Philosophy Now Forum

ignorance, one of those words that has popped up
recently in my awareness...ignorance, what does it mean
and what is its nature and, perhaps most importantly,
is it something that we need to ''cure?''

Ignorance: lack of knowledge or information..
he acted in ignorance of basic procedures...

a proverb about ignorance being bliss:

if you don't not know about something, you do not need to worry about it...
what you don't know can't hurt you...

and having as many scars as I do, I disagree with this statement, BTW...

ignorance seems to be the stock in trade for the MAGA/GOP crowd today...

so, what is ignorance? it is a lack of information.. and that is everybody...
we all lack information about something... some stuff is common and
some of it is esoteric.. I lack math knowledge... but that is an outcome from
my many, many moves as a child.. 13 moves in 9 years.. over 4 states...
I am finally becoming comfortable with math as I must do it every single 
day at work...it just took me 50 years to get there...
and I am very comfortable with history, philosophy, political science..
stuff I can learn by reading and thinking about it...

we all have areas of ignorance and indeed, Socrates made a point
of this... that we ''don't know anything" and as long as we admit that
we don't know anything, we will be better served... instead of being
one of those people who believe that because we have knowledge
in one area, that makes us fit to be ''experts'' in another area....
not exactly... as Socrates points out, again and again and again....

as I am well versed in philosophy, that doesn't make me versed in the law or
being a doctor or being an engineer...and this understanding of our ignorance
is vital to knowing our limitations in our actions and words... I have watched
movies about aircraft pilots and of course, that makes me able to
fly a plane myself, right? Yah, that won't end well.......and that is the
nature of ignorance... being ignorant never ends well...

let us work out an example of ignorance that is common today...
abortion and contraceptive pills..... by being ignorant of the medical value
of these two, religious fanatics are costing women their lives.. because
the law is being written by religious fanatics and not medical doctors...
in which medically, abortions and contraceptive pills have a medical value
in saving women's lives.... but of course, being right wing fanatics,
they have no interest in the lives of women....for them, women should
be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen... and women have no other value
for them... doubt me.. listen to their ignorant babbling about feminism...

the thing I find, ok, let's call it interesting, is that these ignorant
people have no desire to overcome their ignorance... they are loud
and proud ignorant people.. and IQ45 has publicly said,

''I love the uneducated"

for that is his bread and butter.. uneducated, ignorant people...
and look at the harm they have already done to this country..
the attempt to overthrow the government, the full scale attacks
on democracy, the carrying of Putin's water.. their ignorance is
threating the very basis of American democracy.. and if they win,
that will be the end of America as we know it... see ''project 2025''
for examples...

and what can we do, to increase our knowledge, to overcome
ignorance that is dominating America today?

starting with becoming educated... read, learn, learn to think,
question, escaping ignorance is about following the words of
Socrates.... ''know thyself'' and the ''unexamined life isn't worth living''
to overcome ignorance, examine yourself and the life you have
today.... to blindly state, ''I am not ignorant'' is really to say,
I am so ignorant that I can't tell I am ignorant...

Kropotkin

Well, the meaning of "ignorance" in the Post Truth era is a bit different than it's classic meaning. You use the example of MAGA (or low information voter) folks as examples of ignorance. But I disagree. In the Post Truth era, it is perfectly reasonable to decide of a conclusion, then cherry-picked factoids that purportedly support that conclusion while simultaneously calling down the character and name calling those who disagree with you. Why use facts to convince voters who are disconnected from critical thought and tend to make emotional decisions?

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 6:34 pm

a proverb about ignorance being bliss:

if you don't not know about something, you do not need to worry about it...
what you don't know can't hurt you...



Kropotkin

I'm not a "religious fanatic". But I do know that Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge.

Wittgenstein wrote: "Denn lebt er ewig, der in der Gegenwart lebt." "He lives forever who lives in the present."

The human condition is tragic not because we die, but because we know we are going to die. The Tree of Knowledge bears dangerous fruit.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 12:34 am

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 6:34 pm

a proverb about ignorance being bliss:

if you don't not know about something, you do not need to worry about it...
what you don't know can't hurt you...



Kropotkin

I'm not a "religious fanatic". But I do know that Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge.

Wittgenstein wrote: "Denn lebt er ewig, der in der Gegenwart lebt." "He lives forever who lives in the present."

The human condition is tragic not because we die, but because we know we are going to die. The Tree of Knowledge bears dangerous fruit.

If you think knowledge is dangerous, I'm guessing our earliest ancestors weren't exactly living in anything we should call "utopia" either. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 12:51 am

If you think knowledge is dangerous, I'm guessing our earliest ancestors weren't exactly living in anything we should call "utopia" either. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

Eden seemed a nice place (perhaps not utopia, but better than the civilization that followed). In fact, the anthropological record supports this notion. The rise of agriculture and animal husbandry that accompanied civilization adumbrated a decline in human health, well-being and longevity. Hunters and gatherers are taller, healthier, and (I'd bet) happier than their civilized bretheren (for, at least,the first several millenia of civilization).

Let's return to the story -- which I see as a fable about the origins of civilization. There are two trees in the center of the Garden. One is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,the other is the Tree of Life. God commands Adam and Eve to avoid eating from the Tree of Knowledge "or you will surely die."

The serpent tells Eve that if she eats the fruit "you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Is morality "objective"? Hmmm.

Is it possible that in small, hunting and gathering groups moral rules were largely unnecessary? Familial affection and friendship were, perhaps, sufficient to maintain order. It is civilization that has (as Freud observed) it's "discontents".

When God discovers that He has been disobeyed, he curses Eve with pain in child bearing. Then He tells Adam:

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

Doesn't this describe the change from hunting and gathering to agriculture?

The story contines with Cain and Abel. Abel is a herdsman, Cain is an agriculturalist. They both offer sacrifices to God. God is pleased with Abel's sacrifice of a Lamb, but "on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor." So a jealous Cain murders his brother.

Agriculture seems unpleasing to both God and man -- especially in comparison to Eden, where the fruit could be plucked from the tree.

Laws (and other rules) represent the objective nature of morality. They were unnecessary in Eden, where Adam and Eve lived naked and unashamed. Only when society became more diverse and complex did the enculturation of morality become necessary, and nakedness shameful.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 3:03 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 12:51 am

If you think knowledge is dangerous, I'm guessing our earliest ancestors weren't exactly living in anything we should call "utopia" either. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

Eden seemed a nice place (perhaps not utopia, but better than the civilization that followed). In fact, the anthropological record supports this notion. The rise of agriculture and animal husbandry that accompanied civilization adumbrated a decline in human health, well-being and longevity.

Are you suggesting by the term "health" that our ancestors lived longer more painlessly and more fruitfully before they learned agriculture and animal husbandry? It seems to me that they probably embraced those things out of need or desire and not just because they chose to do them on some unexplainable whim.

Interesting. We're supposed to remain hunter gatherers and our 'fall' was the introduction to agriculture and animal husbandry in our culture.

Problem: the bible would therefore have to either assume that the worlds population would remain very small, or the bible was written for a very small audience. Why. Becuz an earth of seven billion hunter gatherers is inconceivable. So clearly that can't be what the bible's instructing us to do.

Eventually they'd all end up having to claim and stay on some plot of land (lest they do battle with another group) and as such would end up storing a surplus of goods which they'll end up trading with other groups doing the same. Bada bing, bada boom. Prototypical barterism. And u know what always happens after that. Mercantilism and then feudalism and then capitalism.

We Durdenists are a prebiblical dying breed, my friend. U just can't be a hunter gatherer anymore.

Hunting and gathering is obviously impossible given large populations. "Civilization" (populous, sedentary, stratified societies) arose in river valleys surrounded by desert: the Nile; the Tigris and Euphrates; the Indus; the Yangtze. In more temperate climes, hunters and gatherers could simply move on when population increased.

Life was sometimes hard for hunters and gatherers -- but it was worse for civilized people, many of whom were slaves, eating whatever grain was the staple crop and little else. In addition, population density led to increaed risk of contagious disease and pollution (no sewer systems) led to dysentary and other diseases. The record shows that average height for Egyptians and Mesopotamians decreased by 4 or 5 inches compared to their hunter-gatherer ancestors.

Modern hunters and gatherers who have been forced into agriculture almost universally hate it. They see it as a loss of freedom -- they have to mind and weed their gardens instead of visiting their relatives in the next valley, hunting and gathering as they go.

Two harbingers of civilization began at the same time: warfare, and irrigation projects. This is clear from the archeological record. Both armies and irrigation require orginization, stratification and laws to operate effectively. The political organization necessary for either one probably led those groups who were well organized to dominate the river valleys surrounded by desert as population increased.

Of course the extent to which the stories in the Bible represent this as a fall from Eden is problematic, but it makes sense to me. The bit I quoted where God warns Adam about the difficulty of farming is direct and on point. Eden was the good life! The laws that accompany agriculture and civilization can be seen as the Knowledge of Good and Evil, gained from eating the forbidden fruit. Heck! Even God didn't approve of Cain's gift of vegetables! He liked Abel's sacrifice instead.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 10:32 pm Hunting and gathering is obviously impossible given large populations. "Civilization" (populous, sedentary, stratified societies) arose in river valleys surrounded by desert: the Nile; the Tigris and Euphrates; the Indus; the Yangtze. In more temperate climes, hunters and gatherers could simply move on when population increased.

Life was sometimes hard for hunters and gatherers -- but it was worse for civilized people, many of whom were slaves, eating whatever grain was the staple crop and little else. In addition, population density led to increaed risk of contagious disease and pollution (no sewer systems) led to dysentary and other diseases. The record shows that average height for Egyptians and Mesopotamians decreased by 4 or 5 inches compared to their hunter-gatherer ancestors.

Modern hunters and gatherers who have been forced into agriculture almost universally hate it. They see it as a loss of freedom -- they have to mind and weed their gardens instead of visiting their relatives in the next valley, hunting and gathering as they go.

Two harbingers of civilization began at the same time: warfare, and irrigation projects. This is clear from the archeological record. Both armies and irrigation require orginization, stratification and laws to operate effectively. The political organization necessary for either one probably led those groups who were well organized to dominate the river valleys surrounded by desert as population increased.

Of course the extent to which the stories in the Bible represent this as a fall from Eden is problematic, but it makes sense to me. The bit I quoted where God warns Adam about the difficulty of farming is direct and on point. Eden was the good life! The laws that accompany agriculture and civilization can be seen as the Knowledge of Good and Evil, gained from eating the forbidden fruit. Heck! Even God didn't approve of Cain's gift of vegetables! He liked Abel's sacrifice instead.

Living off the open land, free and nomadic is certainly an enviable life. Living in permanent settlements has required various habits of discipline to be artificially instilled in human beings. There was a famous rebuke of Skinner's "operant conditioning" whereby (IIRC) a married couple began training animals to perform in circuses. They observed that their conditioning of the animals' behavior proved generally successful but it would inevitably wear off or peter out and give way to innate or instinctual habits after a prolonged period of time.

In that sense, I can see good reason for saying that the move from nomadic existence was probably a move out of relative "paradise" for human beings. I don't know if there are human beings among us who have fully adapted naturally to the requirements of organized societies or not but I'm certainly not one of them. Perhaps, in a way, maybe we've become too good at surviving against adversity. It must be like the first amphibians who left the ocean to live on land. I'm sure there was an enormous tension between hereditary instincts and ones that needed to be formed through adaptation (assuming that evolution is correct and God didn't simply make everything the way it is but somehow forgot to create us in a way that makes it easier for us to feel at home in urban society. I suppose religion as it grew out of the "axial age" was the human "programming update" needed to get us through the early stages of urban life. Perhaps the truth is that those "programming changes" weren't created by building upon a solid foundation of adaptation to the new habitat but were more "ad hoc" in nature.

The really unfortunate thing is perhaps that most societies seem to want (or perhaps require) relatively uniform moral or ethical codes that are relatively uncomplicated and universally applicable to all whereas human beings are not all alike. Will we ever overcome that problem or will the diversity of genetics invariably maintain us as a species that will have problems abiding by a single code for all?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 11:10 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 10:32 pm Hunting and gathering is obviously impossible given large populations. "Civilization" (populous, sedentary, stratified societies) arose in river valleys surrounded by desert: the Nile; the Tigris and Euphrates; the Indus; the Yangtze. In more temperate climes, hunters and gatherers could simply move on when population increased.

Life was sometimes hard for hunters and gatherers -- but it was worse for civilized people, many of whom were slaves, eating whatever grain was the staple crop and little else. In addition, population density led to increaed risk of contagious disease and pollution (no sewer systems) led to dysentary and other diseases. The record shows that average height for Egyptians and Mesopotamians decreased by 4 or 5 inches compared to their hunter-gatherer ancestors.

Modern hunters and gatherers who have been forced into agriculture almost universally hate it. They see it as a loss of freedom -- they have to mind and weed their gardens instead of visiting their relatives in the next valley, hunting and gathering as they go.

Two harbingers of civilization began at the same time: warfare, and irrigation projects. This is clear from the archeological record. Both armies and irrigation require orginization, stratification and laws to operate effectively. The political organization necessary for either one probably led those groups who were well organized to dominate the river valleys surrounded by desert as population increased.

Of course the extent to which the stories in the Bible represent this as a fall from Eden is problematic, but it makes sense to me. The bit I quoted where God warns Adam about the difficulty of farming is direct and on point. Eden was the good life! The laws that accompany agriculture and civilization can be seen as the Knowledge of Good and Evil, gained from eating the forbidden fruit. Heck! Even God didn't approve of Cain's gift of vegetables! He liked Abel's sacrifice instead.

Living off the open land, free and nomadic is certainly an enviable life. Living in permanent settlements has required various habits of discipline to be artificially instilled in human beings. There was a famous rebuke of Skinner's "operant conditioning" whereby (IIRC) a married couple began training animals to perform in circuses. They observed that their conditioning of the animals' behavior proved generally successful but it would inevitably wear off or peter out and give way to innate or instinctual habits after a prolonged period of time.

In that sense, I can see good reason for saying that the move from nomadic existence was probably a move out of relative "paradise" for human beings. I don't know if there are human beings among us who have fully adapted naturally to the requirements of organized societies or not but I'm certainly not one of them. Perhaps, in a way, maybe we've become too good at surviving against adversity. It must be like the first amphibians who left the ocean to live on land. I'm sure there was an enormous tension between hereditary instincts and ones that needed to be formed through adaptation (assuming that evolution is correct and God didn't simply make everything the way it is but somehow forgot to create us in a way that makes it easier for us to feel at home in urban society. I suppose religion as it grew out of the "axial age" was the human "programming update" needed to get us through the early stages of urban life. Perhaps the truth is that those "programming changes" weren't created by building upon a solid foundation of adaptation to the new habitat but were more "ad hoc" in nature.

The really unfortunate thing is perhaps that most societies seem to want (or perhaps require) relatively uniform moral or ethical codes that are relatively uncomplicated and universally applicable to all whereas human beings are not all alike. Will we ever overcome that problem or will the diversity of genetics invariably maintain us as a species that will have problems abiding by a single code for all?

Well you are correct that at the advent of agriculture (and that of urban life that agriculture enabled) individuals had a decrease both in life quality and nutrition. However, many generations have already paid that dues, such that we are able to reap the benefits of agriculture and large communities (nations) that hunter gatherers were never going to realize.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 7:56 pm

Well you are correct that at the advent of agriculture (and that of urban life that agriculture enabled) individuals had a decrease both in life quality and nutrition. However, many generations have already paid that dues, such that we are able to reap the benefits of agriculture and large communities (nations) that hunter gatherers were never going to realize.

I agree, although the improvements you mention have occurred only in the last couple of hundred years. Modern medicine and improved infrastructure (sewers and clean drinking water) have improved human health dramatically. Of course the pollution and climate change that accompanied them are troubling, but right now human welfare (especially in the rich nations) is at its peak.

ONe more point: the industrial revolution that spurred scientific invention, wealth, and human welfare was itself advanced through slavery, colonialism and the mistreatment of workers. In the first half of the 19th century, the U.K. (the leader in the industrial revolution) had an empire on which the sun never set, and garnered somewhere between 10% and 20% of its GDP from plantations on which the treatment of the enslaved workers was even more terrible than it was in the American South. Hunters and gatherers didn't have good medical care, but they had more leisure than the free laborers of the late 1800s, who often worked 60 and 70 hour weeks. And the improvements in medicine have really only occurred in the last 100 or 80 years. (Penicillin and vaccines are post-World-War 2.)

Of course the middle and upper classes lived well. Slavery and colonialism benefited them. But life for the remaining 90% was hardly better than it had been 20,000 years earlier.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 11:56 pm ONe more point: the industrial revolution that spurred scientific invention, wealth, and human welfare was itself advanced through slavery, colonialism and the mistreatment of workers. In the first half of the 19th century, the U.K. (the leader in the industrial revolution) had an empire on which the sun never set, and garnered somewhere between 10% and 20% of its GDP from plantations on which the treatment of the enslaved workers was even more terrible than it was in the American South. Hunters and gatherers didn't have good medical care, but they had more leisure than the free laborers of the late 1800s, who often worked 60 and 70 hour weeks. And the improvements in medicine have really only occurred in the last 100 or 80 years. (Penicillin and vaccines are post-World-War 2.)

Of course the middle and upper classes lived well. Slavery and colonialism benefited them. But life for the remaining 90% was hardly better than it had been 20,000 years earlier.

Very true. However, encouraging things have been happening in some less-developed nations since "neo-colonialism" has been exposed by dissidents and journalists. China, Japan, South Korea, and other nations have benefited from Western businesses that have brought know-how to them.

Unlike former colonial empires, the West is now under much more scrutiny concerning things like overthrowing governments and influencing local politics of other countries. Of course, if the lesser developed nations turn against us, then much of what we've given them will have essentially been (apparently in the words of Lenin) just the West selling them the rope to hang us with. Time will tell if the exchange will turn out to have been a mistake or not, I guess.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯