Ignorance and Innocence

There is a fine line, I believe, with these two words; which is somehow mistaken to be one as the other and vice versa. As I see it, the difference lies in the level of knowledge of something; that is, the degree of knowledge of a certain object subjected to the consciousness. Ignorance, I believe, is partial knowledge of something (but doesn’t deny the fact that one knows something about that something, but not of it as a whole). On the other hand, ignorance is total deficiency of knowledge about a certain object.

To further illustrate the difference: an educated man from the province visited the city. While waiting for someone who would show him around, he decided to buy a drink from a ‘palamig’ stand across the street. Knowing that he is already so thirsty and tired, he immediately crossed the street but was halted by a policeman. The ‘promdi’ (man from the province) asked for his violation, and the policeman bluntly answered him with ‘jaywalking’. Is this case a case of ignorance or innocence?

We cannot deny the fact that the term innocence is best described in the likes of infants and kids, or at some cases, with those who are deprived of sanity. But would that deprive a sane man of innocence as well? If so, then, those who are proclaimed ‘innocent’ at courts are thus otherwise? Furthermore, then, that means every man who is in good mentality are ‘at fault’ all the time?

What’s my point in this blog, then? Actually, this is just a reflection I had when I had the chance to know more about the metropolis. I can say that I am ignorant…yes, ignorant of the places where I have been into these past few days. I partially know these places; therefore I cannot say that I am innocent about these places where I have been into.

But hey! It’s a great thing I finally knew about those stuff!