Philosophy 2023 Paper II 50 marks Critically examine
Q6
(a) Critically examine Plato's apriori proofs for the immortality of the soul. (20 marks) (b) In what sense is God both immanent and transcendent in theism? Discuss. (15 marks) (c) Explain the rational and irrational aspects of faith in the discourse of religion. (15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) आत्मा के अमरत्व के संबंध में प्लेटो के अनुभवनिरपेक्ष प्रमाणों की आलोचनात्मक समीक्षा कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) ईश्वरवाद में ईश्वर किस अर्थ में अंतर्यामी और अनुभवातीत दोनों हैं ? विवेचन कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) धर्म के विमर्श में आस्था के बौद्धिक और अबौद्धिक पक्षों की व्याख्या कीजिए । (15 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
The directive 'critically examine' for part (a) demands balanced analysis with evaluation; parts (b) and (c) require 'discuss' and 'explain' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget (~400-450 words) to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each (~300-350 words) to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief unified introduction → systematic treatment of each sub-part with clear sub-headings → integrated conclusion that synthesizes the three themes (soul, God, faith) as aspects of classical theistic philosophy.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Plato's a priori proofs including the Argument from Opposites (Phaedo), Argument from Recollection (Meno/Phaedo), Argument from Affinity (Phaedo), and Argument from Form of Life (Phaedo 102-107); critical evaluation of their logical validity and metaphysical assumptions
- Part (a): Critical assessment of Plato's proofs—strengths (rational coherence, foundation for Western soul-doctrine) and weaknesses (circular reasoning, pre-existence assumption, dualism problems); comparison with Aristotle's hylomorphism or Kant's critique as counterpoint
- Part (b): Immanence of God—God's presence in creation, sustaining causality, panentheism vs. pantheism; transcendence—God's ontological distinctness, infinity, incomprehensibility; classical theism's synthesis (Aquinas, Maimonides)
- Part (b): Indian philosophical parallels—Saguna Brahman (immanent) vs. Nirguna Brahman (transcendent) in Advaita Vedanta; Visistadvaita's qualified non-dualism as mediating position; rejection of crude anthropomorphism
- Part (c): Rational aspects of faith—fideism (Kierkegaard's 'leap'), Pascal's Wager, Swinburne's probabilistic theism, cumulative case argument; faith as reasoned trust beyond mere evidence
- Part (c): Irrational/aspects—Tertullian's 'credo quia absurdum', Kierkegaard's 'teleological suspension of the ethical', Wittgenstein's 'groundless believing'; critical balance: faith neither purely rational (defeating its nature) nor purely irrational (reducing to whim)
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 22% | 11 | Precise exposition of Plato's four a priori proofs with accurate textual references (Phaedo, Meno); correct distinction between immanence/transcendence without conflating with pantheism; nuanced grasp of fideism vs. rational theology; no conflation of 'a priori' with empirical arguments | Basic identification of 2-3 proofs with minor inaccuracies; immanence/transcendence understood superficially; faith discussed but rational/irrational aspects blurred; some conceptual confusion between Plato's arguments | Serious errors—confusing Plato's proofs with empirical arguments, equating immanence with pantheism, treating faith merely as blind belief; misattribution of arguments (e.g., giving Aristotle's arguments to Plato) |
| Argument structure | 20% | 10 | Clear tripartite structure with proportional development; each sub-part has thesis-antithesis-synthesis movement; logical progression within proofs (premises → inference → evaluation); effective transitions between parts showing thematic unity | Recognizable structure but uneven development—part (a) over/under-developed; some logical gaps in evaluating proofs; parts treated as isolated blocks without connecting threads | Disorganized or lopsided—e.g., 80% on part (a), cursory treatment of (b)-(c); no critical evaluation despite 'critically examine' directive; rambling without argumentative spine |
| Schools / thinkers cited | 20% | 10 | Rich citation: for (a)—Plato's dialogues, Aristotle's De Anima critique, Simmias/Cebes objections; for (b)—Aquinas, Maimonides, Ramanuja, Tillich; for (c)—Kierkegaard, Pascal, Swinburne, Wittgenstein, Tertullian; Indian thinkers where relevant | Aristotle mentioned for critique, standard Western theists for (b), Kierkegaard/Pascal for (c); limited or no Indian philosophical engagement; some names without substantive use | Few or no named thinkers; generic references ('some philosophers say'); anachronistic citations; confusion between thinkers (e.g., attributing Pascal's Wager to Plato) |
| Counter-position handling | 20% | 10 | For (a)—engages Simmias' harmony argument, Cebes' weaver analogy, Aristotle's hylomorphism, materialist critiques; for (b)—addresses pantheism charge, process theology critique of classical theism; for (c)—balances fideism vs. evidentialism, considers verificationist challenge | Some counter-arguments noted but superficially; one-sided critique of Plato or one-sided defense; misses significant objections (e.g., ignoring harmony argument in Phaedo) | No counter-positions or straw-man treatment; purely expository without critical dimension; ignores obvious objections (e.g., doesn't address circularity in recollection argument) |
| Conclusion & coherence | 18% | 9 | Synthesizes three sub-parts into coherent philosophical position—e.g., how Plato's soul-doctrine grounds theistic immanence/transcendence, and how rational faith mediates knowledge of such realities; forward-looking assessment of contemporary relevance; balanced, non-dogmatic closure | Brief summary of each part without genuine synthesis; repetitive restatement of points; weak or abrupt ending without philosophical payoff | Missing conclusion or mere bullet-point summary; contradictory final position; conclusion unrelated to body; partisan advocacy without philosophical justification |
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 II
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) What is meant by justice as fairness? Explain Rawls' theory of justice. (10 mar…
- Q2 (a) Elucidate why the absolute nature of sovereignty was rejected by Laski. (20 marks) (b) Do you agree that duty and accountability must b…
- Q3 (a) Explain Historical Materialism and discuss its relevance in the context of social development and change. (20 marks) (b) Critically ana…
- Q4 (a) "Severity of punishment should be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime." — Do you agree that while punishing a juvenile, the n…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Elucidate the personalistic and impersonalistic aspects of God. (10 marks) (b)…
- Q6 (a) Critically examine Plato's apriori proofs for the immortality of the soul. (20 marks) (b) In what sense is God both immanent and transc…
- Q7 (a) Critically examine the arguments of Nyaya for the existence of God. (20 marks) (b) Examine the significance of the concept of rebirth i…
- Q8 (a) "All evil is either sin or punishment for sin." – St. Augustine. Critically discuss. (20 marks) (b) Does religious pluralism invite int…