Which one of the following, if true, would not undermine the democratising potential of the Classic Maya worldview?
Reading Comprehension
Which one of the following, if true, would not undermine the democratising potential of the
Classic Maya worldview?
(i) They understood the stone implement and the incense burner in a purely human form.
(ii) They believed that animals like cats and dogs that live in proximity to humans have a more clearly articulated personhood.
(iii) They depicted their human healers with physical attributes of local medicinal plants.
(iv) While they believed in the personhood of objects and plants, they did not believe in the personhood of rivers and animals.
(i) They understood the stone implement and the incense burner in a purely human form.
(ii) They believed that animals like cats and dogs that live in proximity to humans have a more clearly articulated personhood.
(iii) They depicted their human healers with physical attributes of local medicinal plants.
(iv) While they believed in the personhood of objects and plants, they did not believe in the personhood of rivers and animals.
(iii) They depicted their human healers with physical attributes of local medicinal plants.
Option 1 expires because understanding something in a purely human form means taking a binary view that is undemocratic. According to the passage, the Maya did not see things in the outside world that way. Option 2 is also undemocratic because cats and dogs who live closer to humans tend to have "more clearly expressed personalities." Why only those who live close to humans, why not all? Option 2 is highly undemocratic. Option 3 is not invalidating democratic capacity in any way. Like Option 2, Option 4 believes in the personification of objects and plants but not of rivers and animals.
Comments
Post a Comment