Philosophy 2025 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Elucidate

Q1

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) "Ideas are timeless and spaceless." Elucidate this statement with reference to Plato. 10 (b) "In the empirical world, everything is a compound of Matter and Form." Evaluate this statement with reference to Aristotle. 10 (c) Explain the difference between being-for-itself and being-in-itself as presented by Sartre. 10 (d) "The golden mountain is very high." Discuss this statement in the context of Russell's theory of descriptions. 10 (e) How does Hegel challenge Kant's distinction between Phenomena and Noumena ? Discuss 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) "प्रत्यय कालातीत तथा देशातीत है।" प्लेटो के संदर्भ में इस कथन पर प्रकाश डालिए। 10 (b) "आनुभविक संसार में प्रत्येक वस्तु द्रव्य तथा आकार का संयुक्त रूप होती है।" अरस्तु के संदर्भ में इस कथन का मूल्यांकन कीजिए। 10 (c) सार्त्र द्वारा प्रस्तुत स्व-हेतु-अस्तित्व (बीइंग-फॉर-इटसेल्फ) तथा स्व-स्थित-अस्तित्व (बीइंग-इन-इटसेल्फ) के बीच अंतर की व्याख्या कीजिए। 10 (d) "सोने से निर्मित पर्वत बहुत ऊँचा है।" इस वाक्य की रसेल के वर्णन के सिद्धांत (थियोरी ऑफ डिस्क्रिप्शन्स) के संदर्भ में विवेचना कीजिए। 10 (e) कांट द्वारा प्रदत्त घटना-संबुति (फेनोमेना) तथा परमार्थसत् (नोमेना) के बीच विभेद को हेगेल किस प्रकार चुनौती देते हैं ? विवेचना कीजिए। 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 Philosophy questions

Directive word: Elucidate

This question asks you to elucidate. 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 'elucidate' in part (a) demands clear explanation with examples; apply this clarity standard across all five 10-mark sub-parts. Allocate approximately 150 words per part (equal weight), spending roughly 12-13 minutes each. Structure each answer with: (a) Plato's Theory of Forms with Realm of Being vs. Becoming; (b) Aristotle's hylomorphism with prime matter and substantial form; (c) Sartre's ontology of pour-soi vs. en-soi with nothingness; (d) Russell's analysis showing 'the golden mountain' as empty description, not denoting phrase; (e) Hegel's dialectical sublation of Kant's thing-in-itself into Absolute Spirit. No unified conclusion needed; treat as five distinct short answers.

Key points expected

  • (a) Plato: Ideas/Forms exist in Realm of Being, eternal, immutable, non-spatial; contrast with sensible particulars in Realm of Becoming; participation (methexis) as relation; examples like Form of Good, Justice, Beauty
  • (b) Aristotle: Hylomorphism—substance as compound of matter (hyle) and form (morphe/eidos); prime matter as pure potentiality, form as actuality; criticism of Platonic separation (chorismos); examples like statue (bronze + shape), human (body + soul)
  • (c) Sartre: Being-in-itself (en-soi) as opaque, full, self-identical, massive, inert; being-for-itself (pour-soi) as conscious, self-negating, temporal, free; nothingness as constitutive of consciousness; bad faith as flight from this distinction
  • (d) Russell: Definite descriptions vs. proper names; 'the golden mountain' has grammatical form of subject-predicate but no existent denotation; analysis eliminates apparent reference; avoids Meinongian non-existent objects; primary occurrence vs. secondary occurrence distinction
  • (e) Hegel: Phenomenology of Spirit progression from sense-certainty to Absolute Knowing; noumenon not unknowable limit but result of dialectical development; Aufhebung preserves and transcends Kant's dualism; reason's self-realization in history and system

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise technical vocabulary: for (a) distinguishes hypostasized Forms from universals; for (b) correctly identifies substantial form vs. accidental form; for (c) captures Sartre's technical terms (néantisation, facticity, transcendence); for (d) accurately presents Russell's 1905 theory vs. earlier 1903 theory of denoting; for (e) shows Hegel's Phenomenology method vs. Kant's critical limitationGenerally accurate but imprecise: conflates Platonic Forms with Aristotelian forms, or misrepresents Sartre's nothingness as mere absence; Russell's theory described vaguely as 'language analysis' without definite description machinery; Hegel's critique reduced to 'synthesis of thesis-antithesis'Fundamental errors: treats Platonic Ideas as mental concepts; makes Aristotle's form merely shape or blueprint; confuses Sartre's two modes of being; attributes Russell's theory to Frege or Wittgenstein; claims Hegel accepts Kant's distinction with minor modification
Argument structure20%10Each 150-word segment has internal logic: (a) thesis (timeless/spaceless) → grounds (separation from sensible) → implication (knowledge vs. opinion); (b) statement → analysis of components → evaluative tension (prime matter problem); (c) binary distinction → defining characteristics → ontological consequence; (d) puzzle → Russell's solution → significance; (e) Kant's position → Hegel's dialectical move → resultDescriptive rather than argumentative; lists features without showing logical connections; for (d) describes example without explaining analysis; for (e) narrates positions without showing challenge mechanismDisorganized fragments; no discernible argument in any part; random facts about philosophers without addressing specific prompts; severe imbalance (e.g., 100 words on (a), 10 words on (e))
Schools / thinkers cited20%10Appropriate references beyond the named philosopher: for (a) cites Phaedo, Republic VI-VII, Parmenides' critique; for (b) references Metaphysics Z, De Anima, Physics II; for (c) mentions Being and Nothingness, possibly Critique of Dialectical Reason; for (d) cites 'On Denoting' (1905), Principia Mathematica; for (e) references Phenomenology of Spirit, Science of Logic, EncyclopediaOnly the named philosopher mentioned; no textual references or secondary literature; generic 'Plato said' without work specificationMisattribution of texts (e.g., Republic to Aristotle); anachronistic references (Sartre commenting on Plato); confuses thinkers (Russell's theory attributed to Strawson or Quine)
Counter-position handling20%10Built-in critical awareness: for (a) notes Third Man regress or Aristotle's criticism of chorismos; for (b) evaluates prime matter as mere potentiality problem or form-matter inseparability; for (c) considers Sartre's critics (Merleau-Ponty on embodiment); for (d) mentions Strawson's presupposition critique or Donnellan's referential-attributive distinction; for (e) acknowledges Kantian rejoinder or McDowell's Hegelian readingBrief nod to criticism without development; 'some critics disagree' without naming or explaining; evaluative statements without argumentative supportNo critical engagement; purely expository; or introduces irrelevant criticisms (e.g., feminist critique of Plato in (a) without connection to timelessness claim)
Conclusion & coherence20%10Each sub-part achieves closure: (a) links to epistemological ascent; (b) assesses hylomorphism's explanatory power; (c) connects to Sartrean ethics of authenticity; (d) summarizes Russell's contribution to philosophical logic; (e) evaluates Hegel's absolute idealism outcome. Cross-part thematic awareness (e.g., Form concepts in (a) and (b)) noted if presentAbrupt endings without synthesis; or repetitive summary of points already made; no connection between parts despite thematic linksIncomplete answers (parts missing or severely truncated); no conclusion in any part; or single 'conclusion' paragraph attempting to unify five independent questions artificially

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 2025 Paper I