"Invincible ignorance" has at least two meanings. In Catholic theology, it refers to the state, or condition, of persons who are ignorant of Jesus because their circumstances are such that they are, or were, unable to know him. Among those who possess invincible ignorance according to the Church are pagans who lived before him--especially worthy pagans such as Plato--and infants. These necessarily ignorant, and thereby unworthy of heaven, are said by some to spend their afterlives (assuming the infants die before baptism) in Limbo. Limbo is a kind of place which isn't heaven, but isn't hell either. There, it is to be presumed, Plato, Aristotle and other pagan greats debate and think great thoughts while changing diapers and otherwise tending babies.
Another meaning for "invincible ignorance" is the condition resulting from a refusal to accept evidence or argument. This is referred to as a logical fallacy, sometimes. It is the ignorance I address in this post, and was also I believe referred to by the man quoted above, a French physician and philosopher of the Enlightenment.
It is the refusal that characterizes ignorance of this kind. You or I may be ignorant simply because we don't know something or other for perfectly acceptable reasons--acceptable in the sense that there is no deliberate effort not to know something or other. Invincible ignorance is ignorance by choice. The invincibly ignorant choose not to know. Their ignorance is the result of their willing rejection of knowledge or the effort to know.
According to Julien Offray De La Mettrie, our happiness depends on this kind of ignorance. Judging from the nature of the quote, he probably had ignorance of some thing or things in particular in mind. But ignorance of anything which disturbs us can contribute to our happiness. Ignorance is bliss in some circumstances if not all circumstances.
But the refusal to consider an assertion or an argument, or the evidence which supports them, is different from a refusal to know something in the sense of experiencing something. You can have perfectly good reason, I would think, to refuse to know what it's like to murder someone or torture someone and can hardly be blamed for balking at having knowledge of what it's like to do so. In some cases, then, the desire to be invincibly ignorant is quite understandable. Some knowledge isn't good.
Sometimes an argument or assertion is so absurd there's no point in giving it any serious consideration. Judgment must be exercised in determining absurdity, though. Judgment is something we come to lack more and more these days, at least here in God's favorite country.
It strikes me we live in a time when people are less inclined than ever to consider any position that may challenge or undercut personal, political, religious or cultural views. It may be that such consideration is too trying; the world is more complicated than it has been in the past, in great part because there are more of us needing and demanding limited resources. It may be that the uncertainty of these times causes us to cling more than before to cherished and comfortable thoughts and customs, particularly where religion and politics are concerned, and to so dread what is different as to disregard it as much as possible rather than try to understand it.
But I'm concerned that fear and uncertainty and the desire for the happiness that results from ignorance aren't the only motivations behind invincible ignorance. I'm concerned that many of us are invincibly ignorant simply because we have accepted the view that many intellectuals and academics have propounded for some time. What I'm thinking of is what has been associated with the word "postmodernism" rightly or wrongly. That is, an adverse reaction to the Enlightenment and the faith in science which dominated modern Western culture for two or three centuries, until the 20th century.
A skepticism regarding the extent to which science can cure all our ills and make the world a paradise is understandable. But that skepticism has been associated with a distrust of reason and logic generally; with the view that they are mere constructs of a social and political tradition or culture, no more admirable or desirable, or worthy of respect, than any other construct.
If that's the case (not "true", of course), why is there any point in being anything but invincibly ignorant? We can ignore, refuse to consider, anything we like. There's no basis on which it can be said that assertions or arguments different from those we favor are to be preferred. There's no reason to consider the evidence in their support. There's no reason to think, in fact, or second-guess ourselves, when what others think or claim is no more worthy of respect or acceptance to what we believe and like already.
The invincibly ignorant are fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.
