Philosophy 2024 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q5

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Can there be a religion without morality? Discuss. (10 marks) (b) Write a note on the notion of absolute truth in the context of religion. (10 marks) (c) Discuss the concept of liberation (Apavarga) according to Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika. (10 marks) (d) Discuss the role of reason in religion. (10 marks) (e) Explain the analogical nature of religious language. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) क्या नैतिकता के बिना धर्म संभव है ? विवेचना कीजिए । (10 अंक) (b) धर्म के संदर्भ में निरपेक्ष सत्य की अवधारणा पर टिप्पणी लिखिए । (10 अंक) (c) न्याय-वैशेषिक के अनुसार मोक्ष (अपवर्ग) की अवधारणा का विवेचन कीजिए । (10 अंक) (d) धर्म में तर्क की भूमिका का विवेचन कीजिए । (10 अंक) (e) धार्मिक भाषा के सादृश्यमूलक स्वरूप की व्याख्या कीजिए । (10 अंक)

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

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to 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 'discuss' demands a balanced examination with arguments for and against across all five parts. Allocate approximately 30 words per mark (150 words each). Structure each sub-part with: brief conceptual definition, dual-sided analysis, and a synthesised conclusion. For (a) and (d), weigh arguments evenly; for (b), (c), and (e), emphasise doctrinal accuracy with critical nuance. Maintain cross-references between parts where themes intersect (e.g., reason in religion connecting to absolute truth and religious language).

Key points expected

  • (a) Religion without morality: Kant's 'religion within bounds of mere reason' vs. Durkheim's moral community thesis; reference to amoral cultic practices (tantric antinomianism) and counter-argument from Radhakrishnan's Hindu view of dharma as inseparable from religion
  • (b) Absolute truth in religion: Exclusivism (Pope Benedict XVI's 'dictatorship of relativism'), inclusivism (Vatican II), pluralism (John Hick's 'Real' as noumenal); contrast with Jain anekāntavāda and Buddhist śūnyatā as non-absolutist alternatives
  • (c) Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika Apavarga: Technical exposition of apavarga as cessation of duḥkha through destruction of mithyājñāna; role of tattvajñāna (knowledge of seven padārthas), particularly ātmā as distinct from manas; Gaṅgeśa's refinement distinguishing apavarga from mere kaivalya
  • (d) Role of reason in religion: Aquinas' fides quaerens intellectum vs. Kierkegaard's leap of faith; Indian parallel of Śaṅkara's śruti as pramāṇa with anubhava verification; critical assessment of evidentialist challenge (Clifford) and Reformed epistemology (Plantinga)
  • (e) Analogical nature of religious language: Aquinas' analogy of attribution and proportion; Ian Ramsey's 'qualifiers' and 'disclosure situations'; critique via univocal predication (Duns Scotus) and equivocation (logical positivists); Tillich's symbolic vs. literal distinction
  • Cross-thematic synthesis: Connection between reason's limits (d) and necessity of analogical speech (e); absolute truth claims (b) moderated by analogical expression (e)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise technical definitions: for (c) distinguishes apavarga from mokṣa in other schools, identifies seven padārthas; for (e) correctly distinguishes attribution from proportionality in Aquinas; no conflation of Hick's pluralism with syncretismBroadly accurate but imprecise: vague reference to 'salvation' instead of apavarga's specific mechanism; conflates analogy with metaphor; minor errors in distinguishing Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika from Sāṃkhya-Yoga liberationSerious conceptual errors: treats apavarga as identical to Buddhist nirvāṇa; confuses analogical predication with symbolic language; misrepresents absolute truth as empirical verifiability; anachronistic readings of classical positions
Argument structure20%10Each sub-part follows thesis-antithesis-synthesis pattern; (a) and (d) present genuine dialectic with evaluative resolution; (b) and (e) move from exposition to critical assessment; clear signposting between parts; proportional treatment (no part underdeveloped)Descriptive rather than argumentative structure; lists positions without evaluative comparison; some parts lack clear conclusion; uneven development (e.g., elaborate on (a), cursory on (c)); minimal integration between sub-partsDisorganised or fragmented: no discernible argument in any part; mere bullet-point enumeration; severe imbalance (one part dominates, others neglected); contradictory claims across parts without acknowledgment
Schools / thinkers cited20%10Appropriate density: (a) Kant/Durkheim/Radhakrishnan; (b) Hick/Benedict XVI/anekāntavāda; (c) Gautama/Gaṅgeśa/Prāśastapāda; (d) Aquinas/Kierkegaard/Plantinga/Śaṅkara; (e) Aquinas/Ramsey/Tillich; Indian and Western sources balancedLimited but relevant citations: familiar names only (Kant, Aquinas, Hick) without specific textual reference; over-reliance on one tradition; missing key Indian thinkers for (c); generic 'some philosophers say'No named thinkers or incorrect attributions; anachronistic pairings; fabricated references; complete absence of Indian philosophical sources where required (especially (c)); irrelevant citations (e.g., Marx for (e))
Counter-position handling20%10Genuine engagement: for (a) takes amoral religion seriously before rebuttal; for (b) presents Hick's pluralist critique of exclusivism fairly; for (d) presents Kierkegaardian fideism as coherent alternative, not strawman; acknowledges limitations of analogical predication via verificationist challengePerfunctory nod to opposition: 'however, some disagree' without elaboration; weak or caricatured counter-arguments; dismissive treatment ('but this is wrong'); no recognition of genuine philosophical tension in any partNo counter-positions presented; purely one-sided advocacy; strawman fallacies; or false balance (presenting opposed views as equally valid without critical assessment); confusion between descriptive and normative claims
Conclusion & coherence20%10Each sub-part achieves synthetic resolution: (a) qualified affirmation of morality-religion nexus; (b) nuanced position on absolute truth as regulative ideal; (c) precise statement of apavarga's epistemic basis; (d) balanced assessment of reason's ancillary role; (e) qualified defence of analogy; cross-references between parts evidentSummative rather than synthetic conclusions; restates main points without advancement; no cross-part integration; conclusions occasionally contradict body; generic closing statements ('in conclusion, both views have merit')Missing or incoherent conclusions; abrupt termination; conclusions introduce new unsupported claims; severe contradictions between conclusion and preceding argument; no recognition that parts (a)-(e) address interrelated themes in philosophy of religion

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 II