You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: I saw reference to "Monckton's Law of Opposite Consequences" yet where is it?

To be ignorant is to ignore.

To be unaware is to not be aware of something.

For example, there is a bird in a tree just across the street. But we are not "ignoring" the bird. We just do not quite see it. It is technically visible, but without looking for it, we are simply unaware.

But when the bird takes flight and goes "Tweet tweet!" and the tree rustles, and the bird is clearly there in front of your own eyes, that is the moment to either acknowledge the bird, and become aware and learn of its presence, or we can ignore it until it flies right over us, and we feel a nasty wet PLOP land right on our head. =p

At that point, either we are forced into acknowledging it, or we go a step further into what you said. We will be more than merely ignorant. We'd be willfully ignorant, and walk right into town covered in bird doodoo, denying it the entire time, even as people stop and stare.

So I would say we are NOT always ignorant of things. We are merely waiting to see them. We are unaware, but our eyes are open.

Other people are able to see things, but choose not to. The ignorant.

And some people are suffering consequences of that ignorance, and STILL choose to ignore it. The willfully ignorant.

Unaware, uninformed, unknowing, =/= ignorant, willfully ignorant, or believing falsehood in a malignant way that prevents a person from acknowledging truth, even if the truth is right before their eyes.

But all this is meant to imply is that ignorance means to ignore reality, which is inherently more wicked than merely not knowing or not noticing. I cannot blame the blind for stumbling over a pot-hole.

Thus the liability of the ignorant is that much higher. I would not wish for a person to call me ignorant, even in a good-natured way, simply because I know I cannot know everything, yet I do not think that's the same as ignorant. No, there must be meaning to words, and if "everyone is technically ignorant about SOMETHING" is the word, then I think that the word ignorant loses its venom. But this is a good venom, because we need to be able to look at a person being properly ignorant, and declare, "THE TRUTH IS RIGHT HERE, LOOK, AND IF YOU DO NOT, YOU ARE BEING IGNORANT!"

And then that person has a choice to either acknowledge or not acknowledge, and that is the true difference between being merely unaware of a thing, versus being ignorant of a thing.

Sort:  

I was using ignorant as a synonym for unaware, unknowing, uninformed. I apply the term Willful to it to bring it into the realm of what you are calling it. Willful ignorance is simply to me them being aware as it was brought to their attention and they even acknowledge they are aware but then they continue as though they never saw it.