Lexicographical Expostulations: Naïve, Innocent, Ignorant, and Stupid

This discourse concerns why these words are not really true synonyms and its importance for the proper use of language for the more precise communication of thoughts.

Language, among other features, continually conflates many words or, alternately, many can “rise” in their gaining positive or commendatory meanings and others “decline” toward negative meanings or those indicative of contempt or condemnation attached to the words. More is integrally involved than just a supposed deficiency in the language arts as such.

Syntactical verification of semantic veracity is, in the context to be below affirmed, just not to be ignorantly spurned without intelligently conceiving of legitimate adverse consequences; these are critically pertaining thereto regarding, in particular, valued grammatical effectiveness of speech and, furthermore, composition when so scripted for effect.

Words as Lexical Wisdom When Refined

Nonetheless, for a mature society that wishes to be culturally devoted, it is, in essence, of ultimately vital importance for usable language, as accurately as possible, to transmit higher and higher levels of information soundly and coherently from generation to generation; and, moreover, this is why the understanding and comprehension of what words do denote is as important as knowing what those words can connote for, thus, helping to better elucidate and extrapolate upon the versatility, meanings, and usability of words, as part of a sustainable and living language; but, what is to be presented here is not just some sort of semantic nonsense.

In this fairly proper and larger compositional regard, the late great Richard M. Weaver, author of Ideas Have Consequences, had interestingly noted that language is, indeed, sermonic, not just expostulatory or declaratory alone, even within the selective range of possible denotations or connotations; of course, it is (perhaps, vainly) hoped that this will not just become a supposed lecture, by a defeated grammarian, who culturally and grammatically laments the often quite vagrant passage of many lexical proprieties, as they do, thence, reach unto various appropriate denotational/connotational assignations or applications of either transactionally written or purely verbal communication.

Equally, e. g., denotations and connotations of words can be closely connected, though some connotations can then diverge, sometimes significantly, from the plain denotation or even an accepted definition that may normally exist for a word. For some illustrative purposes, naïve, innocent, ignorant, and stupid are, for the usage here, interesting words that can be used to stir up both conversation and, also, much useful related and pertinent discussion.

Most people most of the time, unfortunately, do usually misuse or just misapply these words, especially in assuming that one can be easily substituted correctly for the other and, thus, without causing confusion or misdirected thought in the very set process of such usage qua substitution; the correct transmission of (societal or cultural) knowledge, not just mere facts, data, or information, is ultimately at stake within the confines of any decent language worthy of the designation; misused words can, therefore, have logically unfortunate consequences just as ideas have them.

Naïve and Innocent Considered

Going straight to the case in question, naïve, however, doesn’t actually mean the same as ignorant, innocent, or stupid, though, these days, it is not surprising at all if all seem to be somehow suitable or acceptable synonyms, in one way or another; but, there are really major differences that still need to be properly noted; these important differences are, furthermore not simply semantic or purely linguistic in their nature; all these words, furthermore, really mean something distinctly different as to both their proper denotations and associated connotations as well.

For instance, naïve people can be easily tricked, used, abused, cheated, or fooled because they have never been introduced to basic facts or realities about human beings, bad situations, inappropriate conduct, etc. or, of course, various other such matters that, presumably, non-naïve persons ought to know or be appropriately aware about to some degree or other or, perhaps, better, as one may hope.

To be naïve means that someone has no real idea at all about something, some situation, or person(s) because the naïve person has never been told or found out about what is needed to be properly or fully known; this is by which the needed knowledge can appropriately provide the information necessary for the education or guidance of the person in question who so lacks what is required to be rightly known, to become truly informed.

Most people most of the time normally, as a result, try to avoid naïve people; this is because such people are generally held in broad contempt, by their naïve thinking, in what then appears often to be a fairly stupid manner, meaning by acting inappropriately in a childish manner, concerning their immature thinking and, most likely, consequent acting. Thus, it is socially acceptable to expect a young child to be naïve about many matters, especially, of course, the younger such a person is.

It is usually held, however, not to be so good for adults to be naïve and, moreover, calling someone naïve is normally an insult. Terribly unsophisticated people, e. g., are so regularly regarded as being naïve; thus, the stereotype of a rube or a hick, an “easy mark,” is thought to be absurdly naïve, and such a person can be, unfortunately, taken advantage of by unscrupulous or immoral people.

An innocent person, in contrast, simply possesses innocence, meaning a lack of knowledge due, e. g., to not having improperly engaged in the particular matter in question or a proper refusal to so learn about certain matters that are immoral, meaning, e. g., according to instructions given to the innocent person concerning appropriate conduct for avoiding evil.

Moral people, of course, have no trouble if they are surrounded by innocent people; and, they would, moreover, prefer to have dealings with them rather than with any corrupt people.

Thus, e. g., someone such as St. Thomas Aquinas was not at all naïve about evil, evil people, or evil matters pertaining to immorality or improper conduct, thought, or speech; but, he was, in fact, innocent of these things because he had avoided trying to obtain knowledge or to engage in conduct, thought, or speech that was morally inappropriate; he had practiced Christianity, in particular his Roman Catholic religion, to an enormous degree, which is why, of course, he later ended up being canonized some years after his death.

Ignorant and Stupid Discussed

An ignorant person is, in fact, not stupid; nor, it ought to be here stated for useful clarification, should a stupid person be regarded as only ignorant, meaning just having a lack of knowledge, the facts, data, or information; ignorance means, in particular, the genuine lack of having the information necessary to be properly informed about something, a situation, a person, etc; being stupid means not having the truly requisite or needed mental ability to suitably acquire the needed information, facts, data, etc. required for being correctly or basically informed about something, some situation, a person, etc.

This is not, however, the same as really being mentally handicapped or retarded (a legitimate reason) because that kind of situation is simply or completely beyond the actual or innate control of the person afflicted by whatever condition that prevents the cognitive ability normally expected of most average (or above average) people possessing intelligence sufficiently appropriate to human beings in general.

Someone who, in fact, is genuinely stupid lacks the willingness, not simply the total ability, to come to comprehend something, some situation, etc. by which to cease being deliberately stupid, not just misinformed; someone who, e. g., lacks the particular knowledge needed to actually be a rocket scientist, due, e. g., to a lack of opportunity to gain such knowledge, is, thus, not actually stupid, only merely ignorant, because of a lack of requisitely knowing what is then needed to be properly known.

One intelligently sees that, in fact, ignorance and stupidity are, therefore, not really the same thing or cognitive condition; the former situation can be, one way or another, somehow or other, remedied, while the latter may never be helped by any further education, reading, training, etc.; this is, basically, because a truly stupid person may forever be willingly incapable of attaining the proper knowledge to cease being stupid (unintelligent), not simply to be solely cured of plain ignorance (unawareness), which is only a mere matter of just not knowing what is needed to be appropriately known.

Ignorant people can, usually, be made knowledgeable, especially if there is a true or actual willingness; most stupid people, even if there might be a true willingness, do still lack the required native ability to appropriately acquire the requisite knowledge or to properly learn what is, thus, necessary to learn for ceasing to be just stupid, not merely ignorant, as has been above already explained.

For much better explication and detailed extrapolation, e. g., smart and intelligent parents who support traditional morality would certainly wish to keep their children fully innocent but never (stupidly) naïve about the world, evil, injustice, cruelty, certain situations, etc.; this can be correctly done by only giving them age-appropriate knowledge or information needed to avoid ever being naïve (unsophisticated). Being naïve can have very terrible consequences.

Their children would not be kept ignorant deliberately nor naïve, only innocent for the sake of leading better moral lives by, e. g., avoiding occasions of sin, as much as may be possible, for the important sake of their immortal souls.

In any event, such parents, moreover, would not want to unfortunately raise any stupid children who could then easily become forever ignorant adults lacking the knowledge to remain morally innocent (not contaminated) and, thus, avoid being stupidly naïve.

The significantly important point being made is that a person can, in truth, be both saintly and innocent without ever being either naïve or stupid; thus, contrary to a stupid saying, ignorance is not bliss. And, few people, for instance, enjoy being surrounded by or having to become acquainted with truly stupid people; such persons are normally held in great contempt; this is usually because stupidity is regarded as being itself genuinely contemptible, though mere ignorance, in contrast, is just an unfortunate or unneeded condition that can be merely temporary where there is, in fact, a desire to learn or know.

Example Rendered for Apt Illustration: Stupid v. Ignorant

The following will give pertinent and expostulatory examples of how to intelligently apply the proper cognitive distinctions raised pertaining to being naïve, ignorant, innocent, or stupid. Take the famous case of the discredited theory of a flat earth.

Regardless of the odd fact that the Flat Earth Society still exists for (ridiculously) propagating such nonsense as being a (plain) fact, the popular myth is believed that, in the European Middle Ages, most people, educated and uneducated alike, actually believed that the earth was flat.

Millions of sailors, for thousands of years around the entire world, have easily noticed the sloping of a ship converging ever toward the horizon without it falling off the edge of the earth, meaning that it does not take a Ph.D. in navigation to notice something so obvious. Such curvature, as with the surface of a ball, is easily indicative of a spherical reality.

However, among other historically and intellectually correct books, Jeffrey Burton Russell’s Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (1991) both thoroughly and convincingly refutes that so hoary myth through extensive documentation, historical citations, reasoning, logic, and argumentation. Few people in the Middle Ages, therefore, believed that the earth was flat.

Thus, e. g., only someone not in any basic contact with at least the main rudiments of contemporary civilization, such as, perhaps, a fellow found deep in a South American jungle, could rationally and reasonably be totally excused if he believed the earth to be flat. He is only ignorant, not at all stupid. However, if any academic or intellectual of the 21^st century — since, by definition, being in essential contact with today’s civilization and its many implied implications and ramifications – should believe that most people in the Middle Ages assumed the world to be flat, then that person would be (really) stupid, not ignorant.

Why, however, can this be fairly and legitimately said? Such an individual has a cultural, educational, civilizational, and/or related obligation, implicit or explicit, to correctly know the actual truth; this is, obviously, because any displayed ignorance would, in fact, be deliberate in that a stupid myth, upheld by willful ignorance, would be simply accepted as just being true.

So, yes, even, e. g., many academics, scholars, or intellectuals, the cognoscenti, the literati, can be, in fact, quite stupid, especially upon particular matters, though they may, also, be stupid regarding many issues. The lack of evident intellect, on the part of most intellectuals, can be easily noted in such books as Paul Johnson’s The Intellectuals and, moreover, Thomas Sowell’s most recent and intriguing volume: Intellectuals and Society.

The foregoing, thus, well illustrates the quite fundamental and substantive difference between being genuinely ignorant versus really being stupid. Furthermore, anyone with a truly good education should not, therefore, be either naïve or innocent of the truth that the earth is, definitely, not flat.

Regarding an example of naïve versus innocent, a political conservative may wish to remain innocent concerning what goes on in a Nevada brothel, while a liberal or leftist can be deliberately naïve about any alleged positive societal or cultural benefits supposedly accruing from such a salubrious institution.

Conclusion

After reading this article, it is greatly hoped that no one will, ever again, have any substantial confusion whatsoever about the proper uses of the words naïve, stupid, ignorant, and innocent.

Bibliography

Aristotle, Rhetoric

Richard M. Weaver, Language Is Sermonic.