2006-12-10 18:13:14 · 13 answers · asked by Chuck Dhue 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Not necessarily.
If someone is ignorant, then that pronouncement is true regardless of whether or not the speaker of the accusation is ignorant as well.
2006-12-10 18:25:31 · answer #1 · answered by freebird 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Thats actually a very good question, and obviously the notion of the question makes it very open for heavy interpretation.
However, I would argue that it depends on the situation. If the original statement being made is based upon false logic, a claim that is unjustified in the sense that there is no supporting evidence to make the claim, or is obviously a product of false stereotypes or overgeneralizations (most racial ignorance would fall under this, for example), then it would be fair to label the individual or the comment as being ignorant. However if the statement does have these things, then yes, the accuser would indeed be ignorant him/herself.
2006-12-11 03:41:00 · answer #2 · answered by Jeff McManus 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. If a person is ignorant of a fact, say for example in a court of law, all that means is they had no privilege prior to that information. That is like a computer for example, if the information is not uploaded then how can you expect it to comply? The proper word would be dumb or stupid in that regard, that is a person that has the information but his intelligence level is less than desirable or you say it as an insult.
If that statement was said in anger, or as an insult, then yes, those saying it are as guilty.
2006-12-11 04:05:24 · answer #3 · answered by AJ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Generally people who call others ignorant are stupid.. Ignorance is no crime. No one is born knowing everything. Ignorance can be remedied by following your good example here and asking questions. People who demean others to build themselves up are stupid. There is no remedy for that..
2006-12-11 02:36:51 · answer #4 · answered by Charles S 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps. But if an astute individual "observes" that some is being "ignorant", and kindly points out their short-coming in an effort to educate them and advance their humanness to a higher quality of respect to others, such an individual is not "ignorant", but a profound teacher.
2006-12-11 02:26:16 · answer #5 · answered by . 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
BIGOT, n.
One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.
IGNORAMUS, n.
A person unacquainted with certain kinds of knowledge familiar to yourself, and having certain other kinds that you know nothing about.
Dumble was an ignoramus,
Mumble was for learning famous.
Mumble said one day to Dumble:
"Ignorance should be more humble.
Not a spark have you of knowledge
That was got in any college."
Dumble said to Mumble: "Truly
You're self-satisfied unduly.
Of things in college I'm denied
A knowledge -- you of all beside."
2006-12-11 02:26:08 · answer #6 · answered by hq3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes but not just with ignorant comments. Everything you say about other people is actually because it's about you, and everything what other people tell you is actually them talkin to themselves... Everybody talks to themselves everyday thinking and believing they are having conversations with others... This is how lonely we actually all are!
2006-12-11 08:09:02 · answer #7 · answered by who_knows 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sadly yes. That's what I'VE noticed, anyway.
It's dumb to start bad mouthing others, to begin with. It just makes the accuser look stupid. It's not flattering to be negative.
2006-12-11 02:17:07 · answer #8 · answered by Molly 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, though we are all ignorant to a degree. there are degrees of ignorance, and one blatantly ignorant may be called ignorant by one not so ignorant without hypocrisy.
2006-12-11 06:55:38 · answer #9 · answered by metroactus 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
EVERYONE is ignorant about something.
unfortunately some more than others.
2006-12-11 02:23:24 · answer #10 · answered by dirtyoldman 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋