Nevertheless, enlightenment cannot be exactly known without discussing it in the context of ignorance.
When one is ignorant, one is pictured as extremely sensitive and vehemently opposing something without even realizing why. For example, one is into anarchism, or the condition where one is “unrestricted by man-made law” and believes that “all forms of government rest on violence” (Goldman 583). This is actually such a negative standpoint from which to proceed. Nevertheless, the ignorant are relentless in believing that “God, the State, and society are non-existent” (584). This they proclaim while contending that “the individual is the heart of the society” and that “society is the lungs which…keep the life essence” (584). How then can society be the “lungs” that keep the individual alive when in fact it had previously been declared that the society is “non-existent”? Thus, the ignorant do not realize that their principles are actually contradictory. Moreover, if the great French anarchist Proudhon states that “Property is robbery,” then I am not even entitled to own my physical body lest I be called a robber (584). Why then should anarchism be the solution to all the ills of the world when anarchism can in fact totally annihilate everything? The ignorant stops here and cannot answer such a question. This is the problem of having contradictions.
Such contradictions may have only been a theory by Goldman but they made up the entire philosophy of Marx and Engels – the philosophy of communism, which was loosely based on opposition. Judging only from their own limited or ignorant points of view, the authors contend that opposition exists among the social classes: “…every form of society has been based…on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes” (Marx & Engels 487). If such oppression did exist in