Philosophy 2021 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q5

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss the nature of God as propounded in Nyāya philosophy. (10 marks) (b) Discuss the possibility of Absolute Truth in the context of religious pluralism. (10 marks) (c) Is religious freedom possible in a multireligious society? Explain. (10 marks) (d) Is religious life possible without the belief in God? Discuss. (10 marks) (e) Discuss the paradox of omnipotence of God in the context of the existence of evil. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) न्याय दर्शन द्वारा प्रतिपादित ईश्वर के स्वरूप की विवेचना कीजिए । (10 अंक) (b) धार्मिक बहुलवाद के प्रसंग में परम सत्य की संभावना की विवेचना कीजिए । (10 अंक) (c) क्या बहुधर्मी समाज में धार्मिक स्वतंत्रता संभव है ? व्याख्या कीजिए । (10 अंक) (d) क्या ईश्वर में विश्वास के बिना धार्मिक जीवन संभव है ? विवेचना कीजिए । (10 अंक) (e) अशुभ के अस्तित्व के संदर्भ में ईश्वर की सर्वशक्तिमता के विरोधाभास की विवेचना कीजिए । (10 अंक)

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

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. 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 'discuss' demands a balanced exposition with critical examination across all five parts. Allocate approximately 30 words per mark (150 words × 5 parts = 750 total). Structure each part with: (a) Nyāya's īśvara as efficient cause with arguments from design; (b) Hick's pluralistic hypothesis vs. exclusivism/inclusivism; (c) Indian constitutional secularism (Articles 25-28) with positive/negative liberty distinction; (d) Buddhism/Jaina non-theistic religiosity vs. secular spirituality; (e) Mackie's logical problem of evil with Plantinga's free will defense. Maintain thematic coherence through the lens of 'reason and faith' across parts.

Key points expected

  • (a) Nyāya conception: īśvara as nimitta-kāraṇa (efficient cause), creator of atoms, arguments from adṛṣṭa (unseen merit/demerit), kāryāt (effect), and āyojanāt (combination); contrast with Vedāntic saguṇa/nirguṇa distinction
  • (b) Religious pluralism: John Hick's 'pluralistic hypothesis' of transcendent Real, Raimon Panikkar's 'cosmotheandrism', challenges of conflicting truth-claims, possibility of absolute truth as eschatological verification
  • (c) Religious freedom: Indian constitutional model (Articles 25-28), distinction between freedom of conscience (inner) and freedom of religion (outer), limits under 'public order, morality, health'; Rawlsian overlapping consensus
  • (d) Non-theistic religiosity: Buddhism's anattā/anīśvara, Jaina's tīrthaṅkaras as perfected beings not creators, secular spirituality (Comte's Religion of Humanity), ethical theism without metaphysical God
  • (e) Paradox of omnipotence: logical formulation (Mackie), evidential formulation (Rowe), Plantinga's free will defense, process theology's dipolar God, Indian theodicy (karma-saṃsāra framework)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise technical accuracy: for (a) distinguishes Nyāya's īśvara from Vedāntic Brahman; for (b) correctly identifies Hick's Kantian distinction between noumenal Real and phenomenal manifestations; for (c) cites specific constitutional articles; for (d) distinguishes non-theism from atheism; for (e) presents Mackie's 'logical' vs. 'evidential' problem accuratelyBroadly correct concepts with minor inaccuracies: conflates Nyāya with Vaiśeṣika on God's role, vague pluralism without specific theorists, general secularism without constitutional precision, conflates non-theism with atheism, confuses logical and evidential problem of evilSignificant conceptual errors: describes Nyāya God as personal bhakti deity, treats pluralism as mere tolerance, ignores constitutional framework entirely, claims all religion requires God-belief, presents paradox as unsolvable contradiction without defenses
Argument structure20%10Each part follows thesis-antithesis-synthesis or claim-reason-example-conclusion; (a) presents inference-structure of Nyāya proofs; (b) weighs exclusivism-pluralism-inclusivism; (c) balances individual vs. collective rights; (d) constructs positive case before objections; (e) presents paradox then resolution strategies with evaluationLinear exposition without clear argumentative markers; lists points without logical progression; some parts well-structured while others descriptive; conclusion merely summarizes without synthesisDisorganized or fragmented; no discernible argument in any part; random facts without connective tissue; conclusion absent or contradictory to body; severe imbalance (e.g., 100 words on one part, 10 on another)
Schools / thinkers cited20%10Specific authoritative citations: (a) Gautama's Nyāyasūtra, Udayana's Kusumāñjali; (b) Hick, Panikkar, Knitter; (c) Ambedkar, Rajeev Bhargava's 'principled distance'; (d) Buddha, Mahāvīra, Dhammapāla, Comte; (e) Mackie, Plantinga, Process theologians, Śaṅkara's māyāvāda theodicyGeneric references ('Nyāya philosophers', 'Western thinkers', 'Indian Constitution') without specific names; some parts with thinkers, others without; correct names but mismatched to positionsNo thinkers named or grossly incorrect attributions (e.g., attributing design argument to Nyāya's opponents, citing Marx for pluralism); anachronistic combinations; fictional or irrelevant names
Counter-position handling20%10Each part engages opposition: (a) Mīmāṃsā's denial of creator-God; (b) Exclusivist critique (Barth, Radhakrishnan's 'higher Hinduism'); (c) Communitarian challenge (Taylor) vs. liberal individualism; (d) Theistic objection that religion without God is mere ethics; (e) Mackie's 'successful' vs. 'free will defense' evaluation, process theology's limitation of divine powerAcknowledges opposition in some parts but not all; counter-positions mentioned but not engaged; straw-man representations; no synthesis or adjudication between positionsNo counter-positions anywhere; or dismissive treatment ('some people disagree'); presents only one side of each debate; confuses counter-position with unrelated criticism
Conclusion & coherence20%10Each part concludes with nuanced judgment; overall thematic unity (e.g., 'rational faith in pluralistic context' or 'secular spirituality as Indian contribution'); cross-references between parts (e.g., Nyāya's rational God connects to pluralism's rational justification; non-theistic religion informs freedom question); proportionate word allocation (150±20 words each)Separate conclusions for each part without interconnection; generic summaries; some parts with strong conclusions, others trailing off; minor word imbalance (e.g., 200 vs. 100 words)No conclusions or abrupt endings; severe imbalance (one part 250+ words, others under 50); contradictory positions across parts without acknowledgment; complete lack of thematic connection between five responses

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 II