Philosophy 2022 Paper I 50 marks Explain

Q4

(a) How does Soren Kierkegaard define the notion of 'subjectivity'? Explain it with reference to three stages of existence as propounded by him. (20 marks) (b) How does Rene Descartes explain the notion of certainty with reference to knowledge of the self? Critically discuss the way it differs from the knowledge of the world. (15 marks) (c) Why and how does John Locke refute the innate ideas? Elucidate the nature and source of knowledge in Locke's epistemology. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) सोरेन कीर्केगार्ड 'विषयनिष्ठता' की अवधारणा को किस प्रकार परिभाषित करते हैं ? उनके द्वारा प्रतिपादित अस्तित्व की तीन अवस्थाओं के संदर्भ में इसकी व्याख्या कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) आत्म के ज्ञान के संदर्भ में रेने देकार्त निश्चितता की अवधारणा की किस प्रकार व्याख्या करते हैं ? जगत के ज्ञान से यह किस प्रकार भिन्न है, इसकी समालोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) जॉन लॉक जन्मजात प्रत्ययों का खण्डन क्यों और कैसे करते हैं ? लॉक की ज्ञानमीमांसा में ज्ञान के स्वरूप एवं स्रोत का निरूपण कीजिये । (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Philosophy questions

Directive word: Explain

This question asks you to explain. 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 'explain' demands clear exposition with causal connections and illustrative examples. Structure: Introduction (2-3 lines) noting the transition from rationalism to existentialism; Body allocating ~40% word budget to part (a) on Kierkegaard's subjectivity and three stages (aesthetic, ethical, religious), ~30% each to (b) Descartes' cogito and mind-body certainty distinction, and (c) Locke's tabula rasa critique of innate ideas with empiricist theory of ideas; Conclusion synthesizing the trajectory from Cartesian certainty through Lockean empiricism to Kierkegaardian subjectivity as the crisis of modern epistemology.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Kierkegaard's definition of subjectivity as 'truth is subjectivity'—inward passionate commitment rather than objective detachment; the three stages as dialectical progression from aesthetic (immediate sensuous pleasure, Don Juan), ethical (universal moral law, Socratic self-knowledge), to religious (teleological suspension of the ethical, Abraham's faith)
  • For (a): The leap of faith as non-rational transition between stages; the knight of faith versus knight of infinite resignation; subjective versus objective uncertainty
  • For (b): Descartes' method of doubt reaching the cogito as indubitable foundation; clarity and distinctness as criteria of certainty; the thinking substance (res cogitans) known better than extended substance (res extensa)
  • For (b): Critical distinction between self-knowledge (immediate intuition, no gap between knower and known) and world-knowledge (mediated through ideas, problem of representationalism, dream/evil demon hypotheses)
  • For (c): Locke's arguments against innate ideas—universal consent fails (children, idiots), speculative/practical maxims not actually universal, innate ideas would make God author of error; the mind as tabula rasa or 'white paper'
  • For (c): Nature of knowledge as ideas from sensation (external objects) and reflection (internal operations); simple and complex ideas; primary/secondary qualities; degrees of knowledge (intuitive, demonstrative, sensitive)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness22%11Precise definitions: for (a) captures 'subjectivity as truth' versus objectivity, correctly identifies aesthetic/ethical/religious stages with their exemplars; for (b) distinguishes cogito's self-evidence from deductive certainty, notes the epistemological priority of mind; for (c) accurately presents Locke's empirical arguments against innateness and his ideational theoryBroadly correct definitions but conflates stages (e.g., calling aesthetic 'ethical'), misses cogito's performative nature, or presents Locke's arguments without distinguishing speculative from practical innate ideasSerious errors: describes Kierkegaard's stages as chronological ages, confuses cogito with 'I think therefore I am' as syllogism, or attributes innate ideas to Locke
Argument structure20%10Clear logical flow within each part: for (a) shows dialectical progression between stages; for (b) traces Cartesian doubt to certainty to comparison; for (c) structures refutation by arguments then constructive theory; effective use of 'first...second...third' or 'on the one hand...on the other'Adequate structure but uneven development—strong on Kierkegaard but rushed on Descartes, or describes without showing argumentative connections between pointsDisorganized or fragmented; lists disconnected facts without argumentative thread; fails to address all three sub-parts distinctly
Schools / thinkers cited18%9Appropriate references: for (a) cites Either/Or, Fear and Trembling, Concluding Unscientific Postscript; for (b) references Meditations, Discourse on Method; for (c) cites Essay Concerning Human Understanding; contextualizes within existentialism, rationalism, British empiricism respectivelyMentions major works without specific citations, or cites thinkers without textual grounding; may confuse Kierkegaard with Nietzsche or Locke with BerkeleyNo textual references; anachronistic citations; attributes positions to wrong thinkers (e.g., calling Descartes an empiricist)
Counter-position handling20%10For (a) addresses Hegelian objection to subjective truth; for (b) critically examines the Cartesian circle, solipsism problem, or Malebranche's occasionalism; for (c) presents rationalist defense of innate ideas (Leibniz's 'necessary truths') and Locke's limitations (problem of substance, Molyneux problem)Brief mention of opposing views without development, or one sub-part has criticism while others are purely expositoryNo critical engagement; purely descriptive answer; or introduces irrelevant criticisms (e.g., Marxist critique of Descartes)
Conclusion & coherence20%10Synthesizes the three thinkers into narrative of modern philosophy's epistemological turn: Descartes' subjective certainty → Locke's empirical subject → Kierkegaard's existential subject; shows how each responds to predecessor; balanced coverage proportional to marks (a:b:c ≈ 4:3:3)Summarizes each part separately without integration; or disproportionate length (e.g., 60% on Kierkegaard, skimping on Locke)Missing or abrupt conclusion; fails to address one sub-part entirely; or conclusion contradicts body of answer

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 2022 Paper I