The Difference Between Ignorance and Nescience

in philosophy •  6 years ago 

Ignorance and nescience may be considered the same, but when looking at the core etymology of each word, we discover that they slightly differ in an important respect.


Source


Defnitions and Etymology

Ignore: To refuse to pay attention to; disregard; take no notice of.
Synonyms: snub, brush aside, brush off, discount, dismiss, neglect, pay no attention to, overlook, pass over, shut your eyes to, turn a blind eye to

Ignorant: Lacking education or knowledge.
Synonyms: unaware, unlearned, uneducated, unknowing, unknowledgeable, unread

Nescience: 1. Absence of knowledge or awareness; ignorance. 2. Agnosticism.

Agnostic: from a- “not” + gnostos “(to be) known”, from Greek agnostos “unknown, unknowable”


Ignorant

Despite nescient and ignorant being simplified to "not" + "to know", there is an important distinction through the word ignore, which is the root of ignorant.

Ignore is related to ignorant with respect to not paying attention to something that is there and can be known. You can be aware of a body of knowledge yet ignore it, while others don't ignore it and learn to know it.

Ignoring something is to deliberately pay no attention to it. Someone speaks to you and you ignore them. The reality is there, but you choose to willfully ignore it. The same applies to any body of knowledge that we can choose to ignore despite it existing for us to learn from.

Willful ignorance is a refusal, denial, dismissal and disregard to consider looking at something and instead turn away from it. We can also absorb information, learn it, but then choose to willfully ignore that information. Essentially it's sticking our head in the sand.


Source


Nescient

Nescient is being unaware and unable to learn about a body of knowledge. This is either because it's not pre-existing as a book or other media (undiscovered and unshared body of knowledge), or because we lack an ability to comprehend and become aware of that body of knowledge (infant). Ignorance differs in this respect. Ignorance is to choose to ignore it, even though you could learn about it.

Nescience is a not knowing something that differs from ignorance because it is an absence of availability.

Nescient, No-Availability 1:
A baby lacks awareness of reality and therefore knowledge, through the incapacity of being aware of it, learning it and knowing it. This is nescience, not ignorance. Babies are not ignoring knowledge, they simply can't be aware of it. Knowledge of certain kinds is not available for them to know yet because of their lack of development in consciousness and cognitive processing capacities.

Nescient, No-Availability 2:
Prior to X being researched, discovered and shared as knowledge, X couldn't be known by simply going to learn it from some source of media. The knowledge has not yet been uncovered for it to be available for others to assimilate and propagate.

Agnostic

Agnosticism is referenced to nescience as to mean to not being able to know, or not know something, because it's not in our reach or availability to know it. Agnosticism is 'not' + 'to be known'. No one truly knows about X because it can't be demonstrated as knowledge. It's not verifiable or demonstrable. We can talk about the idea of X as an unreality (i.e. a unicorn), but we can't know anything about it in actual reality, because it's not a verifiable demonstrable aspect of reality.


Ignorance vs. Nescience

Ignorance is based on a refusal to look at, a willful disregard, turning a blind eye, etc.. While nescience is an absence of accessibility to even be capable to see and integrate something as a known reality.


Source

The knowledge we currently have access to is available if we reach out and take it. Yet, some choose not to know, don’t want to know, and don’t want to see. That is ignorance. Don't see it, don't hear it, and don't talk about it.

This especially applies to the ugliness of what the truth has come from a lower quality of consciousness. We have a choice in what we pay attention to, no matter how horrible, dark, negative, wrong, evil or immoral it is. Facing the mirror of ourselves, our lives and the world is a hard truth to swallow.



Source

Knowledge, Nescience and Ignorance of Evil

"The three wise monkeys, embodying the proverbial principle "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". The three monkeys are Mizaru, covering his eyes, who sees no evil; Kikazaru, covering his ears, who hears no evil; and Iwazaru, covering his mouth, who speaks no evil."
- Source

The difference between nescience and ignorance can be demonstrated through the concept of evil existing or not.

In a possible reality where there would be an innocence of no evil existing, it would be an experience of nescience of evil. There would be no evil action done by anyone. No evil would exist for anyone to know that evil could exist. Evil would indeed not exist because evil would not be manifested through actions and behaviors to recognize that evil exists.

When something is not present in reality, it doesn't exist, and is not verifiable or demonstrable, then this is nescience of that thing we can't even know about. We could maybe imagine what this idea of evil is and know it in that way, but if it's not even existing, then we can't know it in reality. In this possible reality, this is to be nescient or agnostic of evil.

In our reality, we are currently manifesting our consciousness as actions in forms of wrongdoings and evil that permeates all around us. Yet, people choose to be willfully ignorant of this evil. There is a difference between nescience of evil, and ignorance of evil to reject knowledge of evil that exists in our reality. Only a child can truly be nescient of evil in our reality.

There is a responsibility associated with understanding principles of truth: courage and willingness to express the truth fearlessly to others by speaking it into existence for others to understand. Presenting information that a friend, family member or other person may not be willing to look at, because they are ignorant of it, can create oppositional relationships or circumstances of conflict, controversy and make things uncomfortable.

This is what happens when the light of truth shines on the darkness: knowledge sheds light on those immersed in darkness of the unknown. Willfully rejecting knowledge keeps one trapped in the darkness of the unknown, in ignorance of that which can be known. Truth inherently divides from falsity.

Ignoring truth, is ignoring reality, what 'is'. Ignoring truth is also ignoring ourselves because what is happening in reality affects how we think, feel, behave and act in accordance to what is in reality. Reality reflects upon and influences us to form our worldview, self-view and self-knowledge. Ignoring things can mean we don't learn about important parts of reality or about ourselves, and this prevents us from growing, evolving or changing towards what is better.

Care for, seek, accept, embrace, embody, live and speak the truth.


Thank you for your time and attention. I appreciate the knowledge reaching more people. Peace.


If you appreciate and value the content, please consider: Upvoting, Sharing or Reblogging below.
Follow me for more content to come!


My goal is to share knowledge, truth and moral understanding in order to help change the world for the better. If you appreciate and value what I do, please consider supporting me as a Steem Witness by voting for me at the bottom of the Witness page; or just click on the upvote button if I am in the top 50.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

If we call someone "ignorant" we are judging that they are willfully or negligently avoiding some knowledge or truth.

If we call someone "nescient" we are judging that they are unable to learn the knowledge or truth.

"There is a difference between nescience of evil, and ignorance of evil to reject knowledge of evil that exists in our reality. Only a child can truly be nescient of evil in our reality."

A lot of adults are brainwashed. Are they ignorant or nescient? Maybe they are agnostic.

Yeah, I find it quite amazing how many people these days don't feel the need look within. For them, having both feet on the ground by means of a career, money, reputation is everything, so when these are given then no need to change anything about themselves. I am again and again utterly surprised at people's lack of self-introspection. They prefer telling others which way to go yet at the same time grow furious if someone else is 'berating' them. The lack of empathy these days is really at an apex. The consciousness bifurcation is getting ever more pronounced.

As long as we are stuck in our own thoughts we cannot truly experience or know others.

  ·  6 years ago (edited)

I'm seeing a missing category... Possessing the ability to integrate the information, but not having been exposed, unless it's nescient Avail. 2. What you're saying about that category is that the information hasn't been uncovered (I assume at all) so it can't be known. What if the information has been uncovered but just not discovered by the individual in question?

By the way, thanks again... what a wonderful feeling to be able to help people out that much!!!

Well, technically it's ignorance because the info is available. I'm ignorant of many things that are available for me to know. I don't have a problem recognizing I don't know everything and that I'm ignorant of much that I don't concern myself with. I'm ignorant of auto-mechanics, but not so prideful as to not be able to admit my ignorance somewhere ;)

I mistook ignorance for being willing... so there's unwilling ignorance as well. Got it!

Most ignorance is unwilling. There are an infinite amount of topics that you will never be able to educate yourself on.

But I'm still trying!

Modern science accepts several things as facts, that aren't.
And assumes several things that are incorrect.

Such as, "the aether doesn't exist, M-M experiment said so".

* The test only tested for one set of assumptions
* There were other ideas of how the aether worked that weren't tested.
* They found something, and called it nothing

If we choose, like Tesla, to believe the aether exists, then all the structure built upon the aether not existing falls apart. Which includes most of the modern science book.

So, are modern scientists nescient or ignorant?

Why only believe something exists? Demonstrate it does to know it does. Otherwise the assumption could be wrong. Tesla or other scientists worked on assumptions to try to move forward. What makes other scientists worse than Tesla in that case? I f it's not known to be something real, then it can't be ignorance.

Ummm....

Gravity is not known to be something real.


The M-M experiment was falsely used to disprove that the aether doesn't exist.
Since then, all aether research has been poo-pooed and buried by all "real scientists".
However, aether research has proceeded and their hypothesis are far better and explain the universe around us far better, but they are still considered false by all the "real scientists".
In fact, most "real scientists" don't even know they exist.

So, aether theory has been shunned. It was falsely disproven, and written out of the science books.

Whenever i try to talk to a scientist about aether theory i get a knee jerk, don't want to know reaction.

I would like your opinion on whether this is ignorance or nescience.

But my point was that like Tesla, others can and do make assumptions to move forward. Gravity helps to explain or describe how things function in reality.

So yes, that would be ignorance if it was something that could be known, but it isn't, is it? There is an idea of aether, but is it demonstrable? Gravity decreases in it's effect when we get closer to outer-space. At least that word and what it purports has measurable effects.

Can you know that aether exists? "God"? I see the argument against the idea of aether as an argument against the idea of "God". You can't prove the non-existence of something usually, so the default position is that it doesn't exist until it can be proven to exist. If a model of aether serves to move people forward in their application of things in reality, it could be a model that is true, or just a model invented to try to make of how other things work.

I have always been one who wants to know the truth... good or bad. But I know there are good people out there who only want to see the world in their perspective of it. They can embrace the good stuff and ignore or even choose not to believe the bad in this world. My late girl friend was that way. She knew the world had evil in it. But she refused to believe it or educate herself about it. I guess knowing would destroy here utopia of how she looked at it. Thanks @krnel.

Ignorance is bliss :/ Live in a fantasy...

Nicely written, it spoke to me quite eloquently.

This is a very odd philosophical topic.

The difference between nescience and ignorance can be demonstrated through the concept of evil existing or not.

Can good exist without evil? A shadow can not exist without light.

Also, you wrote this four and a half years ago. Did you really think you could hide from us, Kris Nelson?
https://evolveconsciousness.org/ignorance-nescience/

  ·  6 years ago (edited)

Yup, and who reads my old material, on another site? No one :/

If I can't make any money for myself then F you... lol :(

Fantastic post! I wish more people paid attention to precise definitions, these things are so deeply important to the most fundamental part of progress in society which I believe is conversation, yay for definitions!

Definitions define our way to understand everything. It's so crucial! Thanks for noticing that as well :D