Ignorance is a hard thing to argue with. Perhaps it is why so many of our hot-button topics of debate leave us breathlessly unfulfilled and without resolution. Ignorance on both sides of the discussion. In fact topics which span the depths of the human existence, religion, philosophy, science etc can never, at least not yet, really be completely resolved . It is a side affect of a closed mindedness and a lack of ability for our generation and global community to pursue discussion based dialogue rather than debate and argumentative dialogue. In fact most people don’t even understand the difference. What is dialogue anyways? The sharing of individual context, the optimistic belief that contemplation can be a shared endeavor? At best, we show mediocrity in understanding our own context; when in communication with another individual (harboring their own personal context) at any time, we come in contact with foreign material and a knowledge and experiential base almost completely, save for cultural dependencies, and even there, different from our own. It is a book we have never read and for one to say he has read every book in the library, is an obvious liar in the most narcissistic, ignorant way. Assertion of superior understanding betrays ignorance in itself. It suggests that there is no other facet to be explored about a topic. To think that anything is that simply understood is a juvenile assertion. Here is a quote that better exemplifies this point. The willing blindness of ignorance. Or rather, the necessity for ignorance in debate.
“I argued with a scholar and won. I argued with an ignorant person and lost.”- Imām al-Shāf’i
“An ignorant person does not care about the truth – he will not follow any logic or hold himself to any etiquette. It’s like a person who plays soccer, picks up the ball, runs as fast as he can and dives head first into the goal. When you explain to him that he is wrong, there are rules to follow, he can’t carry the ball with his hands, he yells at you, calls you names and says, “Goal!” -Suhaib Webb
Now I’m not sure if I agree with the idea of telling someone they are “wrong” as there is always some shadow of truth in the development of an opinion, even if the outcome is skewed. Consider Jung, Nietzsche, or any other great philosopher/psychologist. Even science shares this same characteristic. A finalized opinion or theory may be later proven wrong, even after being considered right, but the process taken to come to the conclusion is not wholly discarded. It is still legitimate and utilized.
There is always more to say on this, but I’ll leave that for further personal thought.