To solve the question "the author of the passage is likely to disagree with all of the following statements, EXCEPT," we need to identify the author's view on liberalism as presented in the text. Let's examine each statement:
1. If we accept that liberalism is a dying ideal, we must work to find a viable substitute. The author refutes the idea that liberalism is dying, indicating disagreement with this statement.
2. Liberalism was the dominant ideal in the past century, but it had to reform itself to remain so. The passage acknowledges liberalism's capacity for reform, suggesting the author agrees with this point and making it the exception.
3. Claims about liberalism’s disintegration are exaggerated and misunderstand its core features. While the passage discusses liberalism's challenges, the author's perspective on its adaptability might lead to disagreement with this broad claim.
4. The essence of liberalism lies in greater individual self-expression and freedoms. The author appears to question simplistic definitions of liberalism's core, implying disagreement with this statement.
Based on the passage and the author's expressed views, statement 2, "Liberalism was the dominant ideal in the past century, but it had to reform itself to remain so," is the exception the author is most likely to agree with.
To identify the statement that does not demonstrate the decline of liberalism, we must assess if each option supports the decline mentioned in the passage. An analysis of each statement follows:
1. "'The gap between liberalism’s claims about itself and the lived reality of the citizenry' is now so wide that 'the lie can no longer be accepted,' . . .” This statement points to the divergence between liberalism's stated ideals and the population's actual experiences, signifying a negative perception and thus indicating a decline.
2. “And technological advances are reducing ever more areas of work into meaningless drudgery.” This statement addresses the impact of technological progress on work, leading to repetitive and unfulfilling jobs. While it describes a societal problem, it does not directly criticize liberalism as being at fault; rather, it identifies a consequence of technological development, which could occur irrespective of the prevailing political or economic system.
3. “. . . the creation of a business aristocracy, the rise of vast companies . . .” This indicates concerns about an entrenched elite controlling economic systems, suggesting a failure of liberalism to ensure equity and thereby supporting its decline.
4. “Democracy has degenerated into a theatre of the absurd.” This describes democracy, a fundamental aspect of liberalism, as nonsensical, clearly highlighting a perceived decline in liberalism.
Statement 2 stands apart, as it only notes a consequence of technological advancement without attributing this issue to a failure of liberalism. Consequently, the correct statement is:
“And technological advances are reducing ever more areas of work into meaningless drudgery.”
The author's commentary on the "Davos elite" states: "As members of the Davos elite pile their plates ever higher with perks and share options, the biggest enemy of liberalism is not so much atomization but old-fashioned greed." Option B is correct as it alone addresses the avarice of the Davos elite.
Option A is incorrect. The passage critiques the hypocrisy of the Davos elite, not an increased interest in shared futures among disparate socioeconomic classes due to liberalism.
Option C is inaccurate. The paragraph discusses internal inconsistencies and arrogance, not a direct causal link between the rich profiting and the decline of liberal values.
Option D is incorrect. The passage focuses on the actions of the Davos elite, not on how the wealthy and powerful manipulate liberal discourse.
The correct option is (B): the hypocrisy of wealthy liberals who espouse liberal values while accumulating a disproportionate share of wealth.
You may laugh at a hat, but what you are making fun of, in this case, is not the piece of felt or straw, but the shape that men have given it, -- the human caprice whose mould it has assumed. It is strange that so important a fact, and such a simple one too, has not attracted to a greater degree the attention of philosophers. Several have de ned man as "an animal which laughs." They might equally well have de ned him as an animal which is laughed at; for if any other animal, or some lifeless object, produces the same effect, it is always because of some resemblance to man, of the stamp he gives it or the use he puts it to.
Here I would point out, as a symptom equally worthy of notice, the ABSENCE OF FEELING which usually accompanies laughter. It seems as though the comic could not produce its disturbing effect unless it fell, so to say, on the surface of a soul that is thoroughly calm and unru ed. Indifference is its natural environment, for laughter has no greater foe than emotion. I do not mean that we could not laugh at a person who inspires us with pity, for instance, or evenwith affection, but in such a case we must, for the moment, put our affection out of court and impose silence upon our pity. In a society composed of pure intelligences there would probably be no more tears, though perhaps there would still be laughter; whereas highly emotional souls, in tune and unison with life, in whom every event would be sentimentally prolonged and re-echoed, would neither know nor understand laughter. Try, for a moment, to become interested in everything that is being said and done; act, in imagination, with those who act, and feel with those who feel; in a word, give your sympathy its widest expansion: as though at the touch of a fairy wand you will see the imsiest of objects assume importance, and a gloomy hue spread over everything. Now step aside, look upon life as a disinterested spectator: many a drama will turn into a comedy. It is enough for us to stop our ears to the sound of music, in a room where dancing is going on, for the dancers at once to appear ridiculous. How many human actions would stand a similar test? Should we not see many of them suddenly pass from grave to gay, on isolating them from the accompanying music of sentiment? To produce the whole of its effect, then, the comic demands something like a momentary anesthesia of the heart. Its appeal is to intelligence, pure and simple
This uidity and situational dependence is uniquely human. In other species, in-group/outgroup distinctions re ect degrees of biological relatedness, or what evolutionary biologists call “kin selection.” Rodents distinguish between a sibling, a cousin, and a stranger by smell—xed, genetically determined pheromonal signatures—and adapt their cooperation accordingly. Those murderous groups of chimps are largely made up of brothers or cousins who grew up together and predominantly harm outsiders. Humans are plenty capable of kin-selective violence themselves, yet human group mentality is often utterly independent of such instinctual familial bonds. Most modern human societies rely instead on cultural kin selection, a process allowing people to feel closely related to what are, in a biological sense, total strangers. Often, this requires a highly active process of inculcation, with its attendant rituals and vocabularies. Consider military drills producing “bands of brothers,” unrelated college freshmen becoming sorority “sisters,” or the bygone value of welcoming immigrants into “the American family.” This malleable, rather than genetically xed, path of identity formation also drives people to adopt arbitrary markers that enable them to spot their cultural kin in an ocean of strangers—hence the importance various communities attach to ags, dress, or facial hair. The hipster beard, the turban, and the “Make America Great Again” hat all fulfill this role by sending strong signals of tribal belonging. Moreover, these cultural communities are arbitrary when compared to the relatively axed logic of biological kin selection. Few things show this arbitrariness better than the experience of immigrant families, where the randomness of a visa lottery can radically reshu e a child’s education, career opportunities, and cultural predilections. Had my grandparents and father missed the train out of Moscow that they instead barely made, maybe I’d be a chain smoking Russian academic rather than a Birkenstock-wearing American one, moved to tears by the heroism during the Battle of Stalingrad rather than that at Pearl Harbor. Scaled up from the level of individual family histories, our big-picture group identities—the national identities and cultural principles that structure our lives— are just as arbitrary and subject to the vagaries of history.