ignorance, because prejudice is a form of ignorance, innit?

(... and prejudice would therefore slip away along with all other things ignorant)

I was just going to say: ignorance because most prejudice arises from ignorance.

They're two sides of the same coin.

Yeah... I'm failing to see how prejudice could exist without ignorance. Are we just assuming people would fully realize they were being irrational, but continue to act irrationally anyway?

I agree - eliminating ignorance would eliminate prejudice.

can i just eliminate candy crowley from humanity and leave it at that?

I'd eliminate prejudice. There is no way we could cope with the removal of ignorance - our brains would melt under the weight of complete knowledge of everything.

I'd eliminate prejudice too. If the opposite of ignorant is educated, I know plenty of educated people who are prejudiced. And because being open minded is much more fun than knowing everything there is to know.

at first, I though jack_mo's answer was mere flippancy, but the more I think about it, ignorance is, in the most basic sense, part of the definition of our mortal condition.

If the opposite of ignorant is educated

I don't think the opposite is educated, I think it's probably cognizant or enlightened. Education alone can't cure ignorance. As far as I've seen, the only thing that cures ignorance is experience.

I'd eliminate prejudice, because ignorance is bliss :-D

I tend to think of the elimination of ignorance as more "Everyone knowing what they don't know, and being open to learning" rather than "Everyone suddenly knowing everything." But maybe I'm not thinking grandly enough for the question. :)

our brains would melt under the weight of complete knowledge of everything

I don't think they would. Our brains are wonderful at ignoring the minutiae involved in every moment of existence, and focusing on only the important elements requiring our attention. For instance, sitting here at my desk now, I do know how my computer works and that it can connect to millions of others around the world, I know a lot about how my desk was probably made and how the trees originally grew in a forest somewhere; know how the phone works and that I could pick it up and call thousands of people if I so chose; know what will happen to the recycling in the bins at my feet; know that in the building are others doing all sorts of tasks; know that the trees outside are done photosynthesizing for a year and that the chlorophyll is dying to reveal the gorgeous fall colors, and so on and on and on and on. In fact, if we consciously thought all the time about everything we know, we'd be immobile. But we don't need to; our brains can store this information - in fact, can probably store a lot more than we ever ask it to - and still filter out the information that isn't necessary for use during the moment at hand. I don't see why we wouldn't be able to have a full understanding of everything, within the limits of human knowledge, of course, and still function.

In fact, there were moments up to and through the Enlightenment where single individuals could be said to know just about everything -- not have had every experience, no, but could have understood the content of all major existing disciplines of study at the time. That's no longer true, because we've gotten so much better at generating and storing data, and there is just too much information now in existence for any one person to know all disciplines thoroughly.

But again, I don't think it's necessary to have full knowledge of everything in order to not be ignorant. I can think of many people who are not ignorant, yet lack full knowledge of everything. I associate ignorance with shelteredness and narrow point of view; lack of experience. It takes only a degree of knowledge of the world, not full knowledge of the world, to remove the condition of ignorance. Once you have learned to say to yourself on a broad range of topics "...but there's a lot out there I haven't seen and don't know, so my mind is still open," -- you are no longer ignorant.

I think what you guys are talking about is the difference between willful ignorance and ignorance about stuff you just plain don't know (I couldn't think of a single adjective for that one; involuntary?). I believe that both miko and chewie are correct; the opposite or ignorance can be either "educated" or "cognizant", depending on the connotation. To me, prejudice is a form of willful ignorance.

It's a complex word.

Just to be clear, by ignorant, we mean ignorant of the ideas we, as a community agree on. Our ideas are correct, or at least much closer to correct than those ideas held by those we deem ignorant. OTOH, we could say that "ignorant" people are by definition uninformed. This is problematic too, because intelligent and informed people can and frequently do hold views which are anathema to ours. I'm just concerned because quite often, I hear people accusing those with whom they disagree of ignorance, as if the lack of mutually shared knowlege is the source of the disagreement, and if all parties shared the same knowlege, they'd agree, because there can only be one possible conclusion once one is in possession of the facts.

by ignorant, we mean ignorant of the ideas we, as a community agree on.

Who's the "we" in your comment? I agree that "ignorant" is sometimes used that way, but I'm not convinced that "ignorance," as a universal concept always is.

In a debate, for example, I might accuse someone of being ignorant of the issues at hand, but when I speak of "ignorance in the world" I tend to think more broadly. Not just "they don't know what I do" but "We all don't know as much as we think we do."

To me, prejudice is a form of willful ignorance.

I don't think it's always wilful; much prejudice comes from sincerely being unaware that there's anything to be aware of.

I've seen it a lot in my relatives from more rural, homogenous parts of the U.S. They are good-hearted people whose prejudiced ideas come from an utter lack of experience with other people and places. It's not that they've made up their minds to be prejudiced; they simply haven't had enough variety of experience to build an understanding of value systems, people, or ways of life other than their own. To be wilfully ignorant, you'd first have to be exposed to information or experience at least once and then intentionally reject it.

And pie, no, I don't mean ignorant of ideas we agree on. To me it has nothing to do with community agreement, and everything to do with a broad frame of reference.

occhi, by we, I mean Metachat.
Miko, in my travels and work around rural Oregon, I've actually heard charges of ignorance leveled against the urban dwellers who dominate the state's electorate by rural residents. This doesn't necessarily contradict anything you said, just something else to think about.

Also, could two people be exposed to the same set of facts and reach two different conclusions about what is right? Could four people reach four mutually antagonistic conclusions? I think this is quite probable.

Could four people reach four mutually antagonistic conclusions? I think this is quite probable.

Yes, of course. By getting rid of ignorance I don't mean getting rid of disagreement; I mean getting rid of acting without thinking. If those four people had high levels of self-awareness and insight, unlimited access to and desire for information, and had come to their conclusions based on evidence and openness rather than assumptions and close-mindedness, then I certainly wouldn't call any of them ignorant.

I'd eliminate pants.

I mean getting rid of acting without thinking.

If I thought before I acted, I'd never have any fun at all...

I was maybe being a wee bit over-literal in my definition of ignorance ;-)

But I'd still choose to eliminate prejudice - I know people who have effectively chosen to be prejudiced, and even in our ignorance-free hypothetical world there could be those who, even with their knowledge of everything, might decide that they actually rather liked the sound of, say, some arcane bit of disproved C19th pseudoscience that said black people were less intelligent than white, and would choose to act accordingly.

Also, sticking with the literal definition, removal of ignorance would lead to a level playing field, so to speak - I much prefer a world in which some of my friends are expert film buffs and others know all about disco records. The lack of discovery, of genuine conversation, would be terribly dull:

'Have you heard Song X by Band Y?'

'Yes. Of course I have. Ignorance was abolished by chewatadistance in that MetaChat thread, remember?'

'Yes. Of course I remember.'

Conceivably, the citizens of an ignorance-free world might turn to prejudice just for kicks. (On the other hand, though, perhaps all conversation might turn to philosophical debate - if everything knowable, in the senses of potential experience, provable facts, &c., was known, we'd be left with nothing but art and philosophy to talk about.)

Miko - great point, but I still imagine that knowing everything would clog up the brain-pipes that do all the filtering we need in place operate.

*head assplodes*

so how about them detroit tigers, eh?

*scratches ass, belches*