Is it better to learn than to remain ignorant?

[the tree]

Given the opportunity (people living in poverty without access to learning resources can be exempt from this) is there an ethical drive beyond ones own personal gain to learn about the natural world, other cultures, their own historical roots etc?

 

People who manage to 'live in a bubble' may be annoying, but are doing anything wrong?

[Phi for All]

Ethically, I think it is every person's duty to get at least a basic education in order to understand how the world works. This understanding protects you from those who prey on ignorance. It's the intellectual equivalent to boiled leather armor.

[Mr Skeptic]

At some point, ignorance is inevitable. But ignorance is usually not a good thing. However, as they say, sometimes ignorance is bliss. Try reading a listing of various medical disorders/diseases and their symptoms, and you may start to worry unnecessarily about them. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. In fact, I think that it is mis-information or incomplete knowledge that is more of a problem than just plain ignorance.

 

No man is an island. Being an ignoramus will affect the people around you, generally in a bad way. As a society, we all benefit by having well-educated people around us. Better jobs, less likely to be manipulated, etc. I think the case can be made for requiring a basic education for the sake of society.

[Double K]

40K Librarian: "An open mind is like a fortress with it's gates unbarred and ungarded"

 

conversely;

 

Being ignorant doesn't make you stupid, or even uneducated...

The base of ignorant is ignore - which refers to awareness, not intelligence.

I guess it's easier to say "Wisdom" is the antithesis of ignorance or perhaps awareness...

 

This comes down to many levels, awareness of your environment, empathy with others, a general ethos that would generate tolerance among all levels of interaction, being able to observe something without passing judgement or forming an opinion would be the ultimate enlightenment and this is what Buddha was said to have attained (through observation without judgement)

[the tree]

At some point, ignorance is inevitable.

I was going for wilful ignorance - having the opportunity to learn and choosing not to.

 

Ethically, I think it is every person's duty to get at least a basic education in order to understand how the world works. This understanding protects you from those who prey on ignorance. It's the intellectual equivalent to boiled leather armor.

Being an ignoramus will affect the people around you, generally in a bad way. As a society, we all benefit by having well-educated people around us. Better jobs, less likely to be manipulated, etc. I think the case can be made for requiring a basic education for the sake of society.

So the reason why learning is ethically "good" is just because of how it is practically empowering? What about learning about history or cosmology?

 

This comes down to many levels, awareness of your environment, empathy with others, a general ethos that would generate tolerance among all levels of interaction, being able to observe something without passing judgement or forming an opinion would be the ultimate enlightenment and this is what Buddha was said to have attained (through observation without judgement)

This is kind of what I'm looking for. I more or less agree that people should learn - but I'm trying to form a coherent argument for why they should.

 

I'm not very knowledgeable about Buddhism - do Buddhists seek enlightenment for themselves or both for themselves and for the "greater good"?

[Mr Skeptic]

I was going for wilful ignorance - having the opportunity to learn and choosing not to.

 

Isn't it always? You have the opportunity to learn quantum mechanics, but maybe you have better things to do. There are people who study all their lives but don't really do much with that knowledge. At some point, doing will be more important than learning.

[the tree]

Isn't it always?

No. There may be more important things to do with stronger ethical drives than learning. I'm talking about people who have the luxury of having access to learning resources, and a spare hour or so in the day but don't chose to expand their horizons even if all that means is scanning through a wikipedia page.

At some point, doing will be more important than learning.

Yes, in most ethical systems not-going-around-killing-people is more important than tipping well - but tipping is still something to be considered even if it's not as important as the whole not-killing thing.

[Double K]

Try reading about the 4 noble truths, and the 8fold path

I'm not buddhist but I have read plenty about it, however you bring up a good point asking if the enlightenment is for them or the good of humanity...as that kind of makes it a selfish act and not a selfless act...

 

The greatest achievement is selflessness.

The greatest worth is self-mastery.

The greatest quality is seeking to serve others.

The greatest precept is continual awareness.

The greatest medicine is the emptiness of everything.

The greatest action is not conforming with the worlds ways.

The greatest magic is transmuting the passions.

The greatest generosity is non-attachment.

The greatest goodness is a peaceful mind.

The greatest patience is humility.

The greatest effort is not concerned with results.

The greatest meditation is a mind that lets go.

The greatest wisdom is seeing through appearances.

 

Atisha (11th century Tibetan Buddhist master)

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/

 

If you are interested in meditation this is the first step to observation without judgement - I recommend Vipassana (but only if you are emotionally stable - ie. no psychologoical illnesses) otherwise Zen and Transcendental are supposed to be useful, but Vipassana means: To see things as they really are.

[Phi for All]

So the reason why learning is ethically "good" is just because of how it is practically empowering? What about learning about history or cosmology?

It's not only about personal empowerment. Ethically, a basic education helps you to keep from making basic misjudgments that could be detrimental to others as well. Learning basic hygiene has cut infant mortality rates in half within just a few years in many undereducated parts of the world.

 

Personally, I think much of extremist Islamic ideology could never have created so many terrorists if a basic secular education had been provided to much of Pakistan, Afghanistan and the surrounding areas. Perhaps ethically it's also preferable to provide opportunities for basic education for others whenever possible (preferably before you bomb them or something).

[Double K]

Also being well educated or having alot of learning doesn't necessarily reduce ignorance. Granted that in theory it should, but let's just assume that all I have ever read on the subject of of <insert subject here> was only articles or journals published by one source (which happens to be all my theoretical university has in the library).

 

I may be very well versed in a particular topic, but completely limited by a narrow persepective of the topic.

[ewmon]

Given the opportunity (people living in poverty without access to learning resources can be exempt from this) is there an ethical drive beyond ones own personal gain to learn about the natural world, other cultures, their own historical roots etc?

 

People who manage to 'live in a bubble' may be annoying, but are doing anything wrong?

 

Because you seek the answer to your question, you seem to have answered the question about seeking the answers to questions.

[Severian]

Despite being a scientist and having devoted myself to learning, I am not totally convinced that learning is a good thing.

 

I don't think learning, knowledge or even scientific advance has much to do with happiness.

 

That is not to say that scientific advances are not sometimes good - clearly it is a good thing to be able to cure a disease (for example). But I think that advances which appear to be beneficial may have a detrimental side effect on our lives.

 

For example, the invention of agriculture allowed us to support much larger civilizations. People then started to live in cities with organised government and societies. But it is well known from historical records, that the average health of the people decreased because they had an inferior diet (agricultural crops instead of red meat and gathered fruit). Also large centralised societies allowed for widespread corruption, oppression and wars.

 

Although it is clear that the human population grew after the discovery of agriculture, I don't think it is clear that the people were happier.

 

A more modern example might be smart phones and the internet. It is undeniable that these have increased our productivity, our wealth, and out standard of living. But are we happier? It is very hard now to escape and have down time because your smart phone will inform you of something you need to attend to (mine just did as I was typing that sentence). Life was a lot slower 20 years ago, and is the increase in our wealth since then really worth the cost?

 

I am not saying that it isn't, but I don't think it is such a clear choice as our society would imply.

[michel123456]

Despite being a scientist and having devoted myself to learning, I am not totally convinced that learning is a good thing.

 

I don't think learning, knowledge or even scientific advance has much to do with happiness.

 

 

Was that the question? Happiness?

 

Severian is talking about the "golden age". All current civilizations that come from a far agricultural past, remind the oldest golden age before agriculture, when Humankind was happy.

I disagree.

Happy hunters had a life expectation of 30 years maybe. They had no cars, no televisions, no cell phones, and no shoes, no home, no toilet, no gastronomy, no bread, no salt, no pepper, no medecines, et caetera et caetera.

Those happy people were killed, or enslaved, by other people less ignorant.

Even after thousands years of sedentarism, you could die from a simple toothache, because of ignorance.

In the more close to us Middle Ages, ignorant men and women died in the most horrible suffer when put on fire by ignorant people. There are innumerable examples.

Ignorance kills.

Remaining ignorant is like wanting to be killed.

It is not a question of happiness, or ethics, it is a question of survival.

[Severian]

Happy hunters had a life expectation of 30 years maybe. They had no cars, no televisions, no cell phones, and no shoes, no home, no toilet, no gastronomy, no bread, no salt, no pepper, no medecines, et caetera et caetera.

 

Why does that make them less happy? I am not disputing that our standard of living has improved with technology, but that is not the same thing.

 

I was trying to ask the question if technological advance had made our lives better or not. If we gauge "better" according to happiness, then I think the answer is not clear.

 

It is not a question of happiness, or ethics, it is a question of survival.

 

Is there any point in surviving if there is no happiness?

[Phi for All]

Is there any point in surviving if there is no happiness?

I think that's a whole different question, and not one required to answer the OP. Having a basic understanding about how your world works may take away blissful ignorance, but ask the guy who leaned over to look into the geyser if he'd be happier now if he'd known boiling water and steam was about to shoot out. Ask the new mother whose child is dead if she'd be happier now to have known that keeping her infant clean is good, and bathing it upstream from where the animals drink is even better.

[michel123456]

Is there any point in surviving if there is no happiness?

 

Yes.

[Severian]

Yes.

 

Why?

[Mr Skeptic]

To survive, of course.

[michel123456]

Surviving is self sufficient. There is no need for any deeper reason.

Even plants & viruses struggle to survive.

If you want to go deeper than that, you are going into the meaning of Life itself, considered as a whole and not as a sum of individuals.

Very interesting question, but nothing to do with happiness.

[Severian]

Surviving is self sufficient. There is no need for any deeper reason.

 

That is a circular argument. You need to explain why 'surviving' is a good thing. For example, if a patient is in extreme pain, and has no prospect of living without that pain, it may be deemed better to end it. So surviving is not sufficient in itself.

 

To return to the topic, I can certainly imagine technology creating a world that I would not want to live in.

[the tree]

Looking at how focussed the conversation has been, are you all happy to say that apart from the practical empowerment, there is no inherent value to learning?

[Phi for All]

Looking at how focussed the conversation has been, are you all happy to say that apart from the practical empowerment, there is no inherent value to learning?

Ethically, you're also more valuable to your society if you learn as much as you're able to. You'll make fewer errors in judgment that might result in danger to everyone else.

 

Learning makes you a more efficient cog in the bigger machine.

[Severian]

Ethically, you're also more valuable to your society if you learn as much as you're able to. You'll make fewer errors in judgment that might result in danger to everyone else.

 

Learning makes you a more efficient cog in the bigger machine.

 

That assumes you are always going to use that ability to better your society.

[Phi for All]

That assumes you are always going to use that ability to better your society.

It does, but isn't that inherent in the concept of "society"? Are people who don't work to better society part of that society?

[Severian]

It does, but isn't that inherent in the concept of "society"? Are people who don't work to better society part of that society?

 

By your definition, all societies are 100% crime free!