Man thought he was superior to other creatures because ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Man thought he was superior to other creatures because

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Plants which trap insects and other small creatures on their sticky leaves?....

QA->Entomophily pollination occur with the help of which creatures?....

QA->The only creatures that have flaps around theirears.....

QA->In democracy the Sovereignty or the superior power lies in the hands of....

QA->Name the former Superior General of the Missionaries of Charity, who passed away recently?....

MCQ-> In the following questions, you have a brief passages with 5 questions following it. Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.Once upon an unfortunate time, there was a hairy thing called ‘man’. Along with him was a hairier thing called ‘animal’. Man had a larger brain which made him think he was superior to animals. Some men thought they were superior to others. They became leader men. Leader men said, ‘We have no need to work; we will kill animals to eat.’ So they did. Man increased and animals decreased. Eventually leader men said, There are not enough animals left to eat. We must grow our own food.’ So man grew food.Everywhere man killed all wild life. Soon there was none and all the birds were poisoned. Leader men said, ‘At last we are free of pests.’ Man’s numbers increased. The world became crowded with men. They all had to sleep standing up. One day a leader man saw some new creatures eating his crops. The creature’s name was the starving people’. ‘These creatures are a menace!’ said the leader man.‘We have no need to work’ said the leader man because
....

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-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it.Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.Once upon a time a dishonest King had a man call the Valuer in his court. The Valuer set the price which ought to be paid for horses and elephants and the other animals.He also set the price on jewellery and gold.and things of that kind.This man was honest and just and set the proper price to be paid to the owners of the goods.The King however was not pleased with this Valuer because he was honest ‘If I had another sort of a man as Valuer I might gain more riches, he thought One day the King saw a stupid miserly peasant come into the place yard.The King sent for the fellow and asked him if he would like to be Valuer.The peasant said he would like the position.So the King had him made Valuer He sent the honest Valuer away from the place.Then the peasant began to set the prices on horses and elephants upon gold and jewels.He did not know their value so he would say anything he chose.As the King had made him Valuer the People had to sell their goods for the price he set. By and by a horse-dealer brought five hundred horses to the court of this King.The Valuer came and said they were worth a mere measure of rice and the horses to be put in the palace stables. The horse-dealer went then to see the honest man who had been the Valuer and told him what had happened.’What shall I do ?’ asked the horses-dealer “I think you can give a present to the Valuer which will make him “Go to him and give him a fine present then say to him You said the horses are worth a measure of rice,but now tell what a measure of rice is worth ! Can you value that standing in your place by the King ?’ If he says he can go with him to the King and I will be there too” The horses-dealer thought this was a good idea.So he took a fine present to the Valuer and said what the other man had told him to say.The stupid Valuer took the present,and said,”Yes, I can go before the King with you and tell what a measure of rice is worth.I can go before the King with you and tell what a measure of rice is worth. I can value now. Well let us go at once” said the horses-dealer.So they went before the king and his ministers in the palace.The horses-dealer bowed down before the King and said “O King I have learned that a measure of rice is the value of my five hundred horses.But will the King be pleased to ask the Valuer what had happened asked,How now Valuer what are five hundred horses worth ? “A measure of rice O King !” said he “very good then ! If five hundred horses are worth a measure of rice what is the measure of rice worth ?” The measure of rice is worth your whole city” replied the foolish fellow The minister clapped their hands laughing and saying “What a foolish Valuer! How can such a man hold that office ? We used to think this great city was beyond price but this man says it is worth only a measure of rice.Then the King was ashamed and drove out the foolish fellow “I tried to please the King by setting a low price on the horses and now see what has happened to me !’ said the Valuer as he ran away from the laughing crowd.Who did the King appoint as the new Valuer ?
....

MCQ->A. All mammals are viviparous. Some fish are viviparous. Some fish are mammals.B. All birds are oviparous. Some fish are not oviparous. Some fish are birds.C. No mammal is oviparous. Some creatures are oviparous and some are not. Some creatures are not mammals.D. Some creatures are mammals. Some creatures are viviparous. Some mammals are viviparous.....

MCQ-> Have you ever come across a painting, by Picasso, Mondrian, Miro, or any other modern abstract painter of this century, and found yourself engulfed in a brightly coloured canvas which your senses cannot interpret? Many people would tend to denounce abstractionism as senseless trash. These people are disoriented by Miro's bright, fanciful creatures and two- dimensional canvases. They click their tongues and shake their heads at Mondrian's grid works, declaring the poor guy played too many scrabble games. They silently shake their heads in sympathy for Picasso, whose gruesome, distorted figures must be a reflection of his mental health. Then, standing in front of a work by Charlie Russell, the famous Western artist, they'll declare it a work of God. People feel more comfortable with something they can relate to and understand immediately without too much thought. This is the case with the work of Charlie Russell. Being able to recognize the elements in his paintings - trees, horses and cowboys - gives people a safety line to their world of "reality". There are some who would disagree when I say abstract art requires more creativity and artistic talent to produce a good piece than does representational art, but there are many weaknesses in their arguments.People who look down on abstract art have several major arguments to support their beliefs. They feel that artists turn abstract because they are not capable of the technical drafting skills that appear in a Russell; therefore, such artists create an art form that anyone is capable of and that is less time consuming, and then parade it as artistic progress. Secondly, they feel that the purpose of art is to create something of beauty in an orderly, logical composition. Russell's compositions are balanced and rational, everything sits calmly on the canvas, leaving the viewer satisfied that he has seen all there is to see. The modern abstractionists, on the other hand, seem to compose their pieces irrationally. For example, upon seeing Picasso's Guernica, a friend of mine asked me, "What's the point?" Finally, many people feel that art should portray the ideal and real. The exactness of detail in Charlie Russell's work is an example of this. He has been called a great historian because his pieces depict the life style, dress, and events of the times. His subject matter is derived from his own experiences on the trail, and reproduced to the smallest detail.I agree in part with many of these arguments, and at one time even endorsed them. But now, I believe differently. Firstly, I object to the argument that abstract artists are not capable of drafting. Many abstract artists, such as Picasso, are excellent draftsmen. As his work matured, Picasso became more abstract in order to increase the expressive quality of his work. Guernica was meant as a protest against the bombing of that city by the Germans. To express the terror and suffering of the victims more vividly, he distorted the figures and presented them in a black and white journalistic manner. If he had used representational images and colour, much of the emotional content would have been lost and the piece would not have caused the demand for justice that it did. Secondly, I do not think that a piece must be logical and aesthetically pleasing to be art. The message it conveys to its viewers is more important. It should reflect the ideals and issues of its time and be true to itself, not just a flowery, glossy surface. For example, through his work, Mondrian was trying to present a system of simplicity, logic, and rational order. As a result, his pieces did end up looking like a scrabble board.Miro created powerful, surrealistic images from his dreams and subconscious. These artists were trying to evoke a response from society through an expressionistic manner. Finally, abstract artists and representational artists maintain different ideas about 'reality'. To the representational artist, reality is what he sees with his eyes. This is the reality he reproduces on canvas. To the abstract artist, reality is what he feels about what his eyes see. This is the reality he interprets on canvas. This can be illustrated by Mondrian's Trees series. You can actually see the progression from the early recognizable, though abstracted, Trees, to his final Explanation, the grid system.A cycle of abstract and representational art began with the first scratchings of prehistoric man. From the abstractions of ancient Egypt to representational, classical Rome, returning to abstractionism in early Christian art and so on up to the present day, the cycle has been going on. But this day and age may witness its death through the camera. With film, there is no need to produce finely detailed, historical records manually; the camera does this for us more efficiently. Maybe, representational art would cease to exist. With abstractionism as the victor of the first battle, may be a different kind of cycle will be touched off. Possibly, some time in the distant future, thousands of years from now, art itself will be physically non-existent. Some artists today believe that once they have planned and constructed a piece in their mind, there is no sense in finishing it with their hands; it has already been done and can never be duplicated.The author argues that many people look down upon abstract art because they feel that:
....