Philosophy 2025 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q5

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss Cārvāka's critique of the belief in the existence of suprasensible entities. (10 marks) (b) Is religious language symbolic ? Give reasons and justification in support of your answer. (10 marks) (c) Present an account of Nietzsche's criticism of religion and morality. (10 marks) (d) Discuss the nature of embodied liberation (jivanmukti) with reference to Advaita Vedānta. (10 marks) (e) How does Aquinas' account of Faith as "an intellectual assent" reconcile the juxtaposition between Reason and Faith ? Discuss. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) अतीन्द्रिय सत्ताओं के अस्तित्व में विश्वास के विषय में चार्वाक की समीक्षा का विवेचन कीजिए। (10 अंक) (b) क्या धार्मिक भाषा प्रतीकात्मक है ? अपने उत्तर के पक्ष में तर्क तथा प्रमाण प्रस्तुत कीजिए। (10 अंक) (c) नीत्शे की धर्म तथा नैतिकता की आलोचना का विवरण प्रस्तुत कीजिए। (10 अंक) (d) अद्वैत वेदान्त के संदर्भ में जीवन्मुक्ति के स्वरूप का विवेचन कीजिए। (10 अंक) (e) "एक बुद्धिगत स्वीकृति" के रूप में एक्विनास द्वारा प्रदत्त आस्था का विवरण किस प्रकार तर्कबुद्धि तथा आस्था के बीच विरोधाभास को समन्वित करता है ? विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 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, analytical treatment across all five sub-parts. Allocate approximately 30 words (20% time) per sub-part given equal 10-mark weighting. Structure each part as: brief identification of the core issue, exposition of the philosopher's position with key arguments, and a concise evaluative closing. For (a) emphasize epistemological pratyakṣa-pramāṇa; for (b) contrast Tillich's symbolic with literalist positions; for (c) highlight genealogy and ressentiment; for (d) distinguish jīvanmukti from videhamukti; for (e) clarify Aquinas's fides quaerens intellectum synthesis.

Key points expected

(a) Cārvāka's rejection of āgama/śabda-pramāṇa, inference (anumāna) as fallible, and the 'bhuñjita' hedonist epistemology limiting knowledge to pratyakṣa
(b) Analysis of religious language as symbolic (Tillich), non-cognitive (Braithwaite), or analogical (Aquinas); distinction from literal verificationism
(c) Nietzsche's genealogical critique of slave morality, ressentiment, death of God, and transvaluation of values beyond good and evil
(d) Advaita Vedānta's jīvanmukti: jñāna-niṣṭhā, destruction of avidyā while prārabdha-karma persists; contrast with Dvaita and Viśiṣṭādvaita positions
(e) Aquinas's Summa Theologiae: faith as intellectual assent (assensus) to revealed truths, subalternation of theology to reason, and the 'twofold truth' harmonization

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	Precise exposition across all parts: for (a) correctly identifies Lokāyata's pratyakṣa-ekapramāṇavāda; for (b) distinguishes symbolic from mythological language; for (c) accurately presents genealogy and Übermensch; for (d) correctly defines jīvanmukti as ātma-jñāna with sthita-prajña; for (e) accurately captures Aquinas's assensus and the relationship between fides and ratio	Broadly accurate but with minor conceptual slips: conflates Cārvāka with Sāṃkhya on perception, oversimplifies Tillich's 'ultimate concern,' or misrepresents Aquinas's subalternation as double-truth theory	Significant errors: attributes āstika status to Cārvāka, confuses Nietzsche's master/slave morality with social class analysis, or presents jīvanmukti as bodily immortality
Argument structure	20%	10	Each sub-part follows clear thesis-argument-synthesis structure: for (a) pramāṇa critique → epistemological consequence → hedonist implication; for (b) positions stated → criteria evaluated → reasoned conclusion; for (c) diagnosis → mechanism → alternative; for (d) mokṣa typology → Advaita specificity → embodied state analysis; for (e) problem posed → Aquinas's solution → reconciliation demonstrated	Generally coherent but uneven: some parts lack internal argumentation (e.g., mere listing of Nietzsche's points without genealogical logic) or have abrupt transitions between thinkers	Disorganized or fragmented: random facts without argumentative thread, or conflation of distinct sub-parts into undifferentiated paragraphs
Schools / thinkers cited	20%	10	Appropriate primary and secondary citations: for (a) Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha or Bṛhaspatisūtra fragments; for (b) Tillich's Dynamics of Faith, Braithwaite's empiricist ethics, or R.B. Braithwaite; for (c) Genealogy of Morals, Gay Science §125; for (d) Śaṅkara's Brahmasūtrabhāṣya, Vivekacūḍāmaṇi; for (e) Summa Theologiae II-II, q.1-2, De Veritate	Thinkers named but sources imprecise: 'Nietzsche said' without textual reference, 'Advaita philosophers' without Śaṅkara, or 'Christian thinkers' instead of Aquinas	Misattribution or anachronism: citing Cārvāka from modern secondary sources as primary, confusing Aquinas with Kierkegaard on faith, or attributing jīvanmukti to Buddhism
Counter-position handling	20%	10	Nuanced engagement with opposing views: for (a) acknowledges Nyāya's pratyakṣa-based inference defense or Kumārila's śabda-pramāṇa; for (b) addresses verificationist challenge (Ayer) or literalist critique (Fundamentalism); for (c) considers Nietzsche's aristocratic bias or possible nihilism; for (d) contrasts Rāmānuja's kainkarya or Madhva's taratamya; for (e) presents fideist objection (Kierkegaard's leap) or rationalist critique (Spinoza)	Brief mention of alternatives without development: 'However, others disagree' without specifying who or why, or single counter-position noted per sub-part	No counter-positions acknowledged, or strawman presentation: dismissing all religious language as meaningless without engaging symbolic theory, or presenting Nietzsche as simply 'anti-religious'
Conclusion & coherence	20%	10	Each sub-part achieves concise closure: for (a) evaluates Cārvāka's legacy for Indian materialism; for (b) justified stance on symbolic/non-symbolic with awareness of limits; for (c) assesses Nietzsche's enduring relevance to secular ethics; for (d) clarifies jīvanmukti's practical soteriological value; for (e) evaluates Aquinas's synthesis as resolving or reconfiguring faith-reason tension; overall five parts cohere as philosophy of religion survey	Adequate closure but generic: 'Thus we see' summaries without specific evaluation, or uneven quality across parts with some strong and some weak conclusions	Missing or inadequate conclusions: abrupt endings, mere restatement of question, or failure to address the specific directive (e.g., 'discuss' unanswered by evaluative closure)

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 →