Philosophy 2024 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Critically discuss

Q1

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Differentiate between Plato's and Aristotle's conceptions of form. 10 marks (b) How does Kant respond to Hume's scepticism with regard to a priori judgments ? Discuss. 10 marks (c) What arguments are offered by Moore to prove that there are certain truisms, knowledge of which is a matter of common sense ? Critically discuss. 10 marks (d) Why does later Wittgenstein think that there cannot be a language that only one person can speak — a language that is essentially private ? Discuss. 10 marks (e) How does Kierkegaard define truth in terms of subjectivity ? Critically discuss. 10 marks

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) प्लेटो तथा अरस्तु की आकार की अवधारणाओं के बीच विभेद कीजिए। 10 अंक (b) प्रागनुभविक निर्णयों के संदर्भ में ह्यूम के संशयवाद का कांट क्या प्रत्युत्तर देते हैं ? विवेचना कीजिए। 10 अंक (c) मूर द्वारा यह सिद्ध करने के लिए क्या युक्तियाँ प्रस्तुत की गई हैं कि कुछ ऐसे सामान्य सत्य होते हैं, जिनका ज्ञान, सामान्य बुद्धि का विषय होता है ? समालोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए। 10 अंक (d) उत्तरवर्ती विट्टगेंस्टाइन ऐसा क्यों सोचते हैं कि ऐसी कोई भाषा जिसे एक ही व्यक्ति बोलता हो, ऐसी भाषा जो सार रूप से निजी हो, संभव नहीं है ? विवेचना कीजिए। 10 अंक (e) कीर्केगार्ड सत्य को विषयनिष्ठता के रूप में किस प्रकार परिभाषित करते हैं ? समालोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए। 10 अंक

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 Philosophy questions

Directive word: Critically discuss

This question asks you to critically 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 'critically discuss' demands balanced exposition and evaluation across all five parts. Allocate approximately 30 words per mark (150 words each). Structure each sub-part with: (a) brief definition of key concepts, (b) core philosophical position with textual reference, (c) critical evaluation or limitation. For (a) use 'differentiate' to contrast transcendental Forms vs immanent forms; for (b)-(e) apply 'discuss' to build argument before critique. Maintain strict word discipline—no part should exceed 160 words.

Key points expected

(a) Plato's Forms as transcendent, eternal, separate from particulars vs Aristotle's forms as immanent, dynamic, inseparable from matter; contrast on participation vs hylomorphism, knowledge as recollection vs abstraction
(b) Hume's problem of causation and a priori knowledge; Kant's Copernican revolution, synthetic a priori judgments, categories of understanding as necessary conditions for experience
(c) Moore's 'Defence of Common Sense'—list of truisms (existence of body, external world), appeal to ordinary language, refutation of idealism; critical evaluation of Moore's paradox and Wittgenstein's critique
(d) Private Language Argument: impossibility of private ostensive definition, rule-following considerations, need for public criteria for meaning; beetle-in-box analogy
(e) Kierkegaard's 'truth is subjectivity'—objective uncertainty held with passionate inwardness, stages of existence, critique of Hegelian system; critical evaluation of fideism and existential authenticity

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	Precise exposition: for (a) correctly identifies chorismos vs immanence; for (b) distinguishes analytic from synthetic a priori; for (c) accurately states Moore's truisms; for (d) grasps private language impossibility; for (e) captures subjective truth as passionate commitment	Broadly correct but with minor errors: conflates Plato's and Aristotle's terminology, mischaracterizes Kant's response as merely psychological, oversimplifies Moore's argument, misses rule-following in (d), or equates subjective truth with relativism	Major conceptual confusion: treats Forms and forms as identical, confuses a priori with a posteriori, misidentifies Moore's target as skepticism generally, conflates private language with personal experience, or reduces Kierkegaard to irrationalism
Argument structure	20%	10	Each 150-word segment follows clear thesis-evidence-evaluation arc; (a) presents systematic contrast with evaluative conclusion; (b)-(e) build dialectical progression from problem to response to critique; tight internal coherence within severe word constraint	Generally logical flow but uneven development: some parts descriptive without evaluation, others rushed; (a) may list differences without systematic comparison; critical element in (c)-(e) appears as afterthought rather than integrated analysis	Disorganized or fragmented: random facts without argumentative thread; no clear distinction between exposition and critique; violates word limit significantly in some parts while under-developing others; conclusion missing or generic
Schools / thinkers cited	20%	10	Appropriate primary references: Republic, Metaphysics for (a); Prolegomena, Critique of Pure Reason for (b); 'Defence of Common Sense,' 'Refutation of Idealism' for (c); Philosophical Investigations §243-275 for (d); Concluding Unscientific Postscript for (e); secondary scholars (e.g., Strawson on Kant, Malcolm on Moore) add value	Thinkers named correctly but texts unspecified or misattributed; general references to 'Plato's theory' or 'Kant's philosophy' without specificity; no secondary scholarship; occasional anachronism (e.g., attributing private language to early Wittgenstein)	Significant misattribution or omission: fails to name key texts, confuses Moore with Russell on common sense, attributes private language argument to Tractatus, or omits thinker identification entirely; anachronistic references that distort philosophical chronology
Counter-position handling	20%	10	Sophisticated critical engagement: for (a) notes Aristotle's critique of Platonic separation or contemporary Third Man objections; for (b) addresses limitations of transcendental deduction; for (c) presents Wittgenstein's or Russell's critique of Moore; for (d) considers Kripke's skeptical solution; for (e) examines critique of subjectivism	Superficial critique: mentions 'criticism' without specification; generic objections (e.g., 'some philosophers disagree'); conflates internal critique with external rejection; critical element present but not philosophically substantial	Absent or confused critique: no evaluation offered, or critique misunderstands the position being evaluated (e.g., criticizing Plato for not being Aristotelian); presents strawman objections; confuses exposition of alternative view with genuine critical analysis
Conclusion & coherence	20%	10	Each sub-part achieves closure with precise evaluative judgment; cross-part thematic coherence emerges (e.g., progression from ancient metaphysics through epistemological critique to linguistic and existential turns); overall answer demonstrates synthetic grasp of Western philosophy's development	Adequate but formulaic conclusions ('thus we see'); parts function as isolated segments without thematic connection; some conclusions merely restate position rather than offering judgment; coherence depends on sequential ordering rather than intellectual integration	Missing or failed conclusions: abrupt endings, unanswered questions, or conclusions that contradict body; no discernible relationship between parts; overall answer reads as five disconnected notes rather than unified philosophical examination

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 →