13

What's a word that means "not knowing everything"? This would serve as a complementary antonym of omniscient, which means having infinite knowledge, or simply "all-knowing".

Thesaurus.com shows these possible words:

  1. stupid (opposite of being clever, which ≠ being omniscient)
  2. unknowing (opposite of being knowing, which ≠ being omniscient)
  3. fallible (opposite of being infallible, which means "not able to make mistakes", which ≠ being omniscient, since I can know everything and still make mistakes)
  4. erring (which means "capable of making mistakes", which ≠ being omniscient, since I can know everything and still make mistakes)
  5. imperfect (opposite of being perfect, which is a superset of being omniscient... how could I be perfect if I'm both omniscient and fallible?)
  6. faulty (which means "to have fault(s) / defect(s)", is the opposite of "to have no fault(s) / defect(s)", which means being perfect, which ≠ being omniscient)
  7. ignorant (which means "having inadequate knowledge", is the opposite of "having adequate knowledge", which ≠ having infinite knowledge)
  8. uneducated (opposite of being educated, which ≠ being omniscient)
  9. unaware (opposite of being aware, which ≠ being omniscient)
  10. uninformed (opposite of being informed, which ≠ being omniscient)

Yet, none of them are true antonyms for omniscient. Is there an alternative?

herisson
  • 81,803
Pacerier
  • 7,017
  • 2
    He's a know-nothing [f*ckwit]. – FumbleFingers Feb 26 '13 at 12:23
  • 1
    You might find this philosophy question useful. – Matt E. Эллен Feb 26 '13 at 13:28
  • Though the question is a little different, there are good possibilities here: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/20103/is-there-a-single-word-for-one-who-speaks-boasts-a-lot-about-everything/20104#20104 – Kristina Lopez Feb 26 '13 at 15:02
  • 5
    This question serves as a great example for why an O.P. should adequately research a question, and then present that research. Three users left some pretty decent answers, each of which were refuted soundly by the O.P. After the O.P. made an edit, and added 10 words that would not work – explaining why – the conversation became more focused and productive. I've upvoted the question in its current form, but, had I seen it in its original form, I might have downvoted it (I can't say for sure, though, because I'm not omniscient). – J.R. Feb 26 '13 at 16:23
  • 1
    you'll have to coin one: how about "seminiscient"? – AShelly Feb 26 '13 at 16:48
  • 1
    My girlfriend used to call me a "knowing f**k-it-all". I realize that's not what you're looking for, but... – MT_Head Feb 26 '13 at 18:55
  • "Fallible" by itself does imply "makes mistakes," but as far as I know it's one of the more commonly-used antonyms. Because, when directly juxtaposed with "omniscient," it's essentially a shorthand for "possessing fallible knowledge." – Alex P Feb 26 '13 at 21:12
  • 5
    If you are looking for the complement of omniscient and not the opposite can you update the question to indicate that? 'Not having all knowledge' is not the opposite of 'having all knowledge', 'having no knowledge' would be. – Mr.Mindor Feb 26 '13 at 23:49
  • @Mr.Mindor, you are mistaken. You are suggesting that there are varying degrees of omniscient. This is wrong because there's only one degree of omniscient. Either you are omniscient, or you are not omniscient (you can't be more omniscient or less omniscient than someone who is omniscient). There are only two choices (yes or no) and hence the opposite of omniscient is the complement of omniscient. Contrast this................. – Pacerier Feb 28 '13 at 04:37
  • ........................with the adjective hot. Since hot is not a one-degree adjective, its opposite and complement are distinct : the opposite of hot is cold, while the complement of hot is not hot (cold or warm or etc). – Pacerier Feb 28 '13 at 04:38
  • 1
    @Pacerier What I am suggesting is there are varying degrees of knowledge, and omniscient is a special word for the highest degree, or 'having the most knowledge'. The complement is '___not___ having the most knowledge'. The opposite is 'having the least knowledge'. They are still distinct. Rather than hot a better comparison can be made to hottest. The complement is not hottest, the opposite is coldest. These words are special words for indicating levels of heat. – Mr.Mindor Feb 28 '13 at 15:48
  • 1
    @Mr.Mindor Equating omniscient to "having the most knowledge" is an example of the straw man fallacy. "having all knowledge" is not the same as "having the most knowledge". The latter is a superlative and suggests a comparison while the former is simply a neutral adjective. For example, if only five beings ever existed, we can say the five of them are omniscient, but we can't say the five of them are the most knowledgeable because this suggests that there exists less knowledgeable beings. – Pacerier Mar 02 '13 at 03:45
  • "Unwitting" might fit the bill. – ak84 Mar 13 '13 at 00:54
  • In Polish we could use narrow-minded also for someone having knowledge in narrow field only, but I'm not sure if it's the same in English – Danubian Sailor Mar 04 '14 at 15:03

10 Answers10

14

According to reference.com, the Random House dictionary registers unomniscient as a legitimate word. There are a handful of hits on Google Books which include the following examples:

  1. Chaucer deepens Jean de Meun's joke about the God's ersatz divinity: immediately after the God has just issued some clearly unomniscient judgments ...

  2. If at every world, God knows at that world only the propositions whose truth-values are modally constant, then it would seem that God is necessarily unomniscient.

  3. There are actually two types of unomniscient focus, since the narrator may know the same as or even less than the characters.

  4. The impossibility of an unomniscient intelligence demonstrating the supposed contradiction, and thus transforming our universe into an untrustworthy universe, with which one can have no intercourse, is the attitude primarily assumed towards ...

Also of interest is the term bounded rationality:

Bounded rationality is the idea that in decision-making, rationality of individuals is limited by the information they have, the cognitive limitations of their minds, and the finite amount of time they have to make a decision.

Community
  • 1
coleopterist
  • 31,031
5

Ignorant may suffice:

ODO on ignorant

adjective
1 lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated

Community
  • 1
Andrew Leach
  • 101,901
  • 3
    I'm not omniscient. This doesn't mean that I'm ignorant. – Pacerier Feb 26 '13 at 13:12
  • 2
    @Pacerier you just equated being not omniscient with being the opposite of omniscient. That's ignorant! – kojiro Feb 26 '13 at 21:54
  • @Pacerier: the opposite of hot is cold, but that doesn't mean that your coffee is cold when it's no longer hot, first it gets warm.... – jmoreno Feb 27 '13 at 03:39
  • @kojiro, your thinking that I'm ignorant shows ur ignorance (lol). "omniscient" is a one-degree adjective and hence the complement of omniscient (not omniscient) is not distinct from the opposite of omniscient. More info can be found under Mr.Mindor's comment above at http://english.stackexchange.com/q/105321/8278#comment215109_105321 – Pacerier Feb 28 '13 at 04:40
  • @jmoreno. Because there are varying degrees of hotness, the opposite of hot (cold) is not the same as the complement of hot (not hot). However omniscient is a one-degree adjective (you can't be more omniscient than someone who is omniscient). For one-degree adjectives, there only exists two possibilities (yes or no, no inbetween) and hence the opposite of a one-degree adjective is its complement. This is explained in http://english.stackexchange.com/q/105321/8278#comment215109_10 – Pacerier Feb 28 '13 at 04:51
  • @Pacerier: but nobody said you were the opposite of omniscient. And there are degrees to ignorant. So, yes, the opposite of know-everything is know-nothing, but not knowing everything doesn't mean you know nothing. – jmoreno Feb 28 '13 at 05:13
  • @jmoreno, As I've explained, if there exists only two possibilities (either yes or no, either zero or one), than "opposite" and "complement" refers to the same thing. Put simply, if there's only one thing to know, than the opposite of know-everything (know 1) is know-nothing (know 0), and not knowing everything (know 0) means knowing nothing (know 0). Omniscient is a 1-degree adjective (either you are, or you are not, since you can't be more omniscient or less omniscient than someone who is omniscient) and hence the opposite of omniscient is the same as the complement of omniscient. – Pacerier Feb 28 '13 at 05:24
  • @Pacerier Ignorant is the most accurate term here. You don't have to be completely ignorant to qualify. For example, I'm largely ignorant of the price of wheat in Indonesia. That doesn't mean I am wholly ignorant. If you are taking the position that the opposite must fill the void that omniscience leaves so that all possibilities must be covered by omniscience and this other word, that would be 'not omniscient' as no need for said word that covers all possibilities up to but not including absolute knowledge. Similarly there is no term to cover every number except infinity (that I'm aware of). – GenericJam Apr 18 '14 at 14:41
  • @Pacerier You either know ALL or you do not know ALL. One cannot know more than ALL. But one can definitely know less than ALL but still more than NONE right? You say if there exist only two possibilities, but in my mind it is clear that there are infinite levels of knowledge between knowing nothing and knowing everything, even though it's still true or false whether you know everything or not. I go with jmoreno's analogy. Just because something is not hot does not mean it must be cold. – Stijn de Witt Feb 24 '21 at 00:31
5

The struggle seems to be with finding a word that means "some-knowing" that is negative enough to imply that all knowledge is the norm without implying that the object has inadequate knowledge on a simple level.

Bit of a cheat perhaps, but you consider some basic antonyms using prefixes, such as non-omniscient or, preferable for me I think, inomniscient.

Alternatively, quasi- means "appearing to be, but not", so depending on context perhaps quasi-omniscient.

Johno
  • 150
3

"agnostic" and "grossly ignorant" in certain contexts can be used to mean the opposite of "omniscient"

"agnostic":

noun

  1. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

adjective

  1. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
Kristina Lopez
  • 26,536
  • "not all-knowing" ≠ "having some knowledge" as explained in http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/105321/whats-the-opposite-of-omniscient/105341#comment-214651 – Pacerier Feb 26 '13 at 15:13
  • It's a link to the comment under Dan's answer. Hmm, weird I'd thought the direct link would work... the link is not working? – Pacerier Feb 26 '13 at 15:17
  • I got the gist, @Pacerier, I edited my answer. :-) – Kristina Lopez Feb 26 '13 at 15:32
2

The phrase "blank slate" or "tabula rasa" means being completely without knowledge, although it's usually used in discussions of how humans learn.

RossFabricant
  • 128
1

You can use Clueless as an opposite. Also one may use blind (to), deaf, and more straight unknowing.

Here you can find many references saying that ignorant is the most appropriate word: link1, link2

My guess

Anyway since the omni- prefix belongs to Latin language I believe you should start your research from there: find what is the antonym for omni- maybe that helps.

lexeme
  • 770
  • "clueless" means "having no clue", and even if we stretch abit and take clue to mean knowledge, "not having all knowledge" is not the same as "having no knowledge". – Pacerier Feb 26 '13 at 14:15
  • @Pacerier that's just my opinion. Anyway I would prefer using blind. – lexeme Feb 26 '13 at 14:24
  • since being omniscient could be considered as a special ability then opposite for this is disability – lexeme Feb 26 '13 at 14:29
1

It looks like your difficulty is in finding an opposite for the "all" part of it. If so, you might simply need a word like "knowledgeable" because it would indicate having knowledge, but by implication (and the omission of "all" in front of it) it would mean "not knowing everything."

rosends
  • 2,475
  • 1
    If there are 3 knowledges, having "all" means having 3. not having "all" means having "either 0 or 1 or 2". Being knowledgeable means "not having zero knowledge" which means having "either 1 or 2 or 3" knowledge. "0 or 1 or 2" ≠ "1 or 2 or 3". – Pacerier Feb 26 '13 at 14:36
  • In other words, if someone knows nothing, I can describe him as "not omniscient" (e.g. "Hey John, you think you are omniscient? You are not omniscient. You know nothing."), but I can't describe him as "knowledgeable", and thus "not omniscient" ≠ "knowledgeable". – Pacerier Feb 26 '13 at 14:40
  • so you want a word which means "knowing some or none, but not all"? By the way, I would disagree with your premise that "not omniscient" allows knowing nothing. The "not" would negate the "all" not the "knowing." This would require knowing something. – rosends Feb 26 '13 at 15:37
  • Not true, because when we multiply something by nothing, we get nothing. In other words, if one is "not all knowing", one is "knowing any, but not all knowing". This can also be less-succinctly said as "either some-knowing or none-knowing, but not all-knowing", which in natural numbers (let's take all equals 3) mean "either 1 or 2 or 3 or 0, but not 3". – Pacerier Feb 26 '13 at 16:43
1

If you just want "not omniscient", and not "opposite of omniscient", how about "humanly knowledgeable"? You would probably need to expand on this, talking about human limitations versus God's lack of limitations.

Or maybe you would like "brainless", not as an insult, but as a literal term. An item without a brain is not capable of "knowing" anything, unless, for example, a rock can "know" that it is hard and dense, etc.

There is "neophyte", which I think is similar to complete or absolute "newbie". Although it is not the opposite of omniscient, it does indicate a great lack of knowledge.

aedia λ
  • 10,721
Charles
  • 31
1

I would suggest one of the following alternatives depending on context:

  • amateur: a person who engages in a pursuit, especially a sport, on an unpaid basis
  • apprentice: a person who is learning a trade from a skilled employer, having agreed to work for a fixed period at low wages
  • beginner: a person just starting to learn a skill or take part in an activity
  • budding: (of a person) beginning and showing signs of promise in a particular sphere
  • journeyman: a worker or sports player who is reliable but not outstanding
  • learner: a person who is learning a subject or skill
  • student: [as a modifier] a person who takes an interest in a particular subject

(Definitions from http://oxforddictionaries.com/.)

While these are not adjectives, some of them can be turned into adjectives or used as modifiers in phrases. Examples:

He was a budding scientist.

She was an amateur fencer.

The journeyman players had already proven themselves on the field.

Maybe the question could get a more accurate answer if it specified the context in more detail?

Fabian Fagerholm
  • 798
0

I suggest that ignorant is the opposite.

RegDwigнt
  • 97,231
LAA
  • 17