Abstract
While thrusting the importance of knowledge, Bertrand Russell highlights one special utility of it, i.e., knowledge promotes a widely contemplative habit of mind; and such knowledge, he terms ‘useless’. For Russell, the habit of contemplation is the capacity of rationalized enquiry which enables individuals to consider all questions in a tentative and impartial manner, frees them from dogmas and encourages the expression of a wide diversity of views. Besides ‘useless’ knowledge, Russell admits the importance of ‘useful’ knowledge too, but his appreciation for the intrinsic value of ‘useless’ knowledge more than the extrinsic value of ‘useful’ one brings to light the significance of knowing, i.e., to know is to know something for its own sake. Pursuit of such knowledge is possible only in case of ‘useless’ knowledge; and not in case of ‘useful’ one. Highlighting contemplative habit of mind as the greatest advantage of ‘useless’ knowledge, Russell says that such habit, in order to get accelerated, has to be guided by education; but education without freedom cannot perform the job. To be free, according to Russell, means, to be free from the forces of tradition; and also from the tyranny of one’s own passions. Freedom is thus seen to be the cardinal force in fostering contemplative habit, and is closely found to have been associated with ‘useless’ knowledge. In the present paper, by highlighting the nature of contemplative habit of mind, I have argued that ‘useless’ knowledge has to be appreciated more than ‘useful’ knowledge. Moreover, I have shown why freedom in education has to be considered a necessity for accelerating habit of contemplation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In the present paper, the words, useless and useful—when they are used as two sorts of knowledge, are put within single inverted comas ‘’, because Russell uses these words in a sense markedly different from the ordinary usage.
The present paper does not discuss in details how ‘useless’ knowledge is related to the promotion of social harmony by instantiating their relation empirically. The paper concentrates chiefly on delineating the nature of contemplative habit of mind, which is considered by Russell to be the most important advantage of ‘useless’ knowledge.
Bertrand Russell opened Beacon Hill school in 1927 which was run by Russell and his second wife Dora Russell. Citing the reason for starting the school Russell describes in his autobiography that ‘We did not know of any existing school that seemed to us in any way satisfactory. We wanted an unusual combination: on the one hand, we disliked prudery and religious instruction and a great many restraints on freedom which are taken for granted in conventional schools; on the other hand, we could not agree with most “modern” educationist in thinking scholastic instruction unimportant, or in advocating a complete absence of discipline’. (1968, pp. 222–223).
By the word mastery Russell does not seem to have intended to refer to the necessity of mastering a process which is linked to a non-sensible world. His mention of the words like other regions, other ages, and abysses of interstellar space leaves no clue for delineating any connection with a non-sensible world which cannot be comprehended by referring to the concepts of physical spatiality and physical temporality.
One can notice Russell to draw here an analytical separation between will and intelligence. In reply to a reviewer’s point that the analytical separation between will and intelligence can be problematic in the context of theories that process learning as fluid, I would like to respond to it by stating that fluidity in learning will not get hampered by the analytical separation. The analytical separation brings to fore two significant points: first, will and intelligence, although they are analytically separable from each other can work together; second, it shows the relative significance of intelligence over will in alleviating human miseries. Let us apply the first point in the context of fluidity of learning. Fluidity in learning, understood in a very basic sense, may refer to one’s capacity to encounter any novel problem; or it may refer to a capacity to make choices of what, when and how to learn; or we can say that fluid learning acquires a flexible character as it is largely a choice-dependent learning. As in any process of effective learning will and intelligence must go together, in fluid learning too they have to go together; and in the Russellian framework there is no difficulty in letting them go together (Russell’s reference of the process of interaction in alleviating miseries where both will and intelligence interact with each other is enough to understand this point) although they can be analytically separated from each other. While applying the second point in relation to fluidity in learning, we may say that although fluidity in learning may apparently seem to be largely choice-dependent, it does not mean that the choice is the end all of the matter, because choice of any sort has to be pursued intelligently. If the choice remains unguided by intelligence, it would be difficult for the learner to find any justification of his choice. This may have the further implication that fluidity of learning, although seems to depend on one’s will to learn, such learning needs an intense capacity to rationalize which means that men may will to choose to learn, but then the choice has to be judicious. Judiciousness of choice can arise only out of rationalized intelligence. Thus, Russell’s framework of separation keeps sufficient room for both will and intelligence to work together, and also allows ‘intelligence over will’ to be the key factor in any sort of learning process. As such fluid in learning is of no exception.
Importance of children’s understanding of the concept of truth in relation to truthfulness in the educational sphere is being discussed in “Freedom and its Role in Education” section.
A distinction has to be drawn between attempting to understand truth in relation to the availability of new evidence (which is a quest for approaching truth independently of the mind); and the attempt to approach truth, i.e., will to introduce truth by making truth dependent on one’s will, and not to attempt to understand truth in relation to the availability of new evidence (which is a quest for approaching truth by willing to make truth dependent on the mind).
In the broader sense, education is all that one learns through personal experience. It is said to be the formation of character through the education of life.
‘I do not think that knowledge and morals ought to be too much separated’ (Russell 1956, p. 177).
According to Russell: “No man is fit to educate unless he feels each pupil an end in himself, with his own rights and his own personality, not merely a piece in a jig-saw puzzle, or a soldier in a regiment, or a citizen in a State. Reverence for human personality is the beginning of wisdom, in every social question, but above all in education” (1928, p. 152).
References
Gandhi, M.K. 2014. Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House.
Graber, R.B. 2012. Valuing Useless Knowledge—An Anthropological Inquiry into the Meaning of Liberal Education. 2nd ed. Kindle Edition, Kirksville, Missouri: Truman State University Press.
Hare, William, 1999. Russell’s Contribution to Philosophy of Education. In Bertrand Russell: Critical Assessments, ed. A. D. Irvine, Vol. IV, 133–148. London and New York: Routledge.
Hare, William. 2001. Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking. Journal of Thought 36: 7–16.
Jordan, Philip D. 1960. The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge. The Historian 22(3): 237–249.
Livingstone, Richard. 1946. Some Tasks for Education. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Russell, Bertrand. 1916. Principles of Social Reconstruction. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Russell, Bertrand. 1921. Unpopular Essays. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Russell, Bertrand. 1926. Education and Good Life. New York: Albert and Charles Boni.
Russell, Bertrand. 1928. Sceptical Essays. London and New York: Routledge.
Russell, Bertrand. 1944. The Value of Free Thought. https://collections.mun.ca/PDFs/radical/TheValueOfFreeThought.pdf. Accessed 2 February 2020.
Russell, Bertrand. 1956. Portraits from Memory and Other Essays. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Russell, Bertrand. 1968. The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, vol. II. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Russell, Bertrand. 2002. History of Western Philosophy. New york: Routledge.
Russell, Bertrand. 2004. Mysticism and Logic. Minerola, New York: Dover Publications Inc.
Russell, Bertrand. 2007. In Praise of Idleness. London and New York: Routledge.
Woodhouse, Howard. 1974. On a Suggested Contradiction in Russell’s Educational Philosophy. Russell: The Journal of Bertrand Russell’s Studies. https://doi.org/10.15173/russell.vOi3.1391.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Deka, J. A Russellian Plea for ‘Useless’ Knowledge: Role of Freedom in Education. Stud Philos Educ 40, 23–37 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-020-09736-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-020-09736-7