Ignorance and Apathy

I personally believe that ignorance is worse than apathy.
When you're ignorant you lack knowledge and awareness in general, however, when you are apathetic you show no interest or enthusiasm towards a subject.
To me showing no interest towards a topic is not necessarily "bad". Ignorance on the other hand shows that there is no understanding or knowledge of a particular topic.
It's better in my opinion to have a knowledge of a subject even though you might be apathetic about it. You never know when that particular knowledge might come in handy. And when that time comes, it's better to have the knowledge even though you don't have interest in it. So therefore, I personally believe ignorance is worse than
I hope everyone understands what I am trying to point out for I can be confusing with my posts a bit.

Tomb :)
 
I find apathy worse.
It's the mark of a generally bland individual who rejects its own freedom to take choices, to expand their knowledge, to find enjoyment in what they experience, to (whatever, it depends on what they're apathetic about - it's a very generic question and it's impossible to respond in a way that makes sense and isn't silly).

I am not bothered by ignorant people. Knowledge is good, sure, but ignorance says nothing about their character (they might still be endowed with common sense and be able to make excellent decisions), or their ability to change themselves.


I voted the third option, however.
 
I find apathy to be far, far worse. If you are in ignorance you can't make a choice because you are unaware that a choice exists. To you, everything is what it is.

The apathetic understands that a choice exists and chooses to do nothing. The ignorant can be taught, but the apathetic, imo, are doomed.

Very easy button click for me.
 
punk d:
I find apathy to be far, far worse. If you are in ignorance you can't make a choice because you are unaware that a choice exists. To you, everything is what it is.

The apathetic understands that a choice exists and chooses to do nothing. The ignorant can be taught, but the apathetic, imo, are doomed.

Very easy button click for me.


As Ayn Rand said, one has the choice of ignoring the idiots and the ignorant. :D

I say, you can't cure stupid and you can't cure dead but dead can get stupid out of the way. :P


flemingovia:
It's a trick question. No matter what. You voted you chose ignorance.

Which is tantamount to posting in this thread in the first place> ;) :D


Democratic Donkeys:
I didn't vote. :smug:

Which means you could be apathetic. :w00t:



Captain Apathy sez; Slack Wins!
 
Frattastan:
I find apathy worse.
It's the mark of a generally bland individual who rejects its own freedom to take choices, to expand their knowledge, to find enjoyment in what they experience, to (whatever, it depends on what they're apathetic about - it's a very generic question and it's impossible to respond in a way that makes sense and isn't silly).

I am not bothered by ignorant people. Knowledge is good, sure, but ignorance says nothing about their character (they might still be endowed with common sense and be able to make excellent decisions), or their ability to change themselves.


I voted the third option, however.
I would argue your points but...I'm too apathetic to care :P
 
Stupid would imply one cannot learn. I equate ignorant to uninformed. When I am 6 years old, I don't know algebra. I'm not "stupid", I just don't know. But as I go through schooling, I learn.

If we're using ignorant in the context of people who are so narrow minded they refuse to see anything beyond themselves, well that's a different story. I still prefer that state because the apathetic see and do nothing. I always feel there is hope for the most uninformed to one day be enlightened. That's an altruistic perspective, but is what it is. I'm really shocked there aren't more people on this bandwagon.
 
Sadly, no. In the United States, at least, the mentality is bash the ignorant into submission. I'm not of that mentality, which is also bashed.
 
Back
Top