Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell - Essay Example

Text Analysis ‘Knowledge and Wisdom’ by Bertrand Russell Introduction ‘Our own actions create the problems we experience’, says Peter Senge (Freed 2013, p.99). If Senge’s statement is taken as the hypothesis, the proof is available in the text under consideration now. In his essay ‘Knowledge and Wisdom’, Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician and pacifist, attempts to define wisdom and also to identify the means of promoting it. The essay reflects the author’s concern for world peace in the post – World War II scenario. The message of the essay is not meant for a particular segment of the world population. Instead, it addresses an issue that concerns survival of the humankind as a whole or ‘citizens of the world and not of this or that sect or nation’. Significance From the words ‘To take an even more spectacular example, which is in everybody’s mind at the present time’, it may inferred that the essay was written at a time when the world, after having witnessed two world wars, lived in the grip of constant fear. For later generations, it can serve as an important source of indicative information on apprehensions of intellectuals that emanated from the scientific and political developments in the mid-20th century. However, on account of its highly academic nature of the content and the subtle style, the essay warrants a lot of effort from the reader to be able to fully comprehend precisely what is on the author’s mind. It is too hard to be understood in a single reading. Once understood, it may be said that the essay has the capacity to radically reorganize one’s paradigms in understanding the world, right from an insight into the precautions required to be taken by men of science engaged in research to a revised blueprint of religious and moral instruction. Though the essay offers the scope to learn wisdom by reflection and imitation rather than by experience, the fact remains that the ideals proposed by the author in the essay are so lofty that they could turn the world into a heaven if only the inhabitants of the planet imbibed the substance of such ideas. But it can only be a utopian dream for it is easier said than done to overcome the egoism of surroundings, senses and emotions. Summary and Pattern The first paragraph of the essay introduces the two questions the author intends to deal with, the first being ‘What is wisdom?’ and the second being ‘What can be done to teach it?’ The second, third, fourth and fifth paragraphs address the first question and provide a definition of wisdom as a combination of five factors namely comprehensive vision, awareness of the ends of life, choice of goals, emancipation from personal prejudice and emancipation from the tyranny of the here and now. In paragraph 6, the author deals with the second question and in the next two paragraphs he illustrates how wisdom can be taught. Thus the essay follows a problem-solution pattern (Flowerdew 2008, p.1). It may also be noted that the former half of the essay dwells in raising questions and answering them and in the latter half and towards the conclusion, the author makes his recommendations to promote wisdom. As such, the essay has the characteristics of a scientific research article in view of its IMRD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) structure (Rothwell & Guijarro 2000, p.65). Theme The essay is very academic in nature, at times sounding quite philosophical. In the English language, knowledge and wisdom figure as synonyms of each other. But a closer analysis can reveal that they are two entirely different faculties. Though the title of Russell’s essay gives us the impression that the discussion is going to be an attempt to make a clear-cut distinction between knowledge and wisdom, the purpose of the author in writing the essay is not just to make a semantic discussion. Rather, he endeavours to throw light on the peril that world peace is in. The author’s example of the dangers of the knowledge of a nuclear scientist being placed ‘in the hands of powerful lunatics’, the case of enmity between Mr. A and Mr. B being ‘harmful to both’, the importance of ‘knowing things [...] in time or space’, the mention of ‘Communist or anti-Communist’, the notion of ‘war without [...] departing from [...] wisdom’ and the warning that ‘every increase in knowledge [...] augments our capacity for evil’ may be considered evidentials that put in place the essay’s context, attitude, epistemic stance and purpose (Ifantidou 2001, p.195). As most people were during the post-World War II and the Cold War periods, Russell was apprehensive about the developments in science and politics and their possible evil implications on ‘the survival of the good things that we wish to preserve’ and that becomes the central idea of the essay. “Man is far too clever to be able to survive without wisdom”, notes E.F. Schumacher (Monsma 1986, p.4). The solution suggested by Russell if we are to be able to survive those good things is to realize that ‘hatred of evil is itself a kind of bondage to evil’ and that ‘the way out is through understanding, not through hate’. I am inclined to think that this particular idea is the foundation of the essay and it effectively summarises the message that Russell wishes to drive home. However, it is also important to note that the essay does not preach non-violence as such, the fact that Russell is a pacifist notwithstanding. Russell admits that he is ‘not advocating non-resistance’. Diversity In the process of driving home the point of the essay, the author takes a number of examples from an array of subjects such as medicine, nuclear science, history, chemistry, psychology, religion, politics, education and above all logic. He points out how the discovery of a medicine that can lower the infant death-rate may result increased poverty levels across the world. Contradicting the positive connotation of the word ‘power’ as used in the saying ‘knowledge is power’, he illustrates how the pursuit of knowledge can sometimes be dangerous as it happens when governments abuse the findings of a nuclear scientist. By taking the example of historians who distort facts, he establishes the importance of broad feelings in the absence of which the value of wide knowledge diminishes. The case of people who wasted their lives trying to find the philosopher’s stone and the elixir illustrates that goals must not only be noble but also be attainable. The instance of hatred between Mr. A and Mr. B is to demonstrate how personal prejudice makes one blind to one’s own faults. We are very much prone to misunderstand things that appear to be simple and this is made clear through the parable of the Good Samaritan. Russell makes a mention of three great characters in human history namely Elizabeth I, Henry IV and Abraham Lincoln to prove that understanding in resistance is compatible with vigour in action. Language use The language used in the essay is highly formal and impersonal as may be seen in expressions like ‘an awareness of the ends of human life’, ‘emancipation from personal prejudice’, ‘tyranny of the here and now’, ‘knowing things somewhat remote in time or space’ and ‘war without ever departing from [...] wisdom’. It is impersonal in the sense that the author makes little use of imagery and chooses to depend entirely on communicating his thoughts verbally. On the one hand, this monopoly of language makes the content of the essay all the more difficult to grasp but on the other, it completely eliminates ambiguity and lends absolute clarity to the author’s expression. The piece is so cohesive and coherent that there is no second way of construing any part of it (Lonsdale 1996, p.215). The sentences are often long and hypotactic (Nord 2005, p.129) with complicated structures as in ‘Gradually with the years, his horizon widens, and, in proportion as his thoughts and feelings become less personal and as he becomes less concerned with his own physical states, he achieves growing wisdom’. As for the lexical choice, liberal use of a lot of polysyllabic words (Rothkegel & Ruda 2012, p.25) can be seen throughout the essay such as comprehensiveness, emancipation, persuasiveness, impartiality, incompatible, beneficent and narrow-mindedness. The register is often scientific as may be inferred from the frequent use of passive voice (Strömqvist & Verhoeven 2004, p.278): ‘This may be illustrated by [...]’, ‘an end [...] may be pursued unwisely’, ‘their lives were wasted’ and ‘you will have instilled some fragment of wisdom’. A sentence like ‘But I am saying that resistance, if it is to be effective in the spread of evil, should be combined with the greatest degree of understanding and the smallest degree of force that is compatible with the survival of the good things that we wish to preserve’ is an evidence of the author’s linguistic competence as well as intellectual profundity. How we are apt to miss the point of the parable of the Good Samaritan is put forward in a very subtle manner, ultimately connecting with communist and anti-communist orientation and that is a wonderful illustration of what communicative competence is all about. The essay may be considered an authentic text not because Russell is a well-known writer but because of its target language for the genre-intended audience. The use of the example of Mr. A and Mr. B as well as that of Communist and anti-Communist is an instance of symbolism referring to a polarized world as it existed then and the disastrous consequences of a possible military conflict between them. Much in the same way, the example of the knowledge of ‘the composition of the atom’ is a grim reminder of the devastation that occurred in Japan in early August 1945. In the comment that ‘wisdom in the sense of comprehensive vision is not necessarily present in specialists in the pursuit of knowledge’ and in the observation that ‘even the best technicians should also be good citizens’, the author allegorically puts a fine point on what may be called a blunder committed by some members the scientific community in passing on their fatal findings to ambitious politicians thereby paving way for the destructive use of nuclear weapons. The essay makes the best possible effort to gain ‘acceptability’ by persuading the reader about the validity of the ideas presented by employing numerous examples. The informativity of the essay, however, is limited for, considering the number of examples and the diversity of subjects, adding further information on any or all of them would make stretch the size of the essay to that of a book. Therefore, when the author makes a statement such as ‘Queen Elizabeth I in England and Henry IV in France [...] remained free from the errors of their time’ or ‘Abraham Lincoln conducted a great war without ever departing from [...] wisdom’, he does not elucidate on the issues mentioned but leaves it to the reader. The assumption is that the reader has the required knowledge of history to be able to see the point of what the author means. Obviously, the degree of intertextuality of the essay is high. Several parts of the essay call for some prior knowledge of a different subject, be it comprehensive vision and the composition of atom or Hegel and history writing or chemists and the philosopher’s stone or the precept ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’ and the parable of the Good Samaritan (Schäffner & Wiesemann 2001, p.25). The essay is an excellent example of effective argumentative writing. It also teaches the reader how one can disagree without being disagreeable. But it does not mean that the value of the essay lies solely in its persuasive style and perfect organisation. We are living an age in which we are witnesses to unprecedentedly fast growth of science and technology. We are carried away so swiftly by the currents of what is perceived as development that we do not even have a moment to pause and ponder whether our new acquisitions are assets or liabilities. Amid this chaos, Russell’s observations and recommendations inspire us to think differently and therefore continue to be of timeless value to all ‘the citizens of the world’. As Einstein cautioned, “Problems cannot be solved at the same level of consciousness that created them.” (Renzulli 1995, p.1) References: Flowerdew, Lynne 2008, ‘Corpus-Based Ananlyses of the Problem-Solution Pattern: A Phraseological Approach’, John Benjamins, Philadelphia, PA. Freed, Jann 2013, ‘Leading with Wisdom: Sage Advice from 100 Experts’, ASTD Press, Alexandria, VA. Ifantidou, Elly 2001, ‘Evidentials and Relevance’, John Benjamins, Philadelphia, PA. Lonsdale, Allison Beeby 1996, ‘Teaching Translation from Spanish to English: Worlds Beyond Words’, University of Ottawa Press, Ottawa, Ontario. Monsma, Stephen V. (Ed.) 1986, ‘Responsible Technology: A Christian Perspective’, William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Nord, Christiane 2005, ‘Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis’, 2nd Edition, Rodopi, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Renzulli, Joseph S. 1995, ‘Building a Bridge Between Gifted Education and Total School Improvement’, The University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Rothkegel, Annely & Sonja Ruda (Eds.) 2012, ‘Communication On And Via Technology’, Walter de Gruyter Mouton, Berlin. Rothwell, Angela Downing & Guijarro A. Jesus Moya 2000, ‘Talk and Text: Studies on Spoken and Written Discourse’, Univ de Castilla La Mancha, Albacete, Spain. Schäffner, Christina & Uwe Wiesemann 2001, ‘Annotated Texts for Translation: English – German Functionalist Approaches Illustrated’, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, UK. Strömqvist, Sven & Ludo Verhoeven (Eds.) 2004, ‘Relating Events in Narrative – Typological and Contextual Perspectives’, Volume 2, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Appendix: Text of the Essay ‘Knowledge and Wisdom’ by Bertrand Russell Most people would agree that, although our age far surpasses all previous ages in knowledge, there has been no correlative increase in wisdom. But agreement ceases as soon as we attempt to define `wisdom and consider means of promoting it. I want to ask first what wisdom is, and then what can be done to teach it. There are, I think, several factors that contribute to wisdom. Of these I should put first a sense of proportion: the capacity to take account of all the important factors in a problem and to attach to each its due weight. This has become more difficult than it used to be owing to the extent and complexity of the specialized knowledge required of various kinds of technicians. Suppose, for example, that you are engaged in research in scientific medicine. The work is difficult and is likely to absorb the whole of your intellectual energy. You have not time to consider the effect which your discoveries or inventions may have outside the field of medicine. You succeed (let us say), as modern medicine has succeeded, in enormously lowering the infant death-rate, not only in Europe and America, but also in Asia and Africa. This has the entirely unintended result of making the food supply inadequate and lowering the standard of life in the most populous parts of the world. To take an even more spectacular example, which is in everybodys mind at the present time, you study the composition of the atom from a disinterested desire for knowledge, and incidentally place in the hands of powerful lunatics the means of destroying the human race. In such ways the pursuit of knowledge may become harmful unless it is combined with wisdom; and wisdom in the sense of comprehensive vision is not necessarily present in specialists in the pursuit of knowledge. Comprehensiveness alone, however, is not enough to constitute wisdom. There must be, also, a certain awareness of the ends of human life. This may be illustrated by the study of history. Many eminent historians have done more harm than good because they viewed facts through the distorting medium of their own passions. Hegel had a philosophy of history which did not suffer from any lack of comprehensiveness, since it started from the earliest times and continued into an indefinite future. But the chief lesson of history which he sought to inculcate was that from the year 400AD down to his own time Germany had been the most important nation and the standard-bearer of progress in the world. Perhaps one could stretch the comprehensiveness that constitutes wisdom to include not only intellect but also feeling. It is by no means uncommon to find men whose knowledge is wide but whose feelings are narrow. Such men lack what I call wisdom. It is not only in public ways, but in private life equally, that wisdom is needed. It is needed in the choice of ends to be pursued and in emancipation from personal prejudice. Even an end which it would be noble to pursue if it were attainable may be pursued unwisely if it is inherently impossible of achievement. Many men in past ages devoted their lives to a search for the philosophers stone and the elixir of life. No doubt, if they could have found them, they would have conferred great benefits upon mankind, but as it was their lives were wasted. To descend to less heroic matters, consider the case of two men, Mr. A and Mr. B, who hate each other and, through mutual hatred, bring each other to destruction. Suppose you go Mr. A and say, Why do you hate Mr. B? He will no doubt give you an appalling list of Mr. Bs vices, partly true, partly false. And now suppose you go to Mr. B. He will give you an exactly similar list of Mr. As vices with an equal admixture of truth and falsehood. Suppose you now come back to Mr. A and say, You will be surprised to learn that Mr. B says the same things about you as you say about him, and you go to Mr. B and make a similar speech. The first effect, no doubt, will be to increase their mutual hatred, since each will be so horrified by the others injustice. But perhaps, if you have sufficient patience and sufficient persuasiveness, you may succeed in convincing each that the other has only the normal share of human wickedness, and that their enmity is harmful to both. If you can do this, you will have instilled some fragment of wisdom. I think the essence of wisdom is emancipation, as far as possible, from the tyranny of the here and now. We cannot help the egoism of our senses. Sight and sound and touch are bound up with our own bodies and cannot be impersonal. Our emotions start similarly from ourselves. An infant feels hunger or discomfort, and is unaffected except by his own physical condition. Gradually with the years, his horizon widens, and, in proportion as his thoughts and feelings become less personal and less concerned with his own physical states, he achieves growing wisdom. This is of course a matter of degree. No one can view the world with complete impartiality; and if anyone could, he would hardly be able to remain alive. But it is possible to make a continual approach towards impartiality, on the one hand, by knowing things somewhat remote in time or space, and on the other hand, by giving to such things their due weight in our feelings. It is this approach towards impartiality that constitutes growth in wisdom. Can wisdom in this sense be taught? And, if it can, should the teaching of it be one of the aims of education? I should answer both these questions in the affirmative. We are told on Sundays that we should love our neighbors as ourselves. On the other six days of the week, we are exhorted to hate. You may say that this is nonsense since it is not our neighbour whom we are exhorted to hate. But you will remember that the precept was exemplified by saying that the Samaritan was our neighbour. We no longer have any wish to hate Samaritans and so we are apt to miss the point of the parable. If you want to get its point, you should substitute Communist or anti-Communist, as the case may be, for Samaritan. It might be objected that it is right to hate those who do harm. I do not think so. If you hate them, it is only too likely that you will become equally harmful; and it is very unlikely that you will induce them to abandon their evil ways. Hatred of evil is itself a kind of bondage to evil. The way out is through understanding, not through hate. I am not advocating non-resistance. But I am saying that resistance, if it is to be effective in preventing the spread of evil, should be combined with the greatest degree of understanding and the smallest degree of force that is compatible with the survival of the good things that we wish to preserve. It is commonly urged that a point of view such as I have been advocating is incompatible with vigour in action. I do not think history bears out this view. Queen Elizabeth I in England and Henry IV in France lived in a world where almost everybody was fanatical, either on the Protestant or on the Catholic side. Both remained free from the errors of their time and both, by remaining free, were beneficent and certainly not ineffective. Abraham Lincoln conducted a great war without ever departing from what I have called wisdom. I have said that in some degree wisdom can be taught. I think that this teaching should have a larger intellectual element than has been customary in what has been thought of as moral instruction. I think that the disastrous results of hatred and narrow-mindedness to those who feel them can be pointed out incidentally in the course of giving knowledge. I do not think that knowledge and morals ought to be too much separated. It is true that the kind of specialized knowledge which is required for various kinds of skill has very little to do with wisdom. But it should be supplemented in education by wider surveys calculated to put it in its place in the total of human activities. Even the best technicians should also be good citizens; and when I say citizens, I mean citizens of the world and not of this or that sect or nation. 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. The world needs wisdom as it has never needed it before; and if knowledge continues to increase, the world will need wisdom in the future even more than it does now. Read More