Philosophy 2021 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Examine

Q1

Write short answers to the following in about 150 words each: (a) "There is a red chair." How would Plato explain this statement with the use of his theory of forms ? Examine. (10 marks) (b) "Potentiality is indefinable" according to Aristotle. Explain the relationship between potentiality and actuality with reference to the above philosophical position by taking the example of a "wooden table". (10 marks) (c) "Sensible things are those only which are immediately perceived by sense." Explain Berkeley's theory of knowledge with reference to the above statement. (10 marks) (d) Examine the concept of personal identity by Locke. (10 marks) (e) "The relation between cause and effect is one of constant conjunction". Examine Hume's criticism of causation in the light of the above statement. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक का लगभग 150 शब्दों में संक्षिप्त उत्तर दीजिए : (a) "वहाँ एक लाल कुर्सी है ।" प्लेटो अपने आकार-सिद्धांत का प्रयोग करते हुए इस वाक्य की किस प्रकार व्याख्या करेंगे ? परीक्षण कीजिए । (10 अंक) (b) अरस्तु के अनुसार "शक्यता अपरिभाष्य है" । उपरोक्त दार्शनिक मत के संदर्भ में लकड़ी की मेज का उदाहरण प्रयोग करते हुए शक्यता तथा वास्तविकता के मध्य संबंध की व्याख्या कीजिए । (10 अंक) (c) "सैंवध वस्तुएँ केवल वे होती हैं जिन्हें अव्यवहित अथवा अपरोक्ष रूप से इन्द्रियों द्वारा प्रत्यक्ष किया जा सके ।" उपरोक्त वाक्य के संदर्भ में बर्कले की ज्ञानमीमांसा की व्याख्या कीजिए । (10 अंक) (d) लॉक की व्यक्तित्व तादात्म्य की अवधारणा का परीक्षण कीजिए । (10 अंक) (e) "कारण तथा कार्य के मध्य नित्य संयोजन का संबंध होता है ।" उपरोक्त कथन के आलोक में ह्यूम की कारणता की आलोचना का परीक्षण कीजिए । (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Philosophy questions

Directive word: Examine

This question asks you to examine. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'examine' demands critical analysis with evidence across all five sub-parts. Allocate approximately 30 words/2 minutes per sub-part (equal marks distribution). Structure each 150-word answer as: brief context (20%), core philosophical exposition (60%), and critical evaluation (20%). For (a), explain participation and hierarchy of Forms; (b) clarify potentiality-actuality with hylomorphic analysis; (c) present esse est percipi and subjective idealism; (d) analyze consciousness/memory as identity criteria; (e) unpack constant conjunction, habit, and sceptical implications. Maintain cross-references where thinkers address similar problems (e.g., Locke-Berkeley on perception).

Key points expected

  • (a) Plato: Red chair as imperfect copy participating in Form of Chair and Form of Red; hierarchy of Being vs Becoming; philosopher's ascent from shadows to intelligible realm
  • (b) Aristotle: Wood as potentiality (dynamis), table as actuality (energeia); indefinability of prime matter; teleological actualization; contrast with Platonic separation
  • (c) Berkeley: Esse est percipi; rejection of material substratum; distinction between ideas of sense and imagination; God's perception as guarantee of continued existence
  • (d) Locke: Personal identity as sameness of consciousness, not substance; forensic concept; problem of memory gaps and sleeping man objection; distinction from man and person
  • (e) Hume: Causal inference as habitual expectation, not rational demonstration; impressions vs ideas; sceptical dissolution of necessary connection; mitigated scepticism via natural belief

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise technical vocabulary: for (a) 'participation' (methexis) and 'mimesis' correctly distinguished; for (b) 'dynamis'/'energeia' not conflated with modern potential; for (c) 'esse est percipi' accurately rendered; for (d) 'person' vs 'man' distinction maintained; for (e) 'constant conjunction' distinguished from 'necessary connection'Broadly accurate concepts with occasional terminological slips—e.g., calling Platonic Forms 'ideas' without qualification, or conflating Lockean consciousness with Cartesian soulFundamental misconceptions: treating Berkeley as denying external world rather than material substratum, or presenting Hume as rejecting causation entirely rather than critiquing rational foundations
Argument structure20%10Each sub-part follows deductive progression: thesis → textual evidence → implication; for (e) explicitly moves from epistemological observation to metaphysical scepticism; cross-references between thinkers (e.g., Berkeley's critique of Locke's materialism in (c))Clear but somewhat linear exposition; each philosopher treated in isolation; evaluation appended rather than integrated; occasional word-count imbalance favoring description over analysisDescriptive list of doctrines without argumentative connectives; no discernible structure within 150-word units; repetition of question phrases without development
Schools / thinkers cited20%10Primary texts referenced: Republic 507b-511e for (a); Metaphysics Θ for (b); Principles of Human Knowledge 1-7 for (c); Essay II.27 for (d); Enquiry 4-7 for (e); secondary scholarship (e.g., Vlastos on self-predication, Anscombe on Hume) adds valueThinkers named with general doctrinal attribution; no specific text references; plausible but unverified quotations; conflation of early and late Platonic/Aristotelian positionsAnachronistic attributions or misidentification—e.g., assigning Berkeley's idealism to Hume, or presenting Locke's personal identity as Cartesian dualism
Counter-position handling20%10Internal critique within each system: for (a) Third Man regress noted; for (b) prime matter's knowability problem; for (c) solipsism charge addressed via God; for (d) Reid's brave officer paradox; for (e) Kant's synthetic a priori response anticipated; comparative gestures (Aristotle vs Plato on universals)Brief acknowledgment of standard objections without elaboration; e.g., 'Some critics find this problematic' without specifying who or why; no systematic engagementNo counter-arguments presented; uncritical exposition; or irrelevant objections from entirely different philosophical traditions (e.g., Buddhist anatta for Locke's identity)
Conclusion & coherence20%10Each sub-part achieves synthetic closure: for (a) evaluates Forms' explanatory power; for (e) assesses Hume's legacy for scientific methodology; implicit narrative across parts showing epistemological shift from rationalism (Plato) to empiricism (Hume) via Aristotelian mediationServiceable summaries restating main points; no evaluative judgment; parts read as disconnected mini-essays without thematic unityAbrupt endings or missing conclusions; word limit exceeded in early parts forcing truncation; contradictory positions across sub-parts without acknowledgment (e.g., affirming Platonic realism and Berkeleyan idealism simultaneously)

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from Philosophy 2021 Paper I