- DI & DS
- English Language
- GK
-
Intelligence & CR
- Alphabet & Number Ranking
- Analytical Reasoning
- Blood Relations Test
- Coding - Decoding
- Comparision of Ranks
- Direction Sense Test
- Mathematical Operation / Number Puzzles
- Series
- Sitting Arrangement
- Statement and Arguement
- Statement and Conclusion
- Statement and Course of Action
- Statement-Assumption
- Syllogism
-
Mathematical Skills
- Average
- Calender
- Clocks
- Geometry
- Height and Distance
- Logarithms
- Mensuration
- Mixtures and Alligations
- Number System
- Percentage
- Permutation and Computation
- Probability
- Profit and Loss
- Ratio and Proportion
- Set Theory
- Simple calculations
- Simple Equations
- Simple Interest and Compound Interest
- Time and Work
- Time, Speed and Distance
-
7.
After President George W. Bush signed the United States - India Nuclear Cooperation Bill, he called up Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to tell him how pleased he was at this development. While welcoming this event, the Prime Minister took the opportunity to tell the President that there remained areas of concern that needed to be addressed during the negotiation of the bilateral agreement (called the 123 agreement, after the relevant clause number in the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, 1954). The U.S. has entered into some twenty five I 23 agreements with various countries, including the one concerning Tarapur. The Tarapur agreement concluded in 1963 was unique in that it guaranteed supplies of enriched uranium fuel from the U.S. for running the Tarapur reactors for their entire life. However, after 1978 the U.S. did not supply fuel saying its domestic legislation (under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act) prevented it from doing so. India argued that Tarapur was an inter-governmental agreement and hence it had to be honoured by the U.S. But to no avail. However, later, the U.S. allowed France to supply fuel to India. Subsequently, the USSR (now Russia) and even China supplied fuel for Tarapur. The lesson from the Tarapur episode is that U.S. breached with impunity even a cast-iron guarantee it had furnished. Considerable bitterness gres between the U.S. and India are extended to many other areas beyond the nuclear one. When India agreed, reluctantly, in March 2006 to put imported reactors under “safeguards in perpetuity”, the U.S. consented to the Indian insistence on assurances of fuel supply. This meant India could build up a stockpile of fuel to tide over disruption in supply and the U.S. would agree to work with other countries namely Russia, France, and Britain to arrange alternate supplies. The U.S. legislation, based on the Hyde Bill, forbids India building up a stockpile of nuclear fuel. It also obligates the U.S. administration to work with other Nuclear Supplier Group countries to get them to suspend supplies to India, if the U.S. has done so under some provision of the Hyde Bill. It is not evident how the U.S. can address the legitimate concerns of India on continued fuel supply, given the boundaries set by the Hyde Bill. With regard to future nuclear tests, the Prime Minister has said, India is only committed to a voluntary moratorium. The moratorium is only a temporary holding off of an activity, conditioned by specific circumstances that obtained at the time when such a declaration was made. It cannot be construed as a permanent ban. The Hyde Bill has sought to make the moratorium into a permanent ban. However, there is no such restraint imposed on the U.S., China, Pakistan or any other country. In bringing up this issue, I do not wish to suggest that I favour a resumption of tests by India. But India cannot prevent other countries from carrying out tests. It is, therefore, unacceptable that India forfeits its right to test for all time to come under the agreement with the U.S. Even if the 123 agreement is silent on the issue, Indian negotiators must put this issue on the table. The Hyde Bill calls for suspension of all cooperation and fuel supplies and even calls for return of all equipment and materials supplied earlier in the event of a test. It baffles one how India can return reactor installations that might have been operated a few years, were such a contingency to arise in future. The differences over the definition of “full civilian nuclear cooperation” have been discussed in the media. The Indian understanding was that reprocessing of spent fuel, enrichment of uranium, and production of heavy water also formed part of the term “full civilian nuclear cooperation.” In the congressional debate, it has been noted that these were construed by the U.S. to be in the nature of military activities and not civilian. India’s future plans for thorium utilisation for civil nuclear power depend crucially on reprocessing. Similarly, civil nuclear power units using natural uranium require heavy water as reactor coolant and moderator. Equally if India were to embark on a sizeable light water reactor programme, it may like to have control on supply of enriched uranium for economic and supply security reasons. India has technologies of its own in these areas and will develop them further in the years ahead. If the Indo-U.S. agreement moves ahead in the manner its sponsors have speculated, in a few decades from now some 90 per cent of the nuclear installations in India would be open to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. In that scenario, how can India reconcile to the embargo from nuclear advanced countries on the export of enrichment, reprocessing, and heavy water technologies? Even if the issue were to be papered over new, it will then look from India’s point of view to have been a very bad bargain.
[1] What is the Indian understanding of the definition of “full civilian nuclear cooperation”?
(a) Enrichment of uranium
(b) Reprocessing of spent fuel
(c) Production of heavy water
(d) All the above[2] With reference to the passage, select which of the following statement(s) is/are incorrect?
A. U.S. did not supply fuel to India after 1987.
B. The Hyde Bill calls for suspension of all cooperation and fuel supplies.
C. India can prevent other countries from carrying out the test.
(a) A and B
(b) B only
(c) A and C
(d) A, B and C[3] What was the uniqueness of the Tarapur agreement that was concluded in 1963?
(a) It guaranteed supplies of enriched uranium fuel from the U.S. for running the Tarapur reactors for entire life.
(b) It prevented other countries from carrying out nuclear tests.
(c) It addresses the legitimate concerns of India on fuel supply.
(d) All the above[4] Which of the following countries supplied fuel for Tarapur?
(a) France
(b) U.S.A.
(c) USSR and France
(d) France, USSR and Chinaasked in MAT
View Comments [0 Reply]
-
8.
Not even a three-day brainstorming session among top psychologists at the Chinese University could unravel one of the world’s greatest puzzles - how the Chinese mind ticks. Michael Bond had reason to pace the pavement of the Chinese University campus last week. The psychologist who coordinated and moderated a three-day seminar in Chinese psychology and most of the participants came a long way to knock heads. “If a bomb hits this building” muttered Bond, half-seriously, “It would wipe out the whole discipline.” But the only thing that went off in the Cho Yiu Conference Hall of Chinese University was the picking of brains, the pouring out of brains and a refrain from an on-going mantra: “more work needs to be done” or “we don’t know”. Each of the 36 participants was allowed 30 minutes plus use of an overhead projector to condense years of research into data and theories. Their content spilled over from 20 areas of Chinese behaviour, including reading, learning styles, psychopathology, social interaction, personality and modernisation. An over-riding question for observers, however, was why, in this group of 21 Chinese and 15 non-Chinese, weren’t there more professionals from mainland China presenting research on the indigenous people ? Michael Philips, a psychiatrist who works in Hubei province, explained: “The Cultural Revolution silenced and froze the research,” said the Canadian-born doctor who has lived and worked in China for more than 10 years. “And 12 years later, research is under way but it is too early to have anything yet. Besides, most of the models being used are from the West anyway.” In such a specialised field, how can non-Chinese academics do research without possessing fluency in Chinese ? Those who cannot read, write or speak the language usually team up with Chinese colleagues “ In 10 years, we won’t be able to do this. It’s a money thing,” said William Gabrenya of Florida Institute of Technology, who described himself as an illiterate Gweilo who lacks fluency in Chinese. He said that 93 per cent of the non-Chinese authors in his field cannot read Chinese. Dr. Gabrenya raised questions such as why is research dependent on university students, why is research done on Chinese people in coastal cities (Singapore, Taiwan, Shanghai and Hong Kong) but not inland? “Chinese psychology is too Confucian, too neat. He’s been dead a long time. How about the guy on motorcycle in Taipei?” Dr. Gabrenya said, urging that research have a more contemporary outlook.
The academics came from Israel, Sweden, Taiwan, Singapore, United states, British Columbia and, of course, Hong kong. Many of the visual aids they used by way of illustration contained eye-squinting type and cobweb-like graphs. One speaker, a sociologist from Illinois, even warned her colleagues that she would not give anyone enough time to digest the long, skinny columns of numbers. Is Chinese intelligence different from Western? For half of the audience who are illiterate in Chinese, Professor Jimmy Chan of HKU examined each of the Chinese characters for “intelligence”. Phrases such as “a mind as fast as an arrow” and connections between strokes for sun and the moon were made. After his 25-minute speech, Chan and the group lamented that using Western tests are the only measure available to psychologists, who are starving for indigenous studies of Chinese by Chinese. How do Chinese children learn ? David Kember of Hong Kong Polytechnic University zeroed in on deep learning versus surface. Deep is when the student is sincerely interested for his own reasons. Surface is memorising and spitting out facts. It doesn't nurture any deep understanding. If the language of instruction happens to be the children's second language, students in Hong Kong have all sorts of challenges with English-speaking teachers from Australia, Britain and America with accents and colloquialisms. Do Westerners have more self-esteem than Chinese? Dr. Leung Kwok, chairman of the psychology department of Chinese University, points his finger at belief systems: the collectivist mind-set often stereotypes Chinese unfairly. The philosophy of "yuen" (a concept used to explain good and bad events which are predetermined and out of the individual's control) does not foster a positive selfconcept. Neither do collectivist beliefs, such as sacrifice for the group, compromise and importance of using connections. "If a Chinese loses or fails, he has a stronger sense of responsibility. He tends to blame it on himself. A non-Chinese from the West may blame it on forces outside himself," Dr. Leung said. By the end of the three-day session, there were as many questions raised as answered. It was agreed there was room for further research. To the layman, so much of the discussion was foreign and riddled with jargon and on-going references to studies and researchers. The work of the participants will resurface in a forthcoming Handbook of Chinese Psychology, which will be edited by Dr. Bond and published by Oxford University Press.[1] According to the passage the author suggests that
(a) not many people study Chinese psychology.
(b) the building is in danger of attack.
(c) Chinese psychology is a difficult subject to study.
(d) Chinese psychology is a difficult subject to organize.[2] It can be inferred from the passage that
(a) the Cultural Revolution was a productive period for Chinese psychology.
(b) the Cultural Revolution was a dangerous period for Chinese psychology.
(c) the Cultural Revolution was an unproductive period for Chinese psychology.
(d) the Cultural Revolution was a new beginning for Chinese psychology.[3] According to the passage, William Gabrenya refers to himself as an 'illiterate gweilo'. This suggests that
(a) he feels defensive about not speaking and reading Chinese.
(b) he feels secure in his illiteracy.
(c) he is representative of other westerners active in this field.
(d) he can operate perfectly well without learning Chinese.[4] According to the passage, all of the following are true except
(a) the visual aids were not very easy to understand.
(b) the conference attracted a very professional standard of presentation.
(c) the visual aids were not very tidy.
(d) the presenters were under time pressure.[5] According to the passage which of the following is not true?
(a) Chinese characters are very difficult for westerners to master.
(b) It is difficult to come to a conclusion about western and Chinese intelligence.
(c) It is difficult to measure Chinese intelligence with western tests.
(d) More tests are required that are conducted by the Chinese for the Chinese.
asked in MAT
View Comments [0 Reply]
-
9.
“Since wars begin in the minds of men,” So runs the historic UNESCO Preamble, “It is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.” Wars erupt out when the minds of men are inflamed, when the human mind is blinded and wounded, succumbs to frustration and selfnegation. War is the transference of this self-negation into the other-negation. The three Indo-Pak wars and the persisting will to terrorise have emanated from this savage instinct of other-negation that is the legacy of the partition carnage and its still-bleeding and unhealed wound. Truncated from its eastern wing in 1971, Pakistan ever since has suffered from a sense of total existential self-negation. Plus the scars left the two previously lost wars to India and Kargil fill the Army and the Pakistan psyche with a seething urge to revenge : that India has to be negated, destroyed - in a deep psychological sense, another Hiroshima in the subcontinent is imaginable and possible. Terrorism in Kashmir springs from such deep negating existential grounds. Like the former Soviet Union, Pakistan came into being as a result of a grand delusion and massive perversion of reality - the so called two-nation theory. Like the former Soviet Union, it stands in danger of crumbling unless it modifies its reality perception and comes to terms with its post-Bangladesh identity within the prevailing subcontinental equation. Failing this, Pakistan is bound to break up, nudging the region to a nuclear nightmare, including possible South Asian Hiroshimas. With ‘hot pursuits’ and ‘surgical operations’ freely making rounds among the policy elite and the public at large, the national atmosphere looks ominously charged. “On the brink,” headlines The week adding, “As men and machines are quickly positioned by India and Pakistan, the threat of war looms real”. To which Gen. Musharraf counters, “If any war is thrust on Pakistan, Pakistan’s armed forces and the 140 million people of Pakistan are fully prepared to face all consequences with all their might.” According to Indian Express, “Pakistan has deployed medium range ballistic missile batteries (MRBBs) along the line of Control (LOC) near Jammu and Poonch sectors in an action that will further escalate the tension between the two countries.” And India’s Defence Minister ups the ante, “We could take a (nuclear) strike, survive and then hit back, Pakistan would be finished.” (Hindustan Times, December 30, 2001) Mr. Fernandes’s formulation is certainly a tactical super shot, even a strategical super hit in as much as this is the very logic of India’s ‘No- first-strike’ doctrine. The Defence Minister obviously has no idea of the ethical, phenomenological implications of abandoning chunks of the Indian population to ransom for potential Hiroshimas and then ‘finishing’ the neighbouring country of 140 million in what could be nothing short of an Armageddon. Forget these horrendous scenarios. But does this not repudiate the grain of truth for which India’s civilisation stood for and vindicated across the untold millennia of its history? Yet, Mr. Fernandes, the pacifist and Gandhian, is no warmonger. As Defence Minister he had to react at a level with the Pakistanis, with their proclivity to drop the nuclear speak when ever that suited them, could have registered the message.
[1] According to the passage, Pakistan is bound to disintegrate
I. and it will throw the subcontinent into a nuclear backlash.
II. if it refuses to accept its present identity.
III. if it does not stop fuelling terrorism in Kashmir.
(a) II and III are correct
(b) I, II and III are correct
(c) I and II are correct
(d) I and III are correct[2] It can be inferred from the passage that
(a) Soviet Union crumbled as a result of the grand delusion of the two nation theory.
(b) Soviet Union also came into being as a result of the two nation theory.
(c) Soviet Union’s disintegration was due to her failure to accept the reality.
(d) The ideological basis of creation of Soviet Union and Pakistan was the same.[3] According to the passage, the reason for terrorism in Kashmir is
(a) Pakistan’s perception of two-nation theory.
(b) Pakistan’s blind faith in terrorism.
(c) Pakistan’s sense of self-negation.
(d) Both (2) and (3)[4] According to the passage, all of the following about the defence minister are not true, except
(a) He is not a Gandhian.
(b) He is not logical.
(c) He is a pacifist
(d) He is not a warmonger.asked in MAT
View Comments [0 Reply]
-
10.
It goes without saying that Asia matters to the European Union. Europe has a major stake in a stable and prosperous Asia. Our political, security, and economic interests are more intertwined than ever. But our relationship goes far beyond the economic and trade realm : the European Union and Asian partners contribute actively together to resolving different regional and global problems. We also share an important vision in which a system of global governance, with regional structures as its cornerstones, effectively addresses transnational problems. It is with this vision that I am once again returning to Asia in early August for the ministerial meeting of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and bilateral consultations with our ASEAN partners. The progress we have made together over the past year is impressive, perhaps even the most important in our 30 years of formal ties. And, the EU’s early accession to the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation can only bring us closer still, with positive implications for the political and security interests of both groups of countries. We have also agreed to strengthen our political exchanges further and to promote practical cooperation in many areas of mutual interest. One such area, where we work very well together and are set to become closer still, is crisis management. We are, for example, open to sharing more information, boosting technical cooperation and strengthening capacity-building in this field. It was crucial for the EU-led Aceh Monitoring Mission (AMM), which supervised the peace agreement between Indonesia and Aceh rebels from the summer of 2005 to the end of 2006, that ASEAN partners participated in it. This not only helped ensure the success of the mission but also led to the creation of real ties between the two regional organizations. As a result of our joint efforts and, of course, the achievements of the Indonesian government, Aceh was stabilized and is now developing steadily after 30 years of conflict and the devastation wrought by the 2004 tsunami. Its development, which included the elections held last year, was so positive that the Aceh Monitoring Mission was able to complete its work and leave the province. But the European Union has not left Aceh. On the contrary, we are continuing to give active support to the reconstruction efforts of the Indonesian authorities and the local administration in Aceh with a very substantial and visible development programme. Just six weeks ago the EU deployed another mission on Asian soil, a police training mission in Afghanistan, which is also open to Asian partner countries. This mission seeks to help establish sustainable and effective civilian policing arrangements under Afghan ownership and in accordance with international standards. The fact that the mission is to run for at least three years underlines the EU’s increased and long-term commitment to security and stability in Asia. We could also envisage cooperating more closely with our Asian partners in future crisis management operations on other continents. We are following with great interest the historic decisions by ASEAN to further develop the South East Asian community and its work on the ASEAN Charter, which includes the development of an appropriate institutional framework. For obvious reasons, the EU appreciates the ambitious integration project of another region. It has also lent practical support. I myself have met both the Eminent Persons Group and the High-Level Taskforce of Charter drafters and I was very impressed by their vision and commitment and the pertinent questions they asked about the EU’s integration process. I wish the region every success in finalizing the new Charter and I give it every encouragement to pursue an ambitious result. In our European experience, far-reaching political and economic integration has not only overcome divisions between former enemies and ensured stability and prosperity in Europe but it has also proved to be the best solution in tackling regional and global problems that do not stop at national borders. The ARF, which we value greatly as the only political and security dialogue forum in the Asia-Pacific region, is increasingly recognizing the need to find collective solutions to trans-boundary security issues, in particular when it comes to new challenges. Once a year, the ARF meets in a unique forum that brings together the Foreign Ministers of Asian and Pacific countries and their key partners for dialogue on a wide range of issues with a bearing on Asian Security. In addition to this fruitful exchange, the forum is also achieving concrete outcomes at the various seminars and workshops which have made it more result-oriented than in the past. The European Union, which attends and contributes to the ARF as a long-standing dialogue partner of the region, is looking forward to the creation of a mechanism that enables the ARF to be active between meetings. This will be a very important and welcome step towards the construction of a regional architecture for Asia. Asia matters to Europe, and it also goes without saying that the European Union matters to Asia. Together, the EU and ASEAN represent two regions, 37 countries, and more than one billion people. In Europe, Asia has a partner in its search for solutions to global problems such as climate change, energy security or organized crime. It has a partner in the economic and trade realm and it has a partner in development issues. Only together can we meet the challenges of the future.
[1] According to the author, one of the vital mutual interest areas where ASEAN and EU can work together is:
(1) peace agreement between Indonesia and Aceh rebels.
(2) crisis management.
(3) civilian policing arrangements.
(4) trans-national problems.[2] Deployment of a police training mission in Afghanistan by EU aims at:
(1) long-term commitment to security and stability in Asia.
(2) minimizing terrorism in Asia.
(3) drafting of ASEAN Charter.
(4) maintaining law and order in Afghanistan.[3] _____ is the only political and security dialogue forum in the Asia-Pacific region.
(1) Eminent Persons Group
(2) ASEAN
(3) ARF
(4) None of these[4] The annual ARF meet is attended by foreign ministers of:
(1) Asian countries
(2) EU countries
(3) Pacific countries
(4) Asian and Pacific countriesasked in MAT
View Comments [0 Reply]
-
11.
My last growth point offers a chance to bring together the perspectives of Darwin, Marx and Freud. It leads us to the question at the foundations of the human sciences: what is basic, how amenable to change is human nature and how can we bring about more humane human relations? As I see it, all these matters come together in the problematic Marxist notion of ‘second nature’. First, nature is the biologically given domain whose boundaries have themselves never been clearly drawn and are now quite open as a result of the phenomena of pharmacology, biofeedback (in traditional and modern forms) and genetic engineering (an area in which the future is open in both positive and alarming senses). But without pushing those bundaries between the voluntary and involuntary nervous system and between mere inheritance and manipulated inheritance, we have a large scope for deep reflection and serious practice. Historians of the human sciences will know that belief in the extreme plasticity of human behaviour has been held by behaviourists, operant conditioning theorists and those thinking in the related tradition of Pavlovian conditioning. At the other extreme, behavioural geneticists and sociobiologists have held relatively pessimistic views on the potential for change in human behaviour. Moreover, the sociobiologists have made various takeover bids into ethics and the social sciences, although these seem under control for the present. There is a similar continuum on the optimism/pessimism axis among psychoanalysts. Does psychoanalysis or psychoanalytical psychotherapy change the self or merely adapt it to the inner and outer worlds? Second, nature is history experienced as if it were unmodifiable—as though it were not amenable to change through practice and enlightenment. Belief in the ability to learn through practical experience is the sine qua non of an enlightened human science, however onerous and slow the process of change. Those of us in the East and West who reached for rapid change in the nineteen-sixties, have learned a lot about the pace that one can hope for. Neurosis is a perfect example of second nature. On a larger scale, so is racism. On a still larger scale, so are capitalism and East European socialism. Beyond these in a degree of generality, lie hierarchy and patriarchy. An important desideratum for a human science is the study of the relative refractoriness to change of various aspects and levels of human nature. The writings I have found most helpful in understanding second nature are both Freudo-Marxist. They are the works of Herbert Marcuse and Russell Jacoby, although other members of the Frankfurt school, as well as the Lukacs of History and Class Consciousness, and various Hungarian philosophers, have also thought about it. Both Marcuse and Jacoby have written widely against various reductionisms—Darwinian, vulgar Marxist and biologistic Freudian. They have also essayed against extremes of voluntarism and Dionysiac Freudianism. Both have been concerned to pay due respect to biology, economics, culture and therapy, while striving for a better psychic and social order. Both have de-emphasized traditional notions of class struggle as the key to social change and have focused more clearly on cultural and other political processes. Their perspectives are complemented by the writings of Gramsci on the subtle ways in which consent is organized. In addition to his concept of hegemony, I have benefited from Raymond Williams’ writings on cultural materialism. His critique of base-superstructure model of vulgar Marxism stresses the complexity of mediation between culture on the one hand, and the production and reproduction of real life on the other. Indeed, he adds the crucial insight that culture is in the base—a material, that is, spiritual need. Raymond Williams died between the delivery and the publication of this talk. His voice—its substance and its tone—are central to my conception of humanity, and I wish to dedicate my remarks to his memory. This brings us back to basics. Look now, Darwin, Marx and Freud are mutually constitutive, Darwin brings historicity to the heart of the sciences, linking life to the earth and our humanity to both. Teleological and anthropomorphic concept lie at the basis of his concept of natural selection. Marx teaches us the historicity of all including scientific concepts, and points out that there is only one science, the science of history. Freud teaches us that all of history and culture continue to be mediated by basic human drives and that no matter how high we reach into abstractions, our thought remains rooted in primitive psychic mechanisms. It would seem, then, that our conception of human science must always draw on these three dimensions of what Marx calls our species being. The historical, conceptual and practical tasks that follow from this will surely occupy all of us at least to the retiring age. We have in these three thinkers—at first glance—biology, economics and the psyche, but looked at more closely, each takes us to history and historicity, to culture and its roots and to the question of the nature and extent of what is distinctly human—the limits, the realities, the visions, aspirations and achievements now and in the future. As I read them, each offers us a conception of the disciplined study of humanity which always retains a notion of human values in action as the central guiding conception. None will do alone while the task of integrating them in historical studies and in theory has hardly begun. Their writings span the century between about 1840 and 1940. Darwin (1809-82) and Marx (1818-83) were—how easily we forget this—near contemporaries and published their main works almost simultaneously. They died within a year of each other, just over a hundred years ago. Freud was a toddler of three years when The Origin of Species and An Introduction to Political Economy appeared in 1859. The problematic of his life’s work makes little sense without seeing both Darwin and Marx as providing the framework of ideas and aspirations about nature and human nature, which he addresses. All three are very much alive today— vivid—providing us with the terms of reference for both a realistic and a cautiously helpful view of our humanity.
[1] Which of the following is most helpful in understanding second nature?
(1) Freud and Marx
(2) Herbert Marcuse and Russel Jacoby
(3) Members of Frankfurt School
(4) Both (2) and (3)[2] Which of the following is true according to the passage?
(1) Marcuse and Jacoby rejected the role of class struggle as the key to social-change and have laid emphasis on cultural and political processes.
(2) Marcuse and Jacoby recognized the role of class struggle as the key to social-change.
(3) Marcuse and Jacoby saw the cultural and political processes as the only key to social-change.
(4) Marcuse and Jacoby recognized a lesser role of classstruggle as the key to social-change than that of the cultural and political processes.
[3] According to the passage, all of the following are not true except:
(1) Freud does not see any meeting point between history and culture.
(2) Darwin rejects the centrality of life.
(3) Freud, Marx and Darwin are not in contradiction among themselves, but they do project different perspectives.
(4) Darwin and Marx are unanimous on the role and place of history in linking life to the earth and our humanity to both.[4] Darwin, Marx and Freud all provide us the most important conception of ?
(1) historicity
(2) humanity
(3) history
(4) human sciencesasked in MAT
View Comments [0 Reply]
-
12.
All men by nature, desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses : for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others, the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things. By nature, animals are born with the faculty of sensation, and from sensation, memory is produced in some of them, though not in others. And therefore, the former are more intelligent and apt at learning than those which cannot remember; those which are incapable of hearing sounds are intelligent though they cannot be taught, e.g., the bee, and any other race of animals that may be like it; and those which besides memory, have this sense of hearing can be taught. The animals other than man live by appearances and memories, and have but little of connected experience; but the human race lives also by art and reasoning. Now from memory, experience is produced in men; for the several memories of the same thing produce finally the capacity for a single experience. And experience seems pretty much like science and art, but really, science and art come to men through experience; for ‘experience made art’, as Polus says, ‘but inexperience luck’. Now art arises, when from many notions gained by experience, one universal judgement about a class of objects is produced. For to have a judgement that when Callias was ill of this disease that did him good, and similarly, in the case of Socrates and in many individual cases, is a matter of experience; but to judge that it has done good to all persons of a certain constitution, marked off in one class, when they were ill of this disease, e.g., to phlegmatic or bilious people when burning with fevers—this is a matter of art. With a view to action, experience seems in no respect inferior to art, and men of experience succeed even better than those who have theory without experience. (The reason is that experience is knowledge of individuals, art of universals, and actions and productions are all concerned with the individual; for the physician does not cure man, except in an incidental way, but Callias or Socrates or some other called by some such individual name, who happens to be a man. If, then, a man has the theory without the experience, and recognizes the universal but does not know the individual included in this, he will often fail to cure; for it is the individual that is to be cured.) But yet we think that knowledge and understanding belong to art rather than to experience, and we suppose artists to be wiser than men of experience (which implies that wisdom depends in all cases rather on knowledge) : and this because the former know the cause, but the latter do not. For men of experience know that the thing is so, but do not know why, while the others know the ‘why’ and the cause. Hence we think also that the master workers in each craft are more honourable and know in a truer sense and are wiser than the manual workers, because they know the causes of the things that are done (we think the manual workers are like certain lifeless things which act indeed, but act without knowing what they do, as fire burns, but while the lifeless things perform each of their function by a natural tendency, the labourers perform them through habit); thus we view them as being wiser not in virtue of being able to act, but of having the theory for themselves and knowing the causes. And in general, it is a sign of the man who knows and of the man who does not know, that the former can teach, and therefore, we think art more truly knowledge than experience is; for artists can teach, and men of mere experience cannot. Again, we do not regard any of the senses as Wisdom; yet surely these give the most authoritative knowledge of particulars. But they do not tell us the ‘why’ of anything—e.g., why fire is hot; they only say that it is hot. At first, he who invented any art whatever, that went beyond the common perceptions of man was naturally admired by men, not only because there was something useful in the inventions, but because he was thought wiser and superior to the rest. But as more arts were invented, and some were directed to the necessities of life, others to recreation, the inventors of the latter were naturally always regarded as wiser than the inventors of the former, because their branches of knowledge did not aim at utility. Hence, when all such inventions were already established, the sciences which do not aim at giving pleasure or at the necessities of life were discovered, and first in the places where men first began to have leisure. This is why the mathematical arts were founded in Egypt; for there the priestly caste was allowed to be at leisure. We have said in the Ethics what the difference is between art and science and the other kindred faculties; but the point of our present discussion is this, that all men suppose what is called Wisdom to deal with the first causes and the principles of things; so that, as has been said before, the man of experience is thought to be wiser than the possessors of any sense-perception whatever, the artist wiser than the men of experience. The master worker than the mechanic, and the theoretical kinds of knowledge to be more of the nature of Wisdom than the productive. Clearly then, wisdom is knowledge about certain principles and causes.
[1] What is the relationship between sensation and memory?
(1) All animals have sensation but some animals do not have memory.
(2) Human beings have sensation and memory both.
(3) Human beings are intelligent as they can reason, whereas animals do not have the capacity of reasoning.
(4) When sensation is remembered, it becomes a memory experience and this leads to connected experience, which in turn gives rise to reasoning.[2] What is the difference between art and experience?
(1) Art explains the cause of things together with its effects, whereas experience gives us just the effect of things, not the cause.
(2) Experience and art give rise to one another and they are complementary and supplementary to each other.
(3) Art does not give the cause and effect of things, whereas experience gives the cause and effect of things.
(4) Both experience and art are views of a contradictory time and space and this is where the difference between the two lies.[3] Why according to the author, were the mathematical arts founded in Egypt?
(1) Because they were men of experience and had wisdom and knowledge about certain principles and causes.
(2) Because the inventors of luxuries were considered more important than the inventors of necessities and in Egypt, the kingly and priestly class had developed great standards in luxurious tastes and attitudes.
(3) Because the sciences which do not cater to necessities or pleasures develop only after the previous two have been invented and only then, men have time for themselves. So was the case in Egypt where the priestly caste had ample leisure time.
(4) Because Egyptians were considered to be connoisseurs of art and crafts and had superior civilization as opposed to the other ancient civilizations.[4] Which of the following can be considered to be the central idea of the passage?
(1) “Experience made art, but inexperience luck”.
(2) What actually is “Wisdom”?
(3) Art is superior to experience.
(4) Knowledge is wisdom.asked in MAT
View Comments [0 Reply]