Philosophy 2024 Paper I 50 marks Critically examine

Q2

(a) Is rejection of Locke's notion of primary qualities instrumental in Berkeley's leaning towards idealism ? In this context, also discuss how Berkeley's subjective idealism is different from the absolute idealism proposed by Hegel. 20 marks (b) How does Spinoza establish that God alone is absolutely real with his statement – "Whatever is, is in God" ? Critically discuss. 15 marks (c) Critically examine Kant's objections against the ontological argument for the existence of God. 15 marks

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) क्या लॉक की प्राथमिक गुणों की अवधारणा का खण्डन बर्कले के प्रत्ययवाद की ओर झुकाव में सहायक है ? इस संदर्भ में, यह विवेचना भी कीजिए किस प्रकार बर्कले का विषयनिष्ठ प्रत्ययवाद हेगेल के निरपेक्ष प्रत्ययवाद से भिन्न है। 20 अंक (b) अपने कथन – "जो कुछ भी है, ईश्वर में है" से स्पिनोजा किस प्रकार यह स्थापित करते हैं कि केवल ईश्वर ही निरपेक्ष रूप से यथार्थ है ? समालोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए। 15 अंक (c) ईश्वर की सत्ता के लिए सत्तामूलक युक्ति के विरुद्ध कांट के आक्षेपों का समालोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। 15 अंक

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

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

Begin with a brief introduction defining idealism and its varieties, then allocate approximately 40% of your response to part (a) given its 20 marks, with 30% each to parts (b) and (c). For (a), first establish Locke's primary/secondary qualities distinction, then demonstrate Berkeley's rejection through the 'master argument' and esse est percipi, concluding with the Hegel comparison via the dialectical method and absolute spirit. For (b), explain Spinoza's substance monism, the attributes of thought and extension, and the pantheistic implications of Deus sive Natura. For (c), present Kant's analytic/synthetic distinction and his critique that existence is not a real predicate, referencing his distinction between logical and real possibility. Maintain critical balance throughout and conclude with a synthetic observation on the trajectory from empirical to absolute idealism.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Locke's distinction between primary qualities (extension, solidity, motion) and secondary qualities (colour, taste) as mind-independent vs mind-dependent
  • Part (a): Berkeley's immaterialism—rejection of material substratum, the 'master argument' that one cannot conceive of unperceived objects, and esse est percipi
  • Part (a): Comparison with Hegel—Berkeley's subjective idealism (dependent on finite perceivers/God) vs Hegel's absolute idealism (dialectical unfolding of Geist through history)
  • Part (b): Spinoza's definition of substance as causa sui, infinite attributes, and the rejection of Cartesian dualism through monism
  • Part (b): Interpretation of 'Whatever is, is in God'—God as the only self-existent substance, modes as modifications, and pantheistic/deistic debates
  • Part (c): Kant's distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments, and his argument that 'existence' adds nothing to the concept
  • Part (c): Kant's specific objection that the ontological argument confuses logical possibility with real possibility, and his distinction between the 'is' of predication and the 'is' of existence

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines Locke's primary qualities as inseparable from objects vs Berkeley's esse est percipi; accurately distinguishes Spinoza's substance-attribute-mode ontology; correctly identifies Kant's analytic/synthetic distinction and his 'existence is not a real predicate' objection; no conflation of subjective and absolute idealismGenerally understands Locke-Berkeley relation and Kant's basic objection to ontological argument; some imprecision in distinguishing Hegel's absolute idealism from Berkeley's theocentric idealism; superficial treatment of Spinoza's geometric methodMisidentifies primary/secondary qualities; conflates Berkeley's idealism with solipsism or Hegel's; misunderstands Kant's critique as merely empirical; treats Spinoza's God as personal theism
Argument structure20%10Clear logical progression in each part: for (a) Locke's position → Berkeley's critique → comparative analysis with Hegel; for (b) definition of substance → attributes/modes → pantheism implications; for (c) Kant's framework → specific objections → evaluation; effective transitions between partsAdequate structure within parts but weak bridges between (a), (b), (c); some repetition or imbalance in argument development; conclusion merely summarizes rather than synthesizesDisorganized treatment jumping between thinkers; no clear thesis statement; parts treated as isolated essays; missing or incoherent conclusion
Schools / thinkers cited20%10References Berkeley's Principles and Three Dialogues; cites Spinoza's Ethics (Part I, propositions 14-15) and the geometric method; engages Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (A592/B620-A602/B630); contextualizes within British Empiricism, Rationalism, and German Idealism; mentions Indian parallels like Shankara's idealism for comparative depthNames major works in passing; limited engagement with specific propositions or passages; generic references to 'rationalists' and 'empiricists' without specificityNo textual references; anachronistic attributions; confuses historical periods (e.g., placing Hegel before Berkeley); omits key thinkers entirely
Counter-position handling20%10For (a): addresses objections to Berkeley (the 'continuity problem', God's role) and Hegel's critique of subjective idealism; for (b): discusses pantheism vs panentheism debates, objections from Jacobi and later thinkers; for (c): presents Gaunilo-style responses or neo-ontological arguments and Kant's limitations; maintains critical balance without straw-manningAcknowledges obvious objections superficially; one-sided presentation favoring the philosopher discussed; limited engagement with contemporary or subsequent critiquesNo counter-arguments presented; dogmatic assertion of positions; misrepresents opposing views; 'critical examination' reduced to praise or dismissal
Conclusion & coherence20%10Synthesizes the three parts into a coherent narrative about the development of modern idealism—from Berkeley's rejection of materialism through Spinoza's monistic alternative to Kant's critical limits on rational theology; demonstrates how each position responds to prior metaphysical problems; offers original insight on contemporary relevanceBrief summary of main points; some attempt at thematic connection between parts; conventional closing without distinctive insightAbsent or abrupt conclusion; mere restatement of question; no connection between the three parts; introduces new arguments in conclusion

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 2024 Paper I