(a) Distinguish between cognitivist and non-cognitivist account of religious language. Does the cognitivist account lead to any contradiction? Answer with reference to the philosophical views of R. B. Braithwaite. (10+10=20 marks)
(b) "In order to be

Question

(a) Distinguish between cognitivist and non-cognitivist account of religious language. Does the cognitivist account lead to any contradiction? Answer with reference to the philosophical views of R. B. Braithwaite. (10+10=20 marks)
(b) "In order to be conceived as the ultimate cause of the world, God must necessarily have some form of physical manifestation." Do you agree with this view? Give reasons and justifications for your answer. (15 marks)
(c) Discuss the main features of religious experience according to Advaita Vedanta. (15 marks)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

The directive 'distinguish' in part (a) demands clear differentiation between cognitivist and non-cognitivist accounts, followed by critical analysis of Braithwaite's position. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, with 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction establishing religious language debates; systematic treatment of (a) with Braithwaite's non-cognitivist critique of cognitivist contradictions; (b) presenting arguments for and against physical manifestation with reference to creation theologies; (c) expounding Advaita features (Brahman, Maya, Moksha, Jivanmukti); integrated conclusion showing how non-dualism resolves tensions in (a) and (b).
- For (a): Clear distinction—cognitivism treats religious statements as truth-claims about reality (verifiable/falsifiable), non-cognitivism treats them as expressive/emotive or functional; Braithwaite's specific critique that cognitivism leads to verificationist contradiction (unverifiable metaphysical claims masquerading as factual)
- For (a): Braithwaite's alternative—religious language as 'stories' that express commitment to agapeistic way of life, not metaphysical assertions; his debt to Wittgenstein and empiricism
- For (b): Analysis of the thesis that ultimate cause requires physical manifestation—arguments from causation (Aristotelian hylomorphism), incarnation theologies (Christianity, Vaishnavism), versus counter-arguments from pure spirit/nirguna Brahman, Plotinus's One, Shankara's distinction between saguna and nirguna
- For (c): Advaita Vedanta's religious experience features—Brahman as sole reality, Maya as superimposition, Moksha as identity-realization (Aham Brahmasmi), distinction between savikalpa and nirvikalpa samadhi, role of sravana-manana-nididhyasana
- For (c): Jivanmukti as living liberation; contrast with Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita; practical exemplars (Ramana Maharshi, Vivekananda's reinterpretation)
- Cross-connection: How Advaita's non-dual framework dissolves the cognitivist/non-cognitivist debate by transcending propositional truth-claims altogether
- Indian philosophical context: Reference to classical commentators (Shankara, Mandana Mishra) and modern interpreters (Radhakrishnan, Malkani) for Advaita; comparative mention of Ramanuja's qualified non-dualism as alternative to physical manifestation thesis
- Critical synthesis: Whether Braithwaite's reductionism adequately captures religious commitment, and whether Advaita provides resources for rethinking religious language beyond the analytic divide

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	Precise definitions of cognitivism (truth-claim orientation: verificationism, falsificationism, realism) and non-cognitivism (expressivism, prescriptivism, functionalism); accurate exposition of Braithwaite's 'empiricist's view' and his specific charge of contradiction against cognitivism; correct technical terms in Advaita (adhyasa, vivarta, satchitananda); proper distinction between saguna/nirguna Brahman in part (b)	Basic distinction between cognitivist and non-cognitivist without nuance; vague reference to Braithwaite without specific contradiction identified; general description of Advaita without technical precision; conflation of saguna and nirguna in discussing physical manifestation	Confusion between cognitivism and non-cognitivism; misattribution of views (e.g., calling Braithwaite a cognitivist); factual errors about Advaita (calling it dualism, confusing with Yoga); irrelevant concepts from completely different philosophical domains
Argument structure	20%	10	For (a): systematic comparison using clear criteria (semantic status, verification conditions, function); structured analysis of Braithwaite's argument showing logical steps; for (b): balanced presentation of thesis-antithesis with clear criteria for 'ultimate cause'; for (c): hierarchical exposition from metaphysics to epistemology to soteriology; effective transitions between parts showing thematic unity	Descriptive coverage of all parts without analytical depth; some organization but weak connections between sub-parts; either (b) or (c) treated superficially; missing logical progression in Braithwaite exposition	Disorganized, jumping between topics; one part completely neglected or confused with another; no discernible argument in Braithwaite section; random listing of Advaita terms without structure
Schools / thinkers cited	20%	10	For (a): Braithwaite's 'An Empiricist's View of the Nature of Religious Belief' with specific reference to his 'Christian agnostic' position; contextual mention of Hare, Wittgenstein, or Phillips for non-cognitivism; Ayer or Flew for verificationist challenge; for (b): Aristotle, Aquinas, Ramanuja (saguna), Shankara (nirguna), possibly Spinoza or Whitehead; for (c): Shankara's commentaries, Mandana Mishra, Suresvara, moderns like Radhakrishnan or Mahadevan	Braithwaite mentioned without textual specificity; generic reference to 'empiricists' or 'logical positivists'; one or two Advaita figures named without elaboration; missing secondary thinkers in any part	No thinkers named in Braithwaite section; confusion between Advaita and other schools (Dvaita, Buddhism); anachronistic or irrelevant figures; fictional or misattributed philosophers
Counter-position handling	20%	10	For (a): presents Braithwaite's critique fairly then evaluates—e.g., Hick's eschatological verification as cognitivist response, or challenges to Braithwaite's reduction of religion to ethics; for (b): serious engagement with both sides—arguments from analogy (cosmological argument requiring material cause) versus arguments from transcendence (spiritual causation); for (c): acknowledges objections to Advaita (mayavada critique from Ramanuja, problem of illusion's locus) and responses	Mentions opposing views without sustained engagement; one-sided treatment of (b) or weak critique of Braithwaite; superficial acknowledgment of Advaita critics	No counter-arguments presented; strawman representations; dismissive treatment of alternative positions; part (b) answered with assertion rather than reasoning
Conclusion & coherence	20%	10	Synthesizes three parts thematically—e.g., how Advaita's non-propositional mysticism transcends the cognitivist/non-cognitivist debate, or how the physical manifestation question reframes when Brahman is understood as both with and without attributes; shows awareness of contemporary Indian philosophy (e.g., Daya Krishna's critique of religious language debates); ends with qualified personal stance or philosophical implication	Summary conclusion restating main points without synthesis; weak connection between parts; generic closing without specific reference to question's tensions	No conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion contradicts body; complete disconnect between three parts as if answering separate questions; irrelevant digression in final paragraph

Q8

Directive word: Distinguish

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from Philosophy 2024 Paper II