Is it better to learn than to remain ignorant?

[michel123456]

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?

 

First, what do you mean by learning.

Language is something that you have to learn. Isn' there no ethics in learning language? Or counting? Maybe you meant learning "more than the average"?

 

As to the circular argument, yes it certainly is. That is what i meant, self-sufficient, circular, based upon itself, self referential, say it as you wish.

Most (if not all) birds have to learn in order to fly. The Human being has to learn walking. In society, he has to learn to speak, to write and to count. In higher societies, he has to learn multiple languages, English with oxford accent, latin & ancient greek, integral calculation, history of art, a.s.o.

Where is the ethic? I don't know. But there is no ethic in non-learning.

[Phi for All]

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

But criminals who don't benefit society are removed from it, for a time. Those who don't commit crimes are allowed the full benefits of society, while those who do have limitations placed on them.

[michel123456]

But criminals who don't benefit society are removed from it, for a time. Those who don't commit crimes are allowed the full benefits of society, while those who do have limitations placed on them.

 

Isn't that naive?

(Emphasis mine.)

[Phi for All]

Isn't that naive?

(Emphasis mine.)

I suppose there are many subtleties, but by definition a society allows certain freedoms to participating, contributing members, and restricts those freedoms when members act in a manner the society deems inappropriate. In essence, when you commit a crime, you now have the police looking for you and your freedoms are restricted. When you're caught and convicted, you are removed from society for the time you spend in prison. When your debt to society is paid, you're allowed to rejoin it.

 

So a person who learns about the world learns more about his society and how to act within it. The more you learn, the more value society places upon you, and the more valuable you are to your society. So it's not just for personal endowment that learning is the ethical choice. Your society benefits from your learning as well.

[michel123456]

That's the way it should be.

[Double K]

But are you learning to better yourself, or society? I think most people do that for themselves and it just so happens to benefit society. If they don't (crime for example) it's called anti-social behaviour. But it doesnt make them ignorant, in fact one might say they are more enlightened as they have a knowledge that you don't. This is where there needs to be a disconnect from right and wrong, observing without judgement is integral to knowledge...

 

For example, a counterfitter may know much about the material used in the original, styles, fonts, and how to reproduce these things. That is knowledge! Just because it wont benefit society does not make it any less valuable, it's simply anti-social, and I don't think you can meld the two.

 

Just because one knows (or doesn't know) something that doesn't benefit others, or doesn't advance society does not make one ignorant.

The key root of ignorant being ignore - hence as long as you are attempting to learn you are not ignorant, regardless of the benefits of the acquired knowledge.

[Mr Skeptic]

Double K makes a good point. What about knowledge that is more often used for evil than for good? Knowledge of how to untraceably dispose of corpses, for example. What parts of the house people store their more valuable stuff. How to speak in such a way as to placate people despite doing things they don't want you to do. There's a lot of knowledge that, while it can be used defensively, is more often used for ill.

[michel123456]

good points

 

I think there is a kind of symbiosis. The first steps of learning are imposed by society to the young individual. There is no choice. After some time, the individual may start learning other stuff, what may or may not coincide with what is the best for the society in which he lives. But i don't think there is much of a choice. The bad one learns to be bad from other people who told him other values, transforming bad in good. Most often, what is good for you is bad for the other. All the distinction between good & bad is a balance. If you instruct someone that absolute good is for himself only, this one will become a very bad person. If you instruct the exact opposite, he won't live very long. To maintain the balance, there are laws. The instructions are generally that good is written in the laws. May it be secular or religious laws, that don't match all the time. Am I slipping out of the subject?

Edited May 20, 2010 by michel123456

[Double K]

The first steps of learning are imposed by society to the young individual. There is no choice.

 

This also raises another good point.

Indoctrination....

Does it help or hinder against ignorance?!

In some ways its a hinderance, as it gives a set/structured learning path and is often not flexible with new information...where-as in the case of laws the structure gives enough formwork to allow freedom (debatable!) without slipping outside into harmful to others territory.

[bascule]

Ethics are nuanced, and a better understanding of the world will allow you to better weigh the pros and cons of particular situations and come to the best conclusion. In general I believe more knowledgeable people are generally more ethical.

[Phi for All]

What about knowledge that is more often used for evil than for good?

Knowledge is a tool, and can therefore be used for either ethical or unethical purposes. The need of society is for its members to use knowledge ethically and when they don't, they are working outside of that society. This is one of the things that define a society.

 

the tree asked in post #21 if there was value in learning beyond personal empowerment. I responded with an example of benefiting society and the rebuttals have all been about behavior that is considered outside those boundaries. I think you have to be willing to suggest that criminal behavior, while realistic in our world, is also acceptable behavior within our society to make those arguments work.

 

If I learn how to be a good locksmith and I use the knowledge to help people protect their homes from criminals, I benefit society and am a functioning part of it. If I use that knowledge to break into people's homes then I become a criminal and am functioning outside of that society. I am being sought by the police, my liberties are curtailed, my business is even threatened.

[Severian]

There are also facts which it can be beneficial not to know, for their own sake rather than for application. For example, it may be better not to know that your wife had drunken sex with your best mate one night 3 years ago; it may be better not to know that there is a big but harmless spider under your bed.

[the tree]

the tree asked in post #21 if there was value in learning beyond personal empowerment.

No I didn't. I think that's at least twice that you've seen 'racitc' and read 'erson'.

[michel123456]

(...)I think you have to be willing to suggest that criminal behavior, while realistic in our world, is also acceptable behavior within our society to make those arguments work.

 

That's an interesting point.

I think criminality is part of society, having in mind the word society as the entire aspects of human social structures. Criminality involves all things that are forbidden by laws. If you like to drink, buy & sell alcohol, and if you live in the western world, there is no harm, it is legal (under some restrictions). Some years ago in the U.S., it was illegal, it was part of criminality. And it still is in some other countries. Prostitution is illegal here and legal there. Even the way you are dressed (or undressed) can be considered criminal depending the place, the environnement, and the country. Some activities are legal when practiced by States, and illegal when practiced by individuals (like gambling, raising taxes, practicing justice, espionnage, war, a.s.o.). In ancient Greece, cutting an olive tree was criminal and sentenced to death.

Generally speaking, criminality involves all activities refuted by the specific society. It is always the bad part by definition, relatively to the society in question, but not as an absolute.

 

The question is: is that "bad part" of any use?

If you take the example of the Italian mafia, it was certainly useful for the insular poor society of Sicily. It was a kind of defense invented by poor people. Anyone could get a loan from the mafia and establish a business. Of course, the price was high when business went bad. The basis of criminal activities of mafia is that it is an organization that raises taxes instead of the government. It is a society inside the society, living mainly from the rebuttals, but not only. You can see many examples of such activities in poor regions. That kind of criminality kill people, but feed people also. The drug cartel in Colombia feed people & build schools.

It comes to a very bad thing when it is exported to an entire country, when a central authority cannot accept that some other authority apply some other laws (taxes, justice, punishment) when dealing with all that stuff they have decided to call illegal (drugs, prostitution, murder, a.s.o.).

Edited May 21, 2010 by michel123456

[padren]

I would argue that, for better or worse, it's better to be cognizant of the repercussions of your actions than not.

Anyone can with knowledge choose to use it in an unethical way, but if you are ignorant all you can do is hope that chance and the council of others will not steer you towards actions you would find unethical.

 

We are always to some degree at the mercy of our own ignorance, but without awareness there is no possibility of ethical behavior at all, since there can be no real choice to without knowledge of the options at hand.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

it may be better not to know that there is a big but harmless spider under your bed.

 

The overall result of that one instance may be better, but I don't think such instances represent the overall situation very well. With more knowledge, you would know the spider was harmless, and leave it there to provide whatever benefits you would gain out of ignorance.

 

Similarly, since the spider is out of your control and realm of knowledge, it could also be a poisonous spider - if you remain ignorant to what's under your bed you have no control of what fills that void.

 

You end up providing heat and shelter to a poisonous spider that ends up biting a visitor, all because you remained ignorant of what was going on under your bed. It's not like you have an ethical obligation to check every corner of your house for all manner of poisonous pest, but given two equal choices between learning and remaining ignorant to unknown facts seems like the ethical thing to do in my mind.

 

Even when it comes to the issue of your wife cheating a long time ago, it's an instance, but the discussion is really about the strategy of learning, vs. the strategy of ignorance, since inevitably we cannot choose what to be ignorant of without being ignorant in general. I think the strategy of learning has a larger ethical payoff than ignorance.

[Double K]

Knowledge is a tool

 

I think maybe this rounds it off.

 

Think of knowledge as a tool box.

In my toolbox I have a selection of different items with which I can approach a particular problem or idea.

For example, to stay with the toolbox theory, lets say that you have to cut some wood, you know you need a tool but you dont have whatever it is you need. I then go out and seek from someone more knowledgeable, or another source, where I can get said tool. Once I have it I can then move onto next problem

[the tree]

I don't think the toolbox analogy really holds, tools have really obvious purposes whereas it's not always apparent when you're gaining knowledge, what you're going to use it for. Unless you're actually reading an instruction manual, but that's a special case.

[michel123456]

Knowledge is power to develop knowledge. A tool to make tools. Or it should be so.

[Double K]

I don't think the toolbox analogy really holds, tools have really obvious purposes whereas it's not always apparent when you're gaining knowledge, what you're going to use it for. Unless you're actually reading an instruction manual, but that's a special case.

 

I guess my point was that knowledge is often sought as a reaction, rather than just gaining vast amounts of general knowledge.

 

I think ignorance rears up when a problem is presented and no knowledge is sought to approach the problem, or no varied knowledge aquired to tackle the problem.

 

Could it be said that ignorance is absence or, stagnation of knowledge?

[the tree]

I guess my point was that knowledge is often sought as a reaction, rather than just gaining vast amounts of general knowledge.

Isn't that exactly what school is? Barely anything you learn is directly applicable to any specific task but it's generally considered important.

[Double K]

Isn't that exactly what school is? Barely anything you learn is directly applicable to any specific task but it's generally considered important.

 

And how many ignorant people do you know of that you can say went to school?

 

I dont think being an expert at something makes one not ignorant either...

 

I guess that goes back to indoctrination which doesnt necessarily always help

[the tree]

And how many ignorant people do you know of that you can say went to school?

Quite a few, school here is mandatory up to the age of 16 - but I'm not sure how much good that does anyone.

[newtss]

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.

 

Wow wath a beautiful reply!Understanding makes you a master, applying makes you a god.Philosophy you are the most beautiful thing a brain can do.

[Severian]

The overall result of that one instance may be better, but I don't think such instances represent the overall situation very well. With more knowledge, you would know the spider was harmless, and leave it there to provide whatever benefits you would gain out of ignorance.

 

I don't think that is a fair argument though. I think we can pretty definitely say that the world would be better if we all had absolute knowledge of everything, but we don't so, it is unfair to bunk my point by saying it would be OK again with even more knowledge.

 

Another example would be the nuclear bomb. If the Cuban crisis had actually ended in WWIII then the knowledge of how to make the bomb would definitely have been disadvantageous to everyone.

[padren]

I don't think that is a fair argument though. I think we can pretty definitely say that the world would be better if we all had absolute knowledge of everything, but we don't so, it is unfair to bunk my point by saying it would be OK again with even more knowledge.

 

Another example would be the nuclear bomb. If the Cuban crisis had actually ended in WWIII then the knowledge of how to make the bomb would definitely have been disadvantageous to everyone.

 

My point however, is without the advantage of retrospect there is no way to know if ignorance would have been beneficial for any given scenario - to utilize ignorance as a safety mechanism you pretty much have to roll the dice... a policy that I honestly believe would lead to more harm than good from the strategy.

 

The end result is that to remain ignorant, you roll the dice and leave it up to chance, and knowledge at least gives you the opportunity to make intelligent thoughtful decisions. Not all intelligent thoughtful decisions will have beneficial results, but most certainly more often than a strategy of ignorance.