Question Description
Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Every age has its pet contradictions, A few decades back, we used lo accept Marx and Freud together, and then wonder, like the chameleon an 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 animal? (o 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 die sight of a spider are just results of out conditioning. Existentialism at first appears a very different standpoint, because the Existentialist asserts man's freedom and wilt 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 mates 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 o(her 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 at libertarian—meaning that those holding it do not just (like alt 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.Q. Which sentence in the passage distances man from ‘nature’, the most?a)The sixth sentence of the first paragraph.b)The sentence of the second paragraph.c)The sentence third from the last in the passaged)The sentence second from the last in the passagee)The last sentence of the passage.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Every age has its pet contradictions, A few decades back, we used lo accept Marx and Freud together, and then wonder, like the chameleon an 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 animal? (o 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 die sight of a spider are just results of out conditioning. Existentialism at first appears a very different standpoint, because the Existentialist asserts man's freedom and wilt 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 mates 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 o(her 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 at libertarian—meaning that those holding it do not just (like alt 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.Q. Which sentence in the passage distances man from ‘nature’, the most?a)The sixth sentence of the first paragraph.b)The sentence of the second paragraph.c)The sentence third from the last in the passaged)The sentence second from the last in the passagee)The last sentence of the passage.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Every age has its pet contradictions, A few decades back, we used lo accept Marx and Freud together, and then wonder, like the chameleon an 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 animal? (o 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 die sight of a spider are just results of out conditioning. Existentialism at first appears a very different standpoint, because the Existentialist asserts man's freedom and wilt 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 mates 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 o(her 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 at libertarian—meaning that those holding it do not just (like alt 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.Q. Which sentence in the passage distances man from ‘nature’, the most?a)The sixth sentence of the first paragraph.b)The sentence of the second paragraph.c)The sentence third from the last in the passaged)The sentence second from the last in the passagee)The last sentence of the passage.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Every age has its pet contradictions, A few decades back, we used lo accept Marx and Freud together, and then wonder, like the chameleon an 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 animal? (o 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 die sight of a spider are just results of out conditioning. Existentialism at first appears a very different standpoint, because the Existentialist asserts man's freedom and wilt 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 mates 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 o(her 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 at libertarian—meaning that those holding it do not just (like alt 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.Q. Which sentence in the passage distances man from ‘nature’, the most?a)The sixth sentence of the first paragraph.b)The sentence of the second paragraph.c)The sentence third from the last in the passaged)The sentence second from the last in the passagee)The last sentence of the passage.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Every age has its pet contradictions, A few decades back, we used lo accept Marx and Freud together, and then wonder, like the chameleon an 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 animal? (o 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 die sight of a spider are just results of out conditioning. Existentialism at first appears a very different standpoint, because the Existentialist asserts man's freedom and wilt 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 mates 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 o(her 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 at libertarian—meaning that those holding it do not just (like alt 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.Q. Which sentence in the passage distances man from ‘nature’, the most?a)The sixth sentence of the first paragraph.b)The sentence of the second paragraph.c)The sentence third from the last in the passaged)The sentence second from the last in the passagee)The last sentence of the passage.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Every age has its pet contradictions, A few decades back, we used lo accept Marx and Freud together, and then wonder, like the chameleon an 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 animal? (o 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 die sight of a spider are just results of out conditioning. Existentialism at first appears a very different standpoint, because the Existentialist asserts man's freedom and wilt 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 mates 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 o(her 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 at libertarian—meaning that those holding it do not just (like alt 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.Q. Which sentence in the passage distances man from ‘nature’, the most?a)The sixth sentence of the first paragraph.b)The sentence of the second paragraph.c)The sentence third from the last in the passaged)The sentence second from the last in the passagee)The last sentence of the passage.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Every age has its pet contradictions, A few decades back, we used lo accept Marx and Freud together, and then wonder, like the chameleon an 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 animal? (o 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 die sight of a spider are just results of out conditioning. Existentialism at first appears a very different standpoint, because the Existentialist asserts man's freedom and wilt 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 mates 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 o(her 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 at libertarian—meaning that those holding it do not just (like alt 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.Q. Which sentence in the passage distances man from ‘nature’, the most?a)The sixth sentence of the first paragraph.b)The sentence of the second paragraph.c)The sentence third from the last in the passaged)The sentence second from the last in the passagee)The last sentence of the passage.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Every age has its pet contradictions, A few decades back, we used lo accept Marx and Freud together, and then wonder, like the chameleon an 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 animal? (o 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 die sight of a spider are just results of out conditioning. Existentialism at first appears a very different standpoint, because the Existentialist asserts man's freedom and wilt 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 mates 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 o(her 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 at libertarian—meaning that those holding it do not just (like alt 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.Q. Which sentence in the passage distances man from ‘nature’, the most?a)The sixth sentence of the first paragraph.b)The sentence of the second paragraph.c)The sentence third from the last in the passaged)The sentence second from the last in the passagee)The last sentence of the passage.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Every age has its pet contradictions, A few decades back, we used lo accept Marx and Freud together, and then wonder, like the chameleon an 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 animal? (o 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 die sight of a spider are just results of out conditioning. Existentialism at first appears a very different standpoint, because the Existentialist asserts man's freedom and wilt 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 mates 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 o(her 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 at libertarian—meaning that those holding it do not just (like alt 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.Q. Which sentence in the passage distances man from ‘nature’, the most?a)The sixth sentence of the first paragraph.b)The sentence of the second paragraph.c)The sentence third from the last in the passaged)The sentence second from the last in the passagee)The last sentence of the passage.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.