Philosophy 2025 Paper II 50 marks Evaluate

Q8

(a) Evaluate the nature and object of Religious Experience as explained by Radhakrishnan in 'The Hindu View of Life'. (20 marks) (b) Is it necessary for the normative principles to bear reference to God in order to produce a feeling of obligation in a moral agent ? Critically discuss. (15 marks) (c) Discuss the Advaitic notion of indescribability (anirvachanīyatā) in the context of nature of religious language. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) 'दी हिन्दू व्यू ऑफ लाइफ' में राधाकृष्णन द्वारा व्याख्यातित धार्मिक अनुभूति के स्वरूप और विषय का मूल्यांकन कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) क्या किसी नैतिक अभिकर्ता में कर्तव्यबोध जगाने के लिए नियामक आदर्शमूलक (नॉर्मेटिव) तत्त्वों के लिए ईश्वर को सन्दर्भित करना अनिवार्य है ? समालोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) धार्मिक भाषा के स्वरूप के सन्दर्भ में अनिर्वचनीयता की अद्वैतिक अवधारणा की विवेचना कीजिए। (15 अंक)

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

Directive word: Evaluate

This question asks you to evaluate. 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 'evaluate' in (a) demands critical assessment of Radhakrishnan's position, while (b) requires 'critically discuss' and (c) 'discuss'—allocate approximately 40% time/words to (a) given its 20 marks, and 30% each to (b) and (c). Structure with a brief unified introduction on religious experience and language, then three distinct sections addressing each sub-part with internal introductions, analytical body paragraphs, and micro-conclusions, ending with a synthesizing conclusion on Indian philosophy's contribution to philosophy of religion.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Radhakrishnan's distinction between 'religion of the spirit' and 'religion of the letter'; religious experience as integral experience (anubhava) transcending intellect; the object as the Absolute/Spirit apprehended through intuition (prajñā); critique of his synthesis of Hinduism with Western thought.
  • For (a): Evaluation of his claim that religious experience is universal yet finds highest expression in Hinduism's tolerance and catholicity; assessment of his 'Hindu View' as apologetic vs. philosophical.
  • For (b): Analysis of divine command theory (Ockham, Barth) vs. autonomous ethics (Kant's autonomy of will, rational intuitionism); examination of whether moral obligation requires theological reference or can derive from reason/social contract.
  • For (b): Critical discussion of Indian perspectives—Karma theory's internalization of obligation, Mimāṃsā's apūrva as impersonal moral force, Gandhi's 'inner voice'—showing obligation need not presuppose personal God.
  • For (c): Śaṅkara's doctrine of anirvachanīyatā regarding māyā and Brahman; application to religious language via Via Negativa (neti neti), analogical predication, and symbolic expression; comparison with Wittgenstein's 'mystical' and Tillich's 'symbolic'.

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines Radhakrishnan's 'integral experience' and 'religion of the spirit' for (a); accurately distinguishes theological from autonomous ethics for (b); correctly explicates anirvachanīyatā as neither sat nor asat nor both for (c); no conflation of prajñā with pratyakṣa or māyā with illusion.Basic understanding of Radhakrishnan's intuitionism and general divine command debate; superficial grasp of anirvachanīyatā as 'indescribable' without ontological nuance; minor errors like treating māyā as mere illusion.Misidentifies Radhakrishnan's position as pure Advaita or theism; confuses divine command with natural law; treats anirvachanīyatā as simple agnosticism or linguistic limitation without metaphysical grounding.
Argument structure20%10Clear tripartite structure with proportional development; for (a) moves from exposition to internal critique (universalism vs. Hindu exceptionalism) to external critique (comparison with James/Otto); for (b) presents thesis-antithesis-synthesis on obligation's source; for (c) builds from epistemological to linguistic implications with seamless transitions.Recognizable three-part answer with some imbalance (overweighting (a) or underdeveloping (c)); arguments present but evaluative depth uneven; transitions between thinkers exist but lack logical force.Disorganized or merged parts without clear demarcation; mere description without evaluation in (a); no dialectical structure in (b); descriptive account of Śaṅkara without connecting to religious language problem in (c).
Schools / thinkers cited20%10For (a): Radhakrishnan with comparative references to William James (varieties), Rudolf Otto (numinous), and Tagore; for (b): Kant, Kierkegaard, Ockham counterposed with Indian alternatives—Karma-Mimāṃsā, Buddhist śīla, Gandhi; for (c): Śaṅkara with Māṇḍūkya Kārikā, Gaudapāda, and contemporary parallels (Tillich, Wittgenstein, Hick).Mentions Radhakrishnan and basic divine command theorists; names Śaṅkara and māyā; limited comparative scope or reliance on secondary sources without primary textual grounding.Vague references to 'Indian philosophy' or 'Western thinkers' without names; omits key figures like Śaṅkara for (c) or Kant for (b); confuses Radhakrishnan with Vivekananda or Aurobindo.
Counter-position handling20%10For (a): Critiques Radhakrishnan's Hindu universalism from pluralist (John Hick) and particularist (Karl Barth) angles; for (b): Fairly presents both theological voluntarism and rational autonomy, then adjudicates via Indian middle paths; for (c): Addresses Mādhva's realist critique of anirvachanīyatā and Bhartṛhari's sphoṭa theory as alternatives.Acknowledges opposing views without deep engagement; brief mention of alternative ethics or realist Vedānta; critique remains at surface level without systematic evaluation.One-sided presentation—uncritical celebration of Radhakrishnan, purely secular dismissal of divine command, or uncritical acceptance of Śaṅkara; no recognition of internal debates within traditions.
Conclusion & coherence20%10Synthesizes three parts into coherent thesis: Indian philosophy offers distinctive resources for philosophy of religion—experience-based rather than propositional, integrating ethics without theistic reduction, and modeling religious language as asymptotic approximation; demonstrates how Radhakrishnan's project anticipates global theology; precise, non-repetitive, forward-looking.Separate conclusions for each part without integration; some repetition of earlier points; generic statement on 'relevance of Indian philosophy' without specific connection to the three sub-questions.Abrupt ending or missing conclusion; mere summary of what was said; contradictory claims across parts (e.g., asserting religious experience is ineffable in (a) then describing it propositionally in (c)).

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 II