It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Synergistic Effects of Ignorance and Apathy

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:51 AM
Whether or not it has been purposefully implemented to condition us into apathetic and ignorant state, for now, is irrelevant. The focus will be on the synergistic effects of these two states of mind. First, we must define what it means to be ignorant.

"1. Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed; untaught; unenlightened." (Webster's Unabridged 1913)

In essence, ignorance is a natural state that is unattained. This definition is also fairly vague. For example, one can be taught something that is not truth, and, in my opinion, that one is still ignorant. So henceforth, for purposes of this argument, "ignorant" will be defined as: "unaware of truth", assuming there is an objective truth to the matters that one is judged ignorant of. So this means one can be learned in one subject, but ignorant in another. However, when one is first conceived, they have no prior experience or knowledge (other than arguable 'innate' knowledge), and, for purposes of this argument, will be defined as pure ignorance. Next we must define apathy.

"Want of feeling; privation of passion, emotion, or excitement; dispassion; -- applied either to the body or the mind. As applied to the mind, it is a calmness, indolence, or state of indifference, incapable of being ruffled or roused to active interest or exertion by pleasure, pain, or passion." (Webster's Unabridged 1913)

So apathy is basically the state of not caring. This is not general, as one can be apathetic towards one subject but not another. However, when we are born, we do not care, as we have no experience and therefore nothing to care about (other than arguable 'innate passions' such as self-preservation). Everything we care about is learned; for example, our love of money. This state of apathy that we are in when we are born will, for purposes of this argument, be defined as pure apathy. So essentially, we are born purely apathetic and purely ignorant.

So there we were, purely ignorant and purely apathetic, growing up. As we develop and grow, we become interested in certain subjects, be it Legos, trains, dolls, etc, and our pure apathy is lost. As our interest grows, we begin to learn about these subjects, mostly through experience at this time, and we begin to lose our pure ignorance. However, the subjects to be interested in and therefore gain knowledge about are age specific. As children our interests are in play, and therefore we were knowledgeable about play. As we mature, our interests should have shifted to more complex matters than just of work and play, such as societal issues, current event issues, political issues, philosophical issues, or basically issues that are bigger than just you or me and apply to humanity as a whole. However, it did not for most. This does not include things like "I donated $5 to a child in Africa that I pretend to care about." As adults, most people, especially of the younger generation, will live their remaining years completely ignorant and apathetic to those subjects and yet are allowed to and encouraged to vote. This is KEY. If the masses are easily manipulated, then one with influence can manipulate them into voting for ANYTHING.

But we're not easily manipulated, are we? We are conditioned to be apathetic towards those subjects I've listed above so that we will remain ignorant to those subjects. Our realities have basically become confined to what comes out of a talking picture box. It is spoon fed to us through the media, and nobody has even cared to notice... and we believe every word of it.

George W. Bush once said, "let us not tolerate silly conspiracy theories." Using a little bit of reasoning, you can see what he really means. A "conspiracy theory", by our common conception of this term, is essentially anything that attempts to reveal an unconventional explanation of political or social events. In this case, I refer to the term "conspiracy theory" in it's political sense, in which its conventionality is defined by the official explanation as stated by a government. So not tolerating anything that is against "the official definition" is in essence believing everything the government says absolutely. If we don't care enough about those subjects listed above, then we won't care enough to study those subjects. This makes us incredibly easy to manipulate as we no longer question the validity of truth, which is a major philosophical question. If we can't distinguish truth from realistic fiction, then how can we be sure about what we know? Well we don't have to be sure when we don't care.

The educational system of the US has bred an especially dangerous breed of ignorance - double ignorance, which is to be ignorant of one's own ignorance. The educational system we employ in the US focuses immensely on the memorization of facts rather than critical thinking or reasoning. This is why many "gifted" students underachieve, as the system of memorization does not challenge them enough. The focus on memorization is what breeds this double ignorance. We inherently believe what we read and memorize, and it is this subconscious mindset that will pave the way for future acceptance of truth rather than to question. This is why the most ludicrous "truths" are forced upon us when we were children. Some examples include the idea of general friendship between colonials and the "Indians", the idea of the US Government being universally benevolent, and the most ludicrous of all is the notion that we are a free country). Anyway, we learn all this stuff, and inherently hold it to be true, ignorant of any other ideas contrary to this, and ignorant of our own ignorance. This is double ignorance. This is why any idea that is outside of convention (or against what the government says is true) is subject to humiliation, as bigots do not know that they are bigots. Double ignorance also breeds double apathy, to which effect we are apathetic to our own apathy. This double ignorance and double apathy is even more dangerous than pure ignorance and pure apathy. One day, we will be presented with clear and obvious information of conspiracy, but we will be too apathetic to do research, and too ignorant to be aware of our own ignorance. Oh wait, that day has already come. Apathy + Ignorance = Mental Slavery.

The most hopeless is the slave who believes he is free.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:23 AM
I believe ignorance and arrogance to be an even more destructive combination. Sheep are less dangerous than rabid sheep....

Good post though.


[edit on 4/26/2010 by skunknuts]

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:29 AM
I disagree a newborn has unlimited potential depending on programming it is certainly not apathetic it is curious and wishes to investigate and learn from its environment which reduces ignorance....until its newtered and put in the education system there it may learn apathy and ignorance.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:42 PM
reply to post by anglodemonicmatrix

Thanks for the replies.

Anglo, I was trying to say that newborns when first conceived are fully apathetic because they do not yet have experience and therefore anything to really care about. But as soon as one is born and attains experience, then pure apathy is lost as it is only normal for an infant/child to be curious. However, this curiosity is quickly squelched as they grow up.

new topics

top topics

log in