DIRECTIONS for the question:Identify the most appropriate summary for the paragraph.Do animals have free will? Probably, the answer to that question would be agreed by most people to be a fairly obvious andldquo;no.andrdquo; The concept of free will is traditionally bound up with such things as our capacity to choose our own values, the sorts of lives we want to lead, the sorts of people we want to be, etc. and it seems obvious that no non-human animal lives the kind of life which could make sense of the attribution to it of such powers as these. But in thinking about free will, it is essential, nevertheless, to consider the capacities of animals. Even if animals cannot be said to have full-blown free will, animal powers of various sorts provide a kind of essential underpinning for free will which philosophers who focus too exclusively on the human phenomenon are forever in danger of ignoring. And these simpler capacities are interesting enough to raise many philosophical issues all by themselves; indeed, I would argue that they raise the most discussed problem in this area of philosophy all by themselves. For they are, in my view, hard to accommodate within certain conceptions of the universe in which we live andndash; what might be called mechanistic or deterministic conceptions of that universe. This makes it very useful and important to think about the simpler capacities from a philosophical perspective. Instead of asking, as philosophers constantly do, whether free will is compatible with determinism, we should first ask ourselves whether even the simpler powers which constitute what I call animal agency are consistent with it.a)The issue of animals having free will has been often dismissed by philosophers as animals do not possess the same attributes as humans, who possess free will. Considering this dismissal has been done with sufficient thought, it is time we re-evaluate animal life and see it how it relates to ours.b)The issue of animals having free will has been misunderstood far too often and we are a time and stage in philosophy wherein the subject needs to closely evaluate itself and understand whether it has done justice to the issue or not.c)The issue of animals having free will is something that needs to be removed from the traditional deterministic analysis of philosophers and needs to be studied under new light to truly understand the issue and arrive at a certain understanding.d)The issue of animals having free will is something that has not been the given the treatment it should have been by philosophers and this has now created an urgent need in philosophy to go over this issue and discard the deterministic view that has been adopted far too often.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CAT Exam > CAT Questions > DIRECTIONS for the question:Identify the most...

Join the Discussion on the App

DIRECTIONS for the question: Identify the most appropriate summary for the paragraph.

Do animals have free will? Probably, the answer to that question would be agreed by most people to be a fairly obvious “no.” The concept of free will is traditionally bound up with such things as our capacity to choose our own values, the sorts of lives we want to lead, the sorts of people we want to be, etc. and it seems obvious that no non-human animal lives the kind of life which could make sense of the attribution to it of such powers as these. But in thinking about free will, it is essential, nevertheless, to consider the capacities of animals. Even if animals cannot be said to have full-blown free will, animal powers of various sorts provide a kind of essential underpinning for free will which philosophers who focus too exclusively on the human phenomenon are forever in danger of ignoring. And these simpler capacities are interesting enough to raise many philosophical issues all by themselves; indeed, I would argue that they raise the most discussed problem in this area of philosophy all by themselves. For they are, in my view, hard to accommodate within certain conceptions of the universe in which we live – what might be called mechanistic or deterministic conceptions of that universe. This makes it very useful and important to think about the simpler capacities from a philosophical perspective. Instead of asking, as philosophers constantly do, whether free will is compatible with determinism, we should first ask ourselves whether even the simpler powers which constitute what I call animal agency are consistent with it.

a)
The issue of animals having free will has been often dismissed by philosophers as animals do not possess the same attributes as humans, who possess free will. Considering this dismissal has been done with sufficient thought, it is time we re-evaluate animal life and see it how it relates to ours.
b)
The issue of animals having free will has been misunderstood far too often and we are a time and stage in philosophy wherein the subject needs to closely evaluate itself and understand whether it has done justice to the issue or not.
c)
The issue of animals having free will is something that needs to be removed from the traditional deterministic analysis of philosophers and needs to be studied under new light to truly understand the issue and arrive at a certain understanding.
d)
The issue of animals having free will is something that has not been the given the treatment it should have been by philosophers and this has now created an urgent need in philosophy to go over this issue and discard the deterministic view that has been adopted far too often.

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

CAT Practice Test - 10

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

DIRECTIONS for the question:Identify the most appropriate summary for ...

In this case, options 1 and 2 are way off track and do not relate with the subject of the paragraph. Option 4 is close to the actual gist of the paragraph but commits the mistake of quoting that there is an urgent need in philosophy to go over the issue. This is something that has not been stated in the given case and this makes this an incorrect answer option in the given case.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on their content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Sartre was not alone or wholly original in marrying phenomenology and existentialism into a single philosophy. Phenomenology had already undergone the profound transformation into ‘fundamental ontology’ at the hands of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger in his large, if incomplete, 1927 masterwork, Being and Time. The book is an examination of what it means to be, especially as this is disclosed through one’s own existence. The 1945 synthesis of phenomenology and existentialism in Phenomenology of Perception’ (Phenomenologie die la Perception) by Maurice Merleau – Ponty, Sartre’s philosophical friend and political antagonist, follows hard on the heels of Sartre’s own 1943 synthesis, Being and Nothingness with which it is partly inconsistent. Sartre’s existentialism, like that of Merleau Ponty, is ‘existential phenomenology’. Maurice Merleau–Ponty offers a phenomenology of the body which eschews mind–body dualism, reductivist materialism and idealism. He influenced Sartre politically and collaborated in editing Les Temps Modernes but broke with Sartre over what he saw as the latter’s ‘ultrabolshevism’.Sartre’s Marxism was never a pure Marxism. Not only did he never join the PCF (Parti Communiste Francais), the second massive synthesis of his philosophical career was the fusion of Marxism with existentialism. The large 1960 first volume of ‘Critique of Dialectical Reason’ is an attempt to exhibit existentialist philosophy and Marxist political theory as not only mutually consistent but as mutually dependent: as dialectically requiring one another for an adequate understanding of human reality. This neo–Hegelian ‘totalizing’ philosophy promises us all the intellectual apparatus we need to understand the direction of history and the unique human individual in their complex mutual constitution. The German idealist philosopher G. W. F. Hegel (1770 – 1831) thought that philosophical problems could be exhibited as apparent contradictions that could be relieved, overcome or ‘synthesized’. Hence, for example, human beings are both free and causally determined, both mental and physical, social and individual, subjective and objective, and so on; not one to the exclusion of the other. ‘Synthetic’ or ‘totalizing’ philosophy shows seemingly mutually exclusive views to be not only compatible but mutually necessary.Sartre’s Marxism is a ‘humanistic’ Marxism. His faith in Marxism as the most advanced philosophy of human liberation is tempered by his awareness of the crushing of the aspirations of the human individual by actual Marxism in, for example, the Soviet collectivization of the farms and purges of the 1930s and 1940s, the suppression of the Hungarian uprising of 1956, the decades of atrocities in the Soviet Gulag, the ending of the Prague Spring in 1968. Like the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, Sartre does not think the oppression of the individual by communism is only a problem of political practice. He thinks Marxist political theory is misconstrued. Unlike Popper however, he seeks to humanize Marxist theory rather than reject it utterly. Also unlike Popper, he thinks the neglected resources for a theory of the freedom of the individual can be found within the early writings of Marx himself. The young Marx is to be construed as a kind of proto–existentialist.The putative synthesis of existentialism and Marxism is extraordinarily ambitious. Some of the most fundamental and intractable problems of metaphysics and the philosophy of mind are obstacles to that synthesis. Classical Marxism is determinist and materialist. Sartre’s existentialism is libertarian and phenomenological. Marxism includes a theory of history with prescriptive prognoses for the future. Existentialism explores agency in a spontaneous present which bestows only a derivative existence on past and future. Marxism is a social theory in which class is the subject and object of change. In existentialism, individuals do things and things are done to individuals. Marxism has pretensions to be a science. Existentialism regards science as part of the very problem of dehumanization and alienation.Despite the fact that Sartre’s overt anarchism emerges only at the end of his life – it is mainly professed in a series of interviews with the then secretary Benny Levy for the magazine Le Nouvel Observateur – Sartre also claimed in the 1970s that he had always been an anarchist.Q.Maurice Merleau-Ponty became political adversary of Sartre because of what he considers

View answer

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on their content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Sartre was not alone or wholly original in marrying phenomenology and existentialism into a single philosophy. Phenomenology had already undergone the profound transformation into ‘fundamental ontology’ at the hands of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger in his large, if incomplete, 1927 masterwork, Being and Time. The book is an examination of what it means to be, especially as this is disclosed through one’s own existence. The 1945 synthesis of phenomenology and existentialism in Phenomenology of Perception’ (Phenomenologie die la Perception) by Maurice Merleau – Ponty, Sartre’s philosophical friend and political antagonist, follows hard on the heels of Sartre’s own 1943 synthesis, Being and Nothingness with which it is partly inconsistent. Sartre’s existentialism, like that of Merleau Ponty, is ‘existential phenomenology’. Maurice Merleau–Ponty offers a phenomenology of the body which eschews mind–body dualism, reductivist materialism and idealism. He influenced Sartre politically and collaborated in editing Les Temps Modernes but broke with Sartre over what he saw as the latter’s ‘ultrabolshevism’.Sartre’s Marxism was never a pure Marxism. Not only did he never join the PCF (Parti Communiste Francais), the second massive synthesis of his philosophical career was the fusion of Marxism with existentialism. The large 1960 first volume of ‘Critique of Dialectical Reason’ is an attempt to exhibit existentialist philosophy and Marxist political theory as not only mutually consistent but as mutually dependent: as dialectically requiring one another for an adequate understanding of human reality. This neo–Hegelian ‘totalizing’ philosophy promises us all the intellectual apparatus we need to understand the direction of history and the unique human individual in their complex mutual constitution. The German idealist philosopher G. W. F. Hegel (1770 – 1831) thought that philosophical problems could be exhibited as apparent contradictions that could be relieved, overcome or ‘synthesized’. Hence, for example, human beings are both free and causally determined, both mental and physical, social and individual, subjective and objective, and so on; not one to the exclusion of the other. ‘Synthetic’ or ‘totalizing’ philosophy shows seemingly mutually exclusive views to be not only compatible but mutually necessary.Sartre’s Marxism is a ‘humanistic’ Marxism. His faith in Marxism as the most advanced philosophy of human liberation is tempered by his awareness of the crushing of the aspirations of the human individual by actual Marxism in, for example, the Soviet collectivization of the farms and purges of the 1930s and 1940s, the suppression of the Hungarian uprising of 1956, the decades of atrocities in the Soviet Gulag, the ending of the Prague Spring in 1968. Like the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, Sartre does not think the oppression of the individual by communism is only a problem of political practice. He thinks Marxist political theory is misconstrued. Unlike Popper however, he seeks to humanize Marxist theory rather than reject it utterly. Also unlike Popper, he thinks the neglected resources for a theory of the freedom of the individual can be found within the early writings of Marx himself. The young Marx is to be construed as a kind of proto–existentialist.The putative synthesis of existentialism and Marxism is extraordinarily ambitious. Some of the most fundamental and intractable problems of metaphysics and the philosophy of mind are obstacles to that synthesis. Classical Marxism is determinist and materialist. Sartre’s existentialism is libertarian and phenomenological. Marxism includes a theory of history with prescriptive prognoses for the future. Existentialism explores agency in a spontaneous present which bestows only a derivative existence on past and future. Marxism is a social theory in which class is the subject and object of change. In existentialism, individuals do things and things are done to individuals. Marxism has pretensions to be a science. Existentialism regards science as part of the very problem of dehumanization and alienation.Despite the fact that Sartre’s overt anarchism emerges only at the end of his life – it is mainly professed in a series of interviews with the then secretary Benny Levy for the magazine Le Nouvel Observateur – Sartre also claimed in the 1970s that he had always been an anarchist.Q.What can be the title of the passage?

View answer

Directions: relate to the following article:Pick up a glossy magazine or newspaper supplement and there will almost certainly be at least one double page spread that looks like a regular editorial page but is headed up either 'promotion' or 'advertisement'. These hybrids - unattractively but aptly called advertorials -are being used with increasing frequency by a growing number of companies. Traditionally the preserve of high-technology clients with a complicated message to get across to potential customers, the use of this technique has now spread to sectors like financial services, alcohol and automobiles.One major reason why marketing departments are becoming more receptive to ideas for advertorials is that publishers are pursuing them more aggressively at a time of shrinking ad budgets, while they are being treated far more professionally in a bid to persuade clients that this is a creative opportunity to spread their message to their target audiences. Pouring more imagination into them allied with raising production standards has also been a means whereby the commercial executives of magazines and newspapers can try to convince sceptical editors who strongly disapprove of blurring the advertising / editorial line of their worth.What advertorials are about is control - controlling the message in an editorial format. Positive editorial coverage of a company and / or its products in credible publications is the best publicity any company can hope for, but often proves elusive. A successful advertorial can pinpoint the way the company delivers its message to the heart of its target audience. High technology was one of the main sources of early advertorials - unsurprisingly, the products are complex and need to be explained with some technical detail to get the story across. That is not so easy with traditional advertising.Advertorials can also to some degree circumvent journalistic indifference to what a company is doing because editorial coverage has already been so extensive. For example, in the case of a company like Compaq, whose swift growth in the computer market attracted many inches of editorial space, that very success can lead to journalists wondering how they can write something different about Compaq. There can be diminishing returns from an editorial point of view. So advertorials let the company present things editorially but with bought space. While they should be strongly labelled, information is being given to readers in a format that looks familiar.Q. In the light of your reading of the passage above, identify the option that contains the set of words CLOSEST in meaning to the set of words in CAPITALSSCEPTICAL: CIRCUMVENT: ELUSIVE

View answer

Directions: The passage given below is followed by four alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the passage.India and America are not always likely to share strategic interests. Nevertheless, we must remain friends in the sense of a higher commitment to certain values. Alliances based on interests are but transient. We should support America if it seeks to export the ideal of genuine liberal democracy around the world and warn it of the fate which befell earlier hegemons that chose to pursue narrow selfish interests. This position, as their friend in freedom, is what we owe them. Frankness, in other words, must be the primary virtue of our often strained, but nevertheless true friendship.

View answer

Directions: In the following question, four statements are provided. These statements form a coherent paragraph when properly arranged. Select the alternative representing the proper and logical sequencing of these statements.A. In Greek writings, we hear about the “Gymnosophists” (of Indi

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

Crash Course for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series 2024

3 Months Preparation for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series and 500+ Practice Tests 2024

Top Courses for CAT

View all

DIRECTIONS for the question:Identify the most appropriate summary for the paragraph.Do animals have free will? Probably, the answer to that question would be agreed by most people to be a fairly obvious “no.” The concept of free will is traditionally bound up with such things as our capacity to choose our own values, the sorts of lives we want to lead, the sorts of people we want to be, etc. and it seems obvious that no non-human animal lives the kind of life which could make sense of the attribution to it of such powers as these. But in thinking about free will, it is essential, nevertheless, to consider the capacities of animals. Even if animals cannot be said to have full-blown free will, animal powers of various sorts provide a kind of essential underpinning for free will which philosophers who focus too exclusively on the human phenomenon are forever in danger of ignoring. And these simpler capacities are interesting enough to raise many philosophical issues all by themselves; indeed, I would argue that they raise the most discussed problem in this area of philosophy all by themselves. For they are, in my view, hard to accommodate within certain conceptions of the universe in which we live – what might be called mechanistic or deterministic conceptions of that universe. This makes it very useful and important to think about the simpler capacities from a philosophical perspective. Instead of asking, as philosophers constantly do, whether free will is compatible with determinism, we should first ask ourselves whether even the simpler powers which constitute what I call animal agency are consistent with it.a)The issue of animals having free will has been often dismissed by philosophers as animals do not possess the same attributes as humans, who possess free will. Considering this dismissal has been done with sufficient thought, it is time we re-evaluate animal life and see it how it relates to ours.b)The issue of animals having free will has been misunderstood far too often and we are a time and stage in philosophy wherein the subject needs to closely evaluate itself and understand whether it has done justice to the issue or not.c)The issue of animals having free will is something that needs to be removed from the traditional deterministic analysis of philosophers and needs to be studied under new light to truly understand the issue and arrive at a certain understanding.d)The issue of animals having free will is something that has not been the given the treatment it should have been by philosophers and this has now created an urgent need in philosophy to go over this issue and discard the deterministic view that has been adopted far too often.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
DIRECTIONS for the question:Identify the most appropriate summary for the paragraph.Do animals have free will? Probably, the answer to that question would be agreed by most people to be a fairly obvious “no.” The concept of free will is traditionally bound up with such things as our capacity to choose our own values, the sorts of lives we want to lead, the sorts of people we want to be, etc. and it seems obvious that no non-human animal lives the kind of life which could make sense of the attribution to it of such powers as these. But in thinking about free will, it is essential, nevertheless, to consider the capacities of animals. Even if animals cannot be said to have full-blown free will, animal powers of various sorts provide a kind of essential underpinning for free will which philosophers who focus too exclusively on the human phenomenon are forever in danger of ignoring. And these simpler capacities are interesting enough to raise many philosophical issues all by themselves; indeed, I would argue that they raise the most discussed problem in this area of philosophy all by themselves. For they are, in my view, hard to accommodate within certain conceptions of the universe in which we live – what might be called mechanistic or deterministic conceptions of that universe. This makes it very useful and important to think about the simpler capacities from a philosophical perspective. Instead of asking, as philosophers constantly do, whether free will is compatible with determinism, we should first ask ourselves whether even the simpler powers which constitute what I call animal agency are consistent with it.a)The issue of animals having free will has been often dismissed by philosophers as animals do not possess the same attributes as humans, who possess free will. Considering this dismissal has been done with sufficient thought, it is time we re-evaluate animal life and see it how it relates to ours.b)The issue of animals having free will has been misunderstood far too often and we are a time and stage in philosophy wherein the subject needs to closely evaluate itself and understand whether it has done justice to the issue or not.c)The issue of animals having free will is something that needs to be removed from the traditional deterministic analysis of philosophers and needs to be studied under new light to truly understand the issue and arrive at a certain understanding.d)The issue of animals having free will is something that has not been the given the treatment it should have been by philosophers and this has now created an urgent need in philosophy to go over this issue and discard the deterministic view that has been adopted far too often.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 DIRECTIONS for the question:Identify the most appropriate summary for the paragraph.Do animals have free will? Probably, the answer to that question would be agreed by most people to be a fairly obvious “no.” The concept of free will is traditionally bound up with such things as our capacity to choose our own values, the sorts of lives we want to lead, the sorts of people we want to be, etc. and it seems obvious that no non-human animal lives the kind of life which could make sense of the attribution to it of such powers as these. But in thinking about free will, it is essential, nevertheless, to consider the capacities of animals. Even if animals cannot be said to have full-blown free will, animal powers of various sorts provide a kind of essential underpinning for free will which philosophers who focus too exclusively on the human phenomenon are forever in danger of ignoring. And these simpler capacities are interesting enough to raise many philosophical issues all by themselves; indeed, I would argue that they raise the most discussed problem in this area of philosophy all by themselves. For they are, in my view, hard to accommodate within certain conceptions of the universe in which we live – what might be called mechanistic or deterministic conceptions of that universe. This makes it very useful and important to think about the simpler capacities from a philosophical perspective. Instead of asking, as philosophers constantly do, whether free will is compatible with determinism, we should first ask ourselves whether even the simpler powers which constitute what I call animal agency are consistent with it.a)The issue of animals having free will has been often dismissed by philosophers as animals do not possess the same attributes as humans, who possess free will. Considering this dismissal has been done with sufficient thought, it is time we re-evaluate animal life and see it how it relates to ours.b)The issue of animals having free will has been misunderstood far too often and we are a time and stage in philosophy wherein the subject needs to closely evaluate itself and understand whether it has done justice to the issue or not.c)The issue of animals having free will is something that needs to be removed from the traditional deterministic analysis of philosophers and needs to be studied under new light to truly understand the issue and arrive at a certain understanding.d)The issue of animals having free will is something that has not been the given the treatment it should have been by philosophers and this has now created an urgent need in philosophy to go over this issue and discard the deterministic view that has been adopted far too often.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for DIRECTIONS for the question:Identify the most appropriate summary for the paragraph.Do animals have free will? Probably, the answer to that question would be agreed by most people to be a fairly obvious “no.” The concept of free will is traditionally bound up with such things as our capacity to choose our own values, the sorts of lives we want to lead, the sorts of people we want to be, etc. and it seems obvious that no non-human animal lives the kind of life which could make sense of the attribution to it of such powers as these. But in thinking about free will, it is essential, nevertheless, to consider the capacities of animals. Even if animals cannot be said to have full-blown free will, animal powers of various sorts provide a kind of essential underpinning for free will which philosophers who focus too exclusively on the human phenomenon are forever in danger of ignoring. And these simpler capacities are interesting enough to raise many philosophical issues all by themselves; indeed, I would argue that they raise the most discussed problem in this area of philosophy all by themselves. For they are, in my view, hard to accommodate within certain conceptions of the universe in which we live – what might be called mechanistic or deterministic conceptions of that universe. This makes it very useful and important to think about the simpler capacities from a philosophical perspective. Instead of asking, as philosophers constantly do, whether free will is compatible with determinism, we should first ask ourselves whether even the simpler powers which constitute what I call animal agency are consistent with it.a)The issue of animals having free will has been often dismissed by philosophers as animals do not possess the same attributes as humans, who possess free will. Considering this dismissal has been done with sufficient thought, it is time we re-evaluate animal life and see it how it relates to ours.b)The issue of animals having free will has been misunderstood far too often and we are a time and stage in philosophy wherein the subject needs to closely evaluate itself and understand whether it has done justice to the issue or not.c)The issue of animals having free will is something that needs to be removed from the traditional deterministic analysis of philosophers and needs to be studied under new light to truly understand the issue and arrive at a certain understanding.d)The issue of animals having free will is something that has not been the given the treatment it should have been by philosophers and this has now created an urgent need in philosophy to go over this issue and discard the deterministic view that has been adopted far too often.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for DIRECTIONS for the question:Identify the most appropriate summary for the paragraph.Do animals have free will? Probably, the answer to that question would be agreed by most people to be a fairly obvious “no.” The concept of free will is traditionally bound up with such things as our capacity to choose our own values, the sorts of lives we want to lead, the sorts of people we want to be, etc. and it seems obvious that no non-human animal lives the kind of life which could make sense of the attribution to it of such powers as these. But in thinking about free will, it is essential, nevertheless, to consider the capacities of animals. Even if animals cannot be said to have full-blown free will, animal powers of various sorts provide a kind of essential underpinning for free will which philosophers who focus too exclusively on the human phenomenon are forever in danger of ignoring. And these simpler capacities are interesting enough to raise many philosophical issues all by themselves; indeed, I would argue that they raise the most discussed problem in this area of philosophy all by themselves. For they are, in my view, hard to accommodate within certain conceptions of the universe in which we live – what might be called mechanistic or deterministic conceptions of that universe. This makes it very useful and important to think about the simpler capacities from a philosophical perspective. Instead of asking, as philosophers constantly do, whether free will is compatible with determinism, we should first ask ourselves whether even the simpler powers which constitute what I call animal agency are consistent with it.a)The issue of animals having free will has been often dismissed by philosophers as animals do not possess the same attributes as humans, who possess free will. Considering this dismissal has been done with sufficient thought, it is time we re-evaluate animal life and see it how it relates to ours.b)The issue of animals having free will has been misunderstood far too often and we are a time and stage in philosophy wherein the subject needs to closely evaluate itself and understand whether it has done justice to the issue or not.c)The issue of animals having free will is something that needs to be removed from the traditional deterministic analysis of philosophers and needs to be studied under new light to truly understand the issue and arrive at a certain understanding.d)The issue of animals having free will is something that has not been the given the treatment it should have been by philosophers and this has now created an urgent need in philosophy to go over this issue and discard the deterministic view that has been adopted far too often.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 DIRECTIONS for the question:Identify the most appropriate summary for the paragraph.Do animals have free will? Probably, the answer to that question would be agreed by most people to be a fairly obvious “no.” The concept of free will is traditionally bound up with such things as our capacity to choose our own values, the sorts of lives we want to lead, the sorts of people we want to be, etc. and it seems obvious that no non-human animal lives the kind of life which could make sense of the attribution to it of such powers as these. But in thinking about free will, it is essential, nevertheless, to consider the capacities of animals. Even if animals cannot be said to have full-blown free will, animal powers of various sorts provide a kind of essential underpinning for free will which philosophers who focus too exclusively on the human phenomenon are forever in danger of ignoring. And these simpler capacities are interesting enough to raise many philosophical issues all by themselves; indeed, I would argue that they raise the most discussed problem in this area of philosophy all by themselves. For they are, in my view, hard to accommodate within certain conceptions of the universe in which we live – what might be called mechanistic or deterministic conceptions of that universe. This makes it very useful and important to think about the simpler capacities from a philosophical perspective. Instead of asking, as philosophers constantly do, whether free will is compatible with determinism, we should first ask ourselves whether even the simpler powers which constitute what I call animal agency are consistent with it.a)The issue of animals having free will has been often dismissed by philosophers as animals do not possess the same attributes as humans, who possess free will. Considering this dismissal has been done with sufficient thought, it is time we re-evaluate animal life and see it how it relates to ours.b)The issue of animals having free will has been misunderstood far too often and we are a time and stage in philosophy wherein the subject needs to closely evaluate itself and understand whether it has done justice to the issue or not.c)The issue of animals having free will is something that needs to be removed from the traditional deterministic analysis of philosophers and needs to be studied under new light to truly understand the issue and arrive at a certain understanding.d)The issue of animals having free will is something that has not been the given the treatment it should have been by philosophers and this has now created an urgent need in philosophy to go over this issue and discard the deterministic view that has been adopted far too often.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of DIRECTIONS for the question:Identify the most appropriate summary for the paragraph.Do animals have free will? Probably, the answer to that question would be agreed by most people to be a fairly obvious “no.” The concept of free will is traditionally bound up with such things as our capacity to choose our own values, the sorts of lives we want to lead, the sorts of people we want to be, etc. and it seems obvious that no non-human animal lives the kind of life which could make sense of the attribution to it of such powers as these. But in thinking about free will, it is essential, nevertheless, to consider the capacities of animals. Even if animals cannot be said to have full-blown free will, animal powers of various sorts provide a kind of essential underpinning for free will which philosophers who focus too exclusively on the human phenomenon are forever in danger of ignoring. And these simpler capacities are interesting enough to raise many philosophical issues all by themselves; indeed, I would argue that they raise the most discussed problem in this area of philosophy all by themselves. For they are, in my view, hard to accommodate within certain conceptions of the universe in which we live – what might be called mechanistic or deterministic conceptions of that universe. This makes it very useful and important to think about the simpler capacities from a philosophical perspective. Instead of asking, as philosophers constantly do, whether free will is compatible with determinism, we should first ask ourselves whether even the simpler powers which constitute what I call animal agency are consistent with it.a)The issue of animals having free will has been often dismissed by philosophers as animals do not possess the same attributes as humans, who possess free will. Considering this dismissal has been done with sufficient thought, it is time we re-evaluate animal life and see it how it relates to ours.b)The issue of animals having free will has been misunderstood far too often and we are a time and stage in philosophy wherein the subject needs to closely evaluate itself and understand whether it has done justice to the issue or not.c)The issue of animals having free will is something that needs to be removed from the traditional deterministic analysis of philosophers and needs to be studied under new light to truly understand the issue and arrive at a certain understanding.d)The issue of animals having free will is something that has not been the given the treatment it should have been by philosophers and this has now created an urgent need in philosophy to go over this issue and discard the deterministic view that has been adopted far too often.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for DIRECTIONS for the question:Identify the most appropriate summary for the paragraph.Do animals have free will? Probably, the answer to that question would be agreed by most people to be a fairly obvious “no.” The concept of free will is traditionally bound up with such things as our capacity to choose our own values, the sorts of lives we want to lead, the sorts of people we want to be, etc. and it seems obvious that no non-human animal lives the kind of life which could make sense of the attribution to it of such powers as these. But in thinking about free will, it is essential, nevertheless, to consider the capacities of animals. Even if animals cannot be said to have full-blown free will, animal powers of various sorts provide a kind of essential underpinning for free will which philosophers who focus too exclusively on the human phenomenon are forever in danger of ignoring. And these simpler capacities are interesting enough to raise many philosophical issues all by themselves; indeed, I would argue that they raise the most discussed problem in this area of philosophy all by themselves. For they are, in my view, hard to accommodate within certain conceptions of the universe in which we live – what might be called mechanistic or deterministic conceptions of that universe. This makes it very useful and important to think about the simpler capacities from a philosophical perspective. Instead of asking, as philosophers constantly do, whether free will is compatible with determinism, we should first ask ourselves whether even the simpler powers which constitute what I call animal agency are consistent with it.a)The issue of animals having free will has been often dismissed by philosophers as animals do not possess the same attributes as humans, who possess free will. Considering this dismissal has been done with sufficient thought, it is time we re-evaluate animal life and see it how it relates to ours.b)The issue of animals having free will has been misunderstood far too often and we are a time and stage in philosophy wherein the subject needs to closely evaluate itself and understand whether it has done justice to the issue or not.c)The issue of animals having free will is something that needs to be removed from the traditional deterministic analysis of philosophers and needs to be studied under new light to truly understand the issue and arrive at a certain understanding.d)The issue of animals having free will is something that has not been the given the treatment it should have been by philosophers and this has now created an urgent need in philosophy to go over this issue and discard the deterministic view that has been adopted far too often.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of DIRECTIONS for the question:Identify the most appropriate summary for the paragraph.Do animals have free will? Probably, the answer to that question would be agreed by most people to be a fairly obvious “no.” The concept of free will is traditionally bound up with such things as our capacity to choose our own values, the sorts of lives we want to lead, the sorts of people we want to be, etc. and it seems obvious that no non-human animal lives the kind of life which could make sense of the attribution to it of such powers as these. But in thinking about free will, it is essential, nevertheless, to consider the capacities of animals. Even if animals cannot be said to have full-blown free will, animal powers of various sorts provide a kind of essential underpinning for free will which philosophers who focus too exclusively on the human phenomenon are forever in danger of ignoring. And these simpler capacities are interesting enough to raise many philosophical issues all by themselves; indeed, I would argue that they raise the most discussed problem in this area of philosophy all by themselves. For they are, in my view, hard to accommodate within certain conceptions of the universe in which we live – what might be called mechanistic or deterministic conceptions of that universe. This makes it very useful and important to think about the simpler capacities from a philosophical perspective. Instead of asking, as philosophers constantly do, whether free will is compatible with determinism, we should first ask ourselves whether even the simpler powers which constitute what I call animal agency are consistent with it.a)The issue of animals having free will has been often dismissed by philosophers as animals do not possess the same attributes as humans, who possess free will. Considering this dismissal has been done with sufficient thought, it is time we re-evaluate animal life and see it how it relates to ours.b)The issue of animals having free will has been misunderstood far too often and we are a time and stage in philosophy wherein the subject needs to closely evaluate itself and understand whether it has done justice to the issue or not.c)The issue of animals having free will is something that needs to be removed from the traditional deterministic analysis of philosophers and needs to be studied under new light to truly understand the issue and arrive at a certain understanding.d)The issue of animals having free will is something that has not been the given the treatment it should have been by philosophers and this has now created an urgent need in philosophy to go over this issue and discard the deterministic view that has been adopted far too often.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice DIRECTIONS for the question:Identify the most appropriate summary for the paragraph.Do animals have free will? Probably, the answer to that question would be agreed by most people to be a fairly obvious “no.” The concept of free will is traditionally bound up with such things as our capacity to choose our own values, the sorts of lives we want to lead, the sorts of people we want to be, etc. and it seems obvious that no non-human animal lives the kind of life which could make sense of the attribution to it of such powers as these. But in thinking about free will, it is essential, nevertheless, to consider the capacities of animals. Even if animals cannot be said to have full-blown free will, animal powers of various sorts provide a kind of essential underpinning for free will which philosophers who focus too exclusively on the human phenomenon are forever in danger of ignoring. And these simpler capacities are interesting enough to raise many philosophical issues all by themselves; indeed, I would argue that they raise the most discussed problem in this area of philosophy all by themselves. For they are, in my view, hard to accommodate within certain conceptions of the universe in which we live – what might be called mechanistic or deterministic conceptions of that universe. This makes it very useful and important to think about the simpler capacities from a philosophical perspective. Instead of asking, as philosophers constantly do, whether free will is compatible with determinism, we should first ask ourselves whether even the simpler powers which constitute what I call animal agency are consistent with it.a)The issue of animals having free will has been often dismissed by philosophers as animals do not possess the same attributes as humans, who possess free will. Considering this dismissal has been done with sufficient thought, it is time we re-evaluate animal life and see it how it relates to ours.b)The issue of animals having free will has been misunderstood far too often and we are a time and stage in philosophy wherein the subject needs to closely evaluate itself and understand whether it has done justice to the issue or not.c)The issue of animals having free will is something that needs to be removed from the traditional deterministic analysis of philosophers and needs to be studied under new light to truly understand the issue and arrive at a certain understanding.d)The issue of animals having free will is something that has not been the given the treatment it should have been by philosophers and this has now created an urgent need in philosophy to go over this issue and discard the deterministic view that has been adopted far too often.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.

Explore Courses for CAT exam