RC

DIRECTIONS for Questions 51 to 54: The passage given below is followed
by a set of questions. Choose
the most appropriate answer to each question.
"How could anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth
out of error? or the Will to Truth out of
the will to deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the
pure sun-bright vision of the wise man
out of covetousness? Such genesis is impossible; whoever dreams of it
is a fool, nay, worse than a fool; things
of the highest value must have a different origin, an origin of THEIR
own - in this transitory, seductive,
illusory, paltry world, in this turmoil of delusion and cupidity, they
cannot have their source. But rather in the
lap of Being, in the intransitory, in the concealed God, in the
'Thing-in-itself - THERE must be their source,
and nowhere else!" - This mode of reasoning discloses the typical
prejudice by which metaphysicians of all
times can be recognized, this mode of valuation is at the back of all
their logical procedure; through this
"belief" of theirs, they exert themselves for their "knowledge," for
something that is in the end solemnly
christened "the Truth." The fundamental belief of metaphysicians is
the belief in antitheses of values. It never
occurred even to the wariest of them to doubt here on the very
threshold (where doubt, however, was most
necessary); though they had made a solemn vow, "De Omnibus
Dubitandum." For it may be doubted, firstly,
whether antitheses exist at all; and secondly, whether the popular
valuations and antitheses of value upon
which metaphysicians have set their seal, are not perhaps merely
superficial estimates, merely provisional
perspectives, besides being probably made from some corner, perhaps
from below - "frog perspectives," as it
were, to borrow an expression current among painters. In spite of all
the value which may belong to the true,
the positive, and the unselfish, it might be possible that a higher
and more fundamental value for life generally
should be assigned to pretence, to the will to delusion, to
selfishness, and cupidity. It might even be possible
that WHAT constitutes the value of those good and respected things,
consists precisely in their being insidiously
related, knotted, and crocheted to these evil and apparently opposed
things - perhaps even in being essentially
identical with them. Perhaps! But who wishes to concern himself with
such dangerous "Perhapses"! For that
investigation one must await the advent of a new order of
philosophers, such as will have other tastes and
inclinations, the reverse of those hitherto prevalent - philosophers
of the dangerous "Perhaps" in every sense
of the term. And to speak in all seriousness, I see such new
philosophers beginning to appear.

51. What is the fundamental flaw with the method of reasoning of the
metaphysicians?
(1) They reject the transitory world.
(2) Their work is governed by narrow opinions.
(3) They believe in the existence of higher values
(4) Their beliefs cannot be logically verified.
(5) They give importance to only things of the highest value.

52. Which of the following would be in line with a metaphysical
assertion, according to the passage?
(1) Good and Evil are after all interconnected and could be accorded
the same value.
(2) Things of highest value can originate on their own.
(3) Selfishness and Evil can also be seen as the points of origin for
things of the highest value.
(4) Future philosophers may entirely disprove the present conception of truth.
(5) The present conception of values is merely provisional.

53. According to the author a belief in the 'Antitheses of values' results in:
(1) values being seen as interconnected
(2) values being seen as deceptive.
(3) a perception of inequality among values.
(4) a lack of importance accorded to values.
(5) values being seen as giving rise to one another.


54. The author uses the phrase 'De Omnibus Dubitandum' to suggest that:
(1) the metaphysicians take an oath which results in their prejudiced approach.
(2) the metaphysicians should apply their oath to their initial beliefs.
(3) the oath that the metaphysicians take governs their initial beliefs.
(4) the oath taken by the metaphysicians makes them skeptical of everything.
(5) the metaphysicians should have never taken an oath.