All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) ... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) below, when properly sequenced, would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequencing of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer:
1. This philosophical crisis, percolating through the ages, questions the linear understanding of time, suggesting instead a more nuanced, cyclical concept.
2. The human perception of existence has been a subject of contemplation, often contrasting the empirical understanding of life with metaphysical interpretations.
3. It posits that existence is not merely a series of events but a complex pattern of cycles, each a reflection of recurring existential questions.
4. These interpretations challenge the very foundation of human experience, offering alternative narratives that transcend common reasoning.
Correct answer is '2134'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) below, when properly sequ...
Understanding the Sequence
The correct sequence of the sentences forms a coherent discussion about the philosophical contemplation of existence and time. Here’s how the sentences connect logically:
1. Introduction to the Concept
- Sentence 2 introduces the theme: "The human perception of existence has been a subject of contemplation..."
- This sets the stage for the philosophical exploration of existence.
2. The Philosophical Crisis
- Sentence 1 follows, elaborating on this contemplation: "This philosophical crisis, percolating through the ages..."
- It introduces the conflict between linear and cyclical interpretations of time.
3. The Nature of Existence
- Sentence 3 then builds on the cyclical concept: "It posits that existence is not merely a series of events..."
- This sentence describes the cyclical nature of existence and its implications.
4. Challenging Foundations
- Lastly, Sentence 4 concludes the thought: "These interpretations challenge the very foundation of human experience..."
- It highlights the significance of these philosophical interpretations and how they provide alternative narratives.
Final Sequence: 2134
- Thus, the coherent paragraph flows from the introduction of the contemplation of existence (2) to the philosophical crisis regarding time (1), followed by the implications of cyclical existence (3), and finally, it discusses the challenge to human experience (4). This structure ensures a logical progression of thoughts, leading to a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) below, when properly sequ...
The paragraph begins with a statement on human perception (2), introduces a crisis related to this perception (1), elaborates on the alternative understanding proposed (3), and concludes with the impact of these alternative narratives (4).
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Philosophy is dead, Stephen Hawking once declared, because it ‘has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics! It is scientists, not philosophers, who are now ‘the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge’. The response from some philosophers was to accuse Hawking of ‘scientism’. The charge of ‘scientism is meant to convey disapproval of anyone who values scientific disciplines, such as physics, over non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy. The philosopher Tom Sorell writes that scientism is ‘a matter of putting too high a value on science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture’. But whats wrong with putting a higher value on science compared with other academic disciplines? What is so bad about scientism? If physics is in fact a better torch in the quest for knowledge than philosophy, as Hawking claimed, then perhaps it should be valued over philosophy and other non-scientific fields of enquiry.Before we can address these questions, however, we need to get our definitions straight. For, much like other philosophical isms, ‘scientism’ means different things to different philosophers. Now, the question of whether science is the only way of knowing about reality, or at least better than non- scientific ways of knowing, is an epistemological question. Construed as an epistemological thesis, then, scientism can be broadly understood as either the view that scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge we have, or the view that scientific knowledge is the best form of knowledge we have. But scientism comes in other varieties as well, including methodological and metaphysical ones. As a methodological thesis, scientism is either the view that scientific methods are the only. ways of knowing about reality we have, or the view that scientific methods are the best ways of knowing about reality we have. And, construed as a metaphysical thesis, scientism is either the view that science is our only guide to what exists, or the view that science is our best guide to what exists.Without a clear understanding of the aforementioned varieties of scientism, philosophical parties to the scientism debate are at risk of merely talking past each other. That is, some defenders of scientism might be arguing for weaker varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the best ones, while their opponents interpret them as arguing for stronger varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the only ones. My own position, for example, is a weak variety of scientism. In my paper ‘Whats So Bad about Scientism?” (2017), defend scientism as an epistemological thesis, which I call ‘Weak Scientism’. This is the view that scientific knowledge i the best form of knowledge we have (as opposed to ‘Strong Scientist, which is the view that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge we hav e).Q.Which of the following titles best captures the essence of the passage?

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Philosophy is dead, Stephen Hawking once declared, because it ‘has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics! It is scientists, not philosophers, who are now ‘the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge’. The response from some philosophers was to accuse Hawking of ‘scientism’. The charge of ‘scientism is meant to convey disapproval of anyone who values scientific disciplines, such as physics, over non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy. The philosopher Tom Sorell writes that scientism is ‘a matter of putting too high a value on science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture’. But whats wrong with putting a higher value on science compared with other academic disciplines? What is so bad about scientism? If physics is in fact a better torch in the quest for knowledge than philosophy, as Hawking claimed, then perhaps it should be valued over philosophy and other non-scientific fields of enquiry.Before we can address these questions, however, we need to get our definitions straight. For, much like other philosophical isms, ‘scientism’ means different things to different philosophers. Now, the question of whether science is the only way of knowing about reality, or at least better than non- scientific ways of knowing, is an epistemological question. Construed as an epistemological thesis, then, scientism can be broadly understood as either the view that scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge we have, or the view that scientific knowledge is the best form of knowledge we have. But scientism comes in other varieties as well, including methodological and metaphysical ones. As a methodological thesis, scientism is either the view that scientific methods are the only. ways of knowing about reality we have, or the view that scientific methods are the best ways of knowing about reality we have. And, construed as a metaphysical thesis, scientism is either the view that science is our only guide to what exists, or the view that science is our best guide to what exists.Without a clear understanding of the aforementioned varieties of scientism, philosophical parties to the scientism debate are at risk of merely talking past each other. That is, some defenders of scientism might be arguing for weaker varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the best ones, while their opponents interpret them as arguing for stronger varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the only ones. My own position, for example, is a weak variety of scientism. In my paper ‘Whats So Bad about Scientism?” (2017), defend scientism as an epistemological thesis, which I call ‘Weak Scientism’. This is the view that scientific knowledge i the best form of knowledge we have (as opposed to ‘Strong Scientist, which is the view that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge we hav e).Q.What is the primary reason some philosophers accused Stephen Hawking of scientism?

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Philosophy is dead, Stephen Hawking once declared, because it ‘has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics! It is scientists, not philosophers, who are now ‘the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge’. The response from some philosophers was to accuse Hawking of ‘scientism’. The charge of ‘scientism is meant to convey disapproval of anyone who values scientific disciplines, such as physics, over non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy. The philosopher Tom Sorell writes that scientism is ‘a matter of putting too high a value on science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture’. But whats wrong with putting a higher value on science compared with other academic disciplines? What is so bad about scientism? If physics is in fact a better torch in the quest for knowledge than philosophy, as Hawking claimed, then perhaps it should be valued over philosophy and other non-scientific fields of enquiry.Before we can address these questions, however, we need to get our definitions straight. For, much like other philosophical isms, ‘scientism’ means different things to different philosophers. Now, the question of whether science is the only way of knowing about reality, or at least better than non- scientific ways of knowing, is an epistemological question. Construed as an epistemological thesis, then, scientism can be broadly understood as either the view that scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge we have, or the view that scientific knowledge is the best form of knowledge we have. But scientism comes in other varieties as well, including methodological and metaphysical ones. As a methodological thesis, scientism is either the view that scientific methods are the only. ways of knowing about reality we have, or the view that scientific methods are the best ways of knowing about reality we have. And, construed as a metaphysical thesis, scientism is either the view that science is our only guide to what exists, or the view that science is our best guide to what exists.Without a clear understanding of the aforementioned varieties of scientism, philosophical parties to the scientism debate are at risk of merely talking past each other. That is, some defenders of scientism might be arguing for weaker varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the best ones, while their opponents interpret them as arguing for stronger varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the only ones. My own position, for example, is a weak variety of scientism. In my paper ‘Whats So Bad about Scientism?” (2017), defend scientism as an epistemological thesis, which I call ‘Weak Scientism’. This is the view that scientific knowledge i the best form of knowledge we have (as opposed to ‘Strong Scientist, which is the view that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge we hav e).Q.What does the term "scientism" primarily refer to in the passage?

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Philosophy is dead, Stephen Hawking once declared, because it ‘has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics! It is scientists, not philosophers, who are now ‘the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge’. The response from some philosophers was to accuse Hawking of ‘scientism’. The charge of ‘scientism is meant to convey disapproval of anyone who values scientific disciplines, such as physics, over non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy. The philosopher Tom Sorell writes that scientism is ‘a matter of putting too high a value on science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture’. But whats wrong with putting a higher value on science compared with other academic disciplines? What is so bad about scientism? If physics is in fact a better torch in the quest for knowledge than philosophy, as Hawking claimed, then perhaps it should be valued over philosophy and other non-scientific fields of enquiry.Before we can address these questions, however, we need to get our definitions straight. For, much like other philosophical isms, ‘scientism’ means different things to different philosophers. Now, the question of whether science is the only way of knowing about reality, or at least better than non- scientific ways of knowing, is an epistemological question. Construed as an epistemological thesis, then, scientism can be broadly understood as either the view that scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge we have, or the view that scientific knowledge is the best form of knowledge we have. But scientism comes in other varieties as well, including methodological and metaphysical ones. As a methodological thesis, scientism is either the view that scientific methods are the only. ways of knowing about reality we have, or the view that scientific methods are the best ways of knowing about reality we have. And, construed as a metaphysical thesis, scientism is either the view that science is our only guide to what exists, or the view that science is our best guide to what exists.Without a clear understanding of the aforementioned varieties of scientism, philosophical parties to the scientism debate are at risk of merely talking past each other. That is, some defenders of scientism might be arguing for weaker varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the best ones, while their opponents interpret them as arguing for stronger varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the only ones. My own position, for example, is a weak variety of scientism. In my paper ‘Whats So Bad about Scientism?” (2017), defend scientism as an epistemological thesis, which I call ‘Weak Scientism’. This is the view that scientific knowledge i the best form of knowledge we have (as opposed to ‘Strong Scientist, which is the view that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge we hav e).Q.How does the author perceive the worth of science in relation to other academic disciplines?

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Philosophy is dead, Stephen Hawking once declared, because it ‘has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics! It is scientists, not philosophers, who are now ‘the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge’. The response from some philosophers was to accuse Hawking of ‘scientism’. The charge of ‘scientism is meant to convey disapproval of anyone who values scientific disciplines, such as physics, over non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy. The philosopher Tom Sorell writes that scientism is ‘a matter of putting too high a value on science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture’. But whats wrong with putting a higher value on science compared with other academic disciplines? What is so bad about scientism? If physics is in fact a better torch in the quest for knowledge than philosophy, as Hawking claimed, then perhaps it should be valued over philosophy and other non-scientific fields of enquiry.Before we can address these questions, however, we need to get our definitions straight. For, much like other philosophical isms, ‘scientism’ means different things to different philosophers. Now, the question of whether science is the only way of knowing about reality, or at least better than non- scientific ways of knowing, is an epistemological question. Construed as an epistemological thesis, then, scientism can be broadly understood as either the view that scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge we have, or the view that scientific knowledge is the best form of knowledge we have. But scientism comes in other varieties as well, including methodological and metaphysical ones. As a methodological thesis, scientism is either the view that scientific methods are the only. ways of knowing about reality we have, or the view that scientific methods are the best ways of knowing about reality we have. And, construed as a metaphysical thesis, scientism is either the view that science is our only guide to what exists, or the view that science is our best guide to what exists.Without a clear understanding of the aforementioned varieties of scientism, philosophical parties to the scientism debate are at risk of merely talking past each other. That is, some defenders of scientism might be arguing for weaker varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the best ones, while their opponents interpret them as arguing for stronger varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the only ones. My own position, for example, is a weak variety of scientism. In my paper ‘Whats So Bad about Scientism?” (2017), defend scientism as an epistemological thesis, which I call ‘Weak Scientism’. This is the view that scientific knowledge i the best form of knowledge we have (as opposed to ‘Strong Scientist, which is the view that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge we hav e).Q.Which of the following statements most accurately encapsulates the authors stance regarding scientism?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) below, when properly sequenced, would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequencing of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer:1. This philosophical crisis, percolating through the ages, questions the linear understanding of time, suggesting instead a more nuanced, cyclical concept.2. The human perception of existence has been a subject of contemplation, often contrasting the empirical understanding of life with metaphysical interpretations.3. It posits that existence is not merely a series of events but a complex pattern of cycles, each a reflection of recurring existential questions.4. These interpretations challenge the very foundation of human experience, offering alternative narratives that transcend common reasoning.Correct answer is '2134'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) below, when properly sequenced, would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequencing of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer:1. This philosophical crisis, percolating through the ages, questions the linear understanding of time, suggesting instead a more nuanced, cyclical concept.2. The human perception of existence has been a subject of contemplation, often contrasting the empirical understanding of life with metaphysical interpretations.3. It posits that existence is not merely a series of events but a complex pattern of cycles, each a reflection of recurring existential questions.4. These interpretations challenge the very foundation of human experience, offering alternative narratives that transcend common reasoning.Correct answer is '2134'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) below, when properly sequenced, would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequencing of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer:1. This philosophical crisis, percolating through the ages, questions the linear understanding of time, suggesting instead a more nuanced, cyclical concept.2. The human perception of existence has been a subject of contemplation, often contrasting the empirical understanding of life with metaphysical interpretations.3. It posits that existence is not merely a series of events but a complex pattern of cycles, each a reflection of recurring existential questions.4. These interpretations challenge the very foundation of human experience, offering alternative narratives that transcend common reasoning.Correct answer is '2134'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) below, when properly sequenced, would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequencing of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer:1. This philosophical crisis, percolating through the ages, questions the linear understanding of time, suggesting instead a more nuanced, cyclical concept.2. The human perception of existence has been a subject of contemplation, often contrasting the empirical understanding of life with metaphysical interpretations.3. It posits that existence is not merely a series of events but a complex pattern of cycles, each a reflection of recurring existential questions.4. These interpretations challenge the very foundation of human experience, offering alternative narratives that transcend common reasoning.Correct answer is '2134'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) below, when properly sequenced, would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequencing of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer:1. This philosophical crisis, percolating through the ages, questions the linear understanding of time, suggesting instead a more nuanced, cyclical concept.2. The human perception of existence has been a subject of contemplation, often contrasting the empirical understanding of life with metaphysical interpretations.3. It posits that existence is not merely a series of events but a complex pattern of cycles, each a reflection of recurring existential questions.4. These interpretations challenge the very foundation of human experience, offering alternative narratives that transcend common reasoning.Correct answer is '2134'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) below, when properly sequenced, would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequencing of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer:1. This philosophical crisis, percolating through the ages, questions the linear understanding of time, suggesting instead a more nuanced, cyclical concept.2. The human perception of existence has been a subject of contemplation, often contrasting the empirical understanding of life with metaphysical interpretations.3. It posits that existence is not merely a series of events but a complex pattern of cycles, each a reflection of recurring existential questions.4. These interpretations challenge the very foundation of human experience, offering alternative narratives that transcend common reasoning.Correct answer is '2134'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) below, when properly sequenced, would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequencing of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer:1. This philosophical crisis, percolating through the ages, questions the linear understanding of time, suggesting instead a more nuanced, cyclical concept.2. The human perception of existence has been a subject of contemplation, often contrasting the empirical understanding of life with metaphysical interpretations.3. It posits that existence is not merely a series of events but a complex pattern of cycles, each a reflection of recurring existential questions.4. These interpretations challenge the very foundation of human experience, offering alternative narratives that transcend common reasoning.Correct answer is '2134'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) below, when properly sequenced, would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequencing of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer:1. This philosophical crisis, percolating through the ages, questions the linear understanding of time, suggesting instead a more nuanced, cyclical concept.2. The human perception of existence has been a subject of contemplation, often contrasting the empirical understanding of life with metaphysical interpretations.3. It posits that existence is not merely a series of events but a complex pattern of cycles, each a reflection of recurring existential questions.4. These interpretations challenge the very foundation of human experience, offering alternative narratives that transcend common reasoning.Correct answer is '2134'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) below, when properly sequenced, would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequencing of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer:1. This philosophical crisis, percolating through the ages, questions the linear understanding of time, suggesting instead a more nuanced, cyclical concept.2. The human perception of existence has been a subject of contemplation, often contrasting the empirical understanding of life with metaphysical interpretations.3. It posits that existence is not merely a series of events but a complex pattern of cycles, each a reflection of recurring existential questions.4. These interpretations challenge the very foundation of human experience, offering alternative narratives that transcend common reasoning.Correct answer is '2134'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) below, when properly sequenced, would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequencing of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer:1. This philosophical crisis, percolating through the ages, questions the linear understanding of time, suggesting instead a more nuanced, cyclical concept.2. The human perception of existence has been a subject of contemplation, often contrasting the empirical understanding of life with metaphysical interpretations.3. It posits that existence is not merely a series of events but a complex pattern of cycles, each a reflection of recurring existential questions.4. These interpretations challenge the very foundation of human experience, offering alternative narratives that transcend common reasoning.Correct answer is '2134'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup