knowledge and wisdom essay by bertrand russell

Summary of Russell’s Essay, Knowledge and Wisdom

“Never mistake knowledge for wisdom. One helps you make a living; the other helps you make a life.”

– Sandra Carey

Knowledge and wisdom are different things. According to Russell , knowledge is defined as the acquisition of data and information, while wisdom is defined as the practical application and use of the knowledge to create value. Wisdom is gained through learning and practical experience, not just memorization.

A sense of proportion is very much necessary for wisdom . By inventing medicine, a scientist may reduce the infant death-rate. Apparently, it leads to population explosion and shortage of food. The standard of life comes down. If misused, knowledge of atom can lead human to destruction by manufacturing nuclear weapon.

Knowledge without wisdom can be harmful. Even complete knowledge is not enough. For example, Hegel wrote with great

knowledge about history, but made the Germans believe that they were a master race. It led to war. It is necessary, therefore to combine knowledge with feelings.

We need wisdom both in public and private life. We need wisdom to decide the goal of our life. We need it to free ourselves from personal prejudices. Wisdom is needed to avoid dislike for one another. Two persons may remain enemies because of their prejudice. If they can be told that we all have flaws then they may become friends.

• Russell’s View on World Government in his Essay The Future of Mankind

So, ‘Hate Hatred’ should be our slogan. Wisdom lies in freeing ourselves from the control of our sense organs. Our ego develops through our senses. We cannot be free from the sense of sight, sound and touch. We know the world primarily through our senses. As we grow we discover that there are other things also. We start recognizing them. Thus we give up thinking of ourselves alone. We start thinking of other people and grow wiser. We give up on our ego. Wisdom comes when we start loving others.

Russell feels that wisdom can be taught as a goal of education. Even though we are born unwise which we cannot help, we can cultivate wisdom. Queen Elizabeth I, Henry IV and Abraham Lincoln, are some impressive personalities who fused vigour with wisdom and fought the evil.

Related posts:

• Russell’s View on World Government in his Essay The Future of Mankind
• Indian English Poetry and Poets: An Essay
• Character Analysis of Sir Roger de Coverley in Addison’s Essay
• Bertrand Russell as a Prose Writer
• Summary of E. V. Lucas’ Essay The Town Week

8 thoughts on “Summary of Russell’s Essay, Knowledge and Wisdom”

Great article with excellent idea!Thank you for such a valuable article. I really appreciate for this great information.. quora

Really nice and well informative article wrote in a very concise and beautiful manner

thank you for a great post. กาแฟออแกนิค

Critical analysis plz post

An examination essay dissects the likenesses and contrasts between two items or thoughts. Correlation essays may incorporate an assessment, if the realities show that on item or thought is better than another. narrative essay outline

A doctor may invent medicine which reduces infant mortality rate. Consequently, it may lead to population explosion and shortage of food. That shows a lack of KNOWLEDGE itself. Not knowing the consequences rather than “Wisdom” stuff that Russell talks about here

I am satisfied with the arrangement of your post. You are really a talented person I have ever seen.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Bertrand Russell on the Two Types of Knowledge and What Makes a Fulfilling Life

By maria popova.

“The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life,” the Nobel-winning English polymath Bertrand Russell (May 18, 1872–February 2, 1970) wrote in his memoir at the end of a long and intellectually invigorating life — a life the echoes of which reverberate through some of the most defining ideas of our time.

But Russell first formulated this animating ethos in his 1931 treatise The Scientific Outlook ( public library ). On the surface, this remarkably perceptive and prescient book can appear to be a critique of science, which may seem surprising coming from Russell — in addition to being one of the twentieth century’s most lucid and influential philosophers, he was also a mathematician and logician himself, whose incisive writings on critical thinking and “the will to doubt” have rendered him an enduring patron saint of reason. But beneath such a surface impression is enormous depth of insight and a timeless, increasingly timely clarion call for nuance in distinguishing between the sort of knowledge driven by a greed for power and the higher-order wisdom that makes and keeps us human. In this light, although science is the book’s subject, its object is to examine the most elemental potentialities of the human spirit — our parallel capacities for good and evil — and to illuminate the means by which we can cultivate a nobler and more humane humanity.

Writing in a golden age of science, just as quantum mechanics and relativity were beginning to reconfigure our understanding of reality, yet well before the invention of the atomic bomb shed light on the dark side of science as a tool of power, Russell issues a poignant and prescient admonition about the uses and misuses of science. Reflecting on how these illuminate the largest questions of what it means to be human, he writes:

Science in the course of the few centuries of its history has undergone an internal development which appears to be not yet completed. One may sum up this development as the passage from contemplation to manipulation. The love of knowledge to which the growth of science is due is itself the product of a twofold impulse. We may seek knowledge of an object because we love the object or because we wish to have power over it. The former impulse leads to the kind of knowledge that is contemplative, the latter to the kind that is practical. […] But the desire for knowledge has another form, belonging to an entirely different set of emotions. The mystic, the lover, and the poet are also seekers after knowledge… In all forms of love we wish to have knowledge of what is loved, not for purposes of power but for the ecstasy of contemplation… Wherever there is ecstasy or joy or delight derived from an object there is the desire to know that object — to know it not in the manipulative fashion that consists of turning it into something else, but to know it in the fashion of the beatific vision, because in itself and for itself it sheds happiness upon the lover. This may indeed be made the touchstone of any love that is valuable.

Nineteen years later, in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Russell would list this love of power among the four desires driving all human behavior . But despite its hijacking for practical purposes of manipulation, he argues, science in its truest form originates in this wellspring of love for its object. (Many decades later, pioneering astronomer Vera Rubin, who confirmed the existence of dark matter, would echo this notion in a somewhat surprising and rather lovely remark: “I sometimes ask myself whether I would be studying galaxies if they were ugly… I think it may not be irrelevant that galaxies are really very attractive.” And Frida Kahlo would shine a sidewise gleam on the same idea in her exquisite reflection on how love amplifies beauty .)

Nearly a century before astrophysicist Janna Levin depicted science as “a truly human endeavor,” Russell writes:

Science in its beginnings was due to men who were in love with the world. They perceived the beauty of the stars and the sea, of the winds and the mountains. Because they loved them their thoughts dwelt upon them, and they wished to understand them more intimately than a mere outward contemplation made possible. “The world,” said Heraclitus, “is an ever living fire, with measures kindling and measures going out.” Heraclitus and the other Ionian philosophers, from whom came the first impulse to scientific knowledge, felt the strange beauty of the world almost like a madness in the blood. They were men of Titanic passionate intellect, and from the intensity of their intellectual passion the whole movement of the modern world has sprung. But step by step, as science has developed, the impulse of love which gave it birth has been increasingly thwarted, while the impulse of power, which was at first a mere camp-follower, has gradually usurped command in virtue of its unforeseen success. The lover of nature has been baffled, the tyrant over nature has been rewarded.

Russell cautions that this shift from what he calls “love-knowledge” to “power-knowledge” is the single greatest hazard in the future of science, which is implicitly inseparable from the future of humanity. To protect science from such a shift, he suggests, is not only our duty but our only means of protecting us from ourselves. Half a century before Hannah Arendt’s insistence that asking unanswerable questions makes us human , Russell writes:

When science is considered contemplatively, not practically, we find that what we believe, we believe owing to animal faith, and it is only our disbeliefs that are due to science. When, on the other hand, science is considered as a technique for the transformation of ourselves and our environment, it is found to give us a power quite independent of its metaphysical validity. But we can only wield this power by ceasing to ask ourselves metaphysical questions about the nature of reality. Yet these questions are the evidence of a lover’s attitude toward the world. Thus it is only in so far as we renounce the world as its lovers that we can conquer it as its technicians. But this division in the soul is fatal to what is best in man. As soon as the failure of science considered as metaphysics is realized, the power conferred by science as a technique is only obtainable … by the renunciation of love.

Yet Russell is careful to call for the necessary nuance to prevent his central point from being misunderstood or even turned on itself:

It is not knowledge that is the source of these dangers. Knowledge is good and ignorance is evil: to this principle the lover of the world can admit no exception. Nor is it power in and for itself that is the source of danger. What is dangerous is power wielded for the sake of power, not power wielded for the sake of genuine good.

In another passage of astonishing political prescience, Russell writes on the cusp of the Nazis’ rise to power and speaks across the decades to our own time:

The leaders of the modern world are drunk with power: the fact that they can do something that no one previously thought it possible to do is to them a sufficient reason for doing it. Power is not one of the ends of life, but merely a means to other ends, and until men remember the ends that power should subserve, science will not do what it might to minister to the good life. But what then are the ends of life, the reader will say. I do not think that one man has a right to legislate for another on this matter. For each individual the ends of life are those things which he deeply desires, and which if they existed would give him peace. Or, if it be thought that peace is too much to ask this side of the grave, let us say that the ends of life should give delight or joy or ecstasy.

In a sentiment which Kurt Vonnegut would come to echo decades later in his verse about the secret of happiness , Russell adds:

In the conscious desires of the man who seeks power for its own sake there is something dusty: when he has it he wants only more power, and does not find rest in contemplation of what he has. The lover, the poet and the mystic find a fuller satisfaction than the seeker after power can ever know, since they can rest in the object of their love, whereas the seeker after power must be perpetually engaged in some fresh manipulation if he is not to suffer from a sense of emptiness. I think therefore that the satisfactions of the lover, using the word in its broadest sense, exceed the satisfactions of the tyrant, and deserve a higher place among the ends of life.

Looking back on his own life as a lover of the world, Russell reflects on what it would take to harness the power of science for the true ends of the good life:

When I come to die I shall not feel that I have lived in vain. I have seen the earth turn red at evening, the dew sparkling in the morning, and the snow shining under a frosty sun; I have smelt rain after drought, and have heard the stormy Atlantic beat upon the granite shores of Cornwall. Science may bestow these and other joys upon more people than could otherwise enjoy them. If so, its power will be wisely used. But when it takes out of life the moments to which life owes its value, science will not deserve admiration, however cleverly and however elaborately it may lead men among the road to despair. The sphere of values lies outside science, except in so far as science consists in the pursuit of knowledge. Science as the pursuit of power must not obtrude upon the sphere of values, and scientific technique, if it is to enrich human life, must not outweigh the ends which it should serve.

In a passage of especial poignancy in today’s context of a power-greedy government antagonistic to science and reliant on the propaganda of “alternative facts,” Russell adds:

The purpose of government is not merely to afford pleasure to those who govern, but to make life tolerable for those who are governed… It must become an essential part of man’s ethical outlook to realize that the will alone cannot make a good life. Knowing and feeling are equally essential ingredients both in the life of the individual and in that of the community. Knowledge, if it is wide and intimate, brings with it a realization of distant times and places, an awareness that the individual is not omnipotent or all-important…

Seven decades before philosopher Martha Nussbaum’s timeless treatise on the intelligence of the emotions , Russell concludes:

Even more important than knowledge is the life of the emotions. A world without delight and without affection is a world destitute of value. These things the scientific manipulator must remember, and if he does his manipulation may be wholly beneficial. All that is needed is that men should not be so intoxicated by new power as to forget the truths that were familiar to every previous generation. Not all wisdom is new, nor is all folly out of date.

Nearly a century later, The Scientific Outlook remains an immensely insightful read. Complement it with astrophysicist Janna Levin on what motivates scientists and philosopher of science Loren Eiseley on the relationship between nature and human nature , then revisit Russell on freedom of thought , what “the good life” really means , why “fruitful monotony” is essential for happiness , the nature of time , and his remarkable response to a fascist’s provocation .

— Published May 8, 2017 — https://www.themarginalian.org/2017/05/08/bertrand-russell-the-scientific-outlook/ —

www.themarginalian.org

PRINT ARTICLE

Email article, filed under, bertrand russell books culture philosophy science, view full site.

The Marginalian participates in the Bookshop.org and Amazon.com affiliate programs, designed to provide a means for sites to earn commissions by linking to books. In more human terms, this means that whenever you buy a book from a link here, I receive a small percentage of its price, which goes straight back into my own colossal biblioexpenses. Privacy policy . (TLDR: You're safe — there are no nefarious "third parties" lurking on my watch or shedding crumbs of the "cookies" the rest of the internet uses.)

Summary of ‘Knowledge and Wisdom’ by Bertrand Russell

• Ramji Acharya
• 2021, Dec-28

Main Summary [Brief]

In this essay, Russell differentiates between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge and wisdom are different things. According to him, knowledge is defined as the acquisition of data and information, while wisdom is defined as the practical application and use of the knowledge to create value. Wisdom is gained through learning and practical experience, not just memorization. 

Major Word Meanings of this Essay

proportion (n.): a part or share of a whole 

absorb (v.): to take, draw or suck something in 

distorting (v.): pull or twist out of shape 

inculcate (v.): inplant, infuse, instil 

bound up (v.): to limit something 

fanatical (adj.): a person who is too enthusiastic about something 

Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872–1970) was a British philosopher, logician, essayist and social critic best known for his work in mathematical logic and analytic philosophy. His most influential contributions include his championing of logicism (the view that mathematics is in some important sense reducible to logic), his refining of Gottlob Frege’s predicate calculus (which still forms the basis of most contemporary systems of logic), his defense of neutral monism (the view that the world consists of just one type of substance which is neither exclusively mental nor exclusively physical), and his theories of definite descriptions, logical atomism and logical types.

Summary of Russell’s Essay, Knowledge and Wisdom

“Never mistake knowledge for wisdom. One helps you make a living; the other helps you make a life.”

– Sandra Carey

Knowledge and wisdom are different things. According to Russell, knowledge is defined as the acquisition of data and information, while wisdom is defined as the practical application and use of the knowledge to create value. Wisdom is gained through learning and practical experience, not just memorization.

A sense of proportion is very much necessary for wisdom. By inventing medicine, a scientist may reduce the infant death-rate. Apparently, it leads to population explosion and shortage of food. The standard of life comes down. If misused, knowledge of atom can lead human to destruction by manufacturing nuclear weapon.

Knowledge without wisdom can be harmful. Even complete knowledge is not enough. For example, Hegel wrote with great knowledge about history, but made the Germans believe that they were a master race. It led to war. It is necessary, therefore to combine knowledge with feelings.

We need wisdom both in public and private life. We need wisdom to decide the goal of our life. We need it to free ourselves from personal prejudices. Wisdom is needed to avoid dislike for one another. Two persons may remain enemies because of their prejudice. If they can be told that we all have flaws then they may become friends.

Question Answer of Knowledge & Wisdom

a. What are the factors that contribute to wisdom? 

Ans : – In the essay “Knowledge and Wisdom”, Bertrand Russell talks about several factors that contribute to wisdom. According to him, the factors that contribute to wisdom are :

i) a sense of proportion, 

ii) comprehensiveness with broad feeling, 

iii) emancipation from personal prejudices and tyranny of sensory perception, 

iv) impartiality and

v) awareness of human needs and understanding. 

b. What message does the writer try to convey with the examples of technicians? 

Ans : – Russell has given some examples of technicians to convey the message that the lone technical knowledge can be harmful to humankind if that knowledge is applied without wisdom. They can’t find out how their knowledge in one field can be harmful in another field. For example, the discovery of medicine to decrease the infant mortality rate can cause population growth and food scarcity. Similarly, the knowledge of atomic theory can be misused in making atom bombs. 

c. Which leaders does Russell say were able to mix knowledge and wisdom soundly? 

Ans : – According to Russell, Queen Elizabeth I in England, Henry IV in France and Abraham Lincoln can mix knowledge and wisdom soundly. Queen Elizabeth I and Henry IV remained free from the errors of their time being Global Trade Starts Here Alibaba.com unaffected by the conflict between the Protestants and the Catholics. Similarly, Abraham Lincoln conducted a great war without ever departing from wisdom. 

d. Why is wisdom needed not only in public ways but in private life equally? 

Ans : – Wisdom is not only needed in public ways but also used in private life equally. It is needed in the choice of ends to be pursued and in emancipation from personal prejudice. In the lack of wisdom, we may fail in choosing the target of our life and we may not have sufficient patience and sufficient persuasiveness in convincing people. 

e. What, according to Russell, the true aim of education? 

Ans : – The true aim of education, according to Russell, is installing wisdom in people. It is wisdom that makes us utilize our knowledge in practical life purposefully without making any harm to humankind. Along with knowledge, people must have the wisdom to be good citizens. 

f. Can wisdom be taught? If so, how? 

Ans : – Yes, wisdom can be taught. The teaching of wisdom should have a larger intellectual element more than moral instruction. The disastrous results of hatred and narrow mindedness to those who feel them can be pointed out incidentally in the course of giving knowledge. For example, while teaching the composition of an atom, the disastrous results of it must be taught to eliminate its misuse such as making an atom bomb. Reference to the Context Answer the following questions. 

a. According to Russell, “The Pursuit of Knowledge may become harmful unless it is combined with wisdom.” Justify this statement. 

Ans : – Humans are curious creatures and they always want to learn new things. Most people have spent their whole lives in pursuit of knowledge. Some pieces of knowledge are noble and beneficial for humans whereas some pieces of knowledge are harmful to us. The knowledge which is combined with wisdom is useful for us because it addresses the total needs of mankind. The knowledge of atomic composition has become harmful to mankind because it is used in making bombs.

Similarly, Hegal, though he had great knowledge about history, made the Germans believe that they were a master race. It led to the great disastrous wars. So, it is necessary to combine knowledge with the feeling of humanity. We need it an event to decide the aim of our life. It makes us free from personal prejudices. Even noble things are applied unwisely in the lack of wisdom

b. What, according to Russell, is the essence of wisdom? And how can one acquire the very essence?  

Ans : – According to Russell, the essence of wisdom is emancipation from the tyranny of being partiality. It makes our thoughts and feeling less personal and less concerned with our physical states. It is wisdom that makes us care and love the entire human race, it takes us into the higher stage of spirituality. It makes us be able to make the right decision, install a broad vision and unbiasedness in our minds. We can acquire the very essence by breaking the chain of the egoism of our sense, understanding the ends of human life, applying our knowledge wisely for the benefit of humans, finding noble and attainable goals of our life, controlling our sensory perceptions, being impartial gradually and loving others. 

Reference Beyond the Text 

a. Why is wisdom necessary in education? Discuss. Ans : It is wisdom that makes our mind broad and unbiased. When we gain wisdom, our thoughts and feelings become less personal. It makes us use our knowledge wisely. It helps us to utilize our knowledge for the benefit of humankind. When we have wisdom we love even our enemy, we completely get rid of ego, we don’t have any kind of prejudices.

If education/knowledge is one part of human life then wisdom is another part. If one compasses these both parts appropriately, then s/he become a perfect being. The goal of education is not only imparting knowledge but also creating good citizens. People may misuse the acquired knowledge if they don’t have wisdom and it doesn’t come automatically, it must be taught. It must be one of the goals of education and must be taught in schools. It must be planted and nursed in one’s mind with practical examples. 

Understanding the Text 

b. What message does the writer try to convey with the example of technicians?

c. Which leaders does Russell say were able to mix knowledge and wisdom soundly?

d. Why is wisdom needed not only in public ways, but in private life equally? 

e. What, according to Russell, is the true aim of education? 

g. Why does the world need more wisdom in the future? Reference to the context 

a. According to Russel, “The pursuit of knowledge may become harmful unless it is combined with wisdom.” Justify this statement. 

b. What, according to Russell, is the essence of wisdom? And how can one acquire the very essence? 

Reference beyond the text 

a. Why is wisdom necessary in education? Discuss. 

b. How can you become wise? Do you think what you are doing in college contributes to wisdom? 

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Add Comment  *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Post Comment

You may like to read:

Cabbage white – class 10 exercise.

• May 15, 2024

Creating Classroom Harmony: Effective Behavior Management Guide for Educators

• March 4, 2024

Examining Interpretivism in Social Science Research

• February 15, 2024

Theoretical Foundations of Teaching And Learning

• January 30, 2024

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

41 Bertrand Russell–two essays

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell , 1872 – 1970 CE, was a British philosopher, writer, social critic and political activist. In the early 20th century, Russell led the British “revolt against idealism”.  He is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy.  Russell was an anti-war activist and went to prison for his pacifism during World War I.    He did conclude that the war against Adolf Hitler was a necessary “lesser of two evils”  He won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 “”in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought.”

In “Reflections on My Eightieth Birthday” (“Postscript” in his  Autobiography ), Russell wrote: “I have lived in the pursuit of a vision, both personal and social.

Personal: to care for what is noble, for what is beautiful, for what is gentle; to allow moments of insight to give wisdom at more mundane times.

Social: to see in imagination the society that is to be created, where individuals grow freely, and where hate and greed and envy die because there is nothing to nourish them. These things I believe, and the world, for all its horrors, has left me unshaken”.

You might find it interesting to see the two things that he believed he would like to say to a future generation.  It takes less than 2 minutes, but in 1959, this is what Bertrand Russell had to say:

Message to Future Generations

From  Bertrand Russell’s: The Problems of Philosophy: Chapter XV: The Value of Philosophy

This is a short interview with Woodrow Wyatt in 1960, when Russell was 87 years old.

Mankind’s Future and Philosophy

The life of the instinctive man is shut up within the circle of his private interests : family and friends may be included, but the outer world is not regarded except as it may help or hinder what comes within the circle of instinctive wishes. In such a life there is something feverish and confined, in comparison with which the philosophic life is calm and free. The private world of instinctive interests is a small one, set in the midst of a great and powerful world which must, sooner or later, lay our private world in ruins.

Unless we can so enlarge our interests as to include the whole outer world, we remain like a garrison in a beleaguered fortress, knowing that the enemy prevents escape and that ultimate surrender is inevitable. In such a life there is no peace, but a constant strife between the insistence of desire and the powerlessness of will. In one way or another, if our life is to be great and free, we must escape this prison and this strife.

One way of escape is by philosophic contemplation. Philosophic contemplation does not, in its widest survey, divide the universe into two hostile camps—friends and foes, helpful and hostile, good and bad—it views the whole impartially. Philosophic contemplation, when it is unalloyed, does not aim at proving that the rest of the universe is akin to man. All acquisition of knowledge is an enlargement of the Self, but this enlargement is best attained when it is not directly sought. It is obtained when the desire for knowledge is alone operative, by a study which does not wish in advance that its objects should have this or that character, but adapts the Self to the characters which it finds in its objects. This enlargement of Self is not obtained when, taking the Self as it is, we try to show that the world is so similar to this Self that knowledge of it is possible without any admission of what seems alien. The desire to prove this is a form of self-assertion and, like all self-assertion, it is an obstacle to the growth of Self which it desires, and of which the Self knows that it is capable. Self-assertion, in philosophic speculation as elsewhere, views the world as a means to its own ends; thus it makes the world of less account than Self, and the Self sets bounds to the greatness of its goods. In contemplation, on the contrary, we start from the not-Self, and through its greatness the boundaries of Self are enlarged; through the infinity of the universe the mind which contemplates it achieves some share in infinity.

The true philosophic contemplation, on the contrary, finds its satisfaction in every enlargement of the not-Self, in everything that magnifies the objects contemplated, and thereby the subject contemplating. Everything, in contemplation, that is personal or private, everything that depends upon habit, self-interest, or desire, distorts the object, and hence impairs the union which the intellect seeks. By thus making a barrier between subject and object, such personal and private things become a prison to the intellect. The free intellect will see as God might see, without a here and now, without hopes and fears, without the trammels of customary beliefs and traditional prejudices, calmly, dispassionately, in the sole and exclusive desire of knowledge—knowledge as impersonal, as purely contemplative, as it is possible for man to attain. Hence also the free intellect will value more the abstract and universal knowledge into which the accidents of private history do not enter, than the knowledge brought by the senses, and dependent, as such knowledge must be, upon an exclusive and personal point of view and a body whose sense organs distort as much as they reveal.

The mind which has become accustomed to the freedom and impartiality of philosophic contemplation will preserve something of the same freedom and impartiality in the world of action and emotion. It will view its purposes and desires as parts of the whole, with the absence of insistence that results from seeing them as infinitesimal fragments in a world of which all the rest is unaffected by any one man’s deeds. The impartiality which, in contemplation, is the unalloyed desire for truth, is the very same quality of mind which, in action, is justice, and in emotion is that universal love which can be given to all, and not only to those who are judged useful or admirable. Thus contemplation enlarges not only the objects of our thoughts, but also the objects of our actions and our affections: it makes us citizens of the universe, not only of one walled city at war with all the rest. In this citizenship of the universe consists man’s true freedom, and his liberation from the thralldom of narrow hopes and fears.

Key Takeaway

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Bertrand Russell

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied , not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.

Ex Libris C. K. OGDEN CONWAY MEMORIAL LECTURE

FREE THOUGHT AND OFFICIAL PROPAGANDA

Delivered at south place institute on march 24, 1922, by the hon. bertrand russell, m.a., f.r.s., (professor graham wallas in the chair), watts & co., johnson’s court, fleet street, e.c.4 1922.

Moncure Conway, in whose honor we are assembled to-day, devoted his life to two great objects: freedom of thought and freedom of the individual.

“In regard to both these objects, something has been gained since his time, but something also has been lost. New dangers, somewhat different in form from those of past ages, threaten both kinds of freedom, and unless a vigorous and vigilant public opinion can be aroused in defense of them, there will be much less of both a hundred years hence than there is now. My purpose in this address is to emphasize the new dangers and to consider how they can be met.

Let us begin by trying to be clear as to what we mean by “free thought.” This expression has two senses.

In its narrower sense it means thought which does not accept the dogmas of traditional religion. In this sense a man is a “free thinker” if he is not a Christian or a Mussulman or a Buddhist or a Shintoist or a member of any of the other bodies of men who accept some inherited orthodoxy. In Christian countries a man is called a “free thinker” if he does not decidedly believe in God, though this would not suffice to make a man a “free thinker” in a Buddhist country.

I do not wish to minimize the importance of free thought in this sense. I am myself a dissenter from all known religions, and I hope that every kind of religious belief will die out. I do not believe that, on the balance, religious belief has been a force for good. Although I am prepared to admit that in certain times and places it has had some good effects, I regard it as belonging to the infancy of human reason, and to a stage of development which we are now outgrowing.

But there is also a wider sense of “free thought,” which I regard as of still greater importance. Indeed, the harm done by traditional religions seems chiefly traceable to the fact that they have prevented free thought in this wider sense. The wider sense is not so easy to define as the narrower, and it will be well to spend some little time in trying to arrive at its essence.

To begin with the most obvious. Thought is not “free” when legal penalties are incurred by the holding or not holding of certain opinions, or by giving expression to one’s belief or lack of belief on certain matters. Very few countries in the world have as yet even this elementary kind of freedom.

In England, under the Blasphemy Laws , it is illegal to express disbelief in the Christian religion, though in practice the law is not set in motion against the well-to-do. It is also illegal to teach what Christ taught on the subject of non-resistance. Therefore, whoever wishes to avoid becoming a criminal must profess to agree with Christ’s teaching, but must avoid saying what that teaching was.

In America no one can enter the country without first solemnly declaring that he disbelieves in anarchism and polygamy; and, once inside, he must also disbelieve in communism.

In Japan it is illegal to express disbelief in the divinity of the Mikado . It will thus be seen that a voyage round the world is a perilous adventure.

A Mohammedan, a Tolstoyan, a Bolshevik, or a Christian cannot undertake it without at some point becoming a criminal, or holding his tongue about what he considers important truths. This, of course, applies only to steerage passengers; saloon passengers are allowed to believe whatever they please, provided they avoid offensive obtrusiveness.

Legal penalties are, however, in the modern world, the least of the obstacles to freedom of thoughts . The two great obstacles are economic penalties and distortion of evidence. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living. It is clear also that thought is not free if all the arguments on one side of a controversy are perpetually presented as attractively as possible, while the arguments on the other side can only be discovered by diligent search. Both these obstacles exist in every large country known to me, except China, which is the last refuge of freedom. It is these obstacles with which I shall be concerned—their present magnitude, the likelihood of their increase, and the possibility of their diminution.

We may say that thought is free when it is exposed to free competition among beliefs —i.e., when all beliefs are able to state their case, and no legal or pecuniary advantages or disadvantages attach to beliefs. This is an ideal which, for various reasons, can never be fully attained. But it is possible to approach very much nearer to it than we do at present.

Three incidents in my own life will serve to show how, in modern England, the scales are weighted in favor of Christianity. My reason for mentioning them is that many people do not at all realize the disadvantages to which avowed Agnosticism still exposes people.

• The first incident belongs to a very early stage in my life. My father was a Freethinker, but died when I was only three years old. Wishing me to be brought up without superstition, he appointed two Freethinkers as my guardians. The Courts, however, set aside his will, and had me educated in the Christian faith. I am afraid the result was disappointing, but that was not the fault of the law. If he had directed that I should be educated as a Christadelphian or a Muggletonian or a Seventh-Day Adventist, the Courts would not have dreamed of objecting. A parent has a right to ordain that any imaginable superstition shall be instilled into his children after his death, but has not the right to say that they shall be kept free from superstition if possible.
• The second incident occurred in the year 1910 . I had at that time a desire to stand for Parliament as a Liberal, and the Whips recommended me to a certain constituency. I addressed the Liberal Association, who expressed themselves favorably, and my adoption seemed certain. But, on being questioned by a small inner caucus, I admitted that I was an Agnostic. They asked whether the fact would come out, and I said it probably would. They asked whether I should be willing to go to church occasionally, and I replied that I should not. Consequently, they selected another candidate, who was duly elected, has been in Parliament ever since, and is a member of the present Government.
• The third incident occurred immediately afterwards. I was invited by Trinity College, Cambridge, to become a lecturer, but not a Fellow. The difference is not pecuniary; it is that a Fellow has a voice in the government of the College, and cannot be dispossessed during the term of his Fellowship except for grave immorality. The chief reason for not offering me a Fellowship was that the clerical party did not wish to add to the anti-clerical vote. The result was that they were able to dismiss me in 1916, when they disliked my views on the War. If I had been dependent on my lectureship, I should have starved.

These three incidents illustrate different kinds of disadvantages attaching to avowed freethinking even in modern England. Any other avowed Freethinker could supply similar incidents from his personal experience, often of a far more serious character. The net result is that people who are not well-to-do dare not be frank about their religious beliefs.

It is not, of course, only or even chiefly in regard to religion that there is lack of freedom. Belief in communism or free love handicaps a man much more than Agnosticism. Not only is it a disadvantage to hold those views, but it is very much more difficult to obtain publicity for the arguments in their favor. On the other hand, in Russia the advantages and disadvantages are exactly reversed: comfort and power are achieved by professing Atheism, communism, and free love, and no opportunity exists for propaganda against these opinions. The result is that in Russia one set of fanatics feels absolute certainty about one set of doubtful propositions, while in the rest of the world another set of fanatics feels equal certainty about a diametrically opposite set of equally doubtful propositions. From such a situation war, bitterness, and persecution inevitably result on both sides.

Russell was an atheist.  He has specific reasons for this.  Listen to it in his own words:

  Bertrand Russell on Religion

William James used to preach the “will to believe.” For my part, I should wish to preach the “will to doubt.” None of our beliefs are quite true; all have at least a penumbra of vagueness and error. The methods of increasing the degree of truth in our beliefs are well known; they consist in hearing all sides, trying to ascertain all the relevant facts, controlling our own bias by discussion with people who have the opposite bias, and cultivating a readiness to discard any hypothesis which has proved inadequate. These methods are practiced in science, and have built up the body of scientific knowledge.

Every man of science whose outlook is truly scientific is ready to admit that what passes for scientific knowledge at the moment is sure to require correction with the progress of discovery; nevertheless, it is near enough to the truth to serve for most practical purposes, though not for all. In science, where alone something approximating to genuine knowledge is to be found, men’s attitude is tentative and full of doubt.

In religion and politics, on the contrary, though there is as yet nothing approaching scientific knowledge , everybody considers it  de rigueur  to have a dogmatic opinion, to be backed up by inflicting starvation, prison, and war, and to be carefully guarded from argumentative competition with any different opinion. If only men could be brought into a tentatively agnostic frame of mind about these matters, nine-tenths of the evils of the modern world would be cured. War would become impossible, because each side would realize that both sides must be in the wrong. Persecution would cease. Education would aim at expanding the mind, not at narrowing it. Men would be chosen for jobs on account of fitness to do the work, not because they flattered the irrational dogmas of those in power. Thus rational doubt alone, if it could be generated, would suffice to introduce the millennium.

We have had in recent years a brilliant example of the scientific temper of mind in the theory of relativity and its reception by the world. Einstein, a German-Swiss-Jew pacifist, was appointed to a research professorship by the German Government in the early days of the War; his predictions were verified by an English expedition which observed the eclipse of 1919, very soon after the Armistice. His theory upsets the whole theoretical framework of traditional physics; it is almost as damaging to orthodox dynamics as Darwin was to  Genesis . Yet physicists everywhere have shown complete readiness to accept his theory as soon as it appeared that the evidence was in its favor. But none of them, least of all Einstein himself, would claim that he has said the last word. He has not built a monument of infallible dogma to stand for all time. There are difficulties he cannot solve; his doctrines will have to be modified in their turn as they have modified Newton’s. This critical un-dogmatic receptiveness is the true attitude of science.

What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is its exact opposite.

If it is admitted that a condition of rational doubt would be desirable , it becomes important to inquire how it comes about that there is so much irrational certainty in the world. A great deal of this is due to the inherent irrationality and credulity of average human nature. But this seed of intellectual original sin is nourished and fostered by other agencies, among which three play the chief part—namely, education, propaganda, and economic pressure .

Let us consider these in turn.

The committee which framed these laws, as quoted by the  New Republic , laid it down that the teacher who “does not approve of the present social system……must surrender his office,” and that “no person who is not eager to combat the theories of social change should be entrusted with the task of fitting the young and old for the responsibilities of citizenship.”

Thus, according to the law of the State of New York, Christ and George Washington were too degraded morally to be fit for the education of the young . If Christ were to go to New York and say, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” the President of the New York School Board would reply: “Sir, I see no evidence that you are eager to combat theories of social change. Indeed, I have heard it said that you advocate what you call the  kingdom  of heaven, whereas this country, thank God, is a republic. It is clear that the Government of your kingdom of heaven would differ materially from that of New York State, therefore no children will be allowed access to you.” If he failed to make this reply, he would not be doing his duty as a functionary entrusted with the administration of the law.

The effect of such laws is very serious. Let it be granted, for the sake of argument, that the government and the social system in the State of New York are the best that have ever existed on this planet; yet even then both would presumably be capable of improvement. Any person who admits this obvious proposition is by law incapable of teaching in a State school. Thus the law decrees that the teachers shall all be either hypocrites or fools.

Religious toleration, to a certain extent, has been won because people have ceased to consider religion so important as it was once thought to be. But in politics and economics, which have taken the place formerly occupied by religion, there is a growing tendency to persecution, which is not by any means confined to one party. The persecution of opinion in Russia is more severe than in any capitalist country. I met in Petrograd an eminent Russian poet, Alexander Block, who has since died as the result of privations. The Bolsheviks allowed him to teach æsthetics, but he complained that they insisted on his teaching the subject “from a Marxian point of view.” He had been at a loss to discover how the theory of rhythmics was connected with Marxism, although, to avoid starvation, he had done his best to find out. Of course, it has been impossible in Russia ever since the Bolsheviks came into power to print anything critical of the dogmas upon which their regime is founded.

The examples of America and Russia illustrate the conclusion to which we seem to be driven—namely, that so long as men continue to have the present fanatical belief in the importance of politics free thought on political matters will be impossible, and there is only too much danger that the lack of freedom will spread to all other matters, as it has done in Russia. Only some degree of political skepticism can save us from this misfortune.

It must not be supposed that the officials in charge of education desire the young to become educated. On the contrary, their problem is to impart information without imparting intelligence. Education should have two objects: first, to give definite knowledge—reading and writing, languages and mathematics, and so on; secondly, to create those mental habits which will enable people to acquire knowledge and form sound judgments for themselves. The first of these we may call information, the second intelligence. The utility of information is admitted practically as well as theoretically; without a literate population a modern State is impossible. But the utility of intelligence is admitted only theoretically, not practically; it is not desired that ordinary people should think for themselves, because it is felt that people who think for themselves are awkward to manage and cause administrative difficulties. Only the guardians, in Plato’s language, are to think; the rest are to obey, or to follow leaders like a herd of sheep. This doctrine, often unconsciously, has survived the introduction of political democracy, and has radically vitiated all national systems of education.

Definite mis-statements of fact can be legitimately objected to, but they are by no means necessary. The mere words “Pear’s Soap,” which affirm nothing, cause people to buy that article. If, wherever these words appear, they were replaced by the words “The Labour Party,” millions of people would be led to vote for the Labour Party, although the advertisements had claimed no merit for it whatever. But if both sides in a controversy were confined by law to statements which a committee of eminent logicians considered relevant and valid, the main evil of propaganda, as at present conducted, would remain.

Suppose, under such a law, two parties with an equally good case, one of whom had a million pounds to spend on propaganda, while the other had only a hundred thousand . It is obvious that the arguments in favor of the richer party would become more widely known than those in favor of the poorer party, and therefore the richer party would win. This situation is, of course, intensified when one party is the Government. In Russia the Government has an almost complete monopoly of propaganda, but that is not necessary. The advantages which it possesses over its opponents will generally be sufficient to give it the victory, unless it has an exceptionally bad case.

There are two simple principles which, if they were adopted, would solve almost all social problems.

The first is that education should have for one of its aims to teach people only to believe propositions when there is some reason to think that they are true.

The second is that jobs should be given solely for fitness to do the work.

To take the second point first . The habit of considering a man’s religious, moral, and political opinions before appointing him to a post or giving him a job is the modern form of persecution, and it is likely to become quite as efficient as the Inquisition ever was. The old liberties can be legally retained without being of the slightest use. If, in practice, certain opinions lead a man to starve, it is poor comfort to him to know that his opinions are not punishable by law. There is a certain public feeling against starving men for not belonging to the Church of England, or for holding slightly unorthodox opinions in politics. But there is hardly any feeling against the rejection of Atheists or Mormons, extreme communists, or men who advocate free love. Such men are thought to be wicked, and it is considered only natural to refuse to employ them. People have hardly yet waked up to the fact that this refusal, in a highly industrial State, amounts to a very rigorous form of persecution.

If this danger were adequately realized, it would be possible to rouse public opinion , and to secure that a man’s beliefs should not be considered in appointing him to a post. The protection of minorities is vitally important; and even the most orthodox of us may find himself in a minority some day, so that we all have an interest in restraining the tyranny of majorities. Nothing except public opinion can solve this problem. Socialism would make it somewhat more acute, since it would eliminate the opportunities that now arise through exceptional employers. Every increase in the size of industrial undertakings makes it worse, since it diminishes the number of independent employers.

The battle must be fought exactly as the battle of religious toleration was fought. And as in that case, so in this, a decay in the intensity of belief is likely to prove the decisive factor. While men were convinced of the absolute truth of Catholicism or Protestantism, as the case might be, they were willing to persecute on account of them. While men are quite certain of their modern creeds, they will persecute on their behalf. Some element of doubt is essential to the practice, though not to the theory, of toleration.

And this brings me to my other point, which concerns the aims of education.  If there is to be toleration in the world, one of the things taught in schools must be the habit of weighing evidence, and the practice of not giving full assent to propositions which there is no reason to believe true.

History should be taught in the same way. Napoleon’s campaigns of 1813 and 1814, for instance, might be studied in the  Moniteur , leading up to the surprise which Parisians felt when they saw the Allies arriving under the walls of Paris after they had (according to the official bulletins) been beaten by Napoleon in every battle. In the more advanced classes, students should be encouraged to count the number of times that Lenin has been assassinated by Trotsky, in order to learn contempt for death. Finally, they should be given a school history approved by the Government, and asked to infer what a French school history would say about our wars with France. All this would be a far better training in citizenship than the trite moral maxims by which some people believe that civic duty can be inculcated.

If I am asked how the world is to be induced to adopt these two maxims—namely

(1) that jobs should be given to people on account of their fitness to perform them;

(2) that one aim of education should be to cure people of the habit of believing propositions for which there is no evidence—

I can only say that it must be done by generating an enlightened public opinion . And an enlightened public opinion can only be generated by the efforts of those who desire that it should exist. I do not believe that the economic changes advocated by Socialists will, of themselves, do anything towards curing the evils we have been considering. I think that, whatever happens in politics, the trend of economic development will make the preservation of mental freedom increasingly difficult, unless public opinion insists that the employer shall control nothing in the life of the employee except his work.

Freedom in education could easily be secured, if it were desired , by limiting the function of the State to inspection and payment, and confining inspection rigidly to the definite instruction. But that, as things stand, would leave education in the hands of the Churches, because, unfortunately, they are more anxious to teach their beliefs than Freethinkers are to teach their doubts. It would, however, give a free field, and would make it possible for a liberal education to be given if it were really desired. More than that ought not to be asked of the law.

My plea throughout this address has been for the spread of the scientific temper , which is an altogether different thing from the knowledge of scientific results. The scientific temper is capable of regenerating mankind and providing an issue for all our troubles. The results of science, in the form of mechanism, poison gas, and the yellow press, bid fair to lead to the total downfall of our civilization. It is a curious antithesis, which a Martian might contemplate with amused detachment. But for us it is a matter of life and death. Upon its issue depends the question whether our grandchildren are to live in a happier world, or are to exterminate each other by scientific methods, leaving perhaps to Negroes and Papuans the future destinies of mankind.

If you would like to hear a more thorough interview with Russell, you can find it here at:

  Face to Face Interview with the BBC

Project Gutenberg’s The Problems of Philosophy, by Bertrand Russell

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

Title: The Problems of Philosophy

Author: Bertrand Russell

Release Date: May 2, 2009 [EBook #5827]

Last Updated: February 7, 2013 Language: English

Project Gutenberg’s Free Thought and Official Propaganda, by Bertrand Russell

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license

Title: Free Thought and Official Propaganda

Release Date: February 16, 2014 [EBook #44932]

Language: English

Bertrand Russell--two essays Copyright © 2018 by Jody L Ondich is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell [Summary, analysis, Main Ideas]

In his essay "Knowledge and Wisdom," Bertrand Russell emphasizes the importance of wisdom and adds that, in the absence of it, knowledge can be dangerous. Russell advocates that wisdom and knowledge should go hand in hand to use knowledge rationally. Wisdom, according to the essayist, allows us to put our knowledge to good use in the real world without causing harm to others.

{getToc} $title={Table of Contents}

Knowledge and Wisdom Bertrand Russell [Summary, analysis, Main Ideas]

In the essay, Russell lists many methods for obtaining wisdom and bemoans the fact that, despite tremendous information, there has been no equivalent rise in wisdom. Bertrand Russell discusses several factors that contribute to wisdom in his essay "Knowledge and Wisdom." According to him, a sense of proportion, comprehensiveness with broad feeling, emancipation from personal prejudices and the tyranny of sensory perception, impartiality, and awareness of human needs and understanding are all factors that contribute to wisdom. Wisdom is gained when a person’s thoughts and feelings become less personal.

The key to wisdom is being able to detach ourselves from the control of our sense organs. Our ego grows as a result of our senses. Once we can control our sense organs, we start to think about other people’s convenience. As a result, we stop thinking of ourselves as individuals. We become wise when we begin to think about other people. We give up our egoism. It’s tough to eliminate selfishness, yet we can think about things that aren’t in our immediate vicinity. Wisdom emerges when we begin to value things that do not directly affect us. When we love people, we gain wisdom. The writer urges people not to hate anyone.

In the essay, Russell mentioned how knowledge without wisdom can be dangerous, giving the example of scientists and historians. Scientists develop novel drugs but have no idea how these medicines will affect people’s lives. Drugs may help lower the infant mortality rate. However, it may result in a rise in population, and the world is sure to face the consequences of the rise in population. Once, Hegel, the greatest historian, wrote with historical knowledge and made the Germans believe they were a master race, and this false sense of pride drove them to war. When an intellectual uses his knowledge to demonstrate his theory or principles without considering the feelings or outcomes of such ideas, he may do more harm than good.

The author is assured that wisdom must be an integral part of education because a person can be well educated but lack the wisdom to understand the true meaning of life. Wisdom is required in education because knowledge alone leads to its misuse. After all, one cannot see the true purpose of life. Wisdom, according to Russell, should be taught as a goal of education.

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell [Main ideas]

➤Wisdom is lacking in men who have knowledge but no sentiments.

➤ Wisdom should be coupled with humanity’s overall needs.

➤ Wisdom should be linked to a basic understanding of life’s purpose.

➤ Wisdom is required in both public and private life.

➤ Wisdom is required in personal life to avoid dislike for one another.

➤ The key to wisdom is being able to detach ourselves from the control of our sense organs.

➤ Wisdom appears when we begin to value things that do not directly affect us.

➤ Knowledge without wisdom has the potential to be dangerous and harmful to humans.

➤ The essence of wisdom is to free oneself from the captivity of the physical and emotional worlds and look beyond.

➤ Wisdom can be learnt by loving others and letting go of selfishness.

➤ Knowledge and wisdom can be combined in an educational scheme.

➤ Wisdom must be an integral part of education because a man or person can be well-educated but lack the wisdom to understand the true meaning of life.

➤ Wisdom should be taught in school alongside knowledge

➤ Lone technical knowledge can be harmful to humans if applied without caution.

➤ Knowledge combined with wisdom is beneficial to people because it addresses all of humanity’s needs .

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell Class 12 Exercise and Question Answer

Understanding the text 

Answer the following questions.

Reference to the context

Difference between Knowledge and Wisdom

Post a comment, contact form.

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell

Here, you will find a summary and questions/answers to chapter 2 (prose) “Knowledge and Wisdom” by Bertrand Russell which is a part of Class 12 Alternative English syllabus for students studying under the Nagaland Board of School Education ( NBSE ).

Summary : Russel defines wisdom and lists many methods for obtaining it in this essay “Knowledge and Wisdom”. He bemoans the fact that, despite tremendous information, there has been no equivalent rise in wisdom. Russell defines wisdom by describing the factors that influence it. A sense of proportion is the first. It’s the ability to carefully evaluate all of the key aspects of a subject. It’s challenging due to specialisation. Scientists, for example, develop novel drugs but have no idea how these medicines will affect people’s lives.

Drugs may help to lower the infant mortality rate. However, it may result in a rise in population. It may result in a food crisis in impoverished areas. The standard of living may be lowered as the population grows. A maniac could use knowledge of the atom’s composition to kill the entire world. Wisdom without knowledge can be dangerous. It should be coupled with humanity’s overall needs. Even having all of the facts isn’t enough. It should be linked to a basic understanding of life’s purpose. It can be demonstrated through the study of history. Hegel, for example, wrote with tremendous historical knowledge, yet he persuaded the Germans that they were a superior race. It resulted in the conflict. As a result, it is vital to blend information with feelings. Wisdom is lacking in men who have knowledge but no sentiments.

Wisdom is required in both public and private life. To choose our life’s objective, we need intelligence. We require it in order to be free of personal preconceptions. If something is too huge to achieve, we may pursue it unwisely. People have squandered their lives in search of the elixir of life, often known as the “philosopher’s stone.” They were not pragmatic in the least. They were looking for simple solutions to the world’s complicated challenges. Man may attempt the impossible, but he may inadvertently damage himself in the process.

In the same way, wisdom is required in personal life to avoid dislike for one another. Because of their bias, two people may remain adversaries. One may loathe the other because of imagined flaws. They may become buddies if they are told that we all have flaws. Russel believes that reasoned persuasion is possible. We have the ability to prevent hatred. The key to wisdom is to be able to detach ourselves from the control of our sense organs. Our ego grows as a result of our senses. We can’t live without our senses of sight, sound, and touch. Our senses are the primary means by which we see the world. As we mature, we realise that there are other things to consider. We begin to notice them. As a result, we stop thinking of ourselves as individuals. We become wise when we begin to think about other people. We relinquish our egoism. It’s tough to entirely eliminate selfishness, yet we can think about things that aren’t in our close vicinity. Wisdom emerges when we begin to value things that do not directly affect us. When we love people, we gain wisdom.

Wisdom, according to Russell, can be taught as an aim of education. The Good Samaritan tale teaches us to love our neighbours, whether they are friends or foes. We often misunderstand the point of this tale because we stop loving people who cause harm to society. Understanding, rather than animosity, is the only way out. In a nutshell, Russell exhorts us not to hate anyone. The author uses historical examples such as Queen Elizabeth I, Henry IV, and Abraham Lincoln to show how they avoided the mistakes made by other famous people in the past.

In the course of imparting knowledge, the hazards of hatred and narrow-mindedness might be highlighted. Knowledge and morals, according to Russell, can be blended in an educational plan. People should be taught how to think about things in terms of other things in the world. They should be pushed to consider themselves global citizens.

Answer the following questions.

1. Which leaders does Russell say were able to mix knowledge and wisdom soundly?

Answer : Russell cites Queen Elizabeth I of England, Henry IV of France, and Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, as examples of leaders who successfully combined knowledge and wisdom.

2. What according to Russell is the true aim of education?

Answer : The true goal of education is to develop the ability to solve problems objectively, whether they are personal or public in nature. It is also the ability to make a man aware of the importance of incorporating wisdom into our knowledge. We gain access to it through education because wisdom is an essential component of education.

3. Why is wisdom necessary in education?

Answer : Wisdom is required in education because knowledge alone leads to its misuse because one cannot see its true purpose in life. It has the potential to be dangerous and harmful to humans. If one does not consider an individual’s ability to suppress his personal ego and consider all of the facts and figures run by them, the circumstances would greatly benefit him in the long run. He will gain wisdom and produce fruitful results as a result of doing so. The essayist emphasises that in order to be a productive individual, all of these issues must be considered and that focusing on one’s egotistical personality only hinders one’s ability to gain true wisdom.

4. What are the four factors that Russell refers to in the essay?

Answer : Bertrand Russell asserts in his essay ‘Knowledge and Wisdom’ that four factors contribute to wisdom: a sense of proportion, awareness of the ends of human life, choice of ends to pursue, and emancipation from personal prejudice. The essence of wisdom, according to the essayist, is to free oneself from the confinement of the physical and emotional worlds and look beyond. Though people cannot avoid being partial, the wise man is less partial than the unwise man. According to the author, we can begin to learn wisdom by loving others and letting go of selfishness. Give up our egos and begin to think about things other than our immediate surroundings. This prevents hatred and allows one to grow in wisdom.

5. What is the ideal approach to imparting wisdom in education?

Answer : Wisdom, according to Russell, should be taught as a goal of education. He uses the parable of the Good Samaritan’s love for his neighbours as an example and message. According to the essayist, we often miss the message in this parable because we fail to love those who cause harm to society. Understanding, not hatred, is the only way forward. Russell, in a nutshell, tells us not to hate anyone. In the cause of spreading knowledge, the dangers of hatred and narrow-mindedness can be highlighted. He believes that knowledge and wisdom can be combined in an educational scheme. People should be educated to see things in context with the rest of the world. They should be encouraged to consider themselves global citizens.

7. Why does Russell say that Hegel’s philosophy of history was lacking in wisdom?

Answer : Russell claims that Hegel’s philosophy of history lacked wisdom because he was only concerned with his own facts and figures. He wrote with great historical knowledge and made the Germans believe they were a master race, and this false sense of pride drove them to war. According to Russell, it is critical to combine knowledge with feelings. When an intellectual uses his knowledge to demonstrate his theory or principles without considering the feelings or outcomes of such ideas, he may cause more harm than good. According to the author, such people have a very narrow mind. It results in a false embodiment of the person involved, which may incite unwanted actions or situations. The essayist also stated that men who have knowledge but no feelings lack wisdom, which is required in both public and private life in order to set goals and free ourselves from personal prejudices. Man, in his quest for the impossible, may end up hurting himself in the process.

8. How does Russell distinguish between knowledge and wisdom?

Answer : Bertrand Russell discusses the difference between wisdom and knowledge in his essay “Wisdom and Knowledge,” and how having only knowledge without wisdom can hinder our progress in life. He defined knowledge as the acquisition of facts and information, whereas wisdom is the practical application and use of knowledge to create value. According to Russell, wisdom is gained through learning and practical experience rather than memorization. It is not something that comes naturally. According to the essayist, a wise person possesses both insight and foresight, whereas a clever person may or may not. A clever person reacts quickly to external changes, but a wise man can see through the changes and make the correct decision. To be wise, one must have a broad vision and an unbiased mind, and one can gain a lot of wisdom through constant thinking and experiencing. Wisdom is gained when a person’s thoughts and feelings become less personal. According to the essayist, one who possesses intellectual knowledge must combine it with wisdom in order to avoid harm. Wisdom and knowledge should go hand in hand in order to make progress in one’s life quest by being less partial and showing due respect and interest in various things.

9. Explain: With every increase of knowledge and skill, wisdom becomes more necessary, for every such increase augments our capacity of realizing our purposes, and therefore augments our capacity for evil if our purposes are unwise.

Answer : The author is assured that wisdom must be an integral part of education because a man or person can be well-educated but lack the wisdom to understand the true meaning of life. Most people would agree that we are more knowledgeable today than we were in the past, owing primarily to incredible advances in science and technology. Most people would agree, however, that despite this vast increase in knowledge, we are not necessarily wiser than people a few thousand years ago. The fundamental concept is that knowledge and wisdom are not synonymous. Thus, the path of wisdom is to act with compassion and understanding rather than fear and compulsion. People should be educated to see things in context.

Think and discuss.

1. How can a potential benefit become a threat? Explain in the context of wisdom and knowledge.

Answer : Bertrand Russell discusses how a very intelligent person’s knowledge can become harmful when exercised without wisdom in his essay ‘Knowledge and Wisdom.’ The essayist uses history and famous people to demonstrate how great people’s knowledge has caused harm. According to the essayist, knowledge without wisdom can be harmful, and even complete knowledge is insufficient and should be combined with the total needs of mankind. Using the example of historian Hegel, who wrote with great knowledge but led the Germans to believe that they were a superior race, led to war. We begin to understand and comprehend how such potential knowledge could have deteriorated into something so dangerous.

To avert this, the author suggests combining feelings with knowledge, becoming impartial, avoiding personal prejudices, and taking the big picture into account in order to make the potential success and advancement for humanity. The essayist also uses science and technological advancement as an example, where new inventions and discoveries have both positive and negative outcomes, with much being used to create weapons rather than for the good of mankind.

2. Is the teaching of wisdom impossible?

Answer : According to Bertrand Russell’s essay “Knowledge and Wisdom,” wisdom can be taught as a goal of education in school; in fact, he emphasises the issue, that wisdom should be taught in school alongside knowledge, and he gives the readers the chives and principles to follow for applying wisdom in a wide range of subjects. Wisdom, he claims, should be planted and nurtured in one’s mind. He instructs his readers to love their neighbours, whether they are friends or foes, and to hate no one. The author also warns his readers about the dangers of prejudice and bigotry. He advises his readers to rid themselves of selfishness and to realise that knowledge and wisdom can be combined in an educational scheme.

Wisdom can be gained by considering other people’s feelings and letting go of one’s ego. Even though it is difficult to completely eliminate selfishness, we can think about things that are not in our immediate vicinity. When we start loving others, we gain wisdom. The author informs his readers that two people can remain enemies because of prejudice and a dislike for imaginary flaws. If we are wise, we will be able to avoid hatred. Understanding the possibilities and scenarios of one’s knowledge might be the most important lesson to teach when it comes to intellectual education. Avoiding one’s pride and opening up to one’s surroundings will bring more progress in one’s life.

Additional/extra questions and answers/solutions

1. What factors, according to Russell, influence wisdom?

Answer : Bertrand Russell discusses several factors that contribute to wisdom in his essay “Knowledge and Wisdom.” According to him, a sense of proportion, comprehensiveness with broad feeling, emancipation from personal prejudices and the tyranny of sensory perception, impartiality, and awareness of human needs and understanding are all factors that contribute to wisdom.

2. With the examples of technicians, what message is the writer attempting to convey?

Answer : Russell has used the example of technicians to convey the message that lone technical knowledge can be harmful to humans if applied without caution. They are unable to see how their knowledge in one field can be detrimental in another. For instance, the discovery of medicine that reduces infant mortality can lead to population growth and food scarcity. Similarly, atomic theory knowledge can be used to build atom bombs.

3. Why is wisdom required not only in public but also in private life?

Answer : Wisdom is not only advantageous in public situations, but also in private ones. It is required for the selection of goals to be pursued as well as personal prejudice emancipation. We may fail to choose our life’s goal due to a lack of wisdom, and we may lack the patience and persuasiveness needed to persuade others.

4. What, in Russell’s opinion, is the true purpose of education?

Answer : According to Russell, the true goal of education is to instil wisdom in people. Wisdom is what allows us to put our knowledge to good use in the real world without causing harm to others. To be good citizens, people must have both knowledge and wisdom.

5. Is it possible to teach someone wisdom? If that’s the case, how should it be done?

Answer : Yes, it is possible to learn wisdom. More than moral instruction, wisdom education should include a strong intellectual component. In the course of imparting knowledge, the disastrous consequences of hatred and narrow-mindedness to those who feel them can be mentioned. When teaching the composition of an atom, for example, the disastrous consequences of its misuse, such as the creation of an atom bomb, must also be taught.

6. “The Pursuit of Knowledge may become harmful unless it is combined with wisdom,” Russell says. Justify.

Answer : Humans are inquisitive creatures who are eager to learn new things. The majority of people have spent their entire lives in search of knowledge. Some pieces of knowledge are noble and beneficial to humans, while others are harmful. Knowledge combined with wisdom is beneficial to us because it addresses all of humanity’s needs. Because it is used to make bombs, knowledge of atomic composition has become harmful to mankind. Similarly, Hegal, despite his extensive knowledge of history, persuaded the Germans that they were a superior race. It resulted in massively destructive wars. As a result, knowledge must be combined with a sense of humanity. We require an event to determine our life’s purpose. It liberates us from our prejudices. In the absence of wisdom, even noble things are used in injudicious ways.

7. Russell defines wisdom as “the essence of wisdom.” And how does one go about obtaining the essence?

Answer : Emancipation from the tyranny of being prejudiced, according to Russell, is the essence of wisdom. It makes our feelings and thoughts less personal, and it makes us less concerned with our physical well-being. Wisdom is what causes us to care for and love the entire human race, and it is what propels us to the next level of spirituality. It enables us to make the best decisions and instils in us a broad vision and objectivity. By breaking the link of our senses’ egoism, recognising the aims of human life, applying our knowledge intelligently for the benefit of humanity, choosing noble and attainable life goals, managing our sensory perceptions, progressively becoming impartial, and loving others, we might obtain the very essence.

Ron’e Dutta is a journalist, teacher, aspiring novelist, and blogger. He manages Online Free Notes and reads Victorian literature. His favourite book is Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte and he hopes to travel the world. Get in touch with him by sending him a friend request.

Get notes of other boards, classes, and subjects

1 thought on “Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell”

Such a long notes ??

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Announcements

Subscribe to Updates

Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.

By signing up, you agree to the our terms and our Privacy Policy agreement.

A Horseman in the Sky by Ambrose Bierce: Bed First Year English

The spanish church: bed first summary and questions, leaving by m.g vassanji: class 12 optional english.

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell: Summary and Theme/Class 12 Compulsory English

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell Summary and Theme/Class 12 Compulsory English

Knowledge and wisdom aren’t same. Knowledge helps people to make living but wisdom makes our life. They are different to each other. Knowledge is related with acquisition of data. But wisdom is practical use of knowledge in our life. Wisdom helps to create value. We can gain knowledge from memorization but we need practical experience to achieve wisdom. A sense of proportion is needed to acquire wisdom. Knowledge can be misused to destroy human life.

In fact, knowledge and wisdom are necessary for completion of life. One is incomplete without another. Wisdom is necessary in public as well as private life. Wisdom directs our life goals. It keeps away us from personal prejudices created by knowledge. Wisdom can change enemies into friends. If we are free from control of our sense organs then we can feel wisdom inside us. We need to love other people too. We should think beyond our lives. We must start loving and caring other people to venture on the journey of wisdom.

Russell thinks that wisdom should be used as a goal of education. We are unwise at the beginning of our life. But we can achieve wisdom in our life by cultivating it. Abraham Lincoln, Queen Elizabeth,etc removed evil from their life to welcome wisdom in their life. The current age is knowledge age but we need to teach value of wisdom to make people wise.

Knowledge is increasing but not wisdom. Study, experience and research help to gain knowledge. But wisdom teaches us to do better for humanity. Knowledge functions as an engine and wisdom as driver.

Action is related with knowledge. But wisdom is related with results of actions. So, comprehensive vision is linked with wisdom. Knowledge helps to reduce death rate by supplying medicines. But it doesn’t analyze the result of increasing population. Increase in population brings the problem of scarcity of food. Wisdom helps us to see the negative sides of such research and medicine. So, knowledge should be driven by wisdom. Both are inter-related to each other.

Related Posts

Facing death by august strindberg: class 12 english note: summary and theme, a matter of husbands: one act play by ferenc molnar :summary and theme, humility: essay by yuval noah harari: summary and theme (class 12 english note).

Wow, awesome blog format! How lengthy have you been blogging for? you make running a blog glance easy. The full glance of your site is magnificent, as well as the content! You can see similar here najlepszy sklep

Hi there! Do you know if they make any plugins to assist with Search Engine Optimization? I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords but I’m not seeing very good success.

If you know of any please share. Kudos! I saw similar text here: Scrapebox AA List

Hi there, I wish for to subscribe for this website to take hottest updates, thus where can i do it please help out.

Also visit my homepage; vpn special coupon code 2024

The other day, while I was at work, my cousin stole my iPad and tested to see if it can survive a thirty foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation. My iPad is now destroyed and she has 83 views. I know this is completely off topic but I had to share it with someone!

my website – vpn 2024

Hello there I am so delighted I found your webpage, I really found you by accident, while I was searching on Yahoo for something else, Anyways I am here now and would just like facebook vs eharmony to find love online say kudos for a incredible post and a all round enjoyable blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to browse it all at the moment but I have book-marked it and also added in your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read much more, Please do keep up the great work.

Hi there to all, how is all, I think every one is getting more from this web site, and your views are fastidious for new visitors.

Feel free to visit my web-site :: eharmony special coupon code 2024

Hey! I’m at work browsing your blog from my new iphone 4! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Keep up the superb work!

my web-site :: nordvpn special coupon code 2024

Leave A Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

No thanks, I’m not interested.

• _Grade VIII
• _ _Social Studies
• _ _(Grade XI- New Course)
• _ _ _Language Development
• _ _ _Literary Studies
• _ _ _ _Short Stories
• _ _ _ _Poems
• _ _(Grade XII- New Course)
• _Basic Level
• Moral Stories
• General Knowledge
• Information

Wednesday, January 26, 2022

Summary of Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell | Essay | Class XII English Note (Exercise)

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell

In the essay, Russel distinguishes knowledge from wisdom. Knowledge is defined as the acquisition of data and information, whereas wisdom as the practical application and use of the knowledge to create value. Wisdom is achieved through learning and practical experience. His lamentation is that though vast knowledge has been acquired, there has been no corresponding increase in wisdom.

Russell thinks several factors contribute to wisdom. He puts first a sense of proportion. It is the capacity to consider all important factors in a problem carefully. Specialization makes it difficult. For example, scientists discover new medicines but they do not know what effect they will have on people’s life. The medicines may reduce the infant death rate. But it may lead to increased population. In poor countries it may lead to starvation. If there are more people, it may decrease the standard of life. The knowledge of the composition of the atom could be misused by a lunatic to destroy the world. If misused, knowledge of atom can lead humans to destruction by producing nuclear weapons.

Russel stresses on comprehensiveness an important factor that constitutes wisdom. As human knowledge becomes more specialized, one who is engrossed in the study of his specific field may fail to predict the outcome of the knowledge he is pursuing. Knowledge should be combined with the total needs of mankind. Even complete knowledge is not enough. It should be associated with certain awareness of the ends of human life. The study of history can prove it. For example, Hegel wrote with great knowledge about history, but made the Germans believe that they were a master race. It led to war. It is necessary therefore to combine knowledge with feelings. The men who have knowledge and have no feelings lack wisdom.

Wisdom is needed both in public and private life. People require wisdom to decide the objective of their life. We need it to free ourselves from personal prejudices. We may follow even a novel thing unwisely if it is too big to achieve. People may attempt to achieve the impossible, and harm themselves in the process. In personal life, says Russell, wisdom is needed to avoid dislike for one another. Two persons may become enemies because of their prejudice. One may dislike the other for imaginary faults. If they can be told that we all have flaws, then they may become friends.

Wisdom exists when we free ourselves from the control of our sense organs. Our ego develops through our senses. One cannot be free from the sense of sight, sound and touch. The world is primarily recognized through our senses. Thus, we stop thinking of ourselves alone. We start thinking of other people and grow wiser. It is difficult to completely to make us free from selfishness, but we can think of things beyond our immediate surroundings. Wisdom gets birth when we start loving others.

Russell feels that wisdom can be taught as an aim of education. The message in the parable of the Good Samaritan is that we ought to love our neighbor whether friend or enemy. Many times we miss the message in this parable because we fail to love those who cause harm to the society. The author draws out examples from the history of Queen Elizabeth I, Henry IV and Abraham Lincoln, who were free from the errors committed by other important people in the past.

The risk of hatred and narrow-mindedness can be identified in the course of giving knowledge. Russell feels knowledge and wisdom can be amalgamated in the arrangement of education. People should be educated to perceive things in relation to other things of the world. They should be encouraged to think of themselves as world citizens.

Understanding the text

a. What are the factors that contribute to wisdom?

The factors that contribute to wisdom are:

- a sense of proportion

- comprehensiveness

- choice of ends to pursue

- emancipation from personal prejudice

b. What message does the writer try to convey with the example of technicians?

He tries to tell us knowledge itself cannot save the world. Knowledge without wisdom will not be beneficial to the world and in some cases will even seriously threaten humanity. So, a wise person should have a sense of comprehensiveness.

c. Which leaders does Russel say were able to mix knowledge and wisdom soundly?

Queen Elizabeth I, Henry IV and Abraham Lincoln were the leaders who were able to mix knowledge and wisdom soundly.

d. Why is wisdom needed not only in public ways but in private life equally?

Wisdom is needed not only in public ways but in private life equally to get rid of personal prejudice. As our thoughts and feelings become less personal, we may gain wisdom.

e. What, according to Russel, is the true aim of education?

According to Russel, the true aim of education is wisdom.

f. Can wisdom be taught? If so, how?

Wisdom can be taught loving our neighbors whether friends or foes.

g. Why does the world need more wisdom in the future?

With every increase of knowledge and skill, our purposes may be unwise. This can be a threat to the world, and the world will need wisdom in the future.

Reference to the context

a. According to Russel, “The pursuit of knowledge may become harmful unless it is combined with wisdom.” Justify this statement.

As human knowledge becomes more specialized, one who is engrossed in the study of his specific field may fail to predict the outcome of the knowledge he is pursuing. Knowledge should be combined with the total needs of mankind. Even complete knowledge is not enough. It should be associated with certain awareness of the ends of human life. The study of history can prove it. For example, Hegel wrote with great knowledge about history, but made the Germans believe that they were a master race. It led to war. It is necessary therefore to combine knowledge with feelings. The men who have knowledge and have no feelings lack wisdom.

a. What, according to Russell, is the essence of wisdom? And how can one acquire the very essence?

According to Russell, the essence of wisdom is emancipation. It lies in impartiality, the ability to defy the physical world. The essayist believes the process of growing wise is that of tearing oneself away from the physical and emotional world and moving into a higher stage, the spiritual world. The process of impartiality constitutes in wisdom.

No comments:

Post a comment, email subscription.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Subscribe Our Youtube Channel

Total pageviews.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms and conditions

Popular Posts

Copyright (c) 2021 Surya Xetri

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

7.10: Bertrand Russell--two essays

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 15332

• Jody Ondich
• Lake Superior College

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell , 1872 – 1970 CE, was a British philosopher, writer, social critic and political activist. In the early 20th century, Russell led the British “revolt against idealism”. He is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy. Russell was an anti-war activist and went to prison for his pacifism during World War I. He did conclude that the war against Adolf Hitler was a necessary “lesser of two evils” He won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 “”in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought.”

In “Reflections on My Eightieth Birthday” (“Postscript” in his Autobiography ), Russell wrote: “I have lived in the pursuit of a vision, both personal and social.

Personal: to care for what is noble, for what is beautiful, for what is gentle; to allow moments of insight to give wisdom at more mundane times.

Social: to see in imagination the society that is to be created, where individuals grow freely, and where hate and greed and envy die because there is nothing to nourish them. These things I believe, and the world, for all its horrors, has left me unshaken”.

You might find it interesting to see the two things that he believed he would like to say to a future generation. It takes less than 2 minutes, but in 1959, this is what Bertrand Russell had to say:

Message to Future Generations

From Bertrand Russell’s: The Problems of Philosophy: Chapter XV: The Value of Philosophy

This is a short interview with Woodrow Wyatt in 1960, when Russell was 87 years old.

Mankind’s Future and Philosophy

The life of the instinctive man is shut up within the circle of his private interests : family and friends may be included, but the outer world is not regarded except as it may help or hinder what comes within the circle of instinctive wishes. In such a life there is something feverish and confined, in comparison with which the philosophic life is calm and free. The private world of instinctive interests is a small one, set in the midst of a great and powerful world which must, sooner or later, lay our private world in ruins.

Unless we can so enlarge our interests as to include the whole outer world, we remain like a garrison in a beleaguered fortress, knowing that the enemy prevents escape and that ultimate surrender is inevitable. In such a life there is no peace, but a constant strife between the insistence of desire and the powerlessness of will. In one way or another, if our life is to be great and free, we must escape this prison and this strife.

One way of escape is by philosophic contemplation. Philosophic contemplation does not, in its widest survey, divide the universe into two hostile camps—friends and foes, helpful and hostile, good and bad—it views the whole impartially. Philosophic contemplation, when it is unalloyed, does not aim at proving that the rest of the universe is akin to man. All acquisition of knowledge is an enlargement of the Self, but this enlargement is best attained when it is not directly sought. It is obtained when the desire for knowledge is alone operative, by a study which does not wish in advance that its objects should have this or that character, but adapts the Self to the characters which it finds in its objects. This enlargement of Self is not obtained when, taking the Self as it is, we try to show that the world is so similar to this Self that knowledge of it is possible without any admission of what seems alien. The desire to prove this is a form of self-assertion and, like all self-assertion, it is an obstacle to the growth of Self which it desires, and of which the Self knows that it is capable. Self-assertion, in philosophic speculation as elsewhere, views the world as a means to its own ends; thus it makes the world of less account than Self, and the Self sets bounds to the greatness of its goods. In contemplation, on the contrary, we start from the not-Self, and through its greatness the boundaries of Self are enlarged; through the infinity of the universe the mind which contemplates it achieves some share in infinity.

The true philosophic contemplation, on the contrary, finds its satisfaction in every enlargement of the not-Self, in everything that magnifies the objects contemplated, and thereby the subject contemplating. Everything, in contemplation, that is personal or private, everything that depends upon habit, self-interest, or desire, distorts the object, and hence impairs the union which the intellect seeks. By thus making a barrier between subject and object, such personal and private things become a prison to the intellect. The free intellect will see as God might see, without a here and now, without hopes and fears, without the trammels of customary beliefs and traditional prejudices, calmly, dispassionately, in the sole and exclusive desire of knowledge—knowledge as impersonal, as purely contemplative, as it is possible for man to attain. Hence also the free intellect will value more the abstract and universal knowledge into which the accidents of private history do not enter, than the knowledge brought by the senses, and dependent, as such knowledge must be, upon an exclusive and personal point of view and a body whose sense organs distort as much as they reveal.

The mind which has become accustomed to the freedom and impartiality of philosophic contemplation will preserve something of the same freedom and impartiality in the world of action and emotion. It will view its purposes and desires as parts of the whole, with the absence of insistence that results from seeing them as infinitesimal fragments in a world of which all the rest is unaffected by any one man’s deeds. The impartiality which, in contemplation, is the unalloyed desire for truth, is the very same quality of mind which, in action, is justice, and in emotion is that universal love which can be given to all, and not only to those who are judged useful or admirable. Thus contemplation enlarges not only the objects of our thoughts, but also the objects of our actions and our affections: it makes us citizens of the universe, not only of one walled city at war with all the rest. In this citizenship of the universe consists man’s true freedom, and his liberation from the thralldom of narrow hopes and fears.

Key Takeaway

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Bertrand Russell

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied , not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.

Ex Libris C. K. OGDEN CONWAY MEMORIAL LECTURE

FREE THOUGHT AND OFFICIAL PROPAGANDA

Delivered at south place institute on march 24, 1922, by the hon. bertrand russell, m.a., f.r.s., (professor graham wallas in the chair), watts & co., johnson’s court, fleet street, e.c.4 1922.

Moncure Conway, in whose honor we are assembled to-day, devoted his life to two great objects: freedom of thought and freedom of the individual.

“In regard to both these objects, something has been gained since his time, but something also has been lost. New dangers, somewhat different in form from those of past ages, threaten both kinds of freedom, and unless a vigorous and vigilant public opinion can be aroused in defense of them, there will be much less of both a hundred years hence than there is now. My purpose in this address is to emphasize the new dangers and to consider how they can be met.

Let us begin by trying to be clear as to what we mean by “free thought.” This expression has two senses.

In its narrower sense it means thought which does not accept the dogmas of traditional religion. In this sense a man is a “free thinker” if he is not a Christian or a Mussulman or a Buddhist or a Shintoist or a member of any of the other bodies of men who accept some inherited orthodoxy. In Christian countries a man is called a “free thinker” if he does not decidedly believe in God, though this would not suffice to make a man a “free thinker” in a Buddhist country.

I do not wish to minimize the importance of free thought in this sense. I am myself a dissenter from all known religions, and I hope that every kind of religious belief will die out. I do not believe that, on the balance, religious belief has been a force for good. Although I am prepared to admit that in certain times and places it has had some good effects, I regard it as belonging to the infancy of human reason, and to a stage of development which we are now outgrowing.

But there is also a wider sense of “free thought,” which I regard as of still greater importance. Indeed, the harm done by traditional religions seems chiefly traceable to the fact that they have prevented free thought in this wider sense. The wider sense is not so easy to define as the narrower, and it will be well to spend some little time in trying to arrive at its essence.

To begin with the most obvious. Thought is not “free” when legal penalties are incurred by the holding or not holding of certain opinions, or by giving expression to one’s belief or lack of belief on certain matters. Very few countries in the world have as yet even this elementary kind of freedom.

In England, under the Blasphemy Laws , it is illegal to express disbelief in the Christian religion, though in practice the law is not set in motion against the well-to-do. It is also illegal to teach what Christ taught on the subject of non-resistance. Therefore, whoever wishes to avoid becoming a criminal must profess to agree with Christ’s teaching, but must avoid saying what that teaching was.

In America no one can enter the country without first solemnly declaring that he disbelieves in anarchism and polygamy; and, once inside, he must also disbelieve in communism.

In Japan it is illegal to express disbelief in the divinity of the Mikado . It will thus be seen that a voyage round the world is a perilous adventure.

A Mohammedan, a Tolstoyan, a Bolshevik, or a Christian cannot undertake it without at some point becoming a criminal, or holding his tongue about what he considers important truths. This, of course, applies only to steerage passengers; saloon passengers are allowed to believe whatever they please, provided they avoid offensive obtrusiveness.

Legal penalties are, however, in the modern world, the least of the obstacles to freedom of thoughts . The two great obstacles are economic penalties and distortion of evidence. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living. It is clear also that thought is not free if all the arguments on one side of a controversy are perpetually presented as attractively as possible, while the arguments on the other side can only be discovered by diligent search. Both these obstacles exist in every large country known to me, except China, which is the last refuge of freedom. It is these obstacles with which I shall be concerned—their present magnitude, the likelihood of their increase, and the possibility of their diminution.

We may say that thought is free when it is exposed to free competition among beliefs —i.e., when all beliefs are able to state their case, and no legal or pecuniary advantages or disadvantages attach to beliefs. This is an ideal which, for various reasons, can never be fully attained. But it is possible to approach very much nearer to it than we do at present.

Three incidents in my own life will serve to show how, in modern England, the scales are weighted in favor of Christianity. My reason for mentioning them is that many people do not at all realize the disadvantages to which avowed Agnosticism still exposes people.

• The first incident belongs to a very early stage in my life. My father was a Freethinker, but died when I was only three years old. Wishing me to be brought up without superstition, he appointed two Freethinkers as my guardians. The Courts, however, set aside his will, and had me educated in the Christian faith. I am afraid the result was disappointing, but that was not the fault of the law. If he had directed that I should be educated as a Christadelphian or a Muggletonian or a Seventh-Day Adventist, the Courts would not have dreamed of objecting. A parent has a right to ordain that any imaginable superstition shall be instilled into his children after his death, but has not the right to say that they shall be kept free from superstition if possible.
• The second incident occurred in the year 1910 . I had at that time a desire to stand for Parliament as a Liberal, and the Whips recommended me to a certain constituency. I addressed the Liberal Association, who expressed themselves favorably, and my adoption seemed certain. But, on being questioned by a small inner caucus, I admitted that I was an Agnostic. They asked whether the fact would come out, and I said it probably would. They asked whether I should be willing to go to church occasionally, and I replied that I should not. Consequently, they selected another candidate, who was duly elected, has been in Parliament ever since, and is a member of the present Government.
• The third incident occurred immediately afterwards. I was invited by Trinity College, Cambridge, to become a lecturer, but not a Fellow. The difference is not pecuniary; it is that a Fellow has a voice in the government of the College, and cannot be dispossessed during the term of his Fellowship except for grave immorality. The chief reason for not offering me a Fellowship was that the clerical party did not wish to add to the anti-clerical vote. The result was that they were able to dismiss me in 1916, when they disliked my views on the War. If I had been dependent on my lectureship, I should have starved.

These three incidents illustrate different kinds of disadvantages attaching to avowed freethinking even in modern England. Any other avowed Freethinker could supply similar incidents from his personal experience, often of a far more serious character. The net result is that people who are not well-to-do dare not be frank about their religious beliefs.

It is not, of course, only or even chiefly in regard to religion that there is lack of freedom. Belief in communism or free love handicaps a man much more than Agnosticism. Not only is it a disadvantage to hold those views, but it is very much more difficult to obtain publicity for the arguments in their favor. On the other hand, in Russia the advantages and disadvantages are exactly reversed: comfort and power are achieved by professing Atheism, communism, and free love, and no opportunity exists for propaganda against these opinions. The result is that in Russia one set of fanatics feels absolute certainty about one set of doubtful propositions, while in the rest of the world another set of fanatics feels equal certainty about a diametrically opposite set of equally doubtful propositions. From such a situation war, bitterness, and persecution inevitably result on both sides.

Russell was an atheist. He has specific reasons for this. Listen to it in his own words:

Bertrand Russell on Religion

William James used to preach the “will to believe.” For my part, I should wish to preach the “will to doubt.” None of our beliefs are quite true; all have at least a penumbra of vagueness and error. The methods of increasing the degree of truth in our beliefs are well known; they consist in hearing all sides, trying to ascertain all the relevant facts, controlling our own bias by discussion with people who have the opposite bias, and cultivating a readiness to discard any hypothesis which has proved inadequate. These methods are practiced in science, and have built up the body of scientific knowledge.

In religion and politics, on the contrary, though there is as yet nothing approaching scientific knowledge , everybody considers it de rigueur to have a dogmatic opinion, to be backed up by inflicting starvation, prison, and war, and to be carefully guarded from argumentative competition with any different opinion. If only men could be brought into a tentatively agnostic frame of mind about these matters, nine-tenths of the evils of the modern world would be cured. War would become impossible, because each side would realize that both sides must be in the wrong. Persecution would cease. Education would aim at expanding the mind, not at narrowing it. Men would be chosen for jobs on account of fitness to do the work, not because they flattered the irrational dogmas of those in power. Thus rational doubt alone, if it could be generated, would suffice to introduce the millennium.

We have had in recent years a brilliant example of the scientific temper of mind in the theory of relativity and its reception by the world. Einstein, a German-Swiss-Jew pacifist, was appointed to a research professorship by the German Government in the early days of the War; his predictions were verified by an English expedition which observed the eclipse of 1919, very soon after the Armistice. His theory upsets the whole theoretical framework of traditional physics; it is almost as damaging to orthodox dynamics as Darwin was to Genesis . Yet physicists everywhere have shown complete readiness to accept his theory as soon as it appeared that the evidence was in its favor. But none of them, least of all Einstein himself, would claim that he has said the last word. He has not built a monument of infallible dogma to stand for all time. There are difficulties he cannot solve; his doctrines will have to be modified in their turn as they have modified Newton’s. This critical un-dogmatic receptiveness is the true attitude of science.

What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is its exact opposite.

If it is admitted that a condition of rational doubt would be desirable , it becomes important to inquire how it comes about that there is so much irrational certainty in the world. A great deal of this is due to the inherent irrationality and credulity of average human nature. But this seed of intellectual original sin is nourished and fostered by other agencies, among which three play the chief part—namely, education, propaganda, and economic pressure .

Let us consider these in turn.

Thus, according to the law of the State of New York, Christ and George Washington were too degraded morally to be fit for the education of the young . If Christ were to go to New York and say, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” the President of the New York School Board would reply: “Sir, I see no evidence that you are eager to combat theories of social change. Indeed, I have heard it said that you advocate what you call the kingdom of heaven, whereas this country, thank God, is a republic. It is clear that the Government of your kingdom of heaven would differ materially from that of New York State, therefore no children will be allowed access to you.” If he failed to make this reply, he would not be doing his duty as a functionary entrusted with the administration of the law.

Religious toleration, to a certain extent, has been won because people have ceased to consider religion so important as it was once thought to be. But in politics and economics, which have taken the place formerly occupied by religion, there is a growing tendency to persecution, which is not by any means confined to one party. The persecution of opinion in Russia is more severe than in any capitalist country. I met in Petrograd an eminent Russian poet, Alexander Block, who has since died as the result of privations. The Bolsheviks allowed him to teach æsthetics, but he complained that they insisted on his teaching the subject “from a Marxian point of view.” He had been at a loss to discover how the theory of rhythmics was connected with Marxism, although, to avoid starvation, he had done his best to find out. Of course, it has been impossible in Russia ever since the Bolsheviks came into power to print anything critical of the dogmas upon which their regime is founded.

The examples of America and Russia illustrate the conclusion to which we seem to be driven—namely, that so long as men continue to have the present fanatical belief in the importance of politics free thought on political matters will be impossible, and there is only too much danger that the lack of freedom will spread to all other matters, as it has done in Russia. Only some degree of political skepticism can save us from this misfortune.

It must not be supposed that the officials in charge of education desire the young to become educated. On the contrary, their problem is to impart information without imparting intelligence. Education should have two objects: first, to give definite knowledge—reading and writing, languages and mathematics, and so on; secondly, to create those mental habits which will enable people to acquire knowledge and form sound judgments for themselves. The first of these we may call information, the second intelligence. The utility of information is admitted practically as well as theoretically; without a literate population a modern State is impossible. But the utility of intelligence is admitted only theoretically, not practically; it is not desired that ordinary people should think for themselves, because it is felt that people who think for themselves are awkward to manage and cause administrative difficulties. Only the guardians, in Plato’s language, are to think; the rest are to obey, or to follow leaders like a herd of sheep. This doctrine, often unconsciously, has survived the introduction of political democracy, and has radically vitiated all national systems of education.

For the present I am not in search of remedies, but am only concerned with diagnosis. We are faced with the paradoxical fact that education has become one of the chief obstacles to intelligence and freedom of thought. This is due primarily to the fact that the State claims a monopoly; but that is by no means the sole cause.

Definite mis-statements of fact can be legitimately objected to, but they are by no means necessary. The mere words “Pear’s Soap,” which affirm nothing, cause people to buy that article. If, wherever these words appear, they were replaced by the words “The Labour Party,” millions of people would be led to vote for the Labour Party, although the advertisements had claimed no merit for it whatever. But if both sides in a controversy were confined by law to statements which a committee of eminent logicians considered relevant and valid, the main evil of propaganda, as at present conducted, would remain.

Equality of opportunity among opinions is essential if there is to be real freedom of thought; and equality of opportunity among opinions can only be secured by elaborate laws directed to that end, which there is no reason to expect to see enacted. The cure is not to be sought primarily in such laws, but in better education and a more skeptical public opinion. For the moment, however, I am not concerned to discuss cures.

The second is that jobs should be given solely for fitness to do the work.

To take the second point first . The habit of considering a man’s religious, moral, and political opinions before appointing him to a post or giving him a job is the modern form of persecution, and it is likely to become quite as efficient as the Inquisition ever was. The old liberties can be legally retained without being of the slightest use. If, in practice, certain opinions lead a man to starve, it is poor comfort to him to know that his opinions are not punishable by law. There is a certain public feeling against starving men for not belonging to the Church of England, or for holding slightly unorthodox opinions in politics. But there is hardly any feeling against the rejection of Atheists or Mormons, extreme communists, or men who advocate free love. Such men are thought to be wicked, and it is considered only natural to refuse to employ them. People have hardly yet waked up to the fact that this refusal, in a highly industrial State, amounts to a very rigorous form of persecution.

If this danger were adequately realized, it would be possible to rouse public opinion , and to secure that a man’s beliefs should not be considered in appointing him to a post. The protection of minorities is vitally important; and even the most orthodox of us may find himself in a minority some day, so that we all have an interest in restraining the tyranny of majorities. Nothing except public opinion can solve this problem. Socialism would make it somewhat more acute, since it would eliminate the opportunities that now arise through exceptional employers. Every increase in the size of industrial undertakings makes it worse, since it diminishes the number of independent employers.

The battle must be fought exactly as the battle of religious toleration was fought. And as in that case, so in this, a decay in the intensity of belief is likely to prove the decisive factor. While men were convinced of the absolute truth of Catholicism or Protestantism, as the case might be, they were willing to persecute on account of them. While men are quite certain of their modern creeds, they will persecute on their behalf. Some element of doubt is essential to the practice, though not to the theory, of toleration.

And this brings me to my other point, which concerns the aims of education. If there is to be toleration in the world, one of the things taught in schools must be the habit of weighing evidence, and the practice of not giving full assent to propositions which there is no reason to believe true.

History should be taught in the same way. Napoleon’s campaigns of 1813 and 1814, for instance, might be studied in the Moniteur , leading up to the surprise which Parisians felt when they saw the Allies arriving under the walls of Paris after they had (according to the official bulletins) been beaten by Napoleon in every battle. In the more advanced classes, students should be encouraged to count the number of times that Lenin has been assassinated by Trotsky, in order to learn contempt for death. Finally, they should be given a school history approved by the Government, and asked to infer what a French school history would say about our wars with France. All this would be a far better training in citizenship than the trite moral maxims by which some people believe that civic duty can be inculcated.

It must, I think, be admitted that the evils of the world are due to moral defects quite as much as to lack of intelligence. But the human race has not hitherto discovered any method of eradicating moral defects; preaching and exhortation only add hypocrisy to the previous list of vices. Intelligence, on the contrary, is easily improved by methods known to every competent educator. Therefore, until some method of teaching virtue has been discovered, progress will have to be sought by improvement of intelligence rather than of morals. One of the chief obstacles to intelligence is credulity, and credulity could be enormously diminished by instruction as to the prevalent forms of mendacity. Credulity is a greater evil in the present day than it ever was before, because, owing to the growth of education, it is much easier than it used to be to spread misinformation, and, owing to democracy, the spread of misinformation is more important than in former times to the holders of power. Hence the increase in the circulation of newspapers.

If I am asked how the world is to be induced to adopt these two maxims—namely

(1) that jobs should be given to people on account of their fitness to perform them;

(2) that one aim of education should be to cure people of the habit of believing propositions for which there is no evidence—

I can only say that it must be done by generating an enlightened public opinion . And an enlightened public opinion can only be generated by the efforts of those who desire that it should exist. I do not believe that the economic changes advocated by Socialists will, of themselves, do anything towards curing the evils we have been considering. I think that, whatever happens in politics, the trend of economic development will make the preservation of mental freedom increasingly difficult, unless public opinion insists that the employer shall control nothing in the life of the employee except his work.

Freedom in education could easily be secured, if it were desired , by limiting the function of the State to inspection and payment, and confining inspection rigidly to the definite instruction. But that, as things stand, would leave education in the hands of the Churches, because, unfortunately, they are more anxious to teach their beliefs than Freethinkers are to teach their doubts. It would, however, give a free field, and would make it possible for a liberal education to be given if it were really desired. More than that ought not to be asked of the law.

My plea throughout this address has been for the spread of the scientific temper , which is an altogether different thing from the knowledge of scientific results. The scientific temper is capable of regenerating mankind and providing an issue for all our troubles. The results of science, in the form of mechanism, poison gas, and the yellow press, bid fair to lead to the total downfall of our civilization. It is a curious antithesis, which a Martian might contemplate with amused detachment. But for us it is a matter of life and death. Upon its issue depends the question whether our grandchildren are to live in a happier world, or are to exterminate each other by scientific methods, leaving perhaps to Negroes and Papuans the future destinies of mankind.

If you would like to hear a more thorough interview with Russell, you can find it here at:

Face to Face Interview with the BBC

Project Gutenberg’s The Problems of Philosophy, by Bertrand Russell

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

Title: The Problems of Philosophy

Author: Bertrand Russell

Release Date: May 2, 2009 [EBook #5827]

Last Updated: February 7, 2013 Language: English

Project Gutenberg’s Free Thought and Official Propaganda, by Bertrand Russell

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license

Title: Free Thought and Official Propaganda

Release Date: February 16, 2014 [EBook #44932]

Language: English

• Preeti to unicode
• Keshav Sir's Site
• Rupindra Sir's Site
• OPT ENGLISH XI
• OPT ENGLISH XII
• Comp. ENGLISH XI
• Comp. ENGLISH XII

• TB, TG, Curri. and Ques.
• _Curriculum
• _Specification Grids
• _Teacher's Guide
• _QUESTION BANK
• _Questions and Reference Materials
• _Guided Writing
• _Free Writing
• _Movie Review
• _Grammar Rules
• _Grammar Exercises
• _Grammar Quiz
• Grade 11/12
• _Grammar 11
• _Guided and Free Writing
• __Guided Writing
• __Free Writing
• __Questions
• _Grade 12 (Literature Part)
• _Grade 11 (Literature Part)
• TSC Materials
• __Secondary
• __Basic (6-8)
• _Free Competition (KHULLA)
• __Basic (1-5)
• _INTERNAL 25 percent (Badhuwa)

Knowledge and Wisdom (Essay) Summary

  Knowledge and Wisdom

by Bertrand Arthur William Russell

About the author

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872–1970) was a British philosopher, logician, essayist and social critic best known for his work in mathematical logic and analytic philosophy. His most influential contributions include his championing of logicism (the view that mathematics is in some important sense reducible to logic), his refining of Gottlob Frege’s predicate calculus (which still forms the basis of most contemporary systems of logic), his defense of neutral monism (the view that the world consists of just one type of substance which is neither exclusively mental nor exclusively physical), and his theories of definite descriptions, logical atomism and logical types.

In this essay, Russell differentiates between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge and wisdom are different things. According to him, knowledge is defined as the acquisition of data and information, while wisdom is defined as the practical application and use of the knowledge to create value. Wisdom is gained through learning and practical experience, not just memorization.

The essay ‘Knowledge and Wisdom’ is written by a British essayist Bertrand Arthur William Russell. In this essay, Russell differentiates between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge and wisdom are different things. According to him, knowledge is defined as the acquisition of data and information whereas wisdom is defined as the practical application and use of the knowledge to create value. Wisdom is gained through learning and practical experience, not just memorization.

According to Russel, knowledge  is defined as the acquisition of data and information. It is like a generating theory.  while  wisdom  is defined as the practical application and use of the knowledge to create value.  Wisdom  is gained through learning and practical experience, not just memorization. A sense of proportion is very much necessary for  wisdom . By inventing medicine, a scientist may reduce the infant death-rate. Apparently, it leads to population explosion and shortage of food. The standard of life comes down. If misused, knowledge of atom can lead human to destruction by manufacturing nuclear weapon. Knowledge and Wisdom have the relation like theory and practice.

In this essay the essayist talks about several factors that contribute to wisdom. According to him, the factors that contribute to wisdom are:

i) a sense of proportion,

ii) aware comprehensiveness and feeling

iii) emancipation from personal prejudices

iv) impartiality and

v) intellectual element

Only Knowledge or Wisdom can’t be sufficient. Both are equally important. Knowledge  without wisdom can be harmful. Even complete  knowledge  is not enough. For example, Hegel wrote with great knowledge about history, but made the Germans believe that they were a master race. It led to war. It is necessary, therefore to combine  knowledge  with feelings. We need wisdom both in public and private life. We need wisdom to decide the goal of our life. We need it to free ourselves from personal prejudices. Wisdom is needed to avoid dislike for one another. Two persons may remain enemies because of their prejudice. If they can be told that we all have flaws then they may become friends.

In this essay, Russell defines what wisdom is in the first part and in the second part he talks about how it can be attained. Without knowledge, wisdom cannot go forward. He says that wisdom and knowledge must go ahead simultaneously. Thus, knowledge and wisdom are remarkable gifts of the clear exposition of Russel. It shows Russel as a great master of lucid style. His intellect is brilliant and his vision is comprehensive.

For exercise CLICK HERE. 

For ‘Humility’ CLICK HERE.

For all content  CLICK HERE .

You may like these posts

Post a comment.

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Subscribe (youtube), date and time.

Facebook Page

• Action Research
• Audio Materials
• Free Writing
• Grammar Exercises
• Grammar Quiz
• Grammar Rules
• Grammar test Class 9/10
• Guided Writing
• License Basic (6-8)
• License Secondary
• Literature Part Grade 11
• LIVE WORKSHEETS
• Optional English (Grade 11)
• Optional English (Grade 12)
• Please give me feedback too.
• Question Bank
• Reference Materials
• Result sheets
• Specification Grid
• Teachers' Guide
• शिक्षक सेवा आयोग सामग्री

Report Abuse

Total pageviews, contributors.

• रुपिन्द्र प्रभावी

Social Plugin

Popular posts.

All Materials of Grade 10 (New Book 2080)

All Units of Class Nine

Unit 1 Current Affairs and Issues (Grade 10) Reading II

Important sites for english.

• British Council
• Education World
• Live Work Sheets
• MCQ TIMES for all subjects
• Road to Grammar
• Work Sheet Place

Important Common Sites

• National Examination Board
• Curriculum Development Centre
• Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
• Teachers Service Commission
• Centre for Education and Human Resource Development
• The Official Portal of Government of Nepal
• Public Service Commission
• E-pustakalaya
• Looma Website for 1 to 10
• OLE Nepal-Epaath for 1 to 8
• Department of Information
• Nepal Law Commission

Important Blogs

About the blogger.

• Dev Prasad Pandit

Khairahani-4, Chainpur, Chitwan

Email: [email protected]

Mobile: 9845054921

Youtube and Other Links

• Khan Academy
• NCED Virtual Class
• Khullakitab
• Lesson Plan
• Sikai Chautari
• Social Studies (Rajan Neupane Sir)

Menu Footer Widget

Distributed for Center for the Study of Language and Information

Acquaintance, Knowledge, and Logic

New essays on bertrand russell’s "the problems of philosophy".

Edited and with an Introduction by Donovan Wishon and Bernard Linsky

281 pages | 6 x 9 | © 2015

Lecture Notes

Philosophy: Logic and Philosophy of Language

View all books from Center for the Study of Language and Information

• Table of contents
• Author Events
• Related Titles

“It is hard to imagine that a seminar on Russell will now be taught that does not require Acquaintance, Knowledge, and Logic (or at least use the essays in some less authorized method).”

John Perry, Stanford University, emeritus, coeditor of “Consciousness and the Self: New Essays” and cohost of “Philosophy Talk”

Be the first to know

Get the latest updates on new releases, special offers, and media highlights when you subscribe to our email lists!

Sign up here for updates about the Press

Summary of 'Knowledge and Wisdom' by Bertrand Russell

In this essay, Russell differentiates between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge and wisdom are different things. According to him, knowledge is defined as the acquisition of data and information, while wisdom is defined as the practical application and use of knowledge to create value. Wisdom is gained through learning and practical experience, not just memorization. 

Major Word Meanings of this Essay

proportion (n.): a part or share of a whole 

absorb (v.): to take, draw or suck something in 

distorting (v.): pull or twist out of shape 

inculcate (v.): implant, infuse, instil 

bound up (v.): to limit something 

fanatical (adj.): a person who is too enthusiastic about something 

Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872–1970) was a British philosopher, logician, essayist and social critic best known for his work in mathematical logic and analytic philosophy. His most influential contributions include his championing of logicism (the view that mathematics is in some important sense reducible to logic), his refining of Gottlob Frege’s predicate calculus (which still forms the basis of most contemporary systems of logic), his defence of neutral monism (the view that the world consists of just one type of substance which is neither exclusively mental nor exclusively physical), and his theories of definite descriptions, logical atomism and logical types.

“Never mistake knowledge for wisdom. One helps you make a living; the other helps you make a life.”

– Sandra Carey

Knowledge and wisdom are different things. According to Russell, knowledge is defined as the acquisition of data and information, while wisdom is defined as the practical application and use of knowledge to create value. Wisdom is gained through learning and practical experience, not just memorization.

A sense of proportion is very much necessary for wisdom. By inventing medicine, a scientist may reduce the infant death rate. Apparently, it leads to a population explosion and a shortage of food. The standard of life comes down. If misused, knowledge of atoms can lead humans to destruction by manufacturing a nuclear weapon.

Knowledge without wisdom can be harmful. Even complete knowledge is not enough. For example, Hegel wrote with great knowledge about history but made the Germans believe that they were a master race. It led to war. It is necessary, therefore to combine knowledge with feelings.

We need wisdom both in public and private life. We need the wisdom to decide on the goal of our life. We need it to free ourselves from personal prejudices. Wisdom is needed to avoid dislike for one another. Two persons may remain enemies because of their prejudice. They may become friends if they can be told that we all have flaws.

Question Answer

a. What are the factors that contribute to wisdom? 

Ans: - In the essay “Knowledge and Wisdom”, Bertrand Russell talks about several factors that contribute to wisdom. According to him, the factors that contribute to wisdom are :

i) a sense of proportion, 

ii) comprehensiveness with broad feeling, 

iii) emancipation from personal prejudices and tyranny of sensory perception, 

iv) impartiality and

v) awareness of human needs and understanding. 

b. What message does the writer try to convey with the examples of technicians? 

Ans: - Russell has given some examples of technicians to convey the message that lone technical knowledge can be harmful to humankind if that knowledge is applied without wisdom. They can't find out how their knowledge in one field can be harmful in another field. For example, the discovery of medicine to decrease the infant mortality rate can cause population growth and food scarcity. Similarly, the knowledge of atomic theory can be misused in making atom bombs. 

c. Which leaders does Russell say were able to mix knowledge and wisdom soundly? 

Ans: - According to Russell, Queen Elizabeth I in England, Henry IV in France and Abraham Lincoln can mix knowledge and wisdom soundly. Queen Elizabeth I and Henry IV remained free from the errors of their time being Global Trade Starts Here Alibaba.com unaffected by the conflict between the Protestants and the Catholics. Similarly, Abraham Lincoln conducted a great war without ever departing from wisdom. 

d. Why is the wisdom needed not only in public ways but in private life equally? 

Ans: - Wisdom is not only needed in public ways but also used in private life equally. It is needed in the choice of ends to be pursued and in emancipation from personal prejudice. In a lack of wisdom, we may fail in choosing the target of our life and we may not have sufficient patience and sufficient persuasiveness in convincing people. 

e. What, according to Russell, is the true aim of education? 

Ans: - The true aim of education, according to Russell, is installing wisdom in people. It is wisdom that makes us utilize our knowledge in practical life purposefully without doing any harm to humankind. Along with knowledge, people must have the wisdom to be good citizens. 

f. Can wisdom be taught? If so, how? 

Ans: - Yes, wisdom can be taught. The teaching of wisdom should have a larger intellectual element than moral instruction. The disastrous results of hatred and narrow-mindedness to those who feel them can be pointed out incidentally in the course of giving knowledge. For example, while teaching the composition of an atom, the disastrous results of it must be taught to eliminate its misuse such as making an atom bomb. Reference to the Context Answer the following questions. 

a. According to Russell, “The Pursuit of Knowledge may become harmful unless it is combined with wisdom.” Justify this statement. 

Ans: - Humans are curious creatures who always want to learn new things. Most people have spent their whole lives in pursuit of knowledge. Some pieces of knowledge are noble and beneficial for humans whereas some pieces of knowledge are harmful to us. The knowledge which is combined with wisdom is useful for us because it addresses the total needs of mankind. The knowledge of atomic composition has become harmful to mankind because it is used in making bombs.

Similarly, Hegal, though he had great knowledge about history, made the Germans believe that they were a master race. It led to the great disastrous wars. So, it is necessary to combine knowledge with the feeling of humanity. We need an event to decide the aim of our life. It makes us free from personal prejudices. Even noble things are applied unwisely in the lack of wisdom

b. What, according to Russell, is the essence of wisdom? And how can one acquire the very essence?  

Ans: - According to Russell, the essence of wisdom is emancipation from the tyranny of being partiality. It makes our thoughts and feeling less personal and less concerned with our physical states. It is wisdom that makes us care and love the entire human race, it takes us into the higher stage of spirituality. It makes us able to make the right decision, and install a broad vision and unbiasedness in our minds. We can acquire the very essence by breaking the chain of the egoism of our senses, understanding the ends of human life, applying our knowledge wisely for the benefit of humans, finding noble and attainable goals of our life, controlling our sensory perceptions, being impartial gradually and loving others. 

Reference Beyond the Text 

a. Why is wisdom necessary in education? Discuss.

Ans: It is wisdom that makes our minds broad and unbiased. When we gain wisdom, our thoughts and feelings become less personal. It makes us use our knowledge wisely. It helps us to utilize our knowledge for the benefit of humankind. When we have wisdom we love even our enemy, we completely get rid of ego, and we don't have any kind of prejudices.

If education/knowledge is one part of human life then wisdom is another part. If one compasses these both parts appropriately, then s/he becomes a perfect being. The goal of education is not only to impart knowledge but also to create good citizens. People may misuse the acquired knowledge if they don't have wisdom and it doesn't come automatically, it must be taught. It must be one of the goals of education and must be taught in schools. It must be planted and nursed in one's mind with practical examples. 

Understanding the Text 

b. What message does the writer try to convey with the example of technicians?

c. Which leaders does Russell say were able to mix knowledge and wisdom soundly?

g. Why does the world need more wisdom in the future? Reference to the context 

a. According to Russel, “The pursuit of knowledge may become harmful unless it is combined with wisdom.” Justify this statement. 

b. What, according to Russell, is the essence of wisdom? And how can one acquire the very essence? 

Reference beyond the text 

a. Why is wisdom necessary in education? Discuss. 

b. How can you become wise? Do you think what you are doing in college contributes to wisdom? 

Please subscribe to our youtube channel. SUBSCRIBE

نموذج الاتصال

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

Logic and knowledge : essays, 1901-1950

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

A few pages have narrow margins.

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

1,135 Previews

7 Favorites

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

No suitable files to display here.

EPUB and PDF access not available for this item.

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by PhanS on June 3, 2010

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

Press ESC to close

Or check our popular categories..., summary of knowledge and wisdom by bertrand russell | class 12 english.

About the Author:

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872–1970) was a British philosopher, logician, essayist and social critic best known for his work in mathematical logic and analytic philosophy. His most influential contributions include his championing of logicism (the view that mathematics is in some important sense reducible to logic), his refining of Gottlob Frege’s predicate calculus (which still forms the basis of most contemporary systems of logic), his defence of neutral monism (the view that the world consists of just one type of substance which is neither exclusively mental nor exclusively physical), and his theories of definite descriptions, logical atomism and logical types.

Russell distinguishes between knowledge and wisdom in this essay. Wisdom and knowledge are not the same things. Russell defines wisdom and lists many methods for attaining it. He laments the fact that, despite tremendous information, there has been no equivalent rise in wisdom. He defines knowledge as the gathering of data and information, whereas wisdom is the practical application and use of knowledge to produce value. Not simply memory, but also study and actual experience, leads to wisdom.

Russel defines wisdom by describing things that contribute to wisdom. The first is a sense of proportion. It is the ability to carefully analyze all relevant variables in a problem. Specialization makes it difficult. For example, scientists discover new drugs but have no idea what influence these medicines will have on people’s lives. The medications may lower the newborn mortality rate. However, it may result in a rise in population. Food shortages may occur in poorer countries. More population may result in a worse standard of living. A maniac could use knowledge of the atom’s composition to destroy the world. Without wisdom, knowledge can be dangerous.

Knowledge should be linked with humanity’s overall requirements. Even comprehensive knowledge is insufficient. It should be associated with a specific understanding of life’s purpose. The study of history can help to demonstrate this. For example, Hegel wrote about history with great historical knowledge, yet he encouraged the Germans to feel that they were a superior race. It resulted in the war. As a result, it is vital to blend information with feelings. Men who have information but no sentiments are illiterate.

We require wisdom in both public and private life. We require wisdom to determine our life’s purpose. We require it to be free of personal preconceptions. We may inappropriately pursue a fresh idea if it is too large to achieve. People have sacrificed their lives in search of the “philosopher’s Stone,” also known as the “elixir of life.” They were not practical. They were looking for simple solutions to humanity’s complicated challenges. A man may endeavour to accomplish the impossible, but he may endanger himself in the process.

Similarly, wisdom is required in personal life to avoid hatred for one another. Because of their prejudice, two people may remain enemies. One may hate the other because of imagined flaws. They may become buddies if they are told that we all have flaws. Russel argues that we can avoid hatred by reasoned argument. The path to wisdom is to release ourselves from the grip of our sense organs. Our ego grows as a result of our senses. We cannot live without our senses of sight, sound, and touch. Our senses are the primary means by which we see the world. We learn as we develop that there are other things. We begin to recognize them. As a result, we stop thinking of ourselves as individuals. When we start thinking about other people, we become wise. We let go of our egoism. It is difficult to eliminate selfishness totally, yet we may think beyond our local circumstances. Wisdom emerges when we begin to place value on things that do not directly affect us. When we begin to love people, we begin to gain wisdom.

Wisdom, according to Russell, can be taught as an aim of education. The tale of the Good Samaritan teaches us to love our neighbour, whether friend or enemy. Many times, we misunderstand the point of this tale because we stop loving those who cause harm to society. Understanding, not hatred, is the only way out. In a nutshell, Russel advises us not to hate anyone. The author uses historical examples of Queen Elizabeth I, Henry the IV, and Abraham Lincoln who were free of the mistakes made by other notable persons in the past. In the course of imparting knowledge, the hazards of hatred and narrow-mindedness might be highlighted. Russel believes that knowledge and values can be blended into an educational plan. People should be educated to see things in context with other aspects of the world. They should be encouraged to consider themselves global citizens.

In conclusion, the author lists five factors that lead to wisdom. They are as follows: comprehensiveness, proportionality, emancipation, impartiality, awareness of human needs and understanding. As our knowledge grows, so does our ability to do evil. We would need more and more wisdom to make appropriate use of our knowledge. To make excellent use of our growing knowledge, we need more wisdom. Only then can we realize our life’s purpose and fulfil our goals.

Wow! very meaningfully you have summarised this essay. And you have done great justice on its view.

Brilliant!Thank you bruh..

how long summary

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.