The Will to Ignorance?

Some speculative thoughts for those interested.

What in us wants truth? Isn’t this just another way of asking: Is there a will to ignorance? What is meant by will when we discuss either a will to truth or a will to ignorance? In my view, will places the focus squarely on human intent. One actively works at discerning or ignoring the truth of matters. Realistically, we need to make practical decisions when it comes to knowing about the truth of matters. There is simply too much to know and analysis is a never ending process. Consequently, us humans tend to do a considerable amount of distorting, denying, and deferring just to reduce our experience and understanding to a manageable and communicable level. How else are we to attempt to grasp and weigh in on complex issues such as 9/11, the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and Israel’s existence at the expense of an indigenous population?

My point? I guess it is the point raised by the Enlightenment: Nothing less than a determined skepticism will assure that one is not totally and continually enveloped in the human tendency to gross errors of understanding, to regard these errors as truths and then to defend these “truths” - sometimes, as in the topics focused on here - violently.

That, however, is not what Nietzsche below seems to be saying when it comes to errors and ignorance. In him it seems that errors and ignorance are standards that have worked for centuries to help us live. A will to truth on the contrary is a new, young weak will: The will to ignorance is stronger. It is a bedrock. It is necessary to life. Could any of us possibly endure life were it not for the will to ignorance? to forgetting? to denying? And so we inherit and create illusions and delusions and then we argue (or fight) for them with ferocity. All the while, the younger, weaker will to truth, makes efforts to overcome the will to ignorance (at least for some, for others the will to ignorance constitutes perfect knowledge). During times like these it seems all too evident how weak that will really is.

It seems to me that this question of will raises substantial problems regarding the problem of truth - discerning it then acting based on it. It seems that efforts at presenting the truth will necessarily entail overcoming at least two forms of resistance: First the individual aiming at discerning the truth needs to be ever vigilant for how her or his own personal tendencies to ignore the truth, undermine her or his aims. Second, even if successful at, at least partially, discerning the truth, once it is communicated to others, it will necessarily have to overcome each and every individual’s own will to ignorance - an active not wanting to know the truth or not caring about the truth. (Note how this doesn’t even take into account those who are actively involved in lying, distorting and subverting the truth!)

In this respect establishing the truth of matters is insufficient for solving such colossal problems. The truth might be staring you in the face but without a will to discern this truth as truth (and more importantly to act on this knowledge) it is useless and the guiding light of error and ignorance will govern human affairs - usually, it seems, with disastrously violent consequences.

Here are a few quotes where Nietzsche discusses error and ignorance. It is followed by a recent post I came across where a contemporary writer Slavoj Zizek - philosopher, sociologist and cultural critic - is quoted as discussing the problem of actively not wanting to know the truth of matters.

read more