Who is the father of 'Utilitarian School of Thought'? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Who is the father of 'Utilitarian School of Thought'?

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Name the Pakistani school pupil and education activist who was shot in the head and neck on 9 October 2012 in an assassination attempt by Taliban gunmen while returning home on a school bus?....

QA->A school has only three classes comprised of 40, 50 and 60 students respectively. In these classes, 10%, 20% and 10% students respectively passed in the examinations. What is the percentage of students passed in the examination from the entire school?....

QA->Whichstate has launched School Management Information System (SMIS) on December 30,2016 to provide centralized database of all Government School in the state?....

QA->" Eastern Religions and Western Thought " is written by....

QA->Who is the author of Business at the Speed of Thought?....

MCQ-> Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:In the Fifth grade, Benjamin Carson thought he was one of the dumbest kids in his class. His classmates thought he was one of the dumbest, his teacher thought he was one of the dumbest, and he thought he was one of the dumbest. Therefore, when he brought home a report that reflected poor progress, Benjamin was very philosophical about it. He told his mother, “Yah, you know it doesn’t matter very much”.His mother had a different opinion. Having only a third grade education, Mrs. Carson knew that her children’s only chance to escape poverty was through a good education. Her two boys were not reaching their potential at school, and she knew that if they were going to get a good education, it would have to start at home. She began with three rules. Rule number one, the boys would only be allowed to watch two pre-selected TV shows per week. Rule number two, the two boys would have to finish all their homework before they could watch TV or even play outside. Rule number three, the boys would have to read two books from the library each week and write a book report on each of them.Benjamin was dismayed at these new rules and tried very hard to talk his mother out of them. She stood firm, and not thinking to disobey his mother, he followed her rules. Before long he saw the fruits of his labor, when he was the only one who knew an answer to a question the teacher asked the class. Then there was a second question only he knew the answer to. His teacher and rest of his classmates were surprised that he knew the correct answer to such hard questions. He was even a little surprised himself, but he knew his knowledge came from the books he was reading. He began to surmise that if he could learn just a few facts from books at the library, he could learn anything.Benjamin continued on his road of growth and became an academic leader in his school. He had learned to love reading and realized that he could channel that love into learning. He did not let the labels and jeers of others, forever box him into an unproductive and unfulfilling future. Mrs. Carson did not settle for less then her boys were capable of being, she demanded that they take their education seriously and gave them a structured way they could do it. Today Benjamin Carson, the boy who thought he was the dumbest boy in his 5th grade class, is a world famous surgeon at the prestigious Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland.What was Benjamin’s first reaction to his mother’s rules?
....

MCQ->Who is the father of 'Utilitarian School of Thought'?....

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->Statement: The school authority decided to open a summer school this year in the school compound for the students in the age range of 7 - 14 years. Assumptions: All the students will attend the summer school. All the parents will prefer to remain in the city than going out of town for enabling their children to attend the summer school. Those who cannot afford to go out of station will send their children to summer school.

....

MCQ-> Choose the best answer for each question.The production of histories of India has become very frequent in recent years and may well call for some explanation. Why so many and why this one in particular? The reason is a two-fold one: changes in the Indian scene requiring a re-interpretation of the facts and changes in attitudes of historians about the essential elements of Indian history. These two considerations are in addition to the normal fact of fresh information, whether in the form of archeological discoveries throwing fresh light on an obscure period or culture, or the revelations caused by the opening of archives or the release of private papers. The changes in the Indian scene are too obvious to need emphasis. Only two generations ago British rule seemed to most Indian as well as British observers likely to extend into an indefinite future; now there is a teenage generation which knows nothing of it. Changes in the attitudes of historians have occurred everywhere, changes in attitudes to the content of the subject as well as to particular countries, but in India there have been some special features. Prior to the British, Indian historiographers were mostly Muslims, who relied, as in the case of Sayyid Ghulam Hussain, on their own recollection of events and on information from friends and men of affairs. Only a few like Abu’l Fazl had access to official papers. These were personal narratives of events, varying in value with the nature of the writer. The early British writers were officials. In the 18th century they were concerned with some aspect of Company policy, or like Robert Orme in his Military Transactions gave a straight narrative in what was essentially a continuation of the Muslim tradition. In the early 119th century the writers were still, with two notable exceptions, officials, but they were now engaged in chronicling, in varying moods of zest, pride, and awe, the rise of the British power in India to supremacy. The two exceptions were James Mill, with his critical attitude to the Company and John Marchman, the Baptist missionary. But they, like the officials, were anglo-centric in their attitude, so that the history of modern India in their hands came to be the history of the rise of the British in India.The official school dominated the writing of Indian history until we get the first professional historian’s approach. Ramsay Muir and P. E. Roberts in England and H. H. Dodwell in India. Then Indian historians trained in the English school joined in, of whom the most distinguished was Sir Jadunath Sarkar and the other notable writers: Surendranath Sen, Dr Radhakumud Mukherji, and Professor Nilakanta Sastri. They, it may be said, restored India to Indian history, but their bias was mainly political. Finally have come the nationalists who range from those who can find nothing good or true in the British to sophisticated historical philosophers like K. M. Panikker.Along the types of historians with their varying bias have gone changes in the attitude to the content of Indian history. Here Indian historians have been influenced both by their local situation and by changes of thought elsewhere. It is this field that this work can claim some attention since it seeks to break new ground, or perhaps to deepen a freshly turned furrow in the field of Indian history. The early official historians were content with the glamour and drama of political history from Plassey to the Mutiny, from Dupleix to the Sikhs. But when the raj was settled down, glamour departed from politics, and they turned to the less glorious but more solid ground of administration. Not how India was conquered but how it was governed was the theme of this school of historians. It found its archpriest in H. H. Dodwell, its priestess in Dame Lilian Penson, and its chief shrine in the Volume VI of the Cambridge History of India. Meanwhile, in Britain other currents were moving, which led historical study into the economic and social fields. R. C. Dutt entered the first of these currents with his Economic History of India to be followed more recently by the whole group of Indian economic historians. W. E. Moreland extended these studies to the Mughal Period. Social history is now being increasingly studied and there is also of course a school of nationalist historians who see modern Indian history in terms of the rise and the fulfillment of the national movement.All these approaches have value, but all share in the quality of being compartmental. It is not enough to remove political history from its pedestal of being the only kind of history worth having if it is merely to put other types of history in its place. Too exclusive an attention to economic, social, or administrative history can be as sterile and misleading as too much concentration on politics. A whole subject needs a whole treatment for understanding. A historian must dissect his subject into its elements and then fuse them together again into an integrated whole. The true history of a country must contain all the features just cited but must present them as parts of a single consistent theme.Which of the following may be the closest in meaning to the statement ‘restored India to Indian history’?
....