Do You Have a Right to be Willfully Ignorant?

[savagewind]

That is the most inane & pretentious quote I've seen in a while.
Ignorance, ie, to not know something, is typically benign.
And to be sincere in recognizing that one doesn't know something strikes me as a positive trait.
If one needs to, one can always decide to cure this lack.

No....I'd say there's nothing more dangerous than people who are willing to abridge the rights of others, whether this is borne from misguided altruism or personal gain.
Regarding voting, knowledge is a useful thing.
But I place more importance on the morality of the person's agenda or measure.

I think willful ignorance means knowing something but killing it.
You know something is true and right, but you will keep acting as though it isn't true or right.

 

[Revoltingest]

Correct, but my take is that if someone is willfully ignorant. That is, not knowing and refusing to take any action to correct it has the potential to be a problem.

I'm willfully ignorant of many things.
Because of the great difficulty, I haven't learned quantum mechanics, general relativity (although I'm rather familiar with the special variety), the history of Cooper Bessemer (haven't made time for the book yet), etc.
What I notice is that the charge of "willful ignorance" is often made as an ad hominem argument against the other side in a debate.
Essentially it's.....
"You're willfully ignorant because you don't see that I'm right!"
Of course, ignorance certainly can be the reason one side is wrong, & the other is right.
But there isn't a lot of correlation here, strong feelings to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think willful ignorance means knowing something but killing it.
You know something is true and right, but you will keep acting as though it isn't true or right.

Is this really a thing though?
I'd say it's merely recognizing claimed knowledge/facts, & rejecting them.
Tis mere disagreement.

A close cousin is "intellectual dishonesty".
When typically, the object isn't being dishonest....just disorganized in thinking....cognative dissonance, perhaps.

 

[Quetzal]

I'm willfully ignorant of many things.
Because of the great difficulty, I haven't learned quantum mechanics, general relativity (although I'm rather familiar with the special variety), the history of Cooper Bessemer (haven't made time for the book yet), etc.

PSH! simple topics!

What I notice is that the charge of "willful ignorance" is often made as an ad hominem argument against the other side in a debate.
Essentially it's.....
"You're willfully ignorant because you don't see that I'm right!"

Depends on what the argument is and what position we are taking and why. You are right, though. It is a knee jerk reaction sometimes. But there are times where I believe it is justified. Again, it depends on the specifics of the discussion at hand.

 

[savagewind]

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.

That quote can be read different ways. The way I understand it is this. The mind is able to accept an idea and go with it, some part of it or it can reject it. But the mind of one who is conscientious stupid becomes a wall. You might bounce an idea at that mind 100,000 thousand times but the mind will not accept it in to consider it. Sincere ignorance means that such a person thinks well of himself or herself despite the fact that they will not even consider another thought. I want not to know anything that might disrupt my own beautiful mind is the real attitude that some people have. They even TEACH it. Here: Bad associations spoil useful habits. My idea was that bad association are not people (they teach that they are people) and are not further education but are thoughts that contradict the truth about anything.

 

[savagewind]

Is this really a thing though?
I'd say it's merely recognizing claimed knowledge/facts, & rejecting them.
Tis mere disagreement.

A close cousin is "intellectual dishonesty".
When typically, the object isn't being dishonest....just disorganized in thinking....cognative dissonance, perhaps.

Perhaps, but, I see the other way of thinking in people. Their idea is that they are right so anything else has to be wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

PSH! simple topics!


Depends on what the argument is and what position we are taking and why. You are right, though. It is a knee jerk reaction sometimes. But there are times where I believe it is justified. Again, it depends on the specifics of the discussion at hand.

Oh, rats....we're agreeing again.

 

[Quintessence]

Correct, but my take is that if someone is willfully ignorant. That is, not knowing and refusing to take any action to correct it has the potential to be a problem.

I choose to be "willfully ignorant" of virtually all corporate advertising and refuse to take any action to subject myself to the brainwashing techniques that get called "marketing" in my culture. The capitalists would call this a "problem." Those who object to "willful ignorance" would need to call this dangerous.

[note - I utterly despise the phrase "willful ignorance" - it is another way of saying "I don't agree with your view of the world and want an intellectually haughty way of putting you down and putting myself up"]

 

[savagewind]

I'm willfully ignorant of many things.
Because of the great difficulty, I haven't learned quantum mechanics, general relativity (although I'm rather familiar with the special variety), the history of Cooper Bessemer (haven't made time for the book yet), etc.
What I notice is that the charge of "willful ignorance" is often made as an ad hominem argument against the other side in a debate.
Essentially it's.....
"You're willfully ignorant because you don't see that I'm right!"
Of course, ignorance certainly can be the reason one side is wrong, & the other is right.
But there isn't a lot of correlation here, strong feelings to the contrary notwithstanding.

Learning is not what it is about. Willfully ignorant means choosing not to see something that is right in front of you. It can be learned, but won't be learned.

 

[savagewind]

I choose to be "willfully ignorant" of virtually all corporate advertising and refuse to take any action to subject myself to the brainwashing techniques that get called "marketing" in my culture. The capitalists would call this a "problem." Those who object to "willful ignorance" would need to call this dangerous.

[note - I utterly despise the phrase "willful ignorance" - it is another way of saying "I don't agree with your view of the world and want an intellectually haughty way of putting you down and putting myself up"]

I agree with you. Advertising should be rejected. People should not want something because someone else wants them to want it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Learning is not what it is about. Willfully ignorant means choosing not to see something that is right in front of you. It can be learned, but won't be learned.

I make this choice regularly.
We each decide what we need to know, & what we don't.
And sometimes we er.

I will concede that if one debates a subject with detailed arguments,
yet one hasn't studied the subject to the extent one pretends,
this might rise to the level of "willful ignorance".

 

[Quetzal]

I choose to be "willfully ignorant" of virtually all corporate advertising and refuse to take any action to subject myself to the brainwashing techniques that get called "marketing" in my culture. The capitalists would call this a "problem." Those who object to "willful ignorance" would need to call this dangerous.

[note - I utterly despise the phrase "willful ignorance" - it is another way of saying "I don't agree with your view of the world and want an intellectually haughty way of putting you down and putting myself up"]

I understand, I later clarified what I meant with this topic. I can see where it can be a cop-out/knee jerk reaction, but there are some specific cases where this is a problem.

 

[Quintessence]

I agree with you. Advertising should be rejected. People should not want something because someone else wants them to want it.

This idea is what the entire notion of "willful ignorance" hinges on, it seems - "you should know what I want you to know, and if you disagree with what I want you to know, you are being (willfully) ignorant."

I get where it is coming from on certain topics. I really do. Yet I also can't escape the inherent arrogance and self-righteousness of such attitudes, much less that I tend to see that phrase most frequently from trolls who basically want to control the conversation rather than really educate people. An educator patiently explains what is going on, not attack the listener of being "willfully ignorant" when they disagree. Using that phrase is typically the equivalent of pulling a "you $#@%ing idiot" in a discussion and adds nothing of value to it. But that's just been my general experience with it.

 

[savagewind]

I make this choice regularly.
We each decide what we need to know, & what we don't.
And sometimes we er.

I will concede that if one debates a subject with detailed arguments,
yet one hasn't studied the subject to the extent one pretends,
this might rise to the level of "willful ignorance".

Good point.
I have a real example. There is a religion which teaches conscientious stupidity. In fact, to be a proper member one must embrace sincere ignorance. Many people think that they have chosen to trust that way and so they should be left alone to do as they will. I think that is somewhat correct. I fear God that I might not stray far away from the will of The One. So how do I know it is proper and right to speak against willful ignorance? I accept that I might be wrong. I consider something that I heard them (them because they are one mind, not many) say which is exactly this; "soon six billion hearts will stop beating".. I consider those words my permission to speak out about them. I do not know that they are wrong but I know that statement is wrong. I am not sincerely ignorant. I may say what I know to be true. Many people agree with telling the truth as one sees it, but they are sincerely ignorant of the fact that they think not everyone has the right to do it.

 

[savagewind]

This idea is what the entire notion of "willful ignorance" hinges on, it seems - "you should know what I want you to know, and if you disagree with what I want you to know, you are being (willfully) ignorant."

I do not agree. It hinges on - "you should SEE what I want you to see". They make themselves mentally blind.

 

[Quetzal]

I get where it is coming from on certain topics. I really do. Yet I also can't escape the inherent arrogance and self-righteousness of such attitudes, much less that I tend to see that phrase most frequently from trolls who basically want to control the conversation rather than really educate people. An educator patiently explains what is going on, not attack the listener of being "willfully ignorant" when they disagree. Using that phrase is typically the equivalent of pulling a "you $#@%ing idiot" in a discussion and adds nothing of value to it. But that's just been my general experience with it.

Being tactful with the literal phrase itself is important. But the idea/topic surrounding what we are discussing is a genuine problem. Obviously, arrogantly and vocally calling someone out on this is not the right way to handle it.

 

[YmirGF]

I'd say that everyone is "willfully ignorant" to a degree, so just where do we draw the line? At my ignorance level? At your ignorance level? At David Duke's ignorance level? At Mother Theresa's ignorance level?

Where the rubber hits the road is who decides where to draw that line?

 

[savagewind]

I think that making ones' self blind is anyone's prerogative and doing so isn't always a bad thing. I love this forum and I think it is run very well. It has the option to become blind to some people. It is not a bad thing. But to order blindness on someone else IS VERY BAD. Always bad, imo.

 

[savagewind]

If to become mentally blind can get into the human race's DNA, thinking people would not like that. I think Martin Luther King agrees with that.

 

[Quintessence]

I do not agree. It hinges on - "you should SEE what I want you to see". They make themselves mentally blind.

As @YmirGF just noted, it seems to me that everyone is "willfully ignorant" - it's an inevitable aspect of having a worldview, or being a finite and limited animal instead of am omnipresent and omnipotent being. It is also not uncommon for us to seek to preserve our own worldview, because it informs our entire way of life and who we are as people. Why we would shame that with phrases like "willfully ignorant" is something I have trouble understanding. It's similar to shaming the person as a whole, saying they should not be what they are, and should be something different (usually, that they should be like us because we are right and they are wrong). Why should the classical monotheist be anything other than "mentally blind" to polytheism (or vice versa)? I don't have a problem with this, and I don't get why we need to call that "willfully ignorant" or other such derogatory things.

Being tactful with the literal phrase itself is important. But the idea/topic surrounding what we are discussing is a genuine problem. Obviously, arrogantly and vocally calling someone out on this is not the right way to handle it.

This is true. I have, on rarer occasion, seen the term used respectfully (such as in the OP). It is unfortunately an exception that proves the general rule to this one's observations. There were some folks on a web forum I used to use years ago who basically used that phrase as a weapon against anyone who disagreed with them on a particular topic. It really, really soured me to the entire phrase.