Defining Ignorance

how exactly do YOU define ignorance?

is it a mindframe? can it be conquered? if so then why should we deny it?

just a few questions...heres the definition from dictionary.com

lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant

calling someone names such as ignorant IMO is just exacerbating the problem. soo what do you all think?

I prefer to define it as willful disregard/denial/ignoring of facts/knowledge.

Even though "ignorance" also includes simply "not knowing" something, which can change with education, i prefer the above definition: willful denial of, and/or failure to acknowledge and/or believe, something true.

Don't "Deny Ignorance"

Become Wise


Positive reinforcement and connotation is always better than negative reinforcement and connotation.

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
Don't "Deny Ignorance"

Become Wise


Positive reinforcement and connotation is always better than negative reinforcement and connotation.

Doesn't "becoming wise" entail recognition of the limits of knowledge (in the classical sense), thereby affirming a negative reinforcement that we know nothing?

we all learn more and more every day. its part of life, and it's up to each person to chose how much they learn, and how much they incorporate their learning experiences into their own life. And then how its applied makes all the difference

Originally posted by Liquesence
I prefer to define it as willful disregard/denial/ignoring of facts/knowledge.

Even though "ignorance" also includes simply "not knowing" something, which can change with education, i prefer the above definition: willful denial of, and/or failure to acknowledge and/or believe, something true.

Although ignorance is just the state of being unaware of something, I think we all know the motto implies to oust wilful ignorance, even if that is not what the motto literally means.

I just don't like it because of it's negative connotations because of the two word used, "deny" and "ignorance". I often see two people arguing about some subject on here and one of them will forcefully make his point while rudely dismissing the other persons post, with the words "Deny Ignorance" after their post. I really dislike when people do this. It's like their using the motto to somehow reinforce their point.

Perhaps a more positive motto would be better, something like "Avouch Knowledge" or "Acclaim Wisdom". Something with a more positive connotation.

Originally posted by dPD89

Originally posted by Liquesence
I prefer to define it as willful disregard/denial/ignoring of facts/knowledge.

Even though "ignorance" also includes simply "not knowing" something, which can change with education, i prefer the above definition: willful denial of, and/or failure to acknowledge and/or believe, something true.

Although ignorance is just the state of being unaware of something, I think we all know the motto implies to oust wilful ignorance, even if that is not what the motto literally means.

I just don't like it because of it's negative connotations because of the two word used, "deny" and "ignorance". I often see two people arguing about some subject on here and one of them will forcefully make his point while rudely dismissing the other persons post, with the words "Deny Ignorance" after their post. I really dislike when people do this. It's like their using the motto to somehow reinforce their point.

Perhaps a more positive motto would be better, something like "Avouch Knowledge" or "Acclaim Wisdom". Something with a more positive connotation.

That's very interesting. I had not quite thought about it such a way, but what you said makes me think: by denying ignorance one sort of ignores the possibility of ignorance, so "deny ignorance" is sort of a contradiction, or a paradox (ignore/disregard ignorance). If ignorance is willful disregard, and denying is wilful disregard , then they pretty much equal the same thing.

That said, i agree with you. Oftentimes people are too eager to make their own point to truly comprehend what others actually say. They either jump to conclusions, or they hear but do not listen, and i think that this is one of the most significant problems with communication/the exchange of information that we have. People seem to be extraordinarily loath to admit when they are wrong, and seek to affirm their own belief system (which you described as dismissing posts with a "deny ignorance" as conclusion or valediction, but which also included people seeking out--in general--those things that already affirm their belief system, and why people will still willfully ignore truthful things if they happen to contradict their own belief system/worldview), while dismissing the other person's post without actually taking the time to truly think about and/or consider it for what it is, but seem to see it as only contrary to their own opinion/belief (this is at what MSM and pop culture is exceptional).

Avouch knowledge. I like that.

[edit to subtract]

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Liquesence]

I just took a spin on a few threads in the political forums. If you're looking for ignorance, they've got some great examples banging around up there.

To remain ignorant nowdays, you have to want to be ignorant. Period. No one is so dense that they can't find out what's important to them. The truly ignorant simply don't believe that anything is important enough to even try to get right. It doesn't matter. One more ignorant person won't make anything better or worse.