Opposite of begin ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Opposite of begin

Answer: end

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Opposite of begin....

QA->The management has decided to suspend the striking employees.(Begin with it)....

QA->When did Television transmission begin in india:....

QA->Harappa excavations begin.....

QA->Mohenjodaro excavations begin.....

MCQ-> I think that it would be wrong to ask whether 50 years of India's Independence are an achievement or a failure. It would be better to see things as evolving. It's not an either-or question. My idea of the history of India is slightly contrary to the Indian idea.India is a country that, in the north, outside Rajasthan, was ravaged and intellectually destroyed to a large extent by the invasions that began in about AD 1000 by forces and religions that India had no means of understanding.The invasions are in all the schoolbooks. But I don't think that people understand that every invasion, every war, every campaign, was accompanied by slaughter, a slaughter always of the most talented people in the country. So these wars, apart from everything else led to a tremendous intellectual depletion of the country.I think that in the British period, and in the 50 years after the British period, there has been a kind of regrouping or recovery, a very slow revival of energy and intellect. This isn't an idea that goes with the vision of the grandeur of old India and all that sort of rubbish. That idea is a great simplification and it occurs because it is intellectually, philosophically easier for Indians to manage.What they cannot manage, and what they have not yet come to terms with, is that ravaging of all the north of India by various conquerors. That was ruined not by the act of nature, but by the hand of man. It is so painful that few Indians have begun to deal with it. It is much easier to deal with British imperialism. That is a familiar topic, in India and Britain. What is much less familiar is the ravaging of India before the British.What happened from AD 1000 onwards, really, is such a wound that it is almost impossible to face. Certain wounds are so bad that they can't be written about. You deal with that kind of pain by hiding from it. You retreat from reality. I do not think, for example, that the Incas of Peru or the native people of Mexico have ever got over their defeat by the Spaniards. In both places the head was cut off. I think the pre-British ravaging of India was as bad as that.In the place of knowledge of history, you have various fantasies about the village republic and the Old Glory. There is one big fantasy that Indians have always found solace in: about India having the capacity for absorbing its conquerors. This is not so. India was laid low by its conquerors.I feel the past 150 years have been years of every kind of growth. I see the British period and what has continued after that as one period. In that time, there has been a very slow intellectual recruitment. I think every Indian should make the pilgrimage to the site of the capital of the Vijayanagar empire, just to see what the invasion of India led to. They will see a totally destroyed town. Religious wars are like that. People who see that might understand what the centuries of slaughter and plunder meant. War isn't a game. When you lost that kind of war, your town was destroyed, the people who built the towns were destroyed. You are left with a headless population.That's where modern India starts from. The Vijayanagar capital was destroyed in 1565. It is only now that the surrounding region has begun to revive. A great chance has been given to India to start up again, and I feel it has started up again. The questions about whether 50 years of India since Independence have been a failure or an achievement are not the questions to ask. In fact, I think India is developing quite marvelously, people thought — even Mr Nehru thought — that development and new institutions in a place like Bihar, for instance, would immediately lead to beauty. But it doesn't happen like that. When a country as ravaged as India, with all its layers of cruelty, begins to extend justice to people lower down, it's a very messy business. It's not beautiful, it's extremely messy. And that's what you have now, all these small politicians with small reputations and small parties. But this is part of growth, this is part of development. You must remember that these people, and the people they represent, have never had rights before.When the oppressed have the power to assert themselves, they will behave badly. It will need a couple of generations of security, and knowledge of institutions, and the knowledge that you can trust institutions — it will take at least a couple of generations before people in that situation begin to behave well. People in India have known only tyranny. The very idea of liberty is a new idea. The rulers were tyrants. The tyrants were foreigners. And they were proud of being foreign. There's a story that anybody could run and pull a bell and the emperor would appear at his window and give justice. This is a child's idea of history — the slave's idea of the ruler's mercy. When the people at the bottom discover that they hold justice in their own hands, the earth moves a little. You have to expect these earth movements in India. It will be like this for a hundred years. But it is the only way. It's painful and messy and primitive and petty, but it’s better that it should begin. It has to begin. If we were to rule people according to what we think fit, that takes us back to the past when people had no voices. With self-awareness all else follows. People begin to make new demands on their leaders, their fellows, on themselves.They ask for more in everything. They have a higher idea of human possibilities. They are not content with what they did before or what their fathers did before. They want to move. That is marvellous. That is as it should be. I think that within every kind of disorder now in India there is a larger positive movement. But the future will be fairly chaotic. Politics will have to be at the level of the people now. People like Nehru were colonial — style politicians. They were to a large extent created and protected by the colonial order. They did not begin with the people. Politicians now have to begin with the people. They cannot be too far above the level of the people. They are very much part of the people. It is important that self-criticism does not stop. The mind has to work, the mind has to be active, there has to be an exercise of the mind. I think it's almost a definition of a living country that it looks at itself, analyses itself at all times. Only countries that have ceased to live can say it's all wonderful.The central thrust of the passage is that
...

MCQ-> Please read the passage below and answer the questions that follow:Rene Descartes’ assertion that ideas may be held true with certainty if they are “clear and distinct” provides the context for Peirce’s title, “How to Make Our Ideas Clear.” Peirce argued that an idea may seem clear if it is familiar. Distinctness depends on having good definitions, and while definitions are desirable they do not yield any new knowledge or certainty of the truth of empirical propositions. Peirce argues that thought needs more than a sense of clarity; it also needs a method for making ideas clear. Once we have made an idea clear, then we can begin the task of determining its truth. The method that Peirce offers came to be known as the pragmatic method and the epistemology on which it depends is pragmatism. Peirce rejected Descartes’ method of doubt. We cannot doubt something, for the sake of method, that we do not doubt in fact. In a later essay, he would state as his rule “Dismiss make-believes.” This refers to Descartes’ method of doubting things, in the safety of his study, such things as the existence of the material world, which he did not doubt when he went out on the street. Peirce proposed that a philosophical investigation can begin from only one state of mind, namely, the state of mind in which we find ourselves when we begin. If any of us examines our state of mind, we find two kinds of thoughts: beliefs and doubts. Peirce had presented the interaction of doubt and belief in an earlier essay “The Fixation of Belief”.Beliefs and doubts are distinct. Beliefs consist of states of mind in which we would make a statement; doubts are states in which we would ask a question. We experience a doubt as a sense of uneasiness and hesitation. Doubt serves as an irritant that causes us to appease it by answering a question and thereby fixing a belief and putting the mind to rest on that issue. A common example of a doubt would be arriving in an unfamiliar city and not being sure of the location of our destination address in relation to our present location. We overcome this doubt and fix a belief by getting the directions. Once we achieve a belief, we can take the necessary action to reach our destination. Peirce defines a belief subjectively as something of which we are aware and which appeases the doubt. Objectively, a belief is a rule of action. The whole purpose of thought consists in overcoming a doubt and attaining a belief. Peirce acknowledges that some people like to think about things or argue about them without caring to find a true belief, but he asserts that such dilettantism does not constitute thought. The beliefs that we hold determine how we will act. If we believe, rightly or wrongly, that the building that we are trying to reach sits one block to our north, we will walk in that direction. We have beliefs about matters of fact, near and far. For example, we believe in the real objects in front of us and we believe generally accepted historical statements. We also believe in relations of ideas such as that seven and five equal twelve. In addition to these we have many beliefs about science, politics, economics, religion and so on. Some of our beliefs may be false since we are capable of error. To believe something means to think that it is true.According to Peirce, for a particular thought, which of the following statements will be correct?
...

MCQ-> Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below : Eight persons — M, N, O, P, Q, R, S and T — are sitting around a circular table at equal distance between each other, but not necessarily in the same order. Some of them are facing the centre while some others are facing outside (i.e., in a direction opposite to the centre) Note : Facing the same direction means if one faces the centre then the other also faces the centre and vice-versa. Facing opposite directions means if one person faces the centre then the other person faces outside and vice-versa. R is sitting second to the right of Q. Only three persons are sitting between R and S. T is sitting second to the right of R. T faces the centre. R and S face opposite directions. P and S face opposite directions. N is sitting second to the left of P. P is not an immediate neighbour of Q. Only one person is sitting between P and O. O is not an immediate neighbour of Q. M is sitting third to the left of T. The immediate neighbours of T face opposite directions. M and R face opposite directions. N faces the same direction as that of O.Which of the following statements is true regarding T according to the given seating arrangement ?
...

MCQ-> Read the following information and answer the questions given below. (I) Two wooden cubes ‘A’ and ‘B’ are placed adjacent to each other in front of you in such a way that ‘A’ is to your left and ‘B’ to your right. (II) One pair of opposite faces of cube ‘A’ is painted by the same colour, i.e., Red colour. Another pair of opposite faces is painted by Blue and one of the remaining faces of Yellow and other one is Violet. (III) Only two opposite faces of cube ‘B’ are painted by Blue colour. Remaining pairs of opposite faces are painted in such a way that opposite face of Brown colour is Green and one of the other two opposite faces is Black and the other is White.If Red surface of ‘A’ and Blue of ‘B’ are touching the table and Yellow of ‘A’ and Black of ‘B’ are facing you, then which coloured side of ‘B’ is facing Blue side of ‘A’ ?
...

MCQ-> Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below:Eight friends P, Q, R, S, W, X, Y and Z are sitting around a circular table but not necessarily in the same order. Some of them are facing the centre and some others are facing outside (i.e. in a direction opposite to the centre.) Note :(i) Facing the same direction means if one person faces the centre then the other also faces the centre and vice-versa. (ii) Facing the opposite directions means if one person faces the centre then the other faces outside and vice-versa. (iii) Immediate neighbours facing the same direction means if one person faces the centre then the other also faces the centre and vice-versa. (iv) Immediate neighbours facing the opposite directions means if one person faces the centre then the other faces outside and vice-versa. • R sits second to the right of Y. Only two persons sit between R and W. • P sits to the immediate right of W. W faces outside. • Only one person sits between P and Z. Immediate neighbours of P face opposite directions. • Q sits third to the left of Z. Q is not an immediate neighbour of P. • X faces a direction opposite to that of Y. X is an immediate neighbour of neither Y nor P. • Immediate neighbours of S face same direction. P does not face outside. • R and Q face a direction opposite to that of S.Four of the following five are alike in a certain way based on the direction they are facing and so form a group. Which is the one that does not belong to that group?
...