Philosophy 2023 Paper I 50 marks Critically analyse

Q2

(a) Critically analyse Hume's argument that causality is a matter of habit/custom involving psychological principle of association. (20 marks) (b) Present an exposition of Aristotle's distinction between actuality and potentiality. Does it provide a solution to the problem of being and becoming as presented in ancient Greek philosophy ? Discuss with suitable examples. (15 marks) (c) Discuss Descartes' theory of innate ideas and the grounds on which Locke refutes it. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) 'कारणता संसर्ग के मनोवैज्ञानिक सिद्धांत पर आधारित आदत संबंधी विषय है'— ह्यूम के इस तर्क का आलोचनात्मक विश्लेषण कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) अरस्तु के वास्तविकता तथा शक्यता के बीच प्रभेद की व्याख्या प्रस्तुत कीजिए । क्या यह प्राचीन ग्रीक दर्शन में प्रस्तुत सत् तथा संभवन की समस्या का समाधान प्रस्तुत करता है ? उचित उदाहरणों सहित व्याख्या कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) देकार्त का जन्मजात प्रत्यय सिद्धांत तथा वे आधार जिन पर लॉक उनका खंडन करते हैं, की व्याख्या कीजिए । (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 Philosophy questions

Directive word: Critically analyse

This question asks you to critically analyse. 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

Begin with a brief introduction acknowledging the three distinct philosophical problems across empiricism, metaphysics, and epistemology. For part (a), spend approximately 40% of the answer (800-900 words) critically analysing Hume's scepticism about causation, his theory of impressions and ideas, and the three principles of association. For part (b), allocate 30% (600-700 words) to expounding Aristotle's metaphysics of dunamis-energeia, connecting it to the Eleatic paradoxes and Parmenides-Heraclitus debate. For part (c), use the remaining 30% (600-700 words) to present Descartes' rationalist arguments for innate ideas (especially the 'mark of the maker' and universal assent) followed by Locke's empiricist critique in Book I of the Essay. Conclude by briefly synthesising how these debates shaped modern philosophy's nature-nurture controversy.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Hume's fork (relations of ideas vs matters of fact), the problem of induction, constant conjunction, and the psychological origin of the idea of necessary connection in the imagination
  • For (a): Critical evaluation through Kant's synthetic a priori, Popper's falsificationism, or Strawson's descriptive metaphysics as responses to Hume's scepticism
  • For (b): Aristotle's definitions of potentiality (dunamis) and actuality (energeia/entelecheia) with examples like the acorn-oak, bronze-statue, and the priority of actuality over potentiality
  • For (b): Application to the problem of being and becoming—how Aristotle resolves Parmenides' denial of change and Heraclitus' flux through the hylomorphic analysis of substance
  • For (c): Descartes' three sources of ideas (innate, adventitious, fictitious), the criterion of clarity and distinctness, and arguments from universal assent and the idea of God
  • For (c): Locke's refutation through the argument from children and idiots, the tabula rasa, and the claim that innate ideas are either universally assented to (and trivial) or substantive (and disputed)
  • For (c): Leibniz's defence of innate ideas as tendencies/dispositions versus Locke's demand for actual conscious awareness as the criterion

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines Hume's 'constant conjunction' and 'vivacity of belief'; correctly distinguishes Aristotle's first from second actuality; accurately presents Descartes' 'true and immutable natures' versus Locke's 'blank slate'—no conflation of Humean custom with logical necessity or of Aristotelian entelecheia with mere efficiencyGenerally accurate definitions but vague on technical distinctions—e.g., conflates Hume's scepticism about causation with general scepticism, or treats Aristotle's actuality-potentiality as simple possibility-realisation without metaphysical depthMajor conceptual errors: misattributes Hume's problem of induction to Kant, confuses Aristotle's potentiality with Platonic participation, or presents Locke as accepting dispositional innateness
Argument structure20%10Clear three-part architecture with proportional development; each sub-part has internal thesis-antithesis-synthesis movement; for (a) moves from exposition to internal critique (circular reasoning charge) to external evaluation; for (b) connects exposition to historical problem to assessment; for (c) presents Descartes fairly before Locke's systematic demolitionAll three parts addressed but uneven development—e.g., strong on Hume but descriptive on Aristotle, or presents Descartes and Locke as disconnected reports rather than dialectical engagementMissing or severely underdeveloped parts; no internal argument structure within sub-parts; mere listing of points without logical progression; disproportionate allocation (e.g., 70% on Hume, 15% each on others)
Schools / thinkers cited20%10For (a): references Hume's Treatise 1.3.6 and Enquiry 7, with secondary engagement of Kant (Prolegomena), Russell, or Strawson; for (b): connects to Parmenides (DK 28B8), Heraclitus (DK 22B49a), Plato's Sophist, and commentators like Ross or W.D. Joseph; for (c): cites Meditation III, Locke's Essay I.ii-iv, and Leibniz's New Essays as correctivePrimary texts mentioned without specific sections; limited secondary scholarship—perhaps one major commentator across all parts; misses opportunity to cite Indian parallels (e.g., Nyaya's vyapti for Hume, or Samkhya's parinama for Aristotle)No textual references; relies on textbook generalisations; anachronistic terminology; confuses which philosopher belongs to which debate
Counter-position handling20%10For (a): evaluates whether Hume's naturalistic solution undermines his own normative epistemology; for (b): assesses whether Aristotle's solution merely relocates the problem (the 'regress of potentialities' objection) or whether Zeno's paradoxes resurface at the level of infinite divisibility; for (c): presents Leibniz's moderate innatism as synthesis, noting Locke's own concessions on 'native propensities'Acknowledges opposing views but superficially—e.g., notes Kant's response to Hume without explaining synthetic a priori, or states Locke's objections without evaluating their force against Cartesian rationalismOne-sided presentation; no critical evaluation; treats all three philosophers as equally correct without tension; or dismissive caricature of positions (e.g., 'Descartes was wrong because science is empirical')
Conclusion & coherence20%10Synthesises the three debates around the theme of rationalism versus empiricism and the possibility of metaphysical knowledge; connects Hume's scepticism about causation to the limits of Aristotelian science and the Locke-Descartes dispute over idea-origins; ends with contemporary relevance (e.g., Chomsky's linguistic nativism as neo-Cartesianism, or Big Data correlations as Humean custom)Brief summary of each part without integration; or forced connection ('all three show philosophy is hard'); no forward-looking assessment of philosophical legacyMissing conclusion; or mere repetition of introduction; abrupt ending; no attempt to show how the three problems illuminate each other or constitute a trajectory in early modern philosophy

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 2023 Paper I