The reason I hate ignorance is because it’s the opposite of inquisitiveness.
Inquisitiveness is the reason you and I are both here today, reading this blog. Monkeys bashed rocks against coconuts and early humans rubbed sticks together until they got warm — that’s why we’re here. The world we live in is made of energy, a force that comes in forms too numerous to list but one thing is certain: we haven’t discovered them all yet. If it wasn’t for scientists poking around at the universal fundament we’d still be hefting rocks into the air and giggling like children as they, yet again, fall to the ground.
The difference between ignorance and inquisitiveness is the number of times you fly a kite in an electrical storm. The ignorant man flies it just once and gets scared off by a near-death experience. The inventor, the thinker, flies it twice, thrice, four times, discovering a new form of energy in the process and thus enlightening the whole of humanity.
There’s a reason the stereotypical image of the inventor is ruddy-faced and static-haired with their goggle-sized glasses askew: their appearance doesn’t matter. Straightening your spectacles can damn well wait until after your appointment with particle physics! When you’re tearing apart reality to find out what makes it tick there are more important concerns than when you last ate. For the scientist, learning the hows and the whys are all that matters; personal safety — mental and physical — is a fleetingly unimportant notion.
The more I think about it, the more my hatred for ignorance grows. Every time I hear about or see yet another ignorant pissant, another monkey-faced bigot, it’s like throwing kindling onto a very virulent, white-hot fire that’s sitting underneath my ass.
I hate ignorance. It’s very, very close to stupidity, another thing I am not so fond of.
Ignorance is in the same vein as refusing to learn because you think you already know everything. It’s the gathering of just one working set of data, a singular, monofaceted education and the righteous, indignant refusal to admit any other viewpoint as valid. They say ignorance is bliss — they, not me, not us — ‘Here’s my view of the world: accept it or get lost.’ God shaped this banana; the world is round; all men are pigs; drugs are bad for you. Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant.
Rationally, it’s impossible to know everything, so why do people claim otherwise? Why is there a sizable subsection of society that thinks it’s wise or intelligent to stick to their poorly-educated guns? Why are there goons that will deny new research and rational arguments all the way to their shallow, but wide, graves?
I think it must be an innate human coping mechanism: we tend to glorify our traits, even if they’re negative. We exagerate stories until they contain just a grain of reality. We revel in aberration, we justify and pass it off as ‘human nature’: how did it become cool to pass out from alcohol poisoning?
Our most powerful drive though, the one that seals the deal, is the requirement to be right, the necessity to win the argument. There’s a facet of our genetic makeup that forces us to be right, even if it involves altering our, or other people’s, view of reality to make it so. The problem is, it’s the same trick of the mind that grants us the ability to ‘stick to our guns’. Only it’s called stubbornness and not ignorance when you put it like that.
And therein lies the problem: stubornness — inflexibility, implacibility, remorselessness, whatever you call it — is a good trait in most circumstances. Did Caesar march into nigh-impossible battles because he was ignorant of the risks? No, of course not: he was simply a genius that hated to lose. And he never did.
Hannah
Jun 9, 2009
how you feel about ignorance is how I feel about people who say, “I don’t read”. Really, people? Really?
The whole “glorifying our traits, even if they’re negative” is interesting. It’s like that saying that people throw in when talking about someone that wasn’t liked or was an asshole…the whole, “well ____ wasn’t anything if he wasn’t _____ (insert some adjective that can go either way)”….actually what you said might not be like that at all…but it made me think of it and how annoyed it makes me when people say it.
interesting post!
miss rambles
Jun 9, 2009
This was an amazing post one I really agree with as someone who has had to deal with many a ignoramuses!!I hate hw peopleassume their view of the world is the only one when there is sooo much more to learn abt different cultures societies traditions!everyday is a chance to learn something new why not accept the challenge?!
sebastian
Jun 9, 2009
If history is anything to go by, Rambles, that’s just… how we are, as a race. It’s a cherished few that actually have the guts and determination to change our view of the world. I mean, after 200 years, there’s STILL people doubting evolution. I guess it’s just a combination of traits which make us so ‘boring’. It’d be quite an interesting world if all of us were inventors and instead of doubting every new discovery we’d all say: ‘Cool! How can I help?’
Hannah, that’s probably a mix of just being plain mean and a bit of righteousness. Easy to kick a man when he’s down; fantastic chance to rack up some ‘right’ points for when things inevitably turn south in the future…
Hezabelle
Jun 9, 2009
Of course, ignorance might have very well been bliss for the thousands of men that Caesar marched to their death in said battles. Sure, Caesar survived – he was rich, well educated, a “genius” even. But what about the men who didn’t have the opportunities for such an education, who were in the army to feed their families or gain their freedom? In their case, not knowing that that day, that fight was any worse or better than any other was the only way they were able to march in and win the battle for a general who was not ignorant of the risks, but perhaps ignorant of the casualties among classes he had no respect for. They were merely a means to an end, a thousand lives here or there were of no matter as long as the battle was won.
I think what I mean to say is that inquisitiveness is a luxury, and some people even today are doomed to ignorance not by choice but by circumstance.
sebastian
Jun 9, 2009
Hm, I think a group of aged legions that have seen MANY battles would be anything but ignorant. They would’ve seen their fellow comrades die at the weapons of the enemy over and over again.
It’s far more likely they were just loyal to Caesar and to the Empire. There was a pension scheme for dead soldiers, regarding the well-being of their family, right?
I don’t think ignorance or inquisitiveness has anything to do with standard, school-taught education. Well, I am sure it starts you along the ‘right path’, but I am also sure that in just as many cases a bad education breeds ignorance — teachers that teach exam questions rather than the subject, or teachers that extol the virtues of racism, whatever.
Given the availability of information today — the Internet — I think it’s very weak to say that ignorance is caused by circumstance.
Hezabelle
Jun 9, 2009
So people living in third world countries who have to struggle every day just to feed themselves and their families, who don’t have TIME to read and don’t have the internet – they aren’t inquisitive and that’s their fault? That just doesn’t make any sense. Even in the Western World there are so many people who are struggling just to survive, to make ends meet. Inquisitiveness is a luxury because it requires time and time like that is something known only to those who have the right circumstance.
The soldiers were more likely trying to make living. They were loyal to wherever the money came from. They were particularly loyal to Caesar because he was very generous. But the moment that changed, they could turn on him. And they did, after the civil wars when Caesar couldn’t honour his promises for land. Just like they turned on Pompey during the civil war because Caesar offered more money. Loyalty is for politicians and patricians, men of luxury.
I didn’t say that the soldiers were ignorant to the realities of the fight, but often it was the actual situation they were ignorant of. They knew they had to fight that day, but they didn’t know the odds were 5 to 1 until they got out there. And in all of the cases where they DID know the truth, that’s where we see the highest cases of desertions in the legion. Ignorance is what kept the plebs fighting year after year, leaving strategy and politics to the patricians who could afford it.
Sleepwalking Writer
Jun 9, 2009
I agree with you to a point, but I think maybe you should revise your statement to say “continued ignorance”. Ignorance by itself, the first time, is no sin. If you asked me about the best way to, say, grow tomatoes, I wouldn’t have the faintest idea. I’m ignorant of the best way to grow tomatoes. And that’s fine.
Now, if I say “I don’t know” and then refuse to research tomatoes, that’s continued ignorance and stubbornness, which as you said, is very close to stupidity. In fact, continued and intentional ignorance is for all intents and purposes the same as intentional stupidity.
Just don’t hate the person who doesn’t know something for the first time. There’s still an opportunity for that person to enlighten themselves.
sebastian
Jun 9, 2009
Sleepwalker — toilet head! — I don’t think anyone mistakes ‘not knowing’ for ‘ignorance’, at least no one sensible. As you say, it’s the difference between shrugging your shoulders and saying ‘meh, that’s unimportant’ and heading over to Google to do some searching.
Nothing is unimportant. At least, no rational data is unimportant. Only to the ignorant is data unimportant.
Hez, I think you are mixing up inquisitiveness with opportunity. In your third world example, inquisitiveness would be finding better ways to make mud huts, or ways to capture morning dew (the ol’ hole-in-the-ground-and-plastic-membrane technique!) Ignorance would be laying there in the dust, waiting for death, or an external force to come and help you.
Inquisitiveness is helping yourself. Making your own luck. Creativity.
Soldiers are soldiers because they acknowledge that someone has to do the fighting. That’s just how ‘teamwork’ goes — you can’t have a bunch of leaders and no soldiers. That’s bureaucracy… don’t get me started with that
Helen
Jun 9, 2009
The trouble is that flying that kite a second, third, fourth time indicates a certain level of stubbornness, as well as inquisitiveness, so it becomes very difficult to tease apart those who are wilfully ignorant (instead of putting that kite away because we have learned that it hurts to fly it during a storm) and continue regardless, and those who are wilfully inquisitive (those who fly it again to figure out WHY it hurts).
Sleepwalking Writer
Jun 9, 2009
I think “ignorance” has come to mean something different than its intended meaning to many people. Technically, ignorance is merely a lack of knowledge. It’s not necessarily a negative thing. Yet we continue to berate people for being ignorant.
Further compounding the issue are people’s interests. Tomatoes, which you seem to love to grow, hold no interest to me. I’ve never felt the need to learn about gardening, I just don’t find it very important. And I suspect that very few people will call me ‘willfully stupid’ for not learning how to garden. But then we look at politics, or war. A lot of people have no interest in politics and all that it entails, but I get irritated when people don’t know what’s going on in the world.
It’s a hard thing to balance. We can’t all know everything, so we have to pick and choose those things that hold an interest for us. I’m sure those scientists researching particle physics and bettering humanity probably don’t know the best way in which to renovate a home, or gentrify a neighbourhood. Thank goodness for the variety of humanity.
sebastian
Jun 9, 2009
Hah, an interesting take on the kite-flying analogy! I actually tried to rewrite that line a few times as I knew it was a little too brute-force, but I let it stand in the end.
As I said at the end though, it’s just too damn close-cut between ignorance and stubbornness.
Someone could be ignorant their whole life, get lucky just once and be considered by his peers to have simply ‘stood his ground’.
sebastian
Jun 9, 2009
(Sorry, submitted at the same time as you, Sleepwalker… I hate it when I break the narrative of the comments, dangit!)
I guess I really should define this as ‘willful ignorance in the face of adversity’. We can’t know everything, but the things we DO know… we should know well! That ties into ‘being an expert at everything you do’ ideal.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t expect everyone to know everything. The problem is when ignorant people decide to make their thoughts heard. As I tried to hint with my ‘the world is round; all men are pigs; drugs are bad for you’ sentence, I don’t care if you’re not an expert on a given topic — just don’t TRY to be an expert — if you WANT to have an opinion, go and educate yourself first!
Don’t stand up on your soap box and extol the merits of chastity when there are ten experts telling you otherwise!
Gary
Jun 9, 2009
Interesting post Seb. I would certainly disagree with Hezabelle. Inquisitiveness is a concious choice and something everyone can do regardless of stature. Education, however, is something that most certainly is affected by the constraints you describe.
Seb, I wonder if you ever read the piece the New York Times did on the growing harassment of athiests and agnostics in North America. Seems like something you would enjoy reading. I’ll try and find you a link!
sebastian
Jun 9, 2009
Sweet, do share — I love how die-hard religious zealots have, for a long time, been considered ignorant.
But the outright denial of a God or gods isn’t a whole lot better…
AGD
Jun 9, 2009
Suppose, for the sake of argument, one had spent too long by far with some Nietzscheans (they are nice folks). One might, after such exposure, think some of the following.
In order for hatred of ignorance to be the right attitude, one must assume that knowing (or ‘truth) is in some sense intrinsically valuable. Short form; it isn’t and the will to truth undoes itself at this point, as it cannot justify itself beyond mere inclination.
From the other side, it isn’t clear that ignorance as such is a thing we can help, which means it can’t be a sin.
Eleni
Jun 9, 2009
Hmm. Took me a while to warm up to this post because the definition of “ignorance” with which I am most familiar is simply “a lack of knowledge”. This is not the opposite of inquisitiveness. By this definition, one can be both ignorant and inquisitive. Ignorance can be remedied by inquisitiveness, but it isn’t necessarily someone’s fault that they are ignorant until they have shunned an opportunity to learn. But ignorance itself is not a sin. As you yourself say, it’s impossible to know everything, so we will always be ignorant about something. Anyway, I guess by “ignorance” you mean… well… “the opposite of inquisitiveness”, and in that case I’m with you that it’s bad. As much as the terminology may bother me, with this definition in mind I can at least understand your argument.
Regarding “ignorance is bliss”… Here we may also be getting a bit confused–over the definition of “ignorance” and over whether this is a phrase to be applied to specific situations or whether it’s a general philosophy. I would agree that the opposite of inquisitiveness is not a recipe for lifelong happiness, but that is not what I think of when I hear the phrase “ignorance is bliss”–it may be what you mean, but since you are quoting “them”, it is relevant what “they” may mean by the phrase. Firstly, I think of ignorance as “lack of knowledge”. Now, lack of knowledge in all things turns a person into blank nothingness and gives them nothing to be happy about. That is not bliss, but it is also not what I think of when I hear the whole phrase. What I think of is that ignorance of some particular knowledge in some particular situations can allow someone bliss that they would not otherwise have. I will provide two examples in the hopes that you’ll understand at least one: A wealthy housewife spends her days happily raising her beautiful children, drinking tea with her friends, reading respectable literature as well as the occasional trashy romance novel, painting watercolor landscapes, and swimming in her pool. She adores her charismatic businessman husband. She is happy. Unbeknownst to her, however, her husband is really a crime lord who is responsible for all sorts of terrible things. He considers telling her the truth, but he knows that if she knew the truth, she would be devastated, and her happy little world would come crashing down around her. After all, ignorance is bliss. I might even argue that in this situation, her lack of inquisitiveness regarding the nature of her husband’s work allows her this bliss. Second situation: A man is hit by a car, and as he draws his last dying breaths, his final thoughts are of relief that his wife and son, at least, are safe at home. In reality, their house is burning down around them and they are going to die as well (rough day). In this case, the man’s ignorance of his family’s situation means his last moments are happy, rather than devastatingly painful. His ignorance allows him bliss. I guess all I’m saying is that when you used “ignorance is bliss” in boldface to act as a common saying to refute in order to catapult your narrative into its final arguments against stubbornness, it completely fell flat for me, because I didn’t see your arguments as contrary to the sentiments of the phrase.
Lastly, I was noticing your exchange with Hez. She said that Caesar’s soldiers were blissful in their ignorance of what was in store for them in that day’s battle. You argued that Caesar’s men were all seasoned soldiers (I guess a man like Caesar never needed new recruits) and were thus not ignorant. She responded that what she meant was that they may have been ignorant of the odds against them in a fight. If they knew that the odds were really, really bad, more of them would desert. Not knowing keeps them content and in the battle. Could you please respond to her now clarified point?
Hezabelle
Jun 9, 2009
I have to agree with Eleni and Sleepwalking and the “lack of knowledge” definition. That would be my definition of ignorance as well.
Faebala
Jun 9, 2009
So what you’re saying is that if someone doesn’t look at the data that is there, that proves some thing or another, then they’re ignorant?
But then if everyone looks at that so-called data and agrees that is right, just so they feel enlightened, then they’re really not all that much better off and could still be considered ignorant by your definition because they’re just accepting yet another fact? Until the next bit of data comes along, and then they’re supposed to accept that as truth too? Just because it’s data doesn’t mean it’s right.
And the brief comment of religion…. religion isn’t ignorance. Christians are not ignorant by choosing to believe in a God that someone else may not believe in, just as Buddhists are not ignorant, and neither were Greeks, etc. And neither are scientists, for choosing to believe in what they see as physical proof. You can’t call someone ignorant for not believing or choosing to explore what you think they should.
And Ben Franklin made a great discovery with his kite, bravo to him… I love his discovery. However, the Amish are leading perfectly healthy non-ignorant lives without it.
floreta
Jun 9, 2009
ignorance is stupidity.. what’s the difference?
this is exactly why i LOVE quantum physics. because i’m inquisitive and because it’s fascinating! i think its a leading science that is starting to explain the ‘spiritual’ side of life. still, i am just a laymen.
sebastian
Jun 9, 2009
Thanks for the responses — all intelligent and showing only slight signs of ignorance!
I think I can respond to all of you with the same answer, as you all seem to be attacking along a similar line. Let’s start by defining ignorance as I mean here: start with the obvious connotation of ‘ignoring’ data and we’re almost there. Of course I don’t mean ‘not knowing’ — we’d all be ignorant by that definition. What ignorant means in this sense is ‘dismissive of other points of view’. Ignoring (seemingly) rational responses. Declaring something as irrational simply because it does not conform with your world-view.
Devout religious types are ignorant. To believe that YOUR God is the only one (or another canonical example for other religions) is so darn ignorant (I’ve talked about this before, so I won’t rehash).
Regarding Caesar’s poor soldiers, we never can know how much, or little, they knew. I can’t believe that his soldiers were unaware of the battle conditions — but I’m not a general, I don’t know how one leads such legions. Perhaps keeping them ignorant of the true odds is important — the same way you might withhold information from a loved one, if you deem it necessary.
But again, these aren’t examples of ignorance. These are examples of white lies or something else entirely — way outside the scope of what I was trying to communicate today. I am talking about the way people, when confronted with two equally-valid (given the state of the art) truths choose one as ‘true’, and the other as ‘false’ — rather than just taking them both into a working data set.
Adam — I almost called it something else entirely, but I’d shut down my laptop by the time I thought of a better title — so ‘sin’ it remains!
To conclude, I should definitely rework the definition of ‘ignorance’, but hopefully, by now, you get what I’m trying to say.
My main gripe is actually against irrationality itself, but I’m working my way up to that.
Andhari
Jun 10, 2009
I’ve met too many ignorant people in my life, they feel like they have rights to judge others without knowing anything or just sy something without realizing how it may hurt other people. SOmetimes I refrain to just lash at them because I wanna be a bigger person, I often fail.
Just Playing Pretend
Jun 11, 2009
I grew up in a place where ignorance is running out of control. There is a predominant religion where I’m from and people frequently choose not to see other perspectives or look beyond what they see in front of them. It was a constant struggle for me and a cause of much frustration when I was growing. However, I learned one important thing. Ignorance runs deep and you can’t force someone to wake up and be more open minded. It sadly just doesn’t work that way. It sucks but is a fact.
pinginrua
Jun 11, 2009
Ha…
I just read the whole discussion.
Incredible.
You’ve some cheek calling your commenters ignorant, Seb!
By YOUR definition of it, a good few things you posted reeked of the stuff..
You’ve lived a fairly comfortable life, in a wealthy country, get most of your information off the internet, don’t work particularly hard… yet you think you can decide who out there is ignorant and who isn’t? How qualified does someone have to be in order to be permitted an opinion on something? Who decides that? You? On your blog you do. Look at the message below the comment box! Everyone thinks they know better than everyone else – you think YOU are qualified to call another person ignorant. Why?
I actually agree with the basic point you were trying to make. And I’m not saying you’re wrong…
…just a little “ignorant”.
But sure, everyone in the world is.. to some degree.
sebastian
Jun 13, 2009
Heya — sorry that I didn’t respond sooner. Kept meaning to, but other things occurred, and I wanted to give you my full, undivided attention!
My definition of ‘ignorant’ has absolutely nothing to do with whether your opinions are valid or not. It is simply the seeking of absolute rational truth, versus the wallowing in fallacy that some people seem to prefer.
It’s the difference between accepting the world as flat and going out to find out (or constructing an experiment to ascertain) whether it actually is.
I never said I reserved the right to call someone ignorant. Do you mean that I’ve defined what qualifies as ignorance? If so, then yes — but surely it’s better that I try to interact with the world that I live in? Or is it better to let ‘experts’ do all of the decision-making and labelling and stereotyping? If I’m not allowed to define ignorance, who is?
pinginrua
Jun 16, 2009
good response.