What does being ‘dumb’ mean according to this article?
According to the article, ‘dumb’ refers to only bare minimum of general knowledge, and thus being ignorant about major happenings around the world, unaware of intellectual, economic and civic or historical disasters and being “ geographic clueless” . At such, “dumb” people are extremely dependent on technology such as the use of internet and they are the ones who give a “blank-eyed "huh?" “When common general knowledge questions are asked or mentioned even in a casual conversation.
Do you agree with the article’s argument? Give 3 reasons for your answer.
I do not agree with the article’s argument that an ignorant person is dumb. Ignorance is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information. Ignorant does not indicate that a person has a low level of intelligence. On the other hand, dumb refers to stupidity, the lack of intelligence. For example, a student who is unaware about the Singapore Budget 2010 does not imply that this student is stupid or dumb. He or she is just ignorant and chooses to subjectively ignore the news of the Singapore’s Budget. Therefore, an ignorant person is definitely not dumb.
Secondly, the author quotes George Santayana, who is despaired of a generation's ignorance, warns that 'those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' While it is true that being aware of historical events and thus learn from the past helps to avoid making similar mistakes, I feel that even if you ‘remember the past’, you might not necessarily be knowledgeable and not ignorant at all.
Thirdly, I do not agree that ‘those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’. Does remembering the past implies that one is able to understand and apply it in any context whenever the need arises? I think remembering the past does not indicate one’s level of intelligence but how good one’s memory is. Henceforth, I disagree that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’.
Thursday, March 4
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i totally agree what wenrui has to say about the dumbest generation that doesn't equate to ignorance. As knowledge is always there for us to absorb and anyone of any intelligence level can understand it, the only reason for us not to know is what WR mentioned about ignorance. however, i dont think that the past and historical events are redundant as it somehow shapes the way we are today, and also add in to our cultural views of s'pore.
ReplyDeletein conclusion, a very coherent argument! :) i like!
I agree with Wen Rui that an ignorant person is definitely not dumb. I think that using definitions of ''dumb'' and ''ignorant'' has helped a lot in proving her point which is going against what the author mentioned about ignorant is being dumb. However, I feel that youths who learnt from the past are more likely to not repeat the same mistakes as compared to youths who know nothing about the pasts.
ReplyDeletei agree with the first point that ignorance does not equate to dumb. according to dictionary.com, dumb is defined as lacking intelligence or good judgment; stupid; dull-witted. hence, i do not think that ignorance has anything to do with intelligence as having more knowledge than others does not mean that one is more intelligent.
ReplyDeleteas for the quote 'those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' , i disagree with your view as it is a different story when the quote is being switched around to 'those who remember the past will not repeat it'. it is fundamental that we have to know what mistakes were made in the past in order to not repeat it. hence, if such basic requirement is not made, it is difficult for us to not repeat it.
leling