Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

What's the opposite 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?

What's another word for "not knowing everything"?

share|improve this question
2  
He's a know-nothing [f*ckwit]. –  FumbleFingers Feb 26 '13 at 12:23
1  
You might find this philosophy question useful. –  Matt Эллен Feb 26 '13 at 13:28
4  
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
4  
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
show 9 more comments

closed as not a real question by cornbread ninja 麵包忍者, MετάEd, tchrist, Kris, Matt Эллен Feb 28 '13 at 10:16

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

10 Answers

up vote 12 down vote accepted

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.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Ignorant may suffice:

ODO on ignorant

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

share|improve this answer
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 3:39
    
@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 english.stackexchange.com/q/105321/8278#comment215109_105321 –  Pacerier Feb 28 '13 at 4:40
    
@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 english.stackexchange.com/q/105321/8278#comment215109_10 –  Pacerier Feb 28 '13 at 4:51
show 3 more comments

"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.
share|improve this answer
    
"not all-knowing" ≠ "having some knowledge" as explained in english.stackexchange.com/questions/105321/… –  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
add comment

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

share|improve this answer
add comment

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."

share|improve this answer
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. –  Dan 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
add comment

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.

share|improve this answer
    
"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. –  brick Feb 26 '13 at 14:24
    
since being omniscient could be considered as a special ability then opposite for this is disability –  brick Feb 26 '13 at 14:29
add comment

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.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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?

share|improve this answer
add comment

I suggest that ignorant is the opposite.

share|improve this answer
add comment

protected by RegDwigнt Feb 26 '13 at 22:52

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.