not in an “external†confirmation. An absolute external confirmation to your own logical deduction of your experiences – i.e. consciousness, is logically impossible.
Ignorant Carl G Arse,
Hence, it does not actually make logical sense to say that someone else is actually ignorant, for no two experiences could be the same; unless he claims that “I†experience each and every causal condition that there is, or that causality is “illusory†hence no individual causal conditions actually exist, in which case, I would say that don’t actually speak about an actual ignorance, THEN.
If one considers one’s self not be ignorant as opposed to another - There isn't any inherent problem with that; I say good luck to him. “I†personally claim to know nothing except the “Iâ€, so how could I even begin to consider “ignorance†or anything else, beyond of that which “I†actually only know; the "I". Those that have said, "I know nothing"; I find an objective truth in what they mean since it conforms to my expereinces and logical deduction thereof.
I am in no way suggesting that one should not express what he thinks he knows for a certainity, for that is all that we objectively have as an individual, which we can possibly express, but they are heavily dependant on experiences and what they are at any given causal condition, and those conditions can change; I can logically deduce that, based on my expereinces, so I think so; and with that; personal conslusions can change.
A subjective claim cannot be rejected simply because it is subjective, because I do not really know any other subjectivity to begin with. I am me; and that’s it.
In my opinion, one should stop quibbling and point fingers at others, and get on with expressing what is his own objectivity, and leave others to find their own.
What one knows for a certainty, cannot be imposed on another; he will find it on his own.
I would say beliefs are firm personal acceptances of conclusions in the absence of personal experiential evidence although based in and of reasoning, but a reasoning that relies heavily on the unreasonable acceptances of what others say their experiences are.
That is the reason I find that one should rely heavily on his own experiences only, and reason them out so that his experiences conform to, and do not escape logical reasoning to its core; conclusions which, absolutely no external thing can confirm or deny, for there is no “external†to ones own experiences, i.e., consciousness, and each one is absolutely unique, for no two causal conditions are absolutely the same.
The only way we could have some sort of external “objective†confirmation is, through agreement of what others say, and THAT conforms to your logical reasoning based in and of your own experiences and logical reasoning thereof.
If two people have never had the same or similar experiences, no “objective†conclusions can be reached. So say scientific conclusions are “objective†conclusions considering that the majority of logical reasoning’s conform to similar experiences that logically co-inside and hence conform. But, on an absolutely individual basis, there are possibilities that all experiences may not conform to each and every individual experience of another, whereby the uniqueness of each individual thing is maintained in and of duality, existence, reality…. so on and so forth.
The highest form of objectivity lies within ones self, not in an “external†confirmation. An absolute external confirmation to your own logical deduction of your experiences – i.e. consciousness, is logically impossible.
Ignorant Carl G Arse,
Yes we are; of the fact that ignorance holds meaning as opposed to non-ignorance, and saying that someone else is ignorant is a personal judgment based on personal experiences and logical reasoning thereof, but cannot be an absolute truth for each and every individual that is not me, because one cannot experience another’s experiences, ever; and hence will always hold a relative value; which need not necessarily be a lie, but a highest degree of an “objective†conclusion one might reach on his own - for himself. He cannot claim that from someone else’s perspective. He is actually, absolutely all alone on that level.Can someone define ignorance for me?
Are we all ignorant?
Hence, it does not actually make logical sense to say that someone else is actually ignorant, for no two experiences could be the same; unless he claims that “I†experience each and every causal condition that there is, or that causality is “illusory†hence no individual causal conditions actually exist, in which case, I would say that don’t actually speak about an actual ignorance, THEN.
If one considers one’s self not be ignorant as opposed to another - There isn't any inherent problem with that; I say good luck to him. “I†personally claim to know nothing except the “Iâ€, so how could I even begin to consider “ignorance†or anything else, beyond of that which “I†actually only know; the "I". Those that have said, "I know nothing"; I find an objective truth in what they mean since it conforms to my expereinces and logical deduction thereof.
I am in no way suggesting that one should not express what he thinks he knows for a certainity, for that is all that we objectively have as an individual, which we can possibly express, but they are heavily dependant on experiences and what they are at any given causal condition, and those conditions can change; I can logically deduce that, based on my expereinces, so I think so; and with that; personal conslusions can change.
A subjective claim cannot be rejected simply because it is subjective, because I do not really know any other subjectivity to begin with. I am me; and that’s it.
In my opinion, one should stop quibbling and point fingers at others, and get on with expressing what is his own objectivity, and leave others to find their own.
What one knows for a certainty, cannot be imposed on another; he will find it on his own.
---------
-
MindExpansion
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:46 am
Sapius, do you mind dissecting your last post, so I know exactly what you mean?
So, I can not gain wisdom from a someone on a different level then myself, right? I can only gain wisdom from someone on my own level, but theres a catch. Since I am unique, I am alone on my own level.
Therefore, I can only look within myself for that wisdom, right?
I think people who are fools, will always be fools, because they can only look within themselves for the conclusion. How does one break away or change ones' own interpretation?
I know your playing games, but you also want to help me right?
So, is there a point in trying to understand others. One thing I know is I will never be able to fully predict.
Sapius, is your second account, isn't it?
[/u]
So, I can not gain wisdom from a someone on a different level then myself, right? I can only gain wisdom from someone on my own level, but theres a catch. Since I am unique, I am alone on my own level.
Therefore, I can only look within myself for that wisdom, right?
I think people who are fools, will always be fools, because they can only look within themselves for the conclusion. How does one break away or change ones' own interpretation?
I know your playing games, but you also want to help me right?
So, is there a point in trying to understand others. One thing I know is I will never be able to fully predict.
Sapius, is your second account, isn't it?
[/u]
ME,
Humm… no, not exactly. You are absolutely alone as far as an external confirmation of your conclusions are concerned. Say from me, or God; telling you that you are absolutely correct in your over all final conclusions. But on the other hand, logically speaking, since there is nothing that lies beyond ones consciousness, so you can rely only on that, and your own over all logical conclusions that depend on your experiences thus far, or at any time thereof.
So it is your own consciousness that you can finally rely on because there is absolutely nothing else that you could really rely on. End of the day, you come to your own conclusions, or say wisdom, gained from what you have logically deduce, and that conforms to your own conscious experiences in the most logical manner possible. And that over all understanding is for you and you alone, and you cannot actually share that, because there is no other thing that experiences exactly the same causal conditions that make you what you are. We could only come to agreements over partial conclusions; bits here and bits there; but never can an all-encompassing Self-ness of one be exactly the same as another.
On the other hand; “Look within your self†only means that you understand what you really are in the first place, and then move forward. So first one needs to understand what ‘consciousness’ really means, and there are many here who can guide you. However, it all depends on whose “language†you understand best.
What you mean here is most probably False Pride. One who thinks that I know best, so all others are ignorant ass-holes. So yes, you are correct in that sense.
Humility. Beginning with ‘I know nothing’, and letting that remain in the back of ones mind at all times, irrelevant of whatever knowledge one might have gained at any point.
“I know nothing†(other than what it means philosophically) does not mean I know absolutely nothing at all, but is simply an expression of being humble in the face of existence, reality... That; "I" holds no inherent or superior value than a speck of dust, which is as equallly responsible as absolutely any other thing, since it is all of that which makes me what I am; without all that is not me, I would not be me. Hence, "I" am but a reflection of all that is not me; Hence I am not an independantly existing entity that I may have pride, in and of myself.
As far as help is concerned; have confidence in your self my friend. Discuss things; argue on logical basis; understand what the others say; don’t ask for “helpâ€. The only one that can really help you is yourself. Question what you think is illogical, and that will help you the most.
This is not a gaming site my friend :)
Not at all, but you need to point out what exactly you don’t understand.Sapius, do you mind dissecting your last post, so I know exactly what you mean?
How did you figure that? One learns what one can from whatever he is exposed to. "Level" of understanding of another does not really matter. It is you who will think over what you’ve heard and eventually what you make of it; and what you make of it, or conclude through your own logical deductions, will turn into your wisdom, if you decipher it wisely; in other words - logically.So, I can not gain wisdom from a someone on a different level then myself, right?
I can only gain wisdom from someone on my own level, but theres a catch. Since I am unique, I am alone on my own level.
Humm… no, not exactly. You are absolutely alone as far as an external confirmation of your conclusions are concerned. Say from me, or God; telling you that you are absolutely correct in your over all final conclusions. But on the other hand, logically speaking, since there is nothing that lies beyond ones consciousness, so you can rely only on that, and your own over all logical conclusions that depend on your experiences thus far, or at any time thereof.
So it is your own consciousness that you can finally rely on because there is absolutely nothing else that you could really rely on. End of the day, you come to your own conclusions, or say wisdom, gained from what you have logically deduce, and that conforms to your own conscious experiences in the most logical manner possible. And that over all understanding is for you and you alone, and you cannot actually share that, because there is no other thing that experiences exactly the same causal conditions that make you what you are. We could only come to agreements over partial conclusions; bits here and bits there; but never can an all-encompassing Self-ness of one be exactly the same as another.
What is wisdom other than cumulative understandings of your own logically deduced conclusions?; which make logical sense to you. It is not as if “wisdom†is a thing that can be literally grabbed. Is it? It needs to be grasped mentally, which can be attained only when you think deeply over something yourself.Therefore, I can only look within myself for that wisdom, right?
On the other hand; “Look within your self†only means that you understand what you really are in the first place, and then move forward. So first one needs to understand what ‘consciousness’ really means, and there are many here who can guide you. However, it all depends on whose “language†you understand best.
I think people who are fools, will always be fools, because they can only look within themselves for the conclusion.
What you mean here is most probably False Pride. One who thinks that I know best, so all others are ignorant ass-holes. So yes, you are correct in that sense.
How does one break away or change ones' own interpretation?
Humility. Beginning with ‘I know nothing’, and letting that remain in the back of ones mind at all times, irrelevant of whatever knowledge one might have gained at any point.
“I know nothing†(other than what it means philosophically) does not mean I know absolutely nothing at all, but is simply an expression of being humble in the face of existence, reality... That; "I" holds no inherent or superior value than a speck of dust, which is as equallly responsible as absolutely any other thing, since it is all of that which makes me what I am; without all that is not me, I would not be me. Hence, "I" am but a reflection of all that is not me; Hence I am not an independantly existing entity that I may have pride, in and of myself.
You see…. You say you KNOW that I am playing games… What tells you that I am playing games? Other than your own interpretations that you trust and hence jump to conclusions without giving enough time to logically analyze someone else.I know your playing games, but you also want to help me right?
As far as help is concerned; have confidence in your self my friend. Discuss things; argue on logical basis; understand what the others say; don’t ask for “helpâ€. The only one that can really help you is yourself. Question what you think is illogical, and that will help you the most.
Of course there is a point in trying to understand others, and a very sharp one. None of us are born with knowledge tucked up somewhere our behinds; it is all that a consciousness is faced with which gains momentum as thought process start questioning – Why? How come? Why not? And the understanding thence reached becomes knowledge, wisdom, of that particular conscious thing.So, is there a point in trying to understand others. One thing I know is I will never be able to fully predict.
Second account? Let me know which is my first, once you are absolutely sure that is.Sapius, is your second account, isn't it?
This is not a gaming site my friend :)
---------
I dis agree with some of these complex definitions of "ignorance." For me, the ideal definition of ignorance is implicit in the term itself - "to ignore." The ignorant are those who, for whatever reason, consciously shun knowledge. They are not those who simply don't know, but those who don't want to know. To ignore is to be ignorant.
The classic example of ignorance in this sense is provided by the religious faithful. There are many things they simply don't want to know or understand - particularly those they suspect might undermine their faith.
We need a new term for those who just don't know, but are not necessarily opposed to finding out. For the reasons I've given above, I don't think "ignorant" is appropriate. I've used "ascient" (lacking knowledge) in the past, although it's admittedly one of my many neologisms.
The classic example of ignorance in this sense is provided by the religious faithful. There are many things they simply don't want to know or understand - particularly those they suspect might undermine their faith.
We need a new term for those who just don't know, but are not necessarily opposed to finding out. For the reasons I've given above, I don't think "ignorant" is appropriate. I've used "ascient" (lacking knowledge) in the past, although it's admittedly one of my many neologisms.
I live in a tub.
-
Philosophaster
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:19 am
-
MindExpansion
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:46 am
Thanks Sapius! I must admit, my last post made me cringe.
Do you believe ones writing is a reflection of how clear their thoughts are. Maybe your right! Although when I was writing my post I was in total agreement with your explanations.
I'll write something later, maybe even dare to challenge some of your work:)
Thats what I meant. Your absolutely right, I guess I got mixed up with, GF readers and mind readers. I have trouble writing how I arrived at an idea. There would be too much to write about and I do not possess the literacy to make others understand exactly what I mean (then again, no one can).Quote:
So, I can not gain wisdom from a someone on a different level then myself, right?
How did you figure that? One learns what one can from whatever he is exposed to. "Level" of understanding of another does not really matter. It is you who will think over what you’ve heard and eventually what you make of it; and what you make of it, or conclude through your own logical deductions, will turn into your wisdom, if you decipher it wisely; in other words - logically.
Do you believe ones writing is a reflection of how clear their thoughts are. Maybe your right! Although when I was writing my post I was in total agreement with your explanations.
I'll write something later, maybe even dare to challenge some of your work:)
Who are you talking to, Nat?I dis agree with some of these complex definitions of "ignorance."
And what tells you that the first and foremost knowledge would or should be the search of higher philosophical truths for a person dying of huger in Ethiopia? Or a farmer who is burdened with the responsibility of feeding ten mouths in Thailand? The list is endless…For me, the ideal definition of ignorance is implicit in the term itself - "to ignore." The ignorant are those who, for whatever reason, consciously shun knowledge. They are not those who simply don't know, but those who don't want to know. To ignore is to be ignorant.
Do you really understand what Tao is, or simply sprout what you have read my friend?
It is quite cozy and comfortable to sit on a computer and talk about who is ignorant and who is not. Do you actually realize how existence works? Irrelevant of what you know and others are ignorant of, existence will go on. If you are trying to make this world a better place, do something practical, and at the same time try to point others to what you think reality is. I dedicate 70% of my time in traveling, and dedicate 70% of 24 hours to being awake. I sleep no more that 4 to 5 hours, and at times that is enough for two to three days.
With the help of some of my well-educated friends who cannot spare the time to travel, I help remote villages in third word countries to set up their own corporate companies and trade products they can provide, directly to international markets, and help them employ suitably educated staff who can handle international communications. I have formed hundreds of such companies, and all I get in return is a kind ear that I can speak to, once their hunger is taken care of. They remain fully self-sufficient by the time I finally leave. I am always welcome when I return to such places, but I would hardly have the time to visit the same place more that two or three times in my life time, considering how much more is left to be done.
Who the hell can think of higher understandings on an empty stomach? Except the ones who are emotionally driven to towards understanding existence, and that too starts when sufficient enough food takes care of hunger. Hunger is not a illusion my friend. Try to understand what UG is really all about. Satisfying the hunger comes much before one could send a child for education. So I try to help strengthen the root as far as I can, according to what I think will eventually lead to a healthy education, and higher philosophical pursuits.... if any.
Logically speaking, existence demands first things first, and higher realizations are not the first thing on its agenda.
In any case, do you really think that higher philosophical realizations are absolutely necessary for each and every soul? It is only the filling of the emotional gap that a realized person feels and hence one is urged to share his realizations, and they tell me that such a person has to necessarily be devoid of all emotions. Strange… :D
---------
Sapius,
Given the tone of your odd lecture above, I'd be interested to know where you got the idea that I think starving children in Ethiopia or the like should be concerned about philosophical ideas rather than food. I've never intentionally suggested something like that and I never would.
Nor do I think that "every soul" should be interested in philosophy. Some are and some aren't. There's no reason one would be other than the vagaries of nature in terms of personality and intellectual capacity. I'm discussing certain ideas for those who are interested in them. Not everyone will be or should be, and yes, there are certainly other issues in the world that should be addressed.
I'm not sure who you have me confused with here, but almost none of your remarks apply to anything I stand for.
Given the tone of your odd lecture above, I'd be interested to know where you got the idea that I think starving children in Ethiopia or the like should be concerned about philosophical ideas rather than food. I've never intentionally suggested something like that and I never would.
Nor do I think that "every soul" should be interested in philosophy. Some are and some aren't. There's no reason one would be other than the vagaries of nature in terms of personality and intellectual capacity. I'm discussing certain ideas for those who are interested in them. Not everyone will be or should be, and yes, there are certainly other issues in the world that should be addressed.
I'm not sure who you have me confused with here, but almost none of your remarks apply to anything I stand for.
I live in a tub.
Nat,
So how can you conclude ‘to ignore is to be ignorant’; I want to know?
I ask you as I understand you, not the rest of the world, for it is you who say it.
Do you see my point, and the point of all those “complex definitions of "ignorance." ?
That is, if you were pointing to my post, which I simply guessed. So I may be wrong. Hence I mentioned elsewhere, it is no big trouble to mention a name before you point to something said by a particular person, logically speaking, then that person will respond. Otherwise, if it is simply a general statement you want to make, you are most welcome to do so, and one may or may not respond to it, hence you will never know if someone takes your comment seriously or otherwise.
Simply a suggestion, but I think it makes sense :) :) :)
My apologies, but please don’t read into my words; English is not my first language. I am essentially very down to earth. I may even add, you cannot even imagine to what extent, but speak to the point so to speak. Consider it simply as a view, and do not involve emotional connotations that you think automatically imply.Given the tone of your odd lecture above,
I know you don’t. I have a pretty good picture of your personality.I'd be interested to know where you got the idea that I think starving children in Ethiopia or the like should be concerned about philosophical ideas rather than food. I've never intentionally suggested something like that and I never would.
No, some are, and some aren’t, and others have absolutely no idea what philosophy or “knowledge†is or means, as it does to you or me. So how can you claim… as in generalizing…Nor do I think that "every soul" should be interested in philosophy. Some are and some aren't.
How can someone want to ignore, and hence is ignorant, when he does not even know that there is something to be ignored in the first place? Does the rest of the world, (other than those who ignore and those that don’t), have the time or the inclination to even begin to think anything other than what realities they face? And on top of that, religion, as a reality (for them) that fills the void of a helplessness that cries out for help for a magical solution (in the form of hope) to end his sufferings (that he literally feels), which he concludes that no human can help him with, hence God can be the only help. These are the mental shakens that don't even alllow one to even consider that anything lies beyond the reality he thinks he is in.For me, the ideal definition of ignorance is implicit in the term itself - "to ignore." The ignorant are those who, for whatever reason, consciously shun knowledge. They are not those who simply don't know, but those who don't want to know. To ignore is to be ignorant.
So how can you conclude ‘to ignore is to be ignorant’; I want to know?
I ask you as I understand you, not the rest of the world, for it is you who say it.
Do you see my point, and the point of all those “complex definitions of "ignorance." ?
That is, if you were pointing to my post, which I simply guessed. So I may be wrong. Hence I mentioned elsewhere, it is no big trouble to mention a name before you point to something said by a particular person, logically speaking, then that person will respond. Otherwise, if it is simply a general statement you want to make, you are most welcome to do so, and one may or may not respond to it, hence you will never know if someone takes your comment seriously or otherwise.
Simply a suggestion, but I think it makes sense :) :) :)
---------
Everyone is ignorant of something.
Even a computer that has amassed every thought, word, idea, concept, theory, and all human data since prehistory. Still ignorant.
It would be ignorant of experiences, feelings, sensations, things it can't know. Fish are ignorant of lives of birds, and vice versa.
None of us know what it's like to stare at Earth from the moon, moving about in the lack of gravity. We're ignorant of the knowledge gained with that perspective and experience.
Ignorance is a fact of being a living being, a limited being, stuck in one shell, unable to experience life as other beings do.
Some are even ignorant of the bloody word, "ignorant."
Tell a crass joke and someone says, "Don't be ignorant."
Whuh? That doesn't mean "vulgar"---it's means 'unware.'
In another context, though, "To ignore is to be ignorant" is true---having access to information and safely draping yourself in its opposite, then, that is an active conscious working (not) hard to remain ignorant.
Anyway, we are all ignorant in some way, of something. Only an ego-driven person would deny that. Nobody knows everything; impossible.
Even a computer that has amassed every thought, word, idea, concept, theory, and all human data since prehistory. Still ignorant.
It would be ignorant of experiences, feelings, sensations, things it can't know. Fish are ignorant of lives of birds, and vice versa.
None of us know what it's like to stare at Earth from the moon, moving about in the lack of gravity. We're ignorant of the knowledge gained with that perspective and experience.
Ignorance is a fact of being a living being, a limited being, stuck in one shell, unable to experience life as other beings do.
Some are even ignorant of the bloody word, "ignorant."
Tell a crass joke and someone says, "Don't be ignorant."
Whuh? That doesn't mean "vulgar"---it's means 'unware.'
In another context, though, "To ignore is to be ignorant" is true---having access to information and safely draping yourself in its opposite, then, that is an active conscious working (not) hard to remain ignorant.
Anyway, we are all ignorant in some way, of something. Only an ego-driven person would deny that. Nobody knows everything; impossible.
I'd concede that Sapius has a point. He makes an important distinction that I didn't, but I don't think it effects my usage of the term "ignorant." I'd agree that in order to ignore, one has to know what they are ignoring. But this only reinforces my point that "ignorant" is not the proper term for those who don't know there is anything to ignore.
I live in a tub.
-
MindExpansion
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:46 am
I agree; hence in such contexts I would consider those that are not aware to be 'innocent' rather than 'ignorant'. At least that is how I see it, and can't think of another word to be more appropriate.Unidian wrote:I'd concede that Sapius has a point. He makes an important distinction that I didn't, but I don't think it effects my usage of the term "ignorant." I'd agree that in order to ignore, one has to know what they are ignoring. But this only reinforces my point that "ignorant" is not the proper term for those who don't know there is anything to ignore.
---------