Philosophy 2021 Paper I 50 marks Critically examine

Q4

(a) Present a critical exposition of Husserl's criticism of 'natural attitude'. How does Husserl propose to address the problems involved in natural attitude through his phenomenological method ? (20 marks) (b) "I can always choose, but I ought to know that if I do not choose, I am still choosing". Critically discuss Sartre's conception of choice and responsibility in the light of above statement. (15 marks) (c) What does Wittgenstein mean by the statement – "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent ?" Critically discuss. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) हुसर्ल की 'प्राकृतिक अभिवृत्ति' की आलोचना का समालोचनात्मक विवरण प्रस्तुत कीजिए । हुसर्ल प्राकृतिक अभिवृत्ति से जुड़ी समस्याओं का अपनी संकुटिशास्त्रीय पद्धति से किस प्रकार निवारण प्रस्तावित करते हैं ? (20 अंक) (b) "मैं सदैव चुनाव करने में सक्षम होता हूँ, किन्तु मुझे यह जान लेना चाहिए कि यदि मैं नहीं चुन रहा होता हूँ, तब भी मैं चुनाव कर रहा होता हूँ ।" इस कथन के आलोक में सार्त्र की चुनाव तथा उत्तरदायित्व सम्बन्धी अवधारणा की समालोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) "जिस संदर्भ में कुछ कहा नहीं जा सकता, उसके विषय में मौन ही रहना चाहिए ।" – विट्टगेन्स्टाइन के इस कथन से क्या अभिप्राय है ? समालोचनात्मक विवेचना प्रस्तुत कीजिए । (15 अंक)

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

Directive word: Critically examine

This question asks you to critically 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 'critically examine' demands balanced exposition and evaluation across all three parts. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, with ~30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure as: brief introduction establishing the phenomenological-continental trajectory; systematic treatment of (a) Husserl's epoche and reduction, (b) Sartre's radical freedom and bad faith, (c) Wittgenstein's limits of language; integrated conclusion showing how these thinkers address the crisis of meaning in modernity.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Explanation of 'natural attitude' as naive acceptance of the world as pregiven, its problems (psychologism, relativism, foundational crisis), and Husserl's solution through phenomenological reduction, bracketing, and transcendental subjectivity
  • For (a): Critical evaluation of whether epoche escapes solipsism or achieves apodictic certainty; reference to Cartesian Meditations and Crisis of European Sciences
  • For (b): Exposition of Sartre's 'condemned to be free,' the impossibility of non-choice as itself a choice, and the burden of radical responsibility
  • For (b): Critical discussion of Sartre's ethics—whether his framework permits genuine moral deliberation or collapses under the weight of absolute responsibility; contrast with de Beauvoir's situated ethics
  • For (c): Analysis of Tractatus 7 proposition as demarcating the sayable (natural science, logical propositions) from the unsayable (ethics, aesthetics, the mystical)
  • For (c): Critical examination of Wittgenstein's self-undermining strategy—whether the ladder metaphor succeeds or renders philosophy impossible; transition to therapeutic conception in Investigations
  • Synthesis: How these three responses to the 'natural attitude' represent distinct pathways—transcendental grounding, existential commitment, and linguistic therapy—addressing the modern crisis of meaning

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise exposition of epoche, noema-noesis structure, facticity vs. transcendence, picture theory, and showing vs. saying; correctly identifies Husserl's Cartesian vs. ontological reduction phases, Sartre's rejection of Freudian determinism, Wittgenstein's distinction between nonsense and paradoxGenerally accurate definitions but conflates key distinctions—e.g., treats epoche as skepticism, mischaracterizes Sartre's freedom as license, or reads Wittgenstein as verificationist; minor technical errors in phenomenological vocabularyFundamental misconceptions—natural attitude as scientific worldview, Sartre's choice as arbitrary voluntarism, Wittgenstein's silence as positivist rejection of metaphysics; confuses early and late Wittgenstein or Husserl with Hegel
Argument structure20%10Clear logical progression within each part: for (a) problem-solution-evaluation; for (b) thesis-explication-ethical implications-critique; for (c) textual analysis-philosophical implications-self-referential problem; effective transitions between thinkers showing thematic continuityAdequate structure per part but parts feel disconnected; some repetition in exposition; evaluation sections underdeveloped or tacked on; conclusion merely summarizes rather than synthesizesDisorganized or fragmentary; no clear separation between parts; jumps between thinkers without justification; missing evaluation entirely or reduced to unsupported assertions; no conclusion
Schools / thinkers cited20%10For (a): references to Brentano's intentionality, Heidegger's hermeneutic turn as development/critique, Merleau-Ponty's embodied correction; for (b): Kierkegaard's anxiety, Nietzsche's eternal return, de Beauvoir's ethics of ambiguity; for (c): Russell's theory of descriptions, Vienna Circle misappropriation, Indian philosophical parallels (e.g., Nagarjuna's silence)Mentions major works (Ideas I, Being and Nothingness, Tractatus) but limited secondary engagement; one or two thinkers per part with superficial treatment; misses Indian philosophical connections relevant to WittgensteinOnly primary sources named without elaboration; no secondary literature; anachronistic references; confuses thinkers (e.g., attributes Being and Time to Husserl); irrelevant biographical details substituting for philosophical analysis
Counter-position handling20%10For (a): addresses Heidegger's critique of transcendental subjectivity, Ricoeur's hermeneutic objection, naturalist challenges from cognitive science; for (b): engages determinist compatibilism, Frankfurt-style cases, Levinas's critique of totalizing freedom; for (c): examines Carnap's dismissal of metaphysics, resolute readings vs. ineffabilist interpretations, Cora Diamond's substantial nonsenseAcknowledges obvious objections—solipsism charge against Husserl, burden of responsibility against Sartre, self-refutation against Wittgenstein—but responses are formulaic or underdeveloped; no engagement with contemporary scholarshipNo counter-positions presented, or strawman objections; dismissive rather than argumentative; 'critically discuss' reduced to listing advantages and disadvantages without philosophical depth
Conclusion & coherence20%10Synthesizes three thinkers as complementary responses to modernity's disenchantment: Husserl's rigorous science, Sartre's engaged ethics, Wittgenstein's therapeutic quietism; evaluates which response best addresses contemporary crises (e.g., post-truth, AI ethics, meaning in digital age); may propose tentative synthesis or justified preferenceRestates main points without genuine synthesis; conclusion addresses only one part or offers generic platitudes about philosophy's value; weak connection to contemporary relevanceMissing conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion contradicts body; no integration between parts; irrelevant personal opinion or unexamined assumptions about Indian philosophy's superiority

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