The common meaning of “ignorance” As a lack of knowledge, it has dramatic connotations when its headlines transcend in society, and it welcomes them. The social reception of the ignorant can be given by ignorance, convenience, ease or comfort. Philosophy distinguishes actions performed “by” ignorance from those “with” ignorance. For Aristotle only in the latter can one speak of involuntary works. We believe that both are decisive when cataloging the morality of the subjects.
In it sociopolitical sphere – and in this Latin America has extensive experience – the immoral ignoramuses, and the ignorant immorals, take advantage of the naive. This is the case of populism and the unpresentable right… there is also a certain respectable right. The line that separates the twopolitical currents” is extremely thin. Both share interests in taking advantage at the expense of the most vulnerable sectors of the people.
He despotism and corruption they are tied to the intellectual retardation of leaders incapable of acting ethically. The ignorant are prone to group together like a troupe of buffoons.
From Socratic philosophy we can extract some ideas. The leaders in appointment are skillful in hiding their mental and legal ineptitude, unlike the wise man who, aware of his ignorance, struggles to know and understand. The most ignorant of men is he who denies his ignorance; that is, the ignorant of his own ignorance. “Slandering” the ignorant is not blameworthy in ontology, but defense against the evil caused by the disoriented.
Ignoring knowledge is not bad per se either. Reprehensible is to abstract from the awareness of ignorance. Although knowledge can only be the antithesis of ignorance, it acquires traces of immorality when the subject presents himself as a scholar. Those who know of the incompetence of the graduates in the defect, are obliged to execute everything necessary to discover those… under penalty of allowing ignorance to take shape in society.