Comprehension Practice
Years List
Select a Year
The idea of wandering has anthropological, historical, and philosophical moorings. To some, it is an unconscious desire to substitute the powers of material life, beckoning us to establish our identity as sojourners of the earth, even as our ancestors, recorded and unrecorded history, may adumbrate that we are temperamentally nomads. We strollers search for shelters, food, and home. But would it be too elastic an idea to entertain unthinkingly that home is our destination, a dream place, where we should finally live and be free of external threats, often from man-made and natural designs of destruction? Can we stifle or eradicate our desires to control the geography and mindscape? Can we live in peace with ourselves without a rival as a neighbor? Scriptures glorify the essence of migration as a soulful activity that saves us from sangfroid existence and makes us vulnerable, a process necessary to ward off the place-dependent inertia.The expression "rolling stone" haunts the modern man. Modernity has revised the notion of cartography, as technology has shrunk geography into a molecule of presence, even as distances are just markers, as we transport our bodies, jetted, ferried, and biked across continents, and love the glossy veneer of globe-trotting. But are we the real successors of the wandering nomad, gypsies, Bedouins, drifters, and itinerants? Even the single expression "rolling stone" carries a deep semantic and epochal diversity. The phrase "rolling stone" is derived from the ancient proverb "A rolling stone gathers no moss". This proverb was first recorded by the Roman Writer Pub Lilius Syros in the 1st century BC. The idea behind the proverb is that a stone that is constantly rolling or moving cannot gather moss, which was seen as a symbol of stability and growth.
However, during the Middle Ages, the phrase "rolling stone" was used to describe someone who was constantly moving from place to place, never staying in one spot long enough to settle or achieve stability. This usage was often associated with vagrants, beggars, or travelers. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the phrase "rolling stone" took on a more negative connotation, implying that someone was aimless, irresponsible, or lacking in ambition. For example, a person who was constantly changing jobs or careers might be called a "rolling stone". Not surprisingly, in the 20th century, the phrase "rolling stone" took on a more positive connotation, particularly in the domain of music and popular culture. The Rolling Stones, a British rock band, adopted the name in 1962, and it has since become synonymous with rock 'n' roll and rebellion. Today, the phrase "rolling stone" is often used to describe someone who is free-spirited, adventurous, and always on the move.
The philosophical weight of wandering caters to our whims and impulses of unshackling the stagnancy of fixity. As we wander through the desolate landscape, we feel the weight of our vagaries bearing down upon us. The impulse to flee, to escape the confines of civilization, has driven us to this remote outpost, where the brutal yet honest caveman within us can roam free. We are noble savages, untamed and unapologetic, driven by the wanderlust that has defined the colonial mindset for centuries. And yet, as we stand alone beneath the vast expanse of the sky, we feel the pangs of solitude, the ache of exile that has haunted us since we first left behind the comforts of home. It is a feeling that Goethe had once described as the "sweet pain" of separation, the bittersweet longing for a place that could never be recaptured. As we walk, the wind whipping our hair into a frenzy, we feel the wildness of the landscape seep into our very being, filling us with a sense of joie de vivre.
We are strangers in a strange land, wanderers without a home, and yet, in this moment, we are free. Free to roam, to explore, to surrender to the whims of the wind and the sun. It is a fleeting moment, one that will soon give way to the harsh realities of survival, but for now, we revel in the beauty of our own exile. For in the end, it is not the destination that matters, but the journey itself, the solitary path that winds its way through the wilderness of the soul. Consequently, anthropologically, we had no choice but to be exclusive and traverse geographies, driven by an innate desire to leave our mark on the landscape, transforming under climatic conditions, and navigating the ecological threats coupled with our destructive atavistic urges. Nietzsche believed in the surpassing of earthly landmarks and chose eternal wandering, removing obstacles of earthly existence, and illuminating the idea of eternal recurrence.
Hence, wandering has to be infinite, yet free of personal prejudices. Perhaps following Nietzsche's flight of supra-transcendence, and adding his mystic dimension, Iqbal envisioned wandering as a way of exploring the cosmic creation, the ever-mind-boggling idea of time, as we are wanderers in both time-bound and timeless realms. The Eastern and Western notions of wandering find a wedge separating the Romantic from the Rationalist, and yet they intertwine. Those who choose to leave home, cities, towns, relationships, and social conventions, are the most romantic wanderers, and yet they hold a foot in rationalization of wandering, given to revision and reflection. As Wordsworth so eloquently put it: "The world is too much with us; late and soon, Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers; Little we see in nature that is ours, we have given our hearts away, a sordid boon.
In this sense, wandering becomes a means of reclaiming our connection with nature and rediscovering our place within the world. By embracing the unknown, and surrendering to the beauty of the landscape, we may find a deeper sense of meaning and purpose. As we wander, we are reminded that the world is full of wonder and that our place within it is one of awe and reverence. It will not be wrong to say that wandering personifies a homocentric odyssey for selfdiscovery, as we investigate the inner landscapes of our minds and hearts. At the same time, it is an anthropocentric endeavor, as we seek to leave our mark on the world and assert our presence within the larger human experience. Through wandering, we find ourselves at the intersection of these two realms, where the personal and the universal converge. In this sense, wandering becomes a holistic activity that integrates our identities with our shared human existence.
Questions
1. How does wandering reconcile the tension between rootedness and restlessness?
Wandering caters to our impulses of unshackling the stagnancy of fixity (restlessness), while simultaneously allowing the wanderer to feel the ache of exile and the bittersweet longing for a place that could never be recaptured (rootedness). By viewing the journey, itself as important, wandering integrates these feelings, offering a deeper sense of purpose.
2. Is the romanticization of wandering a form of escapism or self-discovery?
The text portrays it as both. It is escapism through the impulse to flee, to escape the confines of civilization. However, it is fundamentally a form of self-discovery as wandering personifies a homocentric odyssey for self-discovery and is driven by an exploration of the wilderness of the soul.
3. Can wandering be a means of decolonizing the self?
The source links wanderlust to the colonial mindset. However, wandering is also described as driven by the impulse to escape the confines of civilization and acting as noble savages, untamed and unapologetic, suggesting an internal liberation from established societal and conventional structures, which may be interpreted as a form of decolonizing the self.
4. Does the notion of eternal recurrence legitimize or undermine the concept of wandering?
It legitimizes the concept of wandering. Nietzsche chose eternal wandering (which must be infinite and free of personal prejudices) to illuminate the idea of eternal recurrence.
5. What dual realms does wandering operate at the intersection of?
Wandering operates at the intersection of the homocentric odyssey for self-discovery(investigating inner landscapes) and the anthropocentric endeavor (seeking to leave a mark on the world), where the personal and the universal converge.
"In the heart of innovation, where creativity dances with technology, a new era of possibilities emerges. The digital landscape, once a distant horizon, now envelops every facet of our lives. From communication to commerce, the symbiotic relationship between humanity and technology shapes the contours of our modern existence. In this age of rapid change, the role of education becomes pivotal. The traditional classroom, with its four walls, expands into the boundless realms of the internet. E-learning platforms and virtual classrooms redefine the notion of education, offering a dynamic space for collaboration and knowledge exchange. The democratization of information, facilitated by digital platforms, challenges traditional hierarchies and empowers learners across the globe. However, as we navigate the seas of technological progress, questions of ethics and inclusivity arise. The digital divide, a chasm separating those with access to technology from those without, underscores the need for inclusive policies. In this context, the role of educators extends beyond imparting knowledge to fostering a sense of responsibility and ethical conduct in the digital realm. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into various aspects of our lives further blurs the boundaries between human and machine.
As AI algorithms make decisions that impact society, the importance of ethical considerations and transparency grows exponentially. The intersection of technology and ethics becomes a defining point in the evolution of our digital landscape. As we stand at the crossroads of innovation, the challenge is not merely to embrace technological advancements but to do so with a mindful and ethical approach. The synergy between humanity and technology holds immense promise, but it is our collective responsibility to navigate this path with wisdom, ensuring that progress aligns with the principles of equity, inclusivity, and ethical awareness".
Questions
1. What is the main theme of the passage, and how does it emphasize the evolving relationship between humanity and technology?
The main theme is the emergence of a new era of possibilities driven by innovation and technology. The passage emphasizes the evolving relationship by describing it as a symbiotic relationship that shapes the contours of our modern existence.
2. According to the passage, how does education adapt to the digital landscape, and what challenges and opportunities does this transformation present?
Education adapts by having the traditional classroom expand into the boundless realms of the internet, utilizing E-learning platforms and virtual classrooms to redefine learning. This transformation presents the opportunity of the democratization of information, but the challenge of ethics and inclusivity.
3. Discuss the concept of the digital divide as presented in the passage. Why is inclusivity crucial in the context of technological advancements, and what role do educators play in addressing this divide?
The digital divide is presented as a chasm separating those with access to technology from those without. Inclusivity is crucial because it underscores the need for inclusive policies to ensure that progress aligns with the principles of equity. Educators play the role of extending beyond imparting knowledge to fostering a sense of responsibility and ethical conduct in the digital realm.
4. Explore the role of ethics in the digital realm, especially concerning artificial intelligence. How does the passage highlight the intersection between technology and ethical considerations?
Since AI algorithms make decisions that impact society, the role of ethics is highlighted by the growing importance of ethical considerations and transparency. The passage states that the intersection of technology and ethics becomes a defining point in the evolution of our digital landscape.
5. What is the message regarding the responsibility of individuals and society as a whole in navigating the intersection of humanity and technology? How can progress align with principles of equity, inclusivity, and ethical awareness?
The message is that the collective responsibility is to navigate this path with wisdom, doing so with a mindful and ethical approach. Progress can align with these principles by ensuring that technological advancements are embraced in a way that prioritizes equity, inclusivity, and ethical awareness.
The majority of people have always lived simply, and most of humanity still struggles on a daily basis to eke out a meager existence under dire circumstances. Only in affluent industrialized countries do people have the luxury of more goods and services than they need to survive. On the basis of material wealth, North Americans and Europeans should be the happiest people on earth, but according to the 2012 Happy Planet Index (HPI), they are not. Surprisingly, what had begun as an experimental lifestyle evolved into a quiet revolution that spread the word through books such as Duane Elgin’s best-selling Voluntary Simplicity: Toward a Way of Life that is Outwardly Simple, Inwardly Rich (1981), as well as numerous magazines, alternative communities of the like-minded, and, later, Internet websites. Combined with a growing awareness of the environmental consequences of consumerism, the voluntary simplicity movement sought to reduce the consumption of goods and energy and to minimize one’s personal impact on the environment. “Voluntary” denotes a free and conscious choice to make appropriate changes that will enrich life in a deeper, spiritual sense. “Simplicity” refers to the lack of clutter, that is, eliminating all those things, patterns, habits, and ideas that take control of our lives and distract us from our inner selves. However, this is not to be confused with poverty, which is involuntary, degrading, and debilitating. Neither does it mean that people must live on a farm or reject progress or technology, or do without what is necessary for their comfort and welfare. To practice voluntary simplicity, one must differentiate between what one wants (psychological desires) and what one needs (basic requirements of life), and seek a healthy balance that is compatible with both. In a consumer society where advertising bombards us with the message that without this, that, and the other product, we are unsuccessful, undesirable, and unimportant, being clear on what you really need and resisting what you don’t can be an ongoing struggle. The beauty of voluntary simplicity is that it is a philosophy, and not a dogma. How one goes about it depends on individual character, cultural background, and climate. For this, three Rs (i.e., Reduce, Recycle & Reuse) represent the best way to get a handle on rampant consumerism. In economies driven by the quest for ever more, living with less is erroneously equated with poverty and social inferiority. By conserving energy, for instance, you are actually ensuring that more resources are available for future use. By making a frugal budget and sticking to it, you can eliminate unnecessary expenses. Recycling paper, metal, plastic, and glass and reusing building materials and old clothing keep materials in the loop and out of landfills. Pooling skills and resources through barter networks not only saves money, but sharing with others establishes bonds and fosters a sense of community. With the glut of cheap goods that are usually designed for obsolescence, quality products that last are becoming progressively harder to find. In the long run, a more expensive but durable and repairable item or even an older used item that is still in good condition is a better investment than a brand new piece of junk that will only break down and end up in the trash. Thus, at the heart of voluntary simplicity is the conscious realization that less is really more. Less consumption means more resources for future generations. Less activity that brings little satisfaction or reward is more time for yourself and your loved ones. Less stuff is more space to move around in. Less stress means more relaxation and better health. Less worry provides more enjoyment and more fulfillment in life.
Questions
1. How important is happiness to most people, and what is the relationship between material wealth and happiness?
The importance of happiness is implied by the fact that North Americans and Europeans, who have the luxury of wealth, should be the happiest people on earth. However, according to the 2012 Happy Planet Index (HPI), they are not, suggesting that material wealth alone does not equate to happiness.
2. How does the author characterize the concept of ‘Voluntary Simplicity’ as a movement and as a philosophy?
As a movement, it sought to reduce the consumption of goods and energy and to minimize one’s personal impact on the environment. As a philosophy, its beauty is that it is a philosophy, and not a dogma, based on a free and conscious choice ("voluntary") to eliminate clutter ("simplicity") to enrich life spiritually.
3. What impact is feared by the growing consumerism of modern society?
The primary negative impact mentioned is the environmental consequences of consumerism. Another impact is the erroneous equating of living with less with poverty and social inferiority.
4. What influences make it difficult for people to reduce their consumption patterns?
It is difficult because they live in a consumer society where advertising bombards us with the message that without this, that, and the other product, we are unsuccessful, undesirable, and unimportant
5. What are the challenges and rewards of voluntary simplicity?
The main challenge is the ongoing struggle to differentiate between what one wants(psychological desires) and what one needs (basic requirements of life). The rewards are summarized by the realization that less is really more, leading to more resources for future generations, more time for oneself, less stress, better health, and more enjoyment and fulfillment in life.
Civil society refers to all of the places where individuals gather together to have conversations, pursue common interests and, occasionally, try to influence public opinion or public policy. In many respects, civil society is where people spend their time when they are not at work or at home. For example, a group of people gather at a local park every Thursday afternoon for a game of football. Most of them arrive well before the game begins and stay for some time after it ends. Some of them go out for dinner or a drink after the game. In the course of their meetings they talk about a wide range of topics, including football but also extending to include issues such as work, family, relationships, community events, racial issues and politics. This kind of solidarity can be found in a variety of other places in civil society – such as sports clubs, bowling leagues, reading groups and social movements – where individuals get together to associate on the basis of some shared interest fostering more effective forms of citizenship. Even though people may come together on the basis of an interest they all share in common, they eventually have to develop productive strategies for dealing with conflicts and differences that emerge within the association. Team mates in a bowling league discover, on certain issues, significant differences of opinion. And yet, because they value the association and look forward to participating in its activities, they do not respond to these differences by exiting the scene.
Instead, they search for the ways of interacting that will not threaten the solidarity of the group. In the process, they learn to appreciate and to tolerate social differences, a valuable skill to have in an increasingly multicultural nation. They also develop a general sense of social trust and mutual obligation, which makes society function more efficiently (this is what political scientists and sociologists are talking about when they refer to the importance of social capital). Gathering together in an association, people begin to think about their shared private interest as a collective public interest, and they try to make sure that this public interest is safe and secured. For example, the group that gets together for a weekly football game begins to talk about the park as an important community resource; if feel that the park is being mistreated or mismanaged, will organize a ‘save the park’ campaign to try to influence their local politicians and the other residents of the community. Recently, there has been growing concern that civil society is weaker than it used to be, because people are losing interest in joining associations. As citizens become increasingly disconnected from voluntary associations, they will experience less trust and less social connection, and as a result political institutions will function less efficiently. However, some scholars opine that many people are simply choosing to participate in different kinds of associations with fewer face-to-face meetings but supplemented with ‘virtual’ interactions.
Questions
1. How does the author characterize the concept of civil society?
Civil society is characterized as all of the places where individuals gather together to have conversations, pursue common interests and, occasionally, try to influence public opinion or public policy. It is generally where people spend their time when they are not at work or at home.
2. Why does civil society strive towards better socialization driven by tolerance?
Civil society strives towards tolerance because when conflicts and differences emerge within an association, members search for ways of interacting that will not threaten the solidarity of the group. In this process, they learn to appreciate and to tolerate social differences, which is a valuable skill in a multicultural nation.
3. What do you understand by the term ‘Social Capital’ used in this passage?
Social Capital is the general sense of social trust and mutual obligation developed in associations, which makes society function more efficiently.
4. Why does a civil society assume the role of a public stake holder?
A civil society assumes the role of a public stake holder when members begin to think about their shared private interest as a collective public interest, leading them to organize efforts (like a 'save the park' campaign) to influence politicians and residents when that public interest is threatened.
5. What impact is feared by the weakening state of civil society?
It is feared that if citizens become increasingly disconnected from voluntary associations, they will experience less trust and less social connection, and as a result, political institutions will function less efficiently
In its response to 9/11, America has shown itself to be not only a hyper power but increasingly assertive and ready to use its dominance as a hyper power. After declaring a War on Terrorism, America has led two conventional wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, demonstrating its overwhelmingly awesome military might. But these campaigns reveal something more: America’s willingness to have recourse to arms as appropriate and legitimate means to secure its interests and bolster its security. It has set forth a new doctrine: the right of pre-emptive strike when it considers its security, and therefore its national interests, to be at risk. The essence of this doctrine is the real meaning of hyper power. Prime Minister Tony Blair has consistently argued that the only option in the face of hyper power is to offer wise counsel. But increasingly this is a course that governments and people across the world have refused. The mobilization for war against Iraq split the United Nations and provoked the largest anti-war demonstrations the world has ever seen. And through it all, America maintained its determination to wage war alone if necessary and not to be counselled by the concerns of supposedly allied governments when they faithfully represented the wishes of their electorates. Rather than engaging in debate, the American government expressed its exasperation. The influential new breed of neoconservative radio and television hosts went much further. They acted as ringmasters for outpourings of public scorn that saw French fries renamed ‘freedom fries’ and moves to boycott French and German produce across America. If one sound-bite can capture a mood, then perhaps it would be Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. At the height of the tension over a second Security Council resolution to legitimate war in Iraq, Mr. O’Reilly told his viewers that the bottom line was security, the security of his family, and in that matter ‘There’s no moral equivalence between the US and Belgium’. It is, in effect, the ethos of hyper power articulated and made manifest in the public domain of 24-hour talk. And America’s willingness to prosecute war has raised innumerable questions about how it engages with other countries. Afghanistan has seen the removal of the Taliban. But there are no official statistics on the number of innocent civilians dead and injured to achieve that security objective. The people of Afghanistan have witnessed a descent into the chaos that preceded the arrival of the Taliban, a country administered not by a new era of democracy under the tutelage of the hyper power, but merely by the return of the warlords. Beyond Kabul, much of the country remains too insecure for any meaningful efforts at reconstruction and there is enormous difficulty in bringing relief aid to the rural population.
Questions
1. Why does the doctrine of power set by neo-imperial America deny space to counselling?
The doctrine of hyper power, which is the right of pre-emptive strike when America considers its security at risk, denies space to counseling because America demonstrated its determination to wage war alone if necessary and refused to be counselled by the concerns of supposedly allied governments.
2. What is the essence of ‘moral equivalence’ whereas War has no moral justification?
The essence of 'moral equivalence' in this context is captured by the idea that there is ‘no moral equivalence between the US and Belgium’, signifying the hyper power’s belief that its overwhelming security needs justify actions that transcend normal moral comparisons with other nations.
3. Why do countries occupied and under the tutelage of hyper power have no peace?
Countries occupied under the tutelage of hyper power have no peace because, as seen in Afghanistan, the removal of the Taliban led to a descent into the chaos that preceded their arrival. The country is administered not by democracy, but merely by the return of the warlords, remaining too insecure for meaningful reconstruction and relief aid.
4. Arguably Europe and hyper power US are at cross purposes over the concept of war. Are they? Why?
Yes, they are arguably at cross purposes. The mobilization for war against Iraq split the United Nations, and America refused to be counselled by allied governments whose concerns faithfully represented the wishes of their electorates. This indicates a fundamental disagreement, or "cross purposes," on the correct use of force.
5. What Tony Blair’s meant by ‘wise counsel’, and did it prevail?
Tony Blair meant that offering wise counsel was the only option in the face of hyper power. It did not prevail, as America maintained its determination to wage war alone and refused to be counselled by allied governments.
Globalization is viewed by its proponents as a process of cementing economic, cultural and political bonds between peoples of different countries of the world. One may regard it as a process by which they are welded into a single world society, to be termed as global society. It means internationalization of production and labor leading to integration of economies of developing and developed countries into global economy. To quote Rosaberth M.Kanter, “The world is becoming a global shopping mall in which ideas and products are available everywhere at the same time”. Globalization is a natural outcome of computer networking and electronic mass communication. Information technology has made it possible for nations of the world to contact one another beyond their national borders. Besides, globalization is also promoted through the growth and proliferation of multinational companies and corporations that operate as transporter networks. Anyhow the flow of capital technology and labor across the borders of countries has accentuated the process of globalization. Deregulation, liberalism and privatization being assiduously pursued in the developing countries are some other manifestations of globalization. These countries are opening their economies to follow these trends. The size of the public sector is shrinking for the private sector to assume an increasingly important role in the economic development of the Third World countries. The downsizing of the public sector is in line with the spirit of market economy. This is suggested as a measure to cover up their fiscal deficit.
Questions
1. Define globalization
Globalization is viewed as a process of cementing economic, cultural and political bonds between peoples of different countries of the world, leading to the internationalization of production and labor and the integration of economies into a global economy.
2. What is electronic mass communication?
Electronic mass communication, along with computer networking, is cited as a natural outcome of globalization. Information technology, which facilitates this, has made it possible for nations to contact one another beyond their national borders.
3. What does the term Third World denote?
The term Third World denotes the developing countries where deregulation, liberalism, and privatization are being pursued to promote economic development.
4. What is privatization?
Privatization is a manifestation of globalization where the size of the public sector is shrinking for the private sector to assume an increasingly important role in economic development.Question.
5. Explain ‘liberalism’ in the above context.
Liberalism is a manifestation of globalization being assiduously pursued in the developing countries, implying that these countries are opening their economies to follow this trend alongside deregulation and privatization.
When I returned to the common the sun was setting. The crowd about the pit had increased, and stood out black against the lemon yellow of the sky-a couple of hundred people, perhaps. There were raised voices, and some sort of struggle appeared to be going on about the pit. Strange imaginings passed through my mind. As I drew nearer I heard Stent's voice: "Keep back! Keep back!" A boy came running towards me. "It's moving'," he said to me as he passed; "it’s screwing' and screwing' out. I don't like it. I'm going' home, I am". I went on to the crowd. There were really, I should think, two or three hundred people elbowing and jostling one another, the one or two ladies there being by no means the least active. "He's fallen in the pit!" cried someone. "Keep back!" said several. The crowd swayed a little, and I elbowed my way through. Everyone seemed greatly excited. I heard a peculiar humming sound from the pit. "I say!" said Ogilvy. "Help keep these idiots back. We don't know what's in the confounded thing, you know!" I saw a young man, a shop assistant in Working I believe he was, standing on the cylinder and trying to scramble out of the hole again. The crowd had pushed him in. The end of the cylinder was being screwed out from within. Nearly two feet of shining screw projected. Somebody blundered against me, and I narrowly missed being pitched onto the top of the screw. I turned, and as I did so the screw must have come out, for the lid of the cylinder fell upon the gravel with a ringing concussion. I stuck my elbow into the person behind me, and turned my head towards the Thing again. For a moment that circular cavity seemed perfectly black. I had the sunset in my eyes. I think everyone expected to see a man emerge-possibly something a little unlike us terrestrial men, but in all essentials a man. I know I did.
But, looking, I presently saw something stirring within the shadow: greyish billowy movements, one above another, and then two luminous disks-like eyes. Then something resembling a little grey snake, about the thickness of a walking stick, coiled up out of the writhing middle, and wriggled in the air towards me-and then another. A sudden chill came over me. There was a loud shriek from a woman behind. I half turned, keeping my eyes fixed upon the cylinder still, from which other tentacles were now projecting, and began pushing my way back from the edge of the pit. I saw astonishment giving place to horror on the faces of the people about me. I heard inarticulate exclamations on all sides. There was a general movement backwards. I saw the shipman struggling still on the edge of the pit. I found myself alone, and saw the people on the other side of the pit running off, Stent among them. I looked again at the cylinder and ungovernable terror gripped me. I stood petrified and staring.
A big greyish rounded bulk, the size, perhaps, of a bear, was rising slowly and painfully out of the cylinder. As it bulged up and caught the light, it glistened like wet leather. Two large darkcolored eyes were regarding me steadfastly. The mass that framed them, the head of the thing, was rounded, and had, one might say, a face. There was a mouth under the eyes, the lipless brim of which quivered and panted, and dropped saliva. The whole creature heaved and pulsated convulsively. A lank tentacle appendage gripped the edge of the cylinder, another swayed in the air. Those who have never seen a living Martian can scarcely imagine the strange horror of its appearance.
The peculiar V-shaped mouth with its pointed upper lip, the absence of brow ridges, the absence of a chin beneath the wedge like lower lip, the incessant quivering of this mouth, the Gorgon groups of tentacles, the tumultuous breathing of the lungs in a strange atmosphere, the evident heaviness and painfulness of movement due to the greater gravitational energy of the earth above all, the extraordinary intensity of the immense eyes-were at once vital, intense, inhuman, crippled and monstrous. There was something fungoid in the oily brown skin, something in the clumsy deliberation of the tedious movements unspeakably nasty. Even at this first encounter, this first glimpse, I was overcome with disgust and dread.
Questions
1. What leads us to believe that this passage is from a science fiction story?
We believe it is science fiction because it describes the arrival of a cylinder and the emergence of a monstrous, inhuman creature explicitly identified as a living Martian, possessing tentacles, huge eyes, and a bulk rising from the cylinder.
2. How was the crowd behaving?
The crowd was behaving excitedly, with raised voices, and was composed of people elbowing and jostling one another. Everyone seemed greatly excited, though some sort of struggle was going on about the pit.
3. Why did the mood of the crowd alter?
The mood of the crowd altered because the entity that emerged from the cylinder was not the man they expected, but a horrific, monstrous creature. The narrator observed that astonishment quickly gave way to horror on the faces of the people.
4. What was the narrator’s initial reaction to the “Thing”?
The narrator’s initial reaction was a sudden chill followed by ungovernable terror gripping him, leaving him petrified and staring.
5. Why did the writer feel disgusted?
The writer felt disgusted because of the creature’s horrifying appearance, noting the fungoid quality of the oily brown skin, the clumsy deliberation of the tedious movements (which were "unspeakably nasty"), the quivering lipless mouth dropping saliva, and its monstrous nature.
The third great defect of our civilization is that it does not know what to do with its knowledge. Science has given us powers fit for the gods, yet we use them like small children. For example, we do not know how to manage our machines. Machines were made to be man’s servants; yet he has grown so dependent on them that they are in a fair way to become his master. Already most men spend most of their lives looking after and waiting upon machines. And the machines are very stern masters. They must be fed with coal, and given petrol to drink, and oil to wash with, and they must be kept at the right temperature. And if they do not get their meals when they expect them, they grow sulky and refuse to work, or burst with rage, and blow up, and spread ruin and destruction all around them. So we have to wait upon them very attentively and do all that we can to keep them in a good temper. Already we find it difficult either to work or play without the machines, and a time may come when they will rule us altogether, just as we rule the animals. And this brings me to the point at which I asked, “What do we do with all the time which the machines have saved for us, and the new energy they have given us?” On the whole, it must be admitted, we do very little. For the most part we use our time and energy to make more and better machines; but more and better machines will only give us still more time and still more energy, and what are we to do with them? The answer, I think, is that we should try to become mere civilized. For the machines themselves, and the power which the machines have given us, are not civilization but aids to civilization. But you will remember that we agreed at the beginning that being civilized meant making and linking beautiful things. Thinking freely, and living rightly and maintaining justice equally between man and man. Man has a better chance today to do these things than he ever had before; he has more time, more energy, less to fear and less to fight against. If he will give his time and energy which his machines have won for him to making more beautiful things, to finding out more and more about the universe, to removing the causes of quarrels between nations, to discovering how to prevent poverty, then I think our civilization would undoubtedly be the greater, as it would be the most lasing that there has ever been.
Questions
1. Instead of making machines our servants the author says they have become our masters. In what sense has this come about?
This has come about because man has grown so dependent on them that they are in a fair way to become his master. Most men spend their lives looking after and waiting upon machines, which act as stern masters demanding specific requirements (coal, petrol, right temperature) and punishing non-compliance by becoming sulky or blowing up.
2. The use of machines has brought us more leisure and more energy. But the author says that this has been a curse rather than a blessing. Why?
Answer: The author implies this is a curse because instead of using the time and energy saved to become more civilized, we use our time and energy to make more and better machines, resulting in a cycle that merely produces more resources without advancing true civilization.
3. What exactly is the meaning of ‘civilization’? Do you agree with the author’s views?
Being civilized means making and linking beautiful things. Thinking freely, and living rightly and maintaining justice equally between man and man. (The source does not contain material to support an argument for agreement or disagreement.)
4. ‘Making more beautiful things’ – what does this expression mean? Make a list of the beautiful things that you would like to make and how you would make them.
The expression ‘making more beautiful things’ means giving time and energy to: finding out more and more about the universe, to removing the causes of quarrels between nations, [and] to discovering how to prevent poverty. (The source does not contain information to list personal items or plans.)
5. Mention some plans you may have to prevent poverty in the world. Who would receive your most particular attention, and why?
The source does not contain information regarding personal plans to prevent poverty or attention given to specific groups.
Education ought to teach us how to be in love and what to be in love with. The great things of history have been done by the great lovers, by the saints and men of science, and artists, and the problem of civilization is to give every man a chance of being a saint, a man of science, or an artist. But this problem cannot be attempted, much less solved, unless men desire to be saints, men of science, and artists. And if they are to desire that continuously and consciously they must be taught what it means to be these. We think of the man of science or the artist, if not of the saint, as a being with peculiar gifts, not as one who exercises, more precisely and incessantly perhaps, activities which we all ought to exercise. It is a commonplace now that art has ebbed away out of our ordinary life, out of all the things which we use, and that it is practiced no longer by workmen but only by a few painters and sculptors. That has happened because we no longer recognize the aesthetic activity of the spirit, so common to all men. We do not know that when a man makes anything he ought to make it beautiful for the sake of doing so, and that when a man buys anything he ought to demand beauty in it, for the sake of beauty. We think of beauty if we think of it at all as a mere source of pleasure, and therefore it means to us ornament, added to things for which we can pay extra as we choose. But beauty is not an ornament to life, or to the things made by man. It is an essential part of both. The aesthetic activity, when it reveals itself in things made by men, reveals itself in design, just as it reveals itself in the design of all natural things. It shapes objects as the moral activity shapes actions, and we ought to recognize it in the objects and value it, as we recognize and value moral activity in actions. And as actions empty of the moral activity are distasteful to us, so should objects be that are empty of the aesthetic activity. But this is not so with most of us. We do not value it; do not even recognize it, or the lack of it, in the work of others. The artist, of whatever kind, is a man so much aware of the beauty of the universe that he must impart the same beauty to whatever he makes. He has exercised his aesthetic activity in the discovery of the beauty in the universe before he exercises it in imparting beauty to that which he makes. He has seen things in that relation in his own work, whatever it may be. And just as he sees that relation for its own sake, so he produces it for its own sake and satisfies the desire of his spirit in doing so. And we should value his work; we should desire that relation in all things made by man, if we too have the habit of seeing that relation in the universe, and if we knew that, when we see it, we are exercising an activity of the spirit and satisfying a spiritual desire. And we should also know that work without beauty means unsatisfied spiritual desire in the worker; that it is waste of life and common evil and danger, like thought without truth, or action without righteousness.
Questions
1. What has been lamented in the text?
The text laments that art has ebbed away out of our ordinary life, out of all the things we use, and is practiced no longer by workmen but only by a few painters and sculptors. This happened because we no longer recognize the aesthetic activity of the spirit common to all men.
2. What is the difference between ordinary man and an artist?
An ordinary man views the artist as a being with peculiar gifts. Conversely, the artist is a man so much aware of the beauty of the universe that he must impart the same beauty to whatever he makes, and he exercises activities (aesthetic activity) which we all ought to exercise.
3. How can we make our lives beautiful and charming?
We can make our lives beautiful and charming if we acquire the habit of seeing that relation (beauty) in the universe, and if we know that by seeing it, we are exercising an activity of the spirit and satisfying a spiritual desire.
4. What does the writer actually mean when he says, “Beauty is not an ornament to life”?
The writer means that beauty is not a mere source of pleasure, nor is it ornament, added to things for which we can pay extra as we choose. Instead, beauty is an essential part of both life and the things made by man.
The New Year is the time for resolution. Mentally, at least most of us could compile formidable lists of ‘do’s and ‘don’ts’. The same old favorites recur year in and year out with the children, do a thousand and one job about the house, be nice to people we don’t like, drive carefully, and take the dog for a walk every day. Past experience has taught us that certain accomplishments are beyond attainment. If we remain deep rooted liars, it is only because we have so often experienced the frustration that results from failure. Most of us fail in our efforts at selfimprovement because our schemes are too ambitious and we never have time to carry them out. We also make the fundamental error of announcing our resolution to everybody so that we look even more foolish when we slip back into our bad old ways. Aware of these pitfalls, this year I attempted to keep my resolution to myself. I limited myself to two modest ambitions, to do physical exercise every morning and to read more in the evening. An overnight party on New Year’s Eve provided me with a good excuse for not carrying out either of these new resolutionson the first day of the year, but on the second, I applied myself assiduously to the task. The daily exercise lasted only eleven minutes and I proposed to do them early in the morning before anyone had got up. The self-discipline required to drag myself out of bed eleven minutes earlier than usual was considerable. Nevertheless, I managed to creep down into the living room for two days before anyone found me out. After jumping about in the carpet and twisted the human frame into uncomfortable positions. I sat down at the breakfast table in an exhausted condition. It was this that betrayed me. The next morning the whole family trooped into watch the performance. That was really unsettling but I fended off the taunts and jibes of the family good humoredly and soon everybody got used to the idea. However, my enthusiasm waned, the time I spent at exercises gradually diminished. Little by little the eleven minutes fell to zero. By January10th I was back to where I had started from. I argued that if I spent less time exhausting myself at exercises in the morning. I would keep my mind fresh for reading when I got home from work. Resisting the hypnotizing effect of television, I sat in my room for a few evenings with my eyes glued to a book. One night, however, feeling cold and lonely, I went downstairs and sat in front of the television pretending to read. That proved to be my undoing, for I soon got back to the old bad habit of dozing off in front of the screen. I still haven’t given up my resolution to do more reading. In fact, I have just bought a book entitled ‘How to Read a Thousand Words a Minute’. Perhaps it will solve my problem, but I just have not had time to read it.
Questions
1. Why most of us fail in our efforts for self-improvement?
Most of us fail in our efforts at self-improvement because our schemes are too ambitious and we never have time to carry them out
2. Why is it a basic mistake to announce our resolution to everybody?
It is a basic mistake to announce our resolution to everybody so that we look even more foolish when we slip back into our bad old ways
3. Why did the writer not carry out his resolution on New Year’s Day?
The writer did not carry out his resolution on New Year’s Day because an overnight party on New Year’s Eve provided me with a good excuse for not carrying out either of these new resolution
Experience has quite definitely shown that some reasons for holding a belief are much more likely to be justified by the event than others. It might naturally be supposed, for instance, that the best of all reasons for a belief was a strong conviction of certainty accompanying the belief. Experience, however, shows that this is not so, and that as a matter of fact, conviction by itself is more likely to mislead than it is to guarantee truth. On the other hand, lack of assurance and persistent hesitation to come to any belief whatever are an equally poor guarantee that the few beliefs which are arrived at are sound. Experience also shows that assertion, however long continued, although it is unfortunately with many people an effective enough means of inducingbelief, is not in any way a ground for holding it. The method which has proved effective, as a matter of actual fact, in providing a firm foundation for belief wherever it has been capable of application, is what is usually called the scientific method. I firmly believe that the scientific method, although slow and never claiming to lead to complete truth, is the only method which in the long run will give satisfactory foundations for beliefs. It consists in demanding facts as the only basis for conclusions, and in consistently and continuously testing any conclusions which may have been reached, against the test of new facts and, wherever possible, by the crucial test of experiment. It consists also in full publication of the evidence on which conclusions are arrive at possibly very different conclusions. There are, however, all sorts of occasions on which the scientific method is not applicable. That method involves slow testing, frequent suspension of judgment, restricted conclusions. The exigencies of everyday life, on the other hand, often make it necessary to act on a hasty balancing of admittedly incomplete evidence, to take immediate action, and to draw conclusions in advance of the evidence. It is also true that such action will always be necessary, and necessary in respect of ever larger issues; and this in spite of the fact that one of the most important trends of civilization is to remove sphere after sphere of life out of the domain of such intuitive judgment into the domain of rigid calculation based on science. It is here that belief plays its most important role. When we cannot be certain, we must proceed in part by faith—faith not only in the validity of our own capacity of making judgments, but also in the existence of certain other realities, pre-eminently moral and spiritual realities. It has been said that faith consists in acting always on the nobler hypothesis; and though this definition is a trifle rhetorical, it embodies a seed of real truth.
Questions
1. Give the meaning of the underlined phrases as they are used in the passage.
(Referring to conviction by itself, suspension of judgment, exigencies of everyday life, intuitive judgment)• Conviction by itself: A strong feeling of certainty or belief, which is likely to mislead rather than guarantee truth. • Suspension of judgment: The act of deliberately postponing the formulation of a conclusion or belief. • Exigencies of everyday life: The urgent, unavoidable demands or pressures encountered in daily existence. • Intuitive judgment: Decision-making based on instinct, feeling, or immediate perception, often exercised when certainty is impossible.
2. What justification does the author claim for his belief in the scientific method?
The author believes the scientific method is the only method that has proved effective in providing a firm foundation for belief. He claims it is the only method that in the long run will give satisfactory foundations for beliefs, by demanding facts as the only basis for conclusions and continuously testing conclusions against new facts and experiments.
3. Do you gather from the passage that conclusions reached by the scientific method should be considered final? Give reasons for your answer.
No, the conclusions should not be considered final. The author states that the scientific method is slow and never claiming to lead to complete truth, and it requires consistently and continuously testing any conclusions against new facts.
4. In what circumstances, according to the author, is it necessary to abandon the scientific method?
It is necessary to abandon the scientific method on occasions where it is not applicable, such as when the exigencies of everyday life make it necessary to act on a hasty balancing of admittedly incomplete evidence, take immediate action, and draw conclusions in advance of the evidence.
5. How does the basis of “intuitive judgment” differ from that of scientific decision?
The basis of scientific decision is rigid calculation based on science and demanding facts as the only basis for conclusions. The basis of intuitive judgment differs by relying on a hasty balancing of admittedly incomplete evidence and requiring proceeding in part by faith (in moral and spiritual realities) when certainty is unavailable.
In the height of the Enlightenment, men influenced by the new political theories of the era launched two of the largest revolutions in history. These two conflicts, on two separate continents, were both initially successful in forming new forms of government. And yet, the two conflicts, though merely a decade apart, had radically different conclusions. How do two wars inspired by more or less the same ideals end up so completely different? Why was the American Revolution largely a success and the French Revolution largely a failure? Historians have pointed to myriad reasons—far too various to be listed here. However, the most frequently cited are worth mentioning. For one, the American Revolution was far removed from the Old World; that is, since it was on a different continent, other European nations did not attempt to interfere with it. However, in the French Revolution, there were immediate cries for war from neighboring nations. Early on, for instance, the ousted king attempted to flee to neighboring Austria and the army waiting there. The newly formed French Republic also warred with Belgium, and a conflict with Britain loomed. Thus, the French had the burden not only of winning a revolution but also defending it from outside. The Americans simply had to win a revolution. Secondly, the American Revolution seemed to have a better chance for success from the get-go, due to the fact that Americans already saw themselves as something other than British subjects. Thus, there was already a uniquely American character, so, there was not as loud a cry to preserve the British way of life. In France, several thousands of people still supported the king, largely because the king was seen as an essential part of French life. And when the king was first ousted and then killed, some believed that character itself was corrupted. Remember, the Americans did not oust a king or kill him—they merely separated from him. Finally, there is a general agreement that the French were not as unified as the Americans, who, for the most part, put aside their political differences until after they had already formed a new nation. The French, despite their Tennis Court Oath, could not do so. Infighting led to inner turmoil, civil war, and eventually the Reign of Terror, in which political dissidents were executed in large numbers. Additionally, the French people themselves were not unified. The nation had so much stratification that it was impossible to unite all of them—the workers, the peasants, the middle-class, the nobles, the clergy—into one cause. And the attempts to do so under a new religion, the Divine Cult of Reason, certainly did not help. The Americans, remember, never attempted to change the society at large; rather, they merely attempted to change the government.
Questions
1. Why and how did the Reign of Terror happen?
The Reign of Terror happened because the French were not as unified as the Americans. The inability of the French to put aside their political differences resulted in infighting, which led to inner turmoil, civil war, and eventually the Reign of Terror, during which political dissidents were executed in large numbers
2. In what ways does the author suggest that the American Revolution was easier to complete than the French Revolution?
The author suggests it was easier in several ways: The American Revolution was far removed from the Old World so other European nations did not interfere; Americans had a uniquely American character and only separated from the king, avoiding the belief that their national character was corrupted; and the Americans were unified, putting aside their political differences until after forming a new nation.
3. Of the challenges mentioned facing the French revolutionaries, which do you think had the greatest impact on their inability to complete a successful revolution? Why?
The sources do not contain information that allows for subjective evaluation or argument about which challenge had the "greatest impact".
4. Of the strengths mentioned aiding the American revolutionaries, which do you think had the greatest impact on their ability to complete a successful revolution? Why?
__
The civilization of China - as everyone knows, is based upon the teaching of Confucius who flourished five hundred years before Christ. Like the Greeks and Romans, he did not think of human society as naturally progressive; on the contrary, he believed that in remote antiquity rulers had been wise and the people had been happy to a degree which the degenerate present could admire but hardly achieve. This, of course, was a delusion. But the practical result was the Confucius, like other teachers of antiquity, aimed at creating a stable society, maintaining a certain level of excellence, but not always striving after new successes. In this he was more successful than any other man who ever lived. His personality has been stamped on Chinese Civilization from his day to our own. During his life time, the Chinese occupied only a small part of present day China, and were divided into a number of warring states. During the next three hundred years they established themselves throughout what is now China proper, and founded an empire exceeding in territory and population any other that existed until the last fifty years. In spite of barbarian invasions, and occasional longer or shorter periods of Chaos and Civil War, the Confucian system survived bringing with it art and literature and a civilized way of life. A system which has had this extra ordinary power of survival must have great merits, and certainly deserves our respect and consideration. It is not a religion, as we understand the word, because it is not associated with the super natural or with mystical beliefs. It is purely ethical system, but its ethics, unlike those of Christianity, are not too exalted for ordinary men to practice. In essence what Confucius teaches is something is very like the old-fashioned ideal of a ‘gentleman’ as it existed in the eighteenth century. One of his sayings will illustrate this: ‘The true gentleman is never contentious………he courteously salutes his opponents before taking up his position, so that even when competing he remains a true gentleman’.
Questions
1. Why do you think the author calls Confucius’ belief about the progress of human society as a delusion?
The author calls Confucius’ belief a delusion because Confucius believed that human society was not naturally progressive; rather, he believed that in remote antiquity rulers had been wise and the people had been happy to a degree the degenerate present could hardly achieve.
2. How did Confucius’ thought affect China to develop into a stable and ‘Proper’ China?
Confucius aimed at creating a stable society, maintaining a certain level of excellence. His system survived for centuries, and during the three hundred years after his death, the Chinese established themselves throughout what is now China proper, founding an empire and bringing with them art and literature and a civilized way of life.
3. Why does the author think that Confucian system deserves respect and admiration?
The author thinks the Confucian system deserves respect and consideration because it has had this extraordinary power of survival in spite of barbarian invasions, chaos, and civil war.
4. Why does the author call Confucian system a purely ethical system and not a religion?
The author calls it a purely ethical system because it is not associated with the super natural or with mystical beliefs.
5. Briefly argue whether you agree or disagree to Confucius’ ideal of a gentleman.
The sources do not contain information required to support an argument for agreement or disagreement with Confucius’ ideal of a gentleman, as this requires subjective analysis.
Human Beings feel afraid of death just as children feel afraid of darkness; and just as children’s fear of darkness is increased by the stories which they have heard about ghosts and thieves, human beings’ fear of death is increased by the stories which they have heard about the agony of the dying man. If a human being regards death as a kind of punishment for the sins he has committed and if he looks upon death as a means of making an entry into another world, he is certainly taking a religious and sacred view of death. But if a human being looks upon death as a law of nature and then feels afraid of it, his attitude is one of cowardice. However, even in religious meditation about death there is something a mixture of folly and superstition. Monks have written books in which they have described the painful experience which they underwent by inflicting physical tortures upon themselves as a form of self-purification. Such books may lead one to think that, if the pain of even a finger being squeezed or pressed is unbearable, the pains of death must be indescribably agonizing. Such books thus increase a Man’s fear of death. Seneca, a Roman Philosopher, expressed the view that the circumstances and ceremonies of death frighten people more than death itself would do. A dying man is heard uttering groans; his body is seen undergoing convulsions; his face appears to be absolutely bloodless and pale; at his death his friends begin to weep and his relations put on mourning clothes; various rituals are performed. All these facts make death appear more horrible than it would be otherwise.
Questions
1. What is the difference between human beings’ fear of death and children’s fear of darkness?
Children’s fear of darkness is increased by the stories which they have heard about ghosts and thieves. Human beings’ fear of death is increased by the stories which they have heard about the agony of the dying man.
2. What is a religious and sacred view of death?
A religious and sacred view of death is taken if a human being regards death as a kind of punishment for the sins he has committed or if he looks upon death as a means of making an entry into another world
3. What are the painful experiences described by the Monks in their books?
The monks have described the painful experience which they underwent by inflicting physical tortures upon themselves as a form of self-purification.
4. What are the views of Seneca about death?
Seneca, a Roman Philosopher, expressed the view that the circumstances and ceremonies of death frighten people more than death itself would do.
5. What are the facts that make death appear more horrible than it would be otherwise?
The facts that make death appear more horrible are: a dying man is heard uttering groans; his body is seen undergoing convulsions; his face appears bloodless and pale; his friends begin to weep; his relations put on mourning clothes; and various rituals are performed.
Knowledge is acquired when we succeed in fitting a new experience in the system of concepts based upon our old experiences. Understanding comes when we liberate ourselves from the old and so make possible a direct, unmediated contact with the new, the mystery, moment by moment, of our existence. The new is the given on every level of experience – given perceptions, given emotions and thoughts, given states of unstructured awareness, given relationships with things and persons. The old is our home-made system of ideas and word patterns. It is the stock of finished articles fabricated out of the given mystery by memory and analytical reasoning, by habit and automatic associations of accepted notions. Knowledge is primarily a knowledge of these finished articles. Understanding is primarily direct awareness of the raw material.
Knowledge is always in terms of concepts and can be passed on by means of words or other symbols. Understanding is not conceptual and therefore cannot be passed on. It is an immediate experience, and immediate experience can only be talked about (very inadequately), never shared. Nobody can actually feel another’s pain or grief, another’s love or joy, or hunger. And similarly nobody can experience another’s understanding of a given event or situation. There can, of course, be knowledge of such an understanding, and this knowledge may be passed on in speech or writing, or by means of other symbols. Such communicable knowledge is useful as a reminder that there have been specific understandings in the past, and that understanding is at all times possible. But we must always remember that knowledge of understanding is not the same thing as the understanding which is the raw material of that knowledge. It is as different from understanding as the doctor’s prescription for penciling is different from penicillin.
Questions
1. How is knowledge different from understanding?
Knowledge is acquired by fitting a new experience in the system of concepts based upon our old experiences, and is primarily a knowledge of finished articles that is conceptual and can be passed on. Understanding, conversely, comes when we liberate ourselves from the old to contact the new, the mystery, is primarily direct awareness of the raw material, is not conceptual, and cannot be passed on.
2. Explain why understanding cannot be passed on.
Understanding cannot be passed on because it is not conceptual. It is an immediate experience that can only be talked about inadequately, and never shared, just as one cannot experience another’s pain or grief.
3. Is the knowledge of understanding possible? If it is, how may it be passed on?
Yes, knowledge of such an understanding is possible. This knowledge may be passed on in speech or writing, or by means of other symbols
4. How does the author explain that knowledge of understanding is not the same thing as the understanding?
The author explains that knowledge of understanding is not the same thing as the understanding (which is the raw material of that knowledge) by saying it is as different from understanding as the doctor’s prescription for penciling is different from penicillin.
5. How far do you agree with the author in his definitions of knowledge and understanding? Give reasons for your answer.
The sources do not contain sufficient material to formulate an argument supporting agreement or disagreement with the author's definitions, as this requires external analysis and personal perspective.
And still it moves. The words of Galileo, murmured when the tortures of the Inquisition had driven him to recant the Truth he knew, apply in a new way to our world today. Sometimes, in the knowledge of all that has been discovered, all that has been done to make life on the planet happier and more worthy, we may be tempted to settle down to enjoy our heritage. That would, indeed, be the betrayal of our trust. These men and women of the past have given everything ---comfort, time, treasure, peace of mind and body, life itself --- that we might live as we do. The challenge to each one of us is to carry on their work for the sake of future generations. The adventurous human mind must not falter. Still must we question the old truths and work for the new ones. Still must we risk scorn, cynicism, neglect, loneliness, poverty, persecution, if need be. We must shut our ears to the easy voice which tells us that ‘human nature will never alter’ as an excuse for doing nothing to make life more worthy. Thus will the course of the history of mankind go onward, and the world we know move into a new splendor for those who are yet to be.
Questions
1. What made Galileo recant the Truth he knew?
Galileo was driven to recant the Truth he knew by the tortures of the Inquisition.
2. What is the heritage being alluded to in the first paragraph?
The heritage being alluded to is the knowledge of all that has been discovered and all that has been done to make life on the planet happier and more worthy.
3. What does the ‘betrayal of our trust’ imply?
The betrayal of our trust implies being tempted to settle down to enjoy our heritage rather than accepting the challenge to carry on their work for the sake of future generations.
4. Why do we need to Question the old truths and work for the new ones?
We need to Question the old truths and work for the new ones because the adventurous human mind must not falter, and so that the course of the history of mankind will go onward, moving the world into a new splendor for those who are yet to be.
5. Explain the words or expressions as highlighted/underlined in the passage.
• Heritage: The beneficial results of past discoveries and achievements (knowledge, happier life, worthier existence) left to the current generation. • Betrayal of our trust: A failure to fulfill the responsibility of carrying on the legacy of progress left by those who sacrificed everything. • Carry on their work: To continue the efforts of past men and women (who gave comfort, time, treasure, life itself) for the benefit of future generations.• Falter: To lose strength or momentum; the human mind must not hesitate or weaken its adventurous spirit. • Question the old truths and work for the new ones: To maintain intellectual vigor by challenging existing knowledge and striving for continuous, innovative progress.
It is in the very nature of the helicopter that its great versatility is found. To begin with, the helicopter is the fulfillment of one of man’s earliest and most fantastic dreams. The dream of flying – not just like a bird – but of flying as nothing else flies or has ever flown. To be able to fly straight up and straight down – to fly forward or back or sidewise, or to hover over and spot till the fuel supply is exhausted.
To see how the helicopter can do things that are not possible for the conventional fixed-wing plane, let us first examine how a conventional plane “works”. It works by its shape – by the shape of its wing, which deflects air when the plane is in motion. That is possible because air has density and resistance. It reacts to force. The wing is curved and set at an angle to catch the air and push it down; the air, resisting, pushes against the under surface of the wing, giving it some of its lift. At the same time the curved upper surface of the wing exerts suction, tending to create a lack of air at the top of the wing. The air, again resisting, sucks back, and this gives the wing about twice as much lift as the air pressure below the wing. This is what takes place when the wing is pulled forward by propellers or pushed forward by jet blasts. Without the motion the wing has no lift.
Questions
1. Where is the great versatility of the helicopter found?
The great versatility of the helicopter is found in its very nature.
2. What is the dream of flying?
The dream of flying is not just to fly like a bird, but to fly as nothing else flies, including flying straight up and straight down, forward or back or sidewise, or to hover over and spot.
3. What does the wing of the conventional aircraft do?
The wing of the conventional aircraft deflects air when the plane is in motion, and it is curved and set at an angle to catch the air and push it down, giving it some lift.
4. What does the curved upper surface of the wing do?
The curved upper surface of the wing exerts suction, tending to create a lack of air at the top of the wing.
5. What gives the wing twice as much lift?
The air resisting and sucking back due to the curved upper surface of the wing gives the wing about twice as much lift as the air pressure below the wing.
These phenomena, however, are merely premonitions of a coming storm, which is likely to sweep over the whole of India and the rest of Asia. This is the inevitable outcome of a wholly political civilization, which has looked upon man as a thing to be exploited and not as a personality to be developed and enlarged by purely cultural forces. The people of Asia are bound to rise against the acquisitive economy which the West have developed and imposed on the nations of the East. Asia cannot comprehend modern Western capitalism with its undisciplined individualism. The faith, which you represent, recognizes the worth of the individual, and disciplines him to give away all to the service of God and man. Its possibilities are not yet exhausted. It can still create a new world where the social rank of man is not determined by his caste or color or the amount of dividend he earns, but by the kind of life he lives, where the poor tax the rich, where human society is founded not on the equality of stomachs but on the equality of spirits, where an untouchable can marry the daughter of the king, where private ownership is a trust and where capital cannot be allowed to accumulate so as to dominate that real producer of wealth. This superb idealism of your faith, however, needs emancipation from the medieval fancies of theologians and legists? Spiritually, we are living in a prison house of thoughts and emotions, which during the course of centuries we have woven round ourselves. And be it further said to the shame of us—men of older generation—that we have failed to equip the younger generation for the economic, political and even religious crisis that the present age is likely to bring. The while community needs a complete overhauling of its present mentality in order that it may again become capable of feeling the urge of fresh desires and ideals. The Indian Muslim has long ceased to explore the depths of his own inner life. The result is that he has ceased to live in the full glow and color of life, and is consequently in danger of an unmanly compromise with force, which he is made to think he cannot vanquish in open conflict. He who desires to change an unfavorable environment must undergo a complete transformation of his inner being. God changes not the condition of a people until they themselves take the initiative to change their condition by constantly illuminating the zone of their daily activity in the light of a definite ideal. Nothing can be achieved without a firm faith in the independence of one’s own inner life. This faith alone keeps a people’s eye fixed on their goal and save them from perpetual vacillation. The lesson that past experiences has brought to you must be taken to heart. Expect nothing form any side. Concentrate your whole ego on yourself alone and ripen your clay into real manhood if you wish to see your aspiration realized.
Questions
1. What is the chief characteristic of the modern political civilization?
The chief characteristic of the modern political civilization is that it has looked upon man as a thing to be exploited and not as a personality to be developed and enlarged by purely cultural forces.
2. What are possibilities of our Faith, which can be of advantage to the world?
The possibilities of our Faith include recognizing the worth of the individual, disciplining him to give away all to the service of God and man, and creating a new world founded on the equality of spirits where social rank is determined by the kind of life he lives.
3. What is the chief danger confronting the superb idealism of our Faith?
The chief danger confronting the superb idealism of our Faith is the need for emancipation from the medieval fancies of theologians and legists, as spiritually, we are living in a prison house of thoughts and emotions woven around ourselves over centuries.
4. Why is the Indian Muslim in danger of coming to an unmanly compromise with the Forces opposing him?
The Indian Muslim is in danger because he has long ceased to explore the depths of his own inner life, resulting in him ceasing to live in the full glow and color of life, which makes him think he cannot vanquish opposing forces in open conflict.
5. What is necessary for an achievement?
A firm faith in the independence of one’s own inner life is necessary for an achievement. Also, one must undergo a complete transformation of his inner being to change an unfavorable environment.
6. Explain the expression as highlighted/under lined in the passage.
(Referring to political civilization, acquisitive economy, equality of spirits, prison house of thoughts and emotions, perpetual vacillation)• Political civilization: A form of societal structure, particularly the modern one, characterized by looking upon man as a thing to be exploited.• Acquisitive economy: The economic system developed by the West (Western capitalism) which is focused on the acquisition and ownership of wealth and resources. • Equality of spirits: The foundation of a society where the spiritual worth of every individual is recognized as equal, regardless of material or social differences. • Prison house of thoughts and emotions: A spiritual state where people are confined or trapped by old, restrictive, medieval ideas woven round themselves over time. • Perpetual vacillation: Constant, unending hesitation or wavering between different goals or courses of action.
7. Suggest an appropriate title to the passage.
The Crisis of Civilization and the Potential of Faith / The Call for Inner Transformation in Asia.
Strong section of industrials who still imagine that men can be mere machines and are at their best as machines if they are mere machines are already menacing what they call “useless” education. They deride the classics, and they are mildly contemptuous of history, philosophy, and English. They want our educational institutions, from the oldest universities to the youngest elementary schools, to concentrate on business or the things that are patently useful in business. Technical instruction is to be provided for adolescent artisans; book keeping and shorthand for prospective clerks; and the cleverest we are to set to “business methods”, to modern languages (which can be used in correspondence with foreign firms), and to science (which can be applied to industry). French and German are the languages, not of Montaigne and Goethe, but of Schmidt Brothers, of Elberfeld and DuPont et Cie., of Lyons. Chemistry and Physics are not explorations into the physical constitution of the universe, but sources of new dyes, new electric light filaments, new means of making things which can be sold cheap and fast to the Nigerian and the Chinese. For Latin there is a Limited field so long as the druggists insist on retaining it in their prescriptions. Greek has no apparent use at all, unless it be as a source of syllables for the hybrid names of patent medicines and metal polishes. The soul of man, the spiritual basis of civilization- what gibberish is that?
Questions
1. What kind of education does the writer deal with?
The writer deals with the split between "useless" education (the classics, history, philosophy, and English) and the technical instruction favored by industrials, focusing on subjects patently useful in business
2. What kind of education does the writer favor? How do you know?
The writer favors the classics, history, philosophy, and English. We know this because he describes the industrialists' view of these subjects with evident disdain (they deride the classics) and sarcastically presents the utilitarian view of languages and science (e.g., French/German as merely tools for correspondence, not literature).
3. Where does the writer express most bitterly his feelings about the neglect of the classics?
The writer expresses bitterness when discussing the contemporary utility of Latin (which has a Limited field with druggists) and Greek, which has no apparent use at all, except as a source of syllables for the hybrid names of patent medicines and metal polishes.
4. Explain as carefully as you can the full significance of the last sentence.
The last sentence, "The soul of man, the spiritual basis of civilization- what gibberish is that?", represents the industrial section's utter dismissal of humanistic pursuits. The significance is that by equating the philosophical and spiritual foundations of humanity with "gibberish," it highlights the dangerous, narrow-minded focus of industrial education solely on material and commercial gain.
5. Explain the underlined words and phrases in the passage.
(Referring to Patently useful in business, Technical instruction, Limited field, Hybrid names, Spiritual basis of civilization)• Patently useful in business: Clearly and obviously serving a practical purpose within commerce or industry. • Technical instruction: Specialized training provided for mechanical or industrial skills (for adolescent artisans). • Limited field: A small, restricted area of application. • Hybrid names: Compound terms created by mixing different elements (like Greek syllables and English words). • Spiritual basis of civilization: The non-material, humanistic, philosophical, or moral foundation upon which culture and society are built.
“Elegant economy!” How naturally one fold back into the phraseology of Cranford! There economy was always “elegant”, and money-spending always “Vulgar and Ostentation;” a sort of sour grapes which made up very peaceful and satisfied. I shall never forget the dismay felt when certain Captain Brown came to live at Cranford, and openly spoke of his being poor __ not in a whisper to an intimate friend, the doors and windows being previously closed, but in the public street! in a loud military voice! alleging his poverty as a reason for not taking a particular house. The ladies of Cranford were already moving over the invasion of their territories by a man and a gentleman. He was a half-pay captain, and had obtained some situation on a neighboring railroad, which had been vehemently petitioned against by the little town; and if in addition to his masculine gender, and his connection with the obnoxious railroad, he was so brazen as to talk of his being poor __ why, then indeed, he must be sent to Coventry. Death was as true and as common as poverty; yet people never spoke about that loud on the streets. It was a word not to be mentioned to ears polite. We had tacitly agreed to ignore that any with whom we associated on terms of visiting equality could ever be prevented by poverty from doing anything they wished. If we walked to or from a party, it was because the weather was so fine, or the air so refreshing, not because sedan chairs were expensive. If we wore prints instead of summer silks, it was because we preferred a washing material; and so on, till we blinded ourselves to the vulgar fact that we were, all of us, people of very moderate means.
Questions
1. Give in thirty of your own words what we learn from this passage of Captain Brown.
Captain Brown was a half-pay officer working on the disliked railroad. He shocked the ladies of Cranford by openly discussing his poverty, breaking their social custom of never mentioning financial hardship or modest means.
2. Why did the ladies of Cranford dislike the Captain.
The ladies disliked Captain Brown because he was a man intruding on their refined, female-dominated society, worked for the detested railroad, and offended their delicate manners by publicly admitting his poverty.
3. What reasons were given by the ladies of Cranford for “not doing anything that they wished”?
When the ladies of Cranford walked instead of using sedan chairs, they claimed it was for the pleasant weather or refreshing air. When they wore simple cotton prints instead of silk, they said they preferred washable materials.
4. “Ears Polite”. How do you justify this construction?
The phrase “ears polite” refers to the refined, sensitive audience of Cranford society who avoided hearing or speaking of anything coarse, unpleasant, or socially improper, such as poverty or death, which they considered impolite topics.
5. What is the meaning and implication of the phrases? (1) Sour grapeism (2) The invasion of their territories (3) Sent to Coventry (4) Tacitly agreed (5) Elegant economy
(1) Sour grapeism: Pretending that things one cannot afford or attain—like luxury or wealth—are undesirable, to feel content with one’s limited means. (2) The invasion of their territories: The unwelcome intrusion of Captain Brown, a man, into the women’s socially exclusive and genteel community. (3) Sent to Coventry: To be socially isolated, ignored, or shunned by others as a form of disapproval. (4) Tacitly agreed: Silently or implicitly accepted by everyone without being openly discussed or stated. (5) Elegant economy: A refined and graceful way of describing frugality, suggesting that simplicity and thrift were matters of good taste rather than necessity.
Here is an excerpt from the autobiography of a short story writer. Read it carefully and answer the questions that follow. My father loved all instruments that would instruct and fascinate. His place to keep things was the drawer in the ‘library table’ where lying on top of his folder map was a telescope with brass extensions, to find the moon and the Big Dripper after supper in our front yard, and to keep appointments with eclipses. In the back of the drawer you could find a magnifying glass, a kaleidoscope and a gyroscope kept in black buckram box, which he would set dancing for us on a string pulled tight. He had also supplied himself with an assortment of puzzles composed of metal rings and intersecting links and keys chained together, impossible for the rest of us, however, patiently shown, to take apart, he had an almost childlike love of the ingenious. In time, a barometer was added to our dining room wall, but we didn’t really need it. My father had the country boy’s accurate knowledge of the weather and its skies. He went out and stood on our front steps first thing in the morning took a good look at it and a sniff. He was a pretty good weather prophet. He told us children what to do if we were lost in a strange country. ‘Look for where the sky is brightest along the horizon,’ he said. ‘That reflects the nearest river. Strike out for a rive and you will find habitation’. Eventualities were much on his mind. In his care for us children he cautioned us to take measures against such things as being struck by lightning. He drew us all away from the windows during the severe electrical storms that are common where we live. My mother stood apart, scoffing at caution as a character failing. So I developed a strong meteorological sensibility. In years ahead when I wrote stories, atmosphere took its influential role from the start. Commotion in the weather and the inner feelings aroused by such a hovering disturbance emerged connected in dramatic form.
Questions
1. why did the writer’s father spend time studying the skies?
The writer’s father spent time studying the skies because he had a deep fascination with instruments that could both instruct and fascinate—such as his telescope, which he used to observe the moon and track eclipses. He also had the instinctive, accurate weather knowledge of a country boy and was considered a reliable weather prophet.
2. Why the writer thinks that there was no need of a barometer?
The writer believed there was no need for a barometer because her father’s keen observation of the skies and weather patterns enabled him to predict the weather simply by looking at the sky and taking a sniff of the air from the front steps.
3. What does the bright horizon meant for the writer’s father?
For the writer’s father, a bright horizon meant that the light reflected the presence of a nearby river. He believed that if they followed the brightness toward the river, they would find signs of human habitation.
4. How did her father influence the writer in her later years?
Her father influenced her by nurturing in her a strong meteorological awareness. In her later writings, she gave the atmosphere a powerful role, linking the turbulence of the weather to the emotional disturbances of her characters, blending natural and human drama.
5. Explains the underlined words and phrases in the passage.
• Instruments that would instruct and fascinate: Devices that educate while capturing one’s curiosity or imagination. • Childlike love of the ingenious: A pure, innocent admiration for things that are clever or skillfully designed. • Country boy’s accurate knowledge of the weather and its skies: Practical, firsthand understanding of weather patterns developed through rural life. •Eventualities: Possible future outcomes or situations that may occur. • Scoffing g at caution as a character failing: Treating carefulness or prudence as a weakness or flaw in someone’s character.
We look before and after, wrote Shelley, and pine for what is not. It is said that this is what distinguishes us from the animals and that they, unlike us, live always for and in the movement and have neither hopes nor regrets. Whether it is so or not I do not know yet it is undoubtedly one of our distinguishing mental attributes: we are actually conscious of our life in time and not merely of our life at the moment of experiencing it. And as a result we find many grounds for melancholy and foreboding. Some of us prostrate ourselves on the road way in Trafalgar Square or in front of the American Embassy because we are fearful that our lives, or more disinterestedly those of our descendants will be cut short by nuclear war. If only as" squirrels or butterflies are supposed to do, we could let the future look after itself and be content to enjoy the pleasures of the morning breakfast, the brisk walk to the office through autumnal mist or winter fog, the mid-day sunshine that sometimes floods through windows, the warm, peaceful winter evenings by the fireside at home. Yet all occasions for contentment are so often spoiled for us, to a greater or lesser degree by our individual temperaments, by this strange human capacity for foreboding and regret - regret for things which we cannot undo and foreboding for things which may never happen at all. Indeed, were it not for the fact that over breaking through our human obsessions with the tragedy of time, so enabling us to enjoy at any rate some fleeting moments untroubled by vain yearning or apprehension, our life would not be intolerable at all. As it is, we contrive, every one of us, to spoil it to a remarkable degree.
Questions
1. 1. What is the difference between our life and the life of an animal?
The difference is that animals live always for and in the movement and have neither hopes nor regrets. Humans, conversely, are conscious of our life in time and not merely of our life at the moment of experiencing it.
2. What is the result of human anxiety?
The result of human anxiety is finding many grounds for melancholy and foreboding.
3. How does the writer compare man to the butterflies and squirrels?
The writer compares man by suggesting that if only humans could let the future look after itself, like squirrels or butterflies are supposed to do, we could be content to enjoy the pleasures of the morning and immediate moments.
4. How does anxiety about future disturb our daily life?
Anxiety disturbs our daily life because the human capacity for foreboding and regret spoils all occasions for contentment. This includes regret for things we cannot undo and foreboding for things which may never happen at all.
5. How can we make our life tolerable?
We can make our life tolerable by breaking through our human obsessions with the tragedy of time, thus enabling us to enjoy some fleeting moments untroubled by vain yearning or apprehension.
My father was back in work within days of his return home. He had a spell in the shipyard, where the last of the great Belfast liners, the CANBERRA, was under construction, and then moved to an electronics firm in the east of the city. (These were the days when computers were the size of small houses and were built by sheet metal workers). A short time after he started in this job, one of his colleagues was sacked for taking off time to get married. The workforce went on strike to get the colleague reinstated. The dispute, dubbed the Honeymoon Strike, made the Belfast papers. My mother told me not long ago that she and my father, with four young sons, were hit so hard by that strike, that for years afterwards they were financially speaking, running to stand still. I don't know how the strike ended, but whether or not the colleague got his old job back, he was soon in another, better one. I remember visiting. Him and his wife when I was still quite young, in their new bungalow in Belfast northern suburbs. I believe they left Belfast soon after the Troubles began. My father then was thirty-seven, the age I am today. My Hither and I are father and son, which is to say we are close without knowing very much about one another. We talk about events, rather than emotions. We keep from each other certain of our hopes and fears and doubts. I have never for instance asked my father whether he has dwelt on (he direction his life might have taken if at certain moments he had made certain other choices. Whatever, he found himself, with a million and a half of his fellows, living in what was in all but name a civil war. As a grown up 1 try often to imagine what it must be like to be faced with such a situation. What, in the previous course of your life, prepares you for arriving, as my father did, at the scene of a bomb blast close to your brother's place of work and seeing what you suppose, from the color of the hair, to be your brother lying in the road, only to find that you arc cradling the remains of a woman? (Glycine Patterson).
Questions
1. From your reading of (the passage what do you infer about the nature of the 'Troubles" the writer mentions.
The "Troubles" were a time when people were living in what was in all but name a civil war, involving bomb blasts and lethal violence leading to the remains of victims being found.
2. What according to the writer were the working conditions in the Electronics firm where his father worked?
The working conditions involved the father working on computers (which were the size of small houses and built by sheet metal workers). The management was harsh, as a colleague was sacked for taking off time to get married, leading to a strike by the workforce.
3. Why was his father's colleague sacked?
His father's colleague was sacked for taking off time to get married
4. How docs the writer shows that as father and son they do not know much about each other?
The writer shows this by stating they are close without knowing very much about one another, they talk about events, rather than emotions, and they keep from each other certain of our hopes and fears and doubts.
There is indeed, something inexpressibly pleasing in the annual renovation of the world and the new display of the treasures of nature. The darkness and cold of winter with the naked deformity of every object, on which we turn our eyes, make us rejoice at the succeeding season, as well for what we have escaped, as for what we may enjoy. Every budding Flower, which a warm situation brings early to our view, is considered by us a messenger to notify the approach of more joyous days. The spring affords to a mind free from the disturbance of cares or passions almost everything that our present state makes us capable of enjoying. The Variegated Verdure of the fields and woods, the succession of grateful Odors, the Voice of pleasure pouring out its notes on every side, with the gladness apparently conceived by every animal from the growth of lies food and the clemency of the weather, throw over nature.
Questions
1. Give meanings of the underlines expressions in the passage in your own words.
.......
2. Say how an early budding flower becomes a messenger of happy days?
An early budding flower becomes a messenger of happy days because it is brought to our view by a warm situation, and is considered a messenger to notify the approach of more joyous days
3. Who, according to the writer can make the best of the spring season?
The spring affords enjoyment to a mind free from the disturbance of cares or passions.
4. Why are all animals glad at the approach of spring?
All animals are glad at the approach of spring because of the gladness apparently conceived from the growth of lies food and the clemency of the weather.
5. Suggest a title for the passage.
The Pleasures of Spring / The Annual Renewal of Nature.
Poetry is the language of imagination and the passions. It relates to whatever gives immediate pleasure or pain to human min. it comes home to the bosoms and business of men: for nothing but what comes home to them in the most general and intelligible shape can be a subject of poetry. Poetry is the universal language which the heart holds with nature and itself. He who has a contempt for poetry cannot have much respect for himself or for anything else. Whatever there is a sense of beauty, or power, or harmony, as in the motion of the waves of the sea, in the growth of a flower, there is a poetry in its birth. If history is a grave study, poetry may be said to be graver, its materials lie deeper, and are spread wider. History treats, for the most part, cumbersome and unwieldy masses of things, the empty cases in which the affairs of the world are packed, under the heads of intrigue or war, in different states, and from century to century but there is no thought or feeling that can have entered into the mind of man which he would be eager to communicate to others, or they would listen to with delight, that is not a fit subject for poetry. It is not a branch of authorship: it is “the stuff of which our life is made”. The rest is mere oblivion, a dead letter, for all that is worth remembering gin life is the poetry of it. Fear is Poetry, hope is poetry, love is poetry; hatred is poetry. Poetry is that fine particle within us that expands, refines, raises our whole being; without “man’s life is poor as beasts”. In fact, man is a poetical animal. The child Is a poet when he first plays hide and seek, or repeats the story of Jack the Giant Killer, the shepherd – boy is a poet when he first crowns his mistress with a garland of flowers; the countryman when he stops he stops to look at the rainbow; the miser when he hugs his gold; the courtier when he builds his hope upon a smile; the vain, the ambitious the proud, the choleric man, the hero and the coward, the beggar and the king, all live in a world of their own making; and the poet does no more than describe what all others think and act. Hazlitt.
Questions
1. In what sense is poetry the language of the imagination and the passion?
Poetry is the language of imagination and the passion because it relates to whatever gives immediate pleasure or pain to human min
2. How is poetry the Universal Language of the heart?
Poetry is the universal language because it is the language which the heart holds with nature and itself.
3. What is the difference between history and poetry?
History treats, for the most part, cumbersome and unwieldy masses of things, such as the empty cases in which the affairs of the world are packed. Poetry, conversely, is said to be graver, its materials lie deeper, and are spread wider, encompassing every thought or feeling that man would be eager to communicate.
4. (d) Explain the phrase: “Man is a poetical animal”.
This phrase means that all people, regardless of their role or character (like the child, the shepherd-boy, the miser, the beggar, and the king), live in a world of their own making; they all experience the passions (fear, hope, love, hatred) which are poetry, and the poet merely describes this inner world.
5. What are some of the actions which Hazlitt calls poetry and its doer’s poet?
Hazlitt calls actions like a child playing hide and seek, a shepherd-boy crowning his mistress with a garland of flowers, a countryman stopping to look at the rainbow, and a miser hugging his gold as acts of poetry, making the doers poets.
The vitality of any teaching, or historical movement, depends upon what it affirms rather than upon what it affirms rather than upon what it denies, and its survival and continued power will often mean that its positives are insufficiently regarded by opposing schools. The grand positives of Bentham were benevolence and veracity: the passion for the relief of man’s estate, and the passion for truth. Bent ham’s multifarious activities, pursued without abatement to the end of a long life, were inspired by a "dominant and all-comprehensive desire for the amelioration of human life"; they were inspired, too, by the belief that he had found the key to all moral truth. This institution, this custom, this code, this system of legislation-- does it promotes human happiness? Then it is sound. This theory, this creed, this moral teaching – does it rightly explain why virtue is admirable, or why duty is obligatory? The limitation of Bentham can be gauged by his dismissal of all poetry (and most religion) as "misrepresentation’; this is his negative side. But benevolence and veracity are Supreme Values, and if it falls to one of the deniers to be their special advocate, the believers must have long been drowsed. Bentham believes the Church teaches children insincerity by making them affirm what they cannot possibly understand or mean. They promise, for example, to fulfill the undertaking of their god---parents, that they will "renounce the devil and all his works, the pumps and vanity of this wicked world" etc. ‘The Devil" Bentham comments: " who or what is he, and how is it that he is renounced?" Has the child happened to have any dealings with him? Let the Archbishop of Canterbury tell us, and let him further explain how his own "works" are distinguished from the aforesaid "Pops and Vanity". What king, what Lords Temporal or Spiritual, have ever renounced them? (Basil Willey).
Questions
1. What does the writer mean by the following expressions: Multifarious activities, amelioration of human Life, it is sound, be their special advocate, Renounce the devil, drowsed, gauged, aforesaid.
........
2. On what grounds does Bentham believe that the Church Teaches children insincerity?
Bentham believes the Church teaches children insincerity by making them affirm what they cannot possibly understand or mean. Specifically, they promise to fulfill the undertaking of their god-parents, such as to "renounce the devil and all his works, the pops and vanity of this wicked world".
3. What according to the writer is Bentham’s limitation?
The limitation of Bentham is his dismissal of all poetry (and most religion) as "misrepresentation"
4. In what context has the Archbishop of Canterbury been quoted i.e. is he praised or condemned?
The Archbishop of Canterbury has been quoted in the context of Bentham condemning him, by challenging him to explain who the Devil is and how his (the Archbishop's) own "works" are distinguished from the "Pops and Vanity".