Q5
Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Write an essay on Spinoza's notion of God and His attributes. (10 marks) (b) "One can have morality without religion but not religion without morality." Discuss. (10 marks) (c) "Immortality of Soul is a necessary postulate for rebirth." Critically examine with reference to Buddhism. (10 marks) (d) Is the notion of faith indispensable for the idea of revelation? Critically comment. (10 marks) (e) Explain the difference between the cognitivist and non-cognitivist approaches to the religious language with reference to the statement—"God exists". (10 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) स्पिनोजा की ईश्वर तथा उसकी विशेषताओं की अवधारणा पर एक निबंध लिखिए। (10 अंक) (b) "धर्म के बिना नैतिकता संभव है किन्तु नैतिकता के बिना धर्म संभव नहीं है।" विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक) (c) "आत्मा की अमरता पुनर्जन्म के लिए एक अनिवार्य आधारतत्व है।" बौद्धधर्म के संदर्भ में समालोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। (10 अंक) (d) क्या आस्था की अवधारणा इल्हाम (रिविलेशन) की अवधारणा के लिए अपरिहार्य है? समालोचनात्मक टिप्पणी कीजिए। (10 अंक) (e) "ईश्वर सत्तावान है"—इस वाक्य के संदर्भ में धार्मिक भाषा संबंधित संज्ञानात्मक (कोग्निटिविस्ट) तथा असंज्ञानात्मक (नॉन-कोग्निटिविस्ट) दृष्टिकोणों में भेद की व्याख्या कीजिए। (10 अंक)
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
This multi-part question requires five distinct 150-word responses. Begin with Spinoza's God (a) by defining Deus sive Natura and attributes; for (b) discuss Kant's autonomy thesis versus religious ethics; for (c) examine Buddhist anatta against Hindu atman; for (d) analyze faith-revelation nexus via Kierkegaard or Barth; for (e) contrast Ayer's verificationism with Tillich's symbolic language. Allocate approximately 30 words per sub-part, ensuring each has a mini-introduction, analytical body, and concluding synthesis. Prioritize precision over elaboration given strict word limits.
Key points expected
- (a) Spinoza's pantheistic God as immanent substance; infinite attributes (thought and extension); modes as modifications; rejection of transcendence and anthropomorphism
- (b) Kantian autonomy of morality; Euthyphro dilemma; Swami Vivekananda's 'religion is morality internalized'; possibility of secular ethics versus religious moral dependence
- (c) Buddhist doctrine of anatta (no-soul); pratityasamutpada replacing soul-based rebirth; contrast with Nyaya-Vaisheshika atman; Nagasena's chariot analogy in Milindapanha
- (d) Kierkegaard's leap of faith; Barth's revelation as divine self-disclosure; Tillich's ultimate concern; possibility of natural theology (Aquinas) versus revealed theology
- (e) Cognitivism: Ayer's verification principle, falsification debate (Flew), eschatological verification (Hick); Non-cognitivism: Braithwaite's blik, Wittgenstein's language games, Tillich's symbolic expression
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 20% | 10 | Precise exposition of Spinoza's substance monism, accurate distinction between Buddhist anatta and Hindu atman, correct identification of cognitivist/non-cognitivist positions with proper technical terminology (blik, eschatological verification, symbolic expression) | Generally accurate concepts with minor errors—conflating Spinoza's attributes, oversimplifying Buddhist rebirth mechanics, or confusing verification with falsification principles | Fundamental misconceptions: treating Spinoza's God as personal creator, attributing soul to Buddhism, or equating cognitivism with atheism; significant terminological errors |
| Argument structure | 20% | 10 | Each sub-part follows thesis-antithesis-synthesis within 150 words; clear logical progression from definition through analysis to evaluative conclusion; effective use of connectives between parts | Adequate structure with discernible introduction and conclusion per part, though some arguments underdeveloped or conclusions abrupt; occasional logical gaps in critical examination | Descriptive rather than analytical; missing critical examination in (c) and (d); rambling or fragmented structure; failure to address directive terms (discuss, critically examine, explain) |
| Schools / thinkers cited | 20% | 10 | Appropriate citations: Spinoza (Ethics), Kant (Groundwork), Nagasena/Milindapanha, Kierkegaard (Fear and Trembling), Ayer (Language, Truth and Logic), Tillich (Dynamics of Faith), Braithwaite, Hick, Wittgenstein; Indian philosophical sources where relevant | Some relevant thinkers named but without textual specificity; generic references to 'Buddhists' or 'empiricists' without naming Nagasena or Ayer; missing key figures in one or two sub-parts | Few or no philosopher names; reliance on vague generalizations; anachronistic attributions; confusion between schools (e.g., calling Spinoza an idealist) |
| Counter-position handling | 20% | 10 | For (b): presents divine command theory and natural law as counter to Kant; for (c): Hindu atman-based rebirth versus Buddhist anatta; for (d): natural theology's rational revelation; for (e): hybrid positions like eschatological verification; balanced evaluation | Acknowledges opposing views superficially; one-sided presentation in some sub-parts; critical examination present but lacks depth in weighing alternatives | Absent or token counter-positions; straw-man representations; dogmatic assertion without engagement with alternatives; failure to 'critically examine' as directed |
| Conclusion & coherence | 20% | 10 | Each sub-part achieves concise synthesis; (b) and (d) offer nuanced resolutions; cross-thematic awareness (e.g., Spinoza's immanence connecting to Tillich's ground of being); maintains philosophical rigor within word limits | Serviceable conclusions per part but lacking integration; some parts stronger than others; occasional drift from question focus; word limit strain evident | Missing or irrelevant conclusions; failure to address all five parts adequately; severe imbalance (e.g., 200 words on (a), 50 on (e)); incoherent across sub-parts |
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 II
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss the role of enlightenment movement in the rise of humanism. (10 marks)…
- Q2 (a) What arguments does Bodin present to contend that sovereignty must be absolute, perpetual and undivided? Is Bodin's conception of sover…
- Q3 (a) Do you agree that economic development does not on its own lead to human development and social progress? Give reasons and justificatio…
- Q4 (a) Discuss propaganda as a challenge to democratic form of government. (20 marks) (b) Does idea of unconditional rights necessarily lead t…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Write an essay on Spinoza's notion of God and His attributes. (10 marks) (b) "O…
- Q6 (a) Present a critical exposition of different arguments offered by St. Thomas Aquinas to prove the existence of God also known as 'Five Wa…
- Q7 (a) "An unquestionable acceptance of only one Absolute Truth will inevitably result in religious exclusivism." Discuss. (20 marks) (b) Is i…
- Q8 (a) Discuss the main points of distinction between a priori and a posteriori arguments for the existence of God. Which one according to you…