Who is the The first man to have climbed Mount Everest twice ? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Who is the The first man to have climbed Mount Everest twice ?

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->The first man to have climbed Mount Everest twice....

QA->Who is the The first man to have climbed Mount Everest twice ?....

QA->First man who climbed Mount Everest (twice)?....

QA->First woman who climbed Mount Everest?....

QA->Who is the first indian Man to Climb Mount Everest twice ?....

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 second plan to have to examine is that of giving to each person what she deserves. Many people, especially those who are comfortably off, think this is what happens at present: that the industrious and sober and thrifty are never in want, and that poverty is due to idleness, improvidence, drinking, betting, dishonesty, and bad character generally. They can point to the fact that a labour whose character is bad finds it more difficult to get employment than one whose character is good; that a farmer or country gentleman who gambles and bets heavily, and mortgages his land to live wastefully and extravagantly, is soon reduced to poverty; and that a man of business who is lazy and does not attend to it becomes bankrupt. But this proves nothing that you cannot eat your cake and have it too; it does not prove that your share of the cake was a fair one. It shows that certain vices make us rich. People who are hard, grasping, selfish, cruel, and always ready to take advantage of their neighbours, become very rich if they are clever enough not to overreach themselves. On the other hand, people who are generous, public spirited, friendly, and not always thinking of the main chance, stay poor when they are born poor unless they have extraordinary talents. Also as things are today, some are born poor and others are born with silver spoons in their mouths: that is to say, they are divided into rich and poor before they are old enough to have any character at all. The notion that our present system distributes wealth according to merit, even roughly, may be dismissed at once as ridiculous. Everyone can see that it generally has the contrary effect; it makes a few idle people very rich, and a great many hardworking people very poor.On this, intelligent Lady, your first thought may be that if wealth is not distributed according to merit, it ought to be; and that we should at once set to work to alter our laws so that in future the good people shall be rich in proportion to their goodness and the bad people poor in proportion to their badness. There are several objections to this; but the very first one settles the question for good and all. It is, that the proposal is impossible and impractical. How are you going to measure anyone's merit in money? Choose any pair of human beings you like, male or female, and see whether you can decide how much each of them should have on her or his merits. If you live in the country, take the village blacksmith and the village clergyman, or the village washerwoman and the village schoolmistress, to begin with. At present, the clergyman often gets less pay than the blacksmith; it is only in some villages he gets more. But never mind what they get at present: you are trying whether you can set up a new order of things in which each will get what he deserves. You need not fix a sum of money for them: all you have to do is to settle the proportion between them. Is the blacksmith to have as much as the clergyman? Or twice as much as the clergyman? Or half as much as the clergyman? Or how much more or less? It is no use saying that one ought to have more the other less; you must be prepared to say exactly how much more or less in calculable proportion.Well, think it out. The clergyman has had a college education; but that is not any merit on his part: he owns it to his father; so you cannot allow him anything for that. But through it he is able to read the New Testament in Greek; so that he can do something the blacksmith cannot do. On the other hand, the blacksmith can make a horse-shoe, which the parson cannot. How many verses of the Greek Testament are worth one horse-shoe? You have only to ask the silly question to see that nobody can answer it.Since measuring their merits is no use, why not try to measure their faults? Suppose the blacksmith swears a good deal, and gets drunk occasionally! Everybody in the village knows this; but the parson has to keep his faults to himself. His wife knows them; but she will not tell you what they are if she knows that you intend to cut off some of his pay for them. You know that as he is only a mortal human being, he must have some faults; but you cannot find them out. However, suppose he has some faults he is a snob; that he cares more for sport and fashionable society than for religion! Does that make him as bad as the blacksmith, or twice as bad, or twice and quarter as bad, or only half as bad? In other words, if the blacksmith is to have a shilling, is the parson to have six pence, or five pence and one-third, or two shillings? Clearly these are fools' questions: the moment they bring us down from moral generalities to business particulars it becomes plain to every sensible person that no relation can be established between human qualities, good or bad, and sums of money, large or small.It may seem scandalous that a prize-fighter, for hitting another prize-fighter so hard at Wembley that he fell down and could not rise within ten seconds, received the same sum that was paid to the Archbishop of Canterbury for acting as Primate of the Church of England for nine months; but none of those who cry out against the scandal can express any better in money the difference between the two. Not one of the persons who think that the prize-fighter should get less than the Archbishop can say how much less. What the prize- fighter got for his six or seven months' boxing would pay a judge's salary for two years; and we all agree that nothing could be more ridiculous, and that any system of distributing wealth which leads to such absurdities must be wrong. But to suppose that it could be changed by any possible calculation that an ounce of archbishop of three ounces of judge is worth a pound of prize-fighter would be sillier still. You can find out how many candles are worth a pound of butter in the market on any particular day; but when you try to estimate the worth of human souls the utmost you can say is that they are all of equal value before the throne of God:And that will not help you in the least to settle how much money they should have. You must simply give it up, and admit that distributing money according to merit is beyond mortal measurement and judgement.Which of the following is not a vice attributed to the poor by the rich?
....

MCQ->Who is the The first man to have climbed Mount Everest twice ?....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the question.Once upon a time in a village, there lived six blind men. In spite of their blindness they had managed to educate themselves Seeking to expand their knowledge they decided to visit a zoo and try out their skills in recognizing animals by their touch. The first animal they came across, as soon as they entered the zoo was an elephant.As the first man approched the elephant, the elephant waved its trunk, and the man felt something brush past him. Managing to hold on to it, and found something long and moving. He jumped back in alarm, shouting "Move away ! This is a snake !" Meanwhile ,the second man had moved closer, and walked right near its legs. As the man touched the thick, cylindrical¬shaped legs, he called out "Do not worry. These are just four trees here. There is acertainly no snake !" The third man was curious hearing the other two, and moved forward. As he walked towards the elephant, he felt his hand touch one of the tusks. Feeling the smooth, sharp ivory tusk, the man cried out " Be careful ! There is a sharp spear here". The fourth man cautiously walked up behind the elephant and felt its swinging tail. "It's just a rope ! he said. The fifth man had meanwhile reached out and was touching the huge ears of the animal. "I think all of you have lost your sense of touch !" he said. "This is nothing but a huge fan!" The sixth man did not want to be left out. As he walked towards the elephant, he bumped into the massive body, and he exclaimed, "Hey ! This is just a huge mud wall ! There is no animal at all !" All six of them were convinced that they were right, and began arguing amongst themselves.The zoo keeper returned to the elephant and saw each of them shouting at the top of their voice ! "Quiet" he shouted out and when they had calmed down, he asked, "Why are all of you shouting and arguing in this manner ?" They replied, "sir, as you can see, we all are blind. We came here to expand our knowledge. We sensed an animal here and tried to get an idea of its appearance by feeling it. However, we are not able to arrive at a consensus over its appearance, and hence are arguing. Can you please help us and tell us which of us is right" ?The zoo keeper laughed before answering "My dear men, each of you has touched just one portion of the animal. The animal you see is neither a snake, nor any of other things you have mentioned. The animal in front on you is an elephant !" As the men, bowed their head ashamed of the scence they had created, the zoo keeper said, "My dear men, this is a huge animal and luckily, it is tame. It stood by calmly as each of you touched it. You are extremely lucky that it stayed calm even during your argument, for if it had got angry, it would have trampled all of you to death !" He continued further , "It is also important to learn to share and pool your knowledge .Instead of fighting amongst yourselves, if you had tried to put all your observations together, you might have had an idea of the animal as a whole ! Also, when you cannot see the entire truth, it is better to go to someone who does know the complete truth, rather than guess about small parts of it. Such half¬knowledge is not only useless, but also dangerous. If you had come directly to me, I would have helped you identify all the animals without putting you in danger !" The six men apologized to the zoo keeper, and assured him that they had learnt their lesson. From now on they would seek true knowledge from qualified people, and would seek true knowledge from qualified people, and would also try to work together as a team so that they could learn moreWhich part of the elephant resembled a big fan ?
....

MCQ->Who was the first Indian who climbed Mount Everest twice?....