Love for ours environment is enough to protest nature. ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Love for ours environment is enough to protest nature.

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->"The world rises from love,And attains progress with love,Love is itself the power of the world,Love brings happiness to all,Love is itself, sir,And Love"s absence is death". The work of Kumaranasan which depicts the sacredness of love?....

QA->" IN NATURE THERE IS ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE"S NEED,BUT TOO LITTLE FOR EVERYONE"S GREED " WHO SAID THESE....

QA->Greek poetess who sung about love, nature and beauty....

QA->Greek poetess who sung about love; nature and beauty?....

QA->Rahul is very rich.He can buy a car (Combine using ‘enough’)....

MCQ-> A spirit that lives in this world and does not wear the shirt of love, such an existence in a deep disgrace. Be foolish in love, because love is all there is. There is no way into presence except through love exchange. If someone asks, But what is love? Answer, dissolving the will. True freedom comes to those who have escaped the question of freewill and fate. Love is an emperor. The two worlds play across him. He barely notices their tumbling game. Love and lover live in eternity. Other desires are substitute for that way of being. How long do you lay embracing a corpse? Love rather the soul, which cannot be held. Anything born in spring dies in the fall, but love is not seasonal. With wine pressed from grapes, expect a hangover. But this love path has no expectations. You are uneasy riding the body? Dismount, travel lighter. Wings will be given. Be clear like mirror holding nothing. Be clean of pictures and the worry that comes with images. Gaze into what is not ashamed or afraid of any truth. Contain all human faces in your own without any judgment of them. Be pure emptiness. What is inside of that? You ask. Silence is all I can say. Lovers have some secrets they keep.How are the words "freewill", "fate" and "will" used in the poem above?....

MCQ->Love for ours environment is enough to protest nature.....

MCQ-> Every age has its pet contradictions. A few decades back, we used to accept Marx and Freud together, and then wonder, like the chameleon on the turkey carpet, why life was so confusing. Today there is similar trouble over the question whether there is, or is not, something called Human Nature. On the one hand, there has been an explosion of animal behavior studies, and comparisons between animals and men have become immensely popular. People use evidence from animals to decide whether man is naturally aggressive, or naturally territorial; even whether he has an aggressive or territorial instinct. Moreover, we are still much influenced by Freudian psychology, which depends on the notion of instinct. On the other hand, many still hold what may be called the Blank Paper view, that man is a creature entirely without instincts. So do Existentialist philosophers. If man has no instincts, all comparison with animals must be irrelevant. (Both these simple party lines have been somewhat eroded over time, but both are still extremely influential.)According to the Blank Paper view, man is entirely the product of his culture. He starts off infinitely plastic, and is formed completely by the society in which he grows up. There is then no end to the possible variations among cultures; what we take to be human instincts are just the deep-dug prejudices of our own society. Forming families, fearing the dark, and jumping at the sight of a spider are just results of our conditioning. Existentialism at first appears a very different standpoint, because the Existentialist asserts man’s freedom and will not let him call himself a product of anything. But Existentialism too denies that man has a nature; if he had, his freedom would not be complete. Thus Sartre insisted that “there is no human nature …. Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world, and defines himself afterwards. If man as the Existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes himself.” For Existentialism there is only the human condition, which is what happens to man and not what he is born like. If we are afraid of the dark, it is because we choose to be cowards; if we care more for our own children than for other people’s, it is because we choose to be partial. We must never talk about human nature or human instincts. This implicit moral notion is still very influential, not at all confined to those who use the metaphysic of essence and existence. So I shall sometimes speak of it, not as Existentialist, but as Libertarian ― meaning that those holding it do not just (like all of us) think liberty important, but think it supremely important and believe that our having a nature would infringe it.Philosophers have not yet made much use of informed comparison with other species as a help in the understanding of man. One reason they have not is undoubtedly the fear of fatalism. Another is the appalling way terms such as instinct and human nature have been misused in the past. A third is the absurdity of some ethological propaganda.A business school led by an existentialist director, wanted to decide on admission policy for its executive MBA program, which requires candidates to possess minimum five years of managerial experience.With respect to the selection process, which of the following statements will be closest to the director’s belief:
....

MCQ-> The passage given below is followed by a set of three questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Human Biology does nothing to structure human society. Age may enfeeble us all, but cultures vary considerably in the prestige and power they accord to the elderly. Giving birth is a necessary condition for being a mother, but it is not sufficient. We expect mothers to behave in maternal ways and to display appropriately maternal sentiments. We prescribe a clutch of norms or rules that govern the role of a mother. That the social role is independent of the biological base can be demonstrated by going back three sentences. Giving birth is certainly not sufficient to be a mother but, as adoption and fostering show, it is not even necessary! The fine detail of what is expected of a mother or a father or a dutiful son differs from culture to culture, but everywhere behaviour is coordinated by the reciprocal nature of roles. Husbands and wives, parents and children, employers and employees, waiters and customers, teachers and pupils, warlords and followers; each makes sense only in its relation to the other. The term ‘role’ is an appropriate one, because the metaphor of an actor in a play neatly expresses the rule-governed nature or scripted nature of much of social life and the sense that society is a joint production. Social life occurs only because people play their parts (and that is as true for war and conflicts as for peace and love) and those parts make sense only in the context of the overall show. The drama metaphor also reminds us of the artistic licence available to the players. We can play a part straight or, as the following from J.P. Sartre conveys, we can ham it up.Let us consider this waiter in the cafe. His movement is quick and forward, a little too precise, a little too rapid. He comes towards the patrons with a step a little too quick. He bends forward a little too eagerly; his voice, his eyes express an interest a little too solicitous for the order of the customer. Finally there he returns, trying to imitate in his walk the inflexible stiffness of some kind of automaton while carrying his tray with the recklessness of a tightrope-walker....All his behaviour seems to us a game....But what is he playing? We need not watch long before we can explain it: he is playing at being a waiter in a cafe. The American sociologist Erving Goffman built an influential body of social analysis on elaborations of the metaphor of social life as drama. Perhaps his most telling point was that it is only through acting out a part that we express character. It is not enough to be evil or virtuous; we have to be seen to be evil or virtuous. There is distinction between the roles we play and some underlying self. Here we might note that some roles are more absorbing than others. We would not be surprised by the waitress who plays the part in such a way as to signal to us that she is much more than her occupation. We would be surprised and offended by the father who played his part ‘tongue in cheek’. Some roles are broader and more far-reaching than others. Describing someone as a clergyman or faith healer would say far more about that person than describing someone as a bus driver.What is the thematic highlight of this passage?
....

MCQ-> Read the following case and choose the best alternative Guruji's guidance Bhola, an avid nature lover, wanted to be an entrepreneur. He dreamt of establishing a chain of huts in Chatpur region to cater to tourists, who came attracted by the beauty and splendour of the Himalayas. However, he was appalled by current degradation of the Himalayan environment. He remembered the early times when everything was so green, clean and peaceful. Now, greenery was replaced by buildings, peace was shattered by honking of vehicles and flocking of tourists, and cleanliness was replaced by heaps of plastics. Bhola had a strong sense of right and wrong. On speaking to few locals about the issue, he realized that the locals were aware of these issues. However, they pointed out the benefits of development: pucca houses for locals, higher disposable income and with that, ability to send their children to better schools and colleges, better road connectivity, and access to latest technology in agriculture. Most locals wanted the development to continue. Saddened by the lack of support from the locals, Bhola took up the issue with the government. He met the chief minister of the state to find out if government could regulate the developmental activities to prevent environmental degradation. However, the chief minister told Bhola that such an action would slow down the economic progress. That also meant loss of substantial tax revenues for the government. Bhola needed to resolve the dilemma. Bhola always wanted to be an entrepreneur, who could contribute to the society and earn money as well. However, his business would also be responsible for destroying environment. If he did not set up His business, he would not be able to earn money and contribute to the society. After mulling over the issues, he went to his mentor "Guruji". Guruji realized that it was really a difficult puzzle: if one saves the environment, there seems to be no development and if the people and the government sought development, the environment and hence future of this planet and human beings was at stake. After careful thought, he felt that the dilemma could be resolved. He fixed up a meeting with Bhola to answer Bhola's queries.Should Bhola still think of doing business?
....