<u>Answer:</u>
Can create stability in a company by building resistance to change.
<u>Explanation</u>:
- Organizational politics refers to the act of managers to create a stable and good decision for the welfare and benefit of their workers as well as for them also.
- They only concentrate in the improvement and betterment of their company and try to avoid all other conflicts and oppositions against their plans and decisions.
- They make use of their powers to a great extent. Also the social networking plays a very important role here so that the managers can plan and achieve their goals and targets in an easier way.
Answer:
Prajñāpāramitā means "the Perfection of (Transcendent) Wisdom" in Mahāyāna Buddhism. Prajñāpāramitā refers to this perfected way of seeing the nature of reality, as well as to a particular body of sutras and to the personification of the concept in the Bodhisattva known as the "Great Mother" (Tibetan: Yum Chenmo). The word Prajñāpāramitā combines the Sanskrit words prajñā "wisdom" with pāramitā "perfection". Prajñāpāramitā is a central concept in Mahāyāna Buddhism and is generally associated with the doctrine of emptiness (Shunyata) or 'lack of Svabhava' (essence) and the works of Nagarjuna. Its practice and understanding are taken to be indispensable elements of the Bodhisattva path.
According to Edward Conze, the Prajñāpāramitā Sutras are "a collection of about forty texts .
Explanation:
Socrates and Meno both describe that at least virtue is the part of wisdom but we can not say that a most virtuous person is most beneficent only out of knowledge. This is the last point where Socrates and Meno failed to find virtue itself in considering such a virtuous person. This suggests puzzles Meno but Socrates explains that they have been looking for that virtue as a kind of teachable knowledge. The good deeds of virtuous men could equally be the result of not of the knowledge but the opinion.
Even Socrates gives the example of the guide on the road to the Larissa whether the guide has the knowledge and the true opinion about the way that results in the same
The correct answer is no.
Alisha was under no obligation to help Timmy, <em>there is no such thing like</em> <em>duty to rescue.</em> There is no legal requirement in the United States to help and rescue someone who is in danger. Even in extreme situation, when a person sees a person falling into a river for example, the witness of the situation is no obliged to assist with help.
There are some cases with some important exceptions: if the defendant created the peril he is obliged to come to the plaintiff's aid, if the defendant started to rescue the plaintiff, he must continue to do so, if the defendant is in a special relationship with the plaintiff ( teacher-student, worker-employer), he is under duty to rescue him.
Alisha was under no duty to inform Timmy's parents of the danger facing him <em>but she should have done it nevertheless.</em> She should at least have phoned them if she didn't have the time to stop by. She knew the boy well and she should have cared more. The need to help the boy should have come from her moral guidance and not as a sense of duty to be performed.
