90 Days Answer Writing Philosophy - Paper 1

1
90 Days UPSC Mains Optional Answer Writing

Initiative
Philosophy – Paper 1
Question and Model Answers from Subject Experts
NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

2
04-Dec-2017 – Question 1
In what sense ideas be both immanent and transcendent? Discuss in this

context Plato’s theory of universals and particulars.(2017)
Model Answer
Plato was occupied with the question of knowledge(of reality) and like his master
Socrates, he believed that that Knowledge was possible. He rejected the
contention of Sophists that Knowledge was through perception since if it were so
then what appears to a fool is true for him and that is not acceptable. For Plato,
knowledge lay in the realm of ideas which he said is possible to be known through
rational insight. These Ideas are nothing but the essences of the things which we
know in the sensible world. Plato uses the dialectical method to get to them
Ideas or forms are the true substance according to Plato. They are indivisible,
immutable, eternal and belong to the transcendental realm of existence. They are
transcendental in the sense that they are not like the objects of the sensible world
which are in a state of constant flux. Here, Plato borrows the concept of
Parmenides, according to whom the substances are constant and unchangeable
and this he applies to the transcendental Ideas which remain same irrespective of
what happens in the sensible world.
Then how does Plato explain the sensible world? For this Plato uses the copy
theory of ideas(or participation theory of ideas). He says that the things in the
sensible world are mere copies of these transcendental ideas. These things
imitate the ideas in an imperfect way, whereas the ideas are perfect in
themselves. In this way, Plato explains the change and movement which we see in

3
the sensible world. Here he borrows the concept of flux from another Greek
philosopher, Heraclitus . The ideas are immanent in this world in so far as they in
participate in the becoming of things in the sensible world.
Thus in this context, Plato explains the transcendence and immanence of ideas.
Criticism: Aristotle criticises the realm of transcendental ideas, He says that the
ideas cant exist outside of the particular in which they exist. He, therefore, brings
these ideas from transcendence to immanence and establishes his theory of
substance containing both form and matter.

4
Explain Leibnit’z princple of ‘identity of indiscernibles’.(2015)
Model Answer
Leibnitz was a rationalist philosopher who believed in the use of the

mathematical method to explain the nature of the world. Unlike Spinoza, who
sacrificed plurality for the sake of Unity, Leibnitz starts with the Plurality. With
the help of his ‘law of individuality,’ Leibnitz looks upon real as self-
containedness. Each part must be the whole and contains the whole in it. This
insistence of Leibnitz leads him to believe in Pluralism.
Leibnitz also refutes the idea of atoms as being the fundamental reality of the
universe. He claims that the atoms are fundamentally alike and only different in
quantity and this can’t explain the qualitative difference that we perceive in the
world. Besides atoms cant explain consciousness also. Therefore the fundamental
reality of Leibnitz is spiritual units called monads which are real, indivisible and
self-contained.
Each monad contains the whole of a universe in itself. It is a self-contained unit

which is windowless and nothing comes in or goes out of it. It contains within it
the possibility of everything which happens to it.
Through the theory of indiscernibles, Leibnitz tries to explain that no two monads
are alike. Each and every monad is unique and it is part of the continuous series
where every monad leads to the subsequent monad according to the principle of
continuity. But how does Leibnitz explain the unity among these plural and

5
multitude of monads? For this Leibnitz uses the principle of Pre-established

Harmony where each and every monad is part of the whole as arranged by God in
perfect symphony. Since each monad is windowless they can’t interact with each
other and God provides the order and the arrangement between the monads.
Criticism:
The Leibnitz theory of indiscernibles will make the monad solipsistic as they are
windowless and self-contained. These monads are ignorant about the harmony
which exist outside of them and it needs god to explain the harmony. While
Leibnitz has given the monad as the fundamental reality he hasn’t explained the
contradiction of monad pre-existing alongside god.
While Spinoza sacrificed the plurality for unity, Leibnitz has sacrificed Unity for the
sake of plurality.

6
Show that how Hume’s analysis of experience leaves no ground for belief in any
permanent reality either physical or mental.(2017)
Model Answer
Approach:
 Hume analysis of substance – denial of rational cosmology

 Hume analysis of self – denial of rational psychology
Hume was a consistent empiricist who took the psychological empiricism to its
logical conclusion. Locke had been inconsistent since he claimed substance as a
supposed substratum of qualities and nothing beyond. However, Hume questions
this acceptance of substance. He also refutes Locke’s epistemological dualism and
states that our impressions are not copies of substances. He rejects that we have
an impression of substance in us and there is no point in accepting anything
without it not having any impression on us. Thus, we can not know what the
objects are in themselves and are limited to our impressions. This leads to denial
of the material world or rational cosmology.
Hume also questions the question of the identity of self which has often been
taken granted by rationalist and empiricists like Locke and Berkeley. He again
turns back to an impression of self within us and contends that he doesn’t find
any. All we have inside us is the impression of hot, cold, sad, happy. We never find
an objective self, Hume compares it to a stage where characters come and go,
and here impressions come and go. It’s only due to the principle of association

7
and habit that we attribute an everlasting, objective self. Thus, Hume has denied
self and led to a denial of rational psychology.
It’s due to these denials of matter and self (and god) that Hume is referred to as a
skeptic. However, Hume did not totally deny knowledge. He did believe in the
knowledge of the relation of ideas which can be found in Mathematics.

8
Critically examine Hume’s views on relation of cause and effect.(2016)
Model Answer
Approach:
 Explain Hume’s refutation of cause-effect

 Explain Kant’s criticism
Hume builds his empiricist theory on basis of impressions which form the basis of
all knowledge according to him. The notion of cause-effect has always been
accepted by philosophers without questioning. But Hume challenges this notion.
According to Hume, there is no impression of cause-effect through which we can
know it. How then has it been held? It has been held mainly due to contiguous
nature of cause and effect, the precedence of the cause before effect and the
necessary relation of cause leading to effect.
Hume refutes the contiguous and order between cause and effect since both the
impressions of cause and effect are distinct and there is no apriori relation
between them, He compares it to the one set of objects experienced after other
like an object of flame and sensation of heat. Contiguity and succession cannot be
sufficient and if there is necessary relation then we must be sure of all future
experiences also, but this is not the case . Therefore the cause and effect is not a
necessary relation but one due to imagination and past association.

9
This refutation is famously referred to have woken up Kant from his dogmatic
slumber. Kant accepts with Hume that the cause-effect necessity cannot be
proved from experience. But however, Kant does not go as far as Hume to deny it.
Kant accepts the cause-effect necessity since it is known to be one of the pure
categories of thought. He calls them the concepts of understanding without which
we cannot understand any perception which we experience. If we deny these
pure concepts of understanding then we cannot have any knowledge at all. Kant
proves that these concepts of understanding are objective and independent of
individual experiences. Therefore the result of cause and effect are same for
everyone. Thus, Kant has denied Hume’s refutation of Cause-effect.

10
Explain Aristotle’s theory of form and matter. How does it help him resolve the
problem of change and permanence.(2017)
Model Answer
One of the important questions in front of Aristotle was the explanation of the
problem of reality ie the problem of being and becoming. He wanted to resolve
the problem of change and permanence. He rejects the earlier explanations, Plato
had contended that the true substance of being was in the transcendental realm
of ideas and the particular things by copying these ideas explain the change. This
was refuted by Aristotle since the ideas can’t exist outside of particulars and the
explanation of change is highly mythological. Aristotle also rejects the Democritus
explanation of the reality of atoms forming the particular things since purposeless
atoms cannot give rise to the world which has a telos(purpose) in it.
Aristotle takes help of causation theory to explain the problem of being and
becoming. This cause is metaphysical and not the scientific cause. He takes the
example of human production of the chair and identifies four causes in it. The
material cause which is wood, the formal cause which is the design of the chair,
the efficient cause which is the skill of the carpenter and the final cause which is
the actual purpose for which chair is made. He further reduces the efficient and
final cause into formal cause since all three of them explain the becoming of a
chair with design, skill and a purpose. The matter, however, can’t be reduced.
Therefore the two causes or things which explain all the movement or becoming
in this world, one is form and other is matter.

11
Matter for Aristotle is wider in meaning. It is not something which is red or white
or possessing something. In other words, its nothing since it cant be defined.
However, it cant be nothing for it can be molded into any form. similarly, the form
is most important aspect since it gives a purpose, but the empty form is not
present in nature. Therefore what we see in reality is formed matter. Here the
parts away from Plato by defining substance as formed matter. The greenness of
leaf cant be isolated. What we find in nature is green leaf rather than greenness
and leafless.
Matter and form are relative. Wood is the matter to chair which in turn is the
matter of furniture. Thus the world is arranged in a hierarchical manner with the
formless matter at the bottom and matterless form at the apex. The entire system
is teleological and thus Aristotle reconciles being and becoming.

12
Does Plato’s theory of Form explain the ‘change and sensibility’ of matter? Give
reasons for your answer.(2017)
Model Answer
Plato rejects the sophist notion of ‘Knowledge is perception’ since perception or

sensory experiences cannot give knowledge which can stand and justify itself.
Worse if knowledge is perception then there will be no knowledge possible. Plato
establishes that knowledge is possible through reason and it is possible to know it
. He proposes the dialectical method which is the art of thinking in concepts which
constitute the essential object of thought. Through this Plato claims that we can
understand the realm of forms or ideas which are transcendental in nature and
form the true objects of knowledge.
Plato warns that these ideas or forms are not thoughts in minds of men. They
have an independent existence of their own. They are also not originated through
experience. Plato says that these ideas are already known to the soul and rational
insight only helps in the clearing of these. THis is often referred to as his theory of
reminiscence.
If true substances are transcendental, how does Plato explain the change and the
sensible world? For this Plato uses the copy theory of ideas and participation
theory of ideas. According to the copy theory of ideas, the particulars in the
sensible world are the reflection of the true ideas. They try to imitate the
transcendental ideas and thereby move in the direction of it. According to

13
participation theory, each particular participates in its idea and thereby becomes
the idea in participating.
Plato also arranges the ideas in a hierarchical manner with the idea of good at the
apex. It is like the sun guiding the light and movement of all the other ideas
towards itself.
Criticism:
Aristotle criticizes Plato’s theory of forms as it fails to account for the change in
the real world. Plato’s copy theory is mythological and poetic and hardly logical in
its explanation of the particular things in this world. Also, Plato’s theory is static in
its explanation. For eg: when we abstract the idea of greenness from the leaf, we
still can’t explain the change which leaf undergoes when it changes its color. The
hierarchical explanation of ideas is devoid any true movement. What we see in
the real world isn’t just abstract greenness but green things.
Aristotle further criticises Plato’s theory for it separates the matter and form.
Ideas are the true substance according to Plato but formed matter is the
substance for Aristotle. The ideas cant exist outside of the particulars. Thus
Aristotle puts across his theory of potentiality(matter) and actuality(form) to
explain the change and sensibility which Plato’s theory of form failed to account.

14
What is Antinomy? Describe the major antinomies discussed by Kant. (250)
Model Answer
Antinomy, in philosophy, contradiction, real or apparent, between two principles

or conclusions, both of which seem equally justified; it is nearly synonymous with
the term paradox. Immanuel Kant, the father of critical philosophy, in order to
show the inadequacy of pure reason in the field of metaphysics, employed the
word antinomies in elaborating his doctrine that pure reason generates
contradictions in seeking to grasp the unconditioned. He resolved the four
antinomies by drawing a distinction between phenomena (things as they are
known or experienced by the senses) and noumena (things in themselves). Kant
insisted that we can never know the noumena, for we can never get beyond
phenomena. These antinomies are four: two “mathematical” and two
“dynamical”.
The Mathematical Antinomies
The First Antinomy (of Space and Time)
 Thesis: The world has a beginning in time, and is also limited as regards
space.
 Anti-thesis: The world has no beginning, and no limits in space; it is infinite
as regards both time and space.
The Second Antinomy (of Atomism)

15
 Thesis: Every composite substance in the world is made up of simple parts,

and nothing anywhere exists save the simple or what is composed of the
simple.
 Anti-thesis: No composite thing in the world is made up of simple parts,
and there nowhere exists in the world anything simple.
The Dynamical Antinomies
The Third Antinomy (of Spontaneity and Causal Determinism)
 Thesis: Causality in accordance with laws of nature is not the only causality
from which the appearances of the world can one and all be derived. To
explain these appearances, it is necessary to assume that there is also
another causality, that of Spontaneity.
 Anti-thesis: There is no Spontaneity; everything in the world takes place
solely in accordance with laws of nature.
The Fourth Antinomy (of Necessary Being or Not)
 Thesis: There belongs to the world, either as its part or as its cause, a being
that is absolutely necessary.
 Anti-thesis: An absolutely necessary being nowhere exists in the world, nor
does it exist outside the world as its cause.
In the 20th century, more specific suggestions for resolving the antinomies arose.
Because the philosophical significance of these possible resolutions continues to
be debated, however, the force of Kant’s case against pure reason is yet to be
assessed.

16
G. E. Moore’s refutation of idealism. comment (200)
Model Answer
Moore was a realist and common sense philosopher. According to him the
existence of an object is real and what our common sense says is true. In his
paper ‘Refutation of Idealism’, he attempts to refute idealism by refuting their
central principle-Esse est percipi. To condemn Esse est percipi, Moore employs
various methods like-
1) analytic and logical method
2) Metaphysical method
Analytic method-
Proposition Esse est percipi has following meaning:
(a) the existence of a thing is its sense perception-refutes as Esse and percipi are
identical in meaning.
(b) the existence of a thing is one of the basic qualities of perception-though Esse
and percipi are not identical but are so related that Esse is essentially a part of the
meaning of percipi
Therefore, in either in sense of identity or partial identity, Esse and percipi are
coexistent with respect to these two meanings. So, in all propositions, the relation
is maintained between Esse est percipi but all distinctions have been removed

17
which make them synonymous. Such propositions become tautology but no new
information as far as knowledge is concerned.
(c) Existence is inferred from perception-here Esse is inferred from percipi and
they are distinct but they are sometimes true and sometimes false. Such
propositions are not self-evident. So just like in ‘all crows are black’ a single white
crow is enough to invalidate the proposition similarly a single instance in which
‘Esse’ is not ‘percipi’ would defeat idealist position.
Metaphysical method-
refutation can be traced in following arguments
(a) It is our common-sense knowledge that existence of X is different from

awareness of X
(b) According to idealists even if the distinction is made between awareness and
its content then also they cannot be separated and hence are indistinguishable.
But we know from our experience that when we see blue or red things, our vision
our awareness does not become red or blue.
(c) To know there must be something to know but if knowledge is wholly mental
then it means mind knows but this principle is impossible.
(d) There is significant difference between mental images and objective facts. Ex-
visual images of wild animals do not create terror which we experience when we
actually see in the forests.
Criticism:

18
1. Robert E. Allinson in ‘a non-dualistic reply to Moore’s refutation of

idealism’ says-
 Moore’s argument against idealism rests on the dualism of subject-object

at every stage which every non-dualist calls into question.
 ’Whatever is, is in experience is empty if we assume that experience is the
experience of objects and then take away all the objects.
 How could you ‘have blue’ without knowing it was blue? It means having a
blue is discovering ‘blue awareness’ i.e. blue and its awareness are not
distinct’ Adverbial theory’ of experience by Ducasse says someone who has
the sensation of blue is someone who ‘senses bluely’.

19
Explain Kant’s division of categories.
Model Answer
According to Kant, for knowledge sensibility and understanding both are

necessary. So, we have sensibility and related laws and at the same time, we have
the understanding and its laws. He calls later as ‘transcendental logic’ which deals
with a priori concept and principle of understanding. Now to ascertain apriori
concepts we need ‘transcendental clue’. Kant finds this transcendental clue in the
faculty of judgment. While judging we cannot set limit on number of possible
judgements but we can determine the possible ways of judging. These possible
ways have already been given by philosophers but they could not ask why only
these forms of judgements are possible. Here comes the role of categories.
If we can identify all of the possible forms of objective empirical judgment, we can
then hope to use them as the basis to discover all of the most general concepts or
categories that are employed in making such judgments, and thus that are
employed in any cognition of objects. So, categories are pure apriori concepts of
understanding which synthesize judgements in categorical structure to provide
knowledge. there are 12 judgements and corresponding categories. These are:
According to Kant without assuming these categories, our experience will be

impossible. Their justification lies in the fact that they serve to make experience
possible (transcendental deduction). They supply form of our knowledge while
sensibility supply content of knowledge.

20
Quality Quantity Relation Modality
1. universal- 4. affirmative- 7. categorical-inherence 10. problematic-

unity reality and subsistence possibility-impossibility
2. particular- 5. negative- 8. hypothetical-causality 11. Assertoric-existence

plurality negation and dependence and non-existence
3. singular- 6. infinite- 9. Disjunctive- 12. apodictic-necessity

totality limitation community and contingency
Criticism-
Kant’s categories have been criticised by Hegel. He said that categories are not
just 12, butare many. And every individual is free to use his own categories.
However, despite these criticism, it cannot be ignored that Kantian categories
continue to impact philosophical considerations even of contemporary times.
Comparison-
 Edmund Husserl also starts with general concepts when he gives categories
of meaning.
 P.F Strawson, would defend Kant’s approach through ‘descriptive
metaphysics’ which is concerned with describing more general featured of
our conceptual structure
 Aristotle uses term category for all modes of predicates in any judgement
whatsoever.

21
Are G.E. Moore’s arguments in defence of common sense satisfactory? Give

reasons.
Model Answer
According to common sense position, our ordinary common-sense view of the

world is largely correct. Moore rejected idealist position and accepted realist one
which was an affirmation of his belief in common sense. His main arguments in
defense of common sense as envisaged in “Defence of Common Sense” can be
traced as follows:
1. Certain propositions are certainly true. The single truism is also known with
certainty. E.g. propositions ‘My body has existed continuously on or near
the earth, at various distances from them or in contact with other existing
things, including other living human beings”, “I am a human being” are
certain.
2. There is a distinction between physical and mental facts. There is no good
reason to hold that every physical fact is logically or causally dependent on
mental facts.
3. He affirms that neither he has good reason to hold that all material objects
were created by God nor common sense gives reasons to think that God
exists at all or that there is an afterlife.
4. He considers that how common sense propositions like “here is my one
hand” are to be analyzed. As per him, such propositions may be indirect

22
realist or phenomenalism or direct realist. Their existence is the external

world is not dependent upon our experience.
5. he says that sense data he perceives through his senses are facts about the
interaction of external world and himself.
He was not satisfactorily able to defend his common-sense arguments as:
1. He did not give any argument for his direct realist position.
2. He did not know how to analyze the interactions of external world and
himself.
3. Wittgenstein’s critique:
4. a) Moore’s use of phrases “i know” or “I am certain” is altogether faulty
because he has failed to realize their correct use and hence his defence of
common sense is not sound.
5. b) If Moore would have informed us that he knew the distance separating
certain stars, we might conclude that he had made some special
investigations and we shall want to know what these were.
6. As per Alice Ambrose if weighed on scales of reductive thesis, then it
becomes clear that Moore was defending ordinary language, not common
sense.
However, he must be credited for avoiding scepticism and giving a common sense
understanding of philosophy which is in itself a challenging task.

23
How are synthetic apriori judgements justifiable according to Kant?
Model Answer
Most of the rationalists and empiricists believe that analytic apriori judgements
and synthetic aposteori judgements are possible but according to Kant, there is a
possibility of synthetic apriori judgements too. As per him, Synthetic judgements
are those in which predicate lies outside the subject concept. And apriori
judgements are those which do not depend upon sense experience for their
validation. So, synthetic apriori judgements are those in which predicate concept
exists outside subject and their denial is not self-contradictory, yet their validity is
independent of sense experience. Space and time make such judgements possible
In order to make such judgements justifiable, he divides the question “how

synthetic apriori judgements are possible” into three 3;
(a) How are synthetic apriori judgements possible in maths? -here he shows any
arithmetical proposition can be constructed in time without the help of any
empirical object. Similarly, geometrical axioms can be conceived in a pure
intuition of space. hence, they are possible
(b) How are synthetic apriori judgements possible in natural science? -knowledge
of natural phenomenon comprises of two elements-sense manifold and pure
concepts of understanding. While synthetic apriori judgements are not possible
through sense manifold but a pure concept of understanding is independent of
sense experience.so they make principles of sciences synthetic apriori

24
judgements. Pure concepts are supplied by the mind, not by sense experience.
thus, through them, synthetic apriori judgements are possible in natural sciences.
(c) possibility in metaphysics-synthetic apriori judgements not possible here as

metaphysical entities like God, soul etc are beyond categories of space and time.
Thus, by taking help of space and time, Kant makes the synthetic apriori
judgements justifiable.

25
‘Movement is a contradiction in itself.’ Examine, in this context, Hegel’s

dialectical method.
Model Answer
According to Hegel, the motion itself is a contradiction: even simple mechanical

change of position can only come about through a body being at one and the
same place and also not in it. Something moves, not because at one moment it is
here and at another there, but because at one and same moment it here and not
here.
This contradiction in motion is not accidental or illogical rather it has taken place
as per rational plan. Now, since formal logic can become a law of thought only
with respect to static things, it is the dialectic method which should be applied
here as it explains the dynamic and evaluating processes. It is only through the
process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis reason can arrive at something
concrete and finally at absolute ideas. And self-realisation of the reason is the
goal of the dialectical movement. So, the logical contradiction lies in the notion of
opposites which are distinct from one another while being identical(identity-in-
difference).
Criticisms-
1. Logicians point out that if one accepts contradiction, any statement can be
proved to be true.

26
2. Hegel violates the principle of contradiction which says that something

cannot be true and false at the same time.
3. Stace-many transitions in Hegel’s philosophy does not seem to be fit in a
triadic pattern well.
Comparison-
1. Hegel’s dialectical method relies on contradictory processes between

opposing sides. Plato’s opposing sides were people.
2. closer to Engels’ dialectic method.
3. In Indian philosophy, Nagarjuna’s Madhyamika philosophy and
Shankaracharya’s Advaita Vedanta are also comparable to Hegel’s
dialectic method.

27
01-Jan-2018 – Question 1
Are empirical statements verifiable? Discuss the limitations of ‘verification

theory of meaning’. (2014/20)
Model Answer
According to A.J Ayer, existence is of two types-

1. Empirical, which can be experienced through sense-organs and hence,
verifiable.
2. Transcendental, which is beyond experience and hence, not verifiable.
Through the principle of verification, a particular fact can be verified. Any
statement which is neither true nor false and beyond the scope of verification is
meaningless. Such propositions are pseudo-statements. Example- God is in
heaven.
On the basis of the principle of verification, Ayer has classified propositions In
three categories-
1.Verifiable
2.Not verifiable but given suitable apparatus, they can be verified.
3.Those statements which are impossible to verify.
He further expanded the scope of verifiable statements by classifying them into-
1.Strong verifiable i.e. which are practically verifiable.
2. Weak verifiable i.e. which are not directly or practically verifiable but possible
in future. Example- Life on Mars.
Hence, empirical statements like ‘All metals expand when heated’ is strongly
verifiable but a statement like ‘Life exists on Mars’ is weakly verifiable.

28
Critical comments-
1. They have deprived philosophy of its traditional functions of being surveyors of
knowledge and determiner of what constitutes valid knowledge.
2. They have restricted philosophy to the narrow and technical function of
evaluating scientific assertions.
3. They have overvalued science and failed to recognise that philosophy is a
science of sciences.
4. The principle of verification is grossly exaggerated and altered or modified as
per their requirements.
5. Their concept of knowledge is too mechanical. They are mistaken in rejecting
value and importance of imagination and creativity.
6. Concepts like God, Soul, other worldliness etc. have great pragmatic value and
give some kind of religious consolation and satisfy the practical interest of man.
IMPORTANCE-
– Promotes humanism and importance of metaphysics is reduced to that of
epistemology

29
Bring out the relationship between language games and forms of life.
(2015/20/200 words)
Model Answer
Language game, according to Wittgenstein, is a description of the slice of human

everyday activities including doubting, affirming, believing, following rules and
interacting with others. Language games not only refer to individual human
activities but also to those that are common to the whole community.
Wittgenstein now emphasises that speaking is one sort of activity that takes place
within the broader framework of human life. Wittgenstein uses the notion of
“form of life” to capture this insight. To Imagine a language is to imagine a form of
life i.e. speaking of language is part of an activity or form of life.
Wittgenstein was interested in language in order to understand the nature of the
philosophy. The philosophical task is not to correct but to understand properly. All
philosophical problems are language generated so we need to understand the
language in order to solve the problem.
According to them, surface grammar reflects the meaning of the words

immediately while depth grammar is the application of the words. Example-
1. All roses have thrones.
2. All roads have length.

30
Surface grammar of both is similar but the difference is in the depth grammar.
Language is not the uniform thing but is constituted of many divergent activities.
It is futile to discover some hidden unity among them. Language game is part of
life and may be helpful to gain a deeper understanding of language. The concept
of the game can be understood only in terms of rules. There is no single theory by
which phenomena of language can be explained. Each language has its own rules
and if rules of one are applied to another then philosophical problems arise.
It also refers to family resemblance, just as a family member if family resemble
one another; similarly, linguistic activity is also resembling one another. They
form a family; there is no single essence or common feature.
He realises that ideal language is not possible and hence becomes interested in
ordinary language. He realises that language is dynamic and evolutionary like an
ancient city always growing. It is a continuous process. The meaning changes with
form of life and to explain this he takes the help of language games.

31
Husserl’s notion of ‘bracketing’. (2015/10)
Model Answer
Husserl wanted to know the true nature of thing, but this can be only achieved
when we are presupposition less. Hence, he applied bracketing or
phenomenology to reach this aim.
This he called as a-priori and intuitive investigation of phenomena. He first

differentiated his phenomenology with Kant’s, Hegel’s and logical positivist’s
phenomenology. Further he tried to remove distortions which result in distorted
consciousness.
Epoche for avoidance of naturalism and reduction for avoidance of psychologism
1. Epoche means bracketing- as a method to purge our consciousness of

naturalistic beliefs
2. To suspend judgments for time being- bracket all naturalistic beliefs-
external pollutants
3. All theories concerning object matter must be put under bracket, which we
want to study- popular beliefs, prejudice opinion, judgments are also to be
bracketed- things actually existing to be bracketed
4. Does not mean annihilation of things- only ignoring these things for time
being- detached perspective to catch the pure phenomena
5. Reductions are to purge the internal pollutants- psychological beliefs

32
6. 3 reductions- Phenomenological- Free our consciousness from

psychological presuppositions
7. Transcendental- Subjective inwardness- subjective consciousness- bring
into light the objectified form of consciousness
8. Eidetic-Try to understand what is presented in consciousness is ‘universal’
form
Essence
1. Pure phenomenon comes out after epoche and reduction- cannot be

further reduced- essence of things
2. Pure phenomenon is given as co-relation of consciousness and not
independent of consciousness
3. Neither in thought nor independent of thought
4. Essence is neither real nor unreal- immanent and transcendent
5. Cannot be known by senses or by reason- directly perceived by
consciousness- eidetic intuition
6. Essences are nothing but meaning of the objects
7. Whatever appears is pure consciousness after eidetic reduction
8. Basis of all our knowledge

33
Explain Wittgenstein’s arguments against the possibility of private language.

(2013/10)
Model Answer
The private language argument argues that a language understandable by only a

single individual is incoherent, and was introduced by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his
later work, especially in the Philosophical Investigations. The argument was
central to the philosophical discussion in the second half of the 20th century.
if someone were to behave as if they understood a language which no-one else

can make sense of, we might call this an example of a private language.
Wittgenstein sets up a thought experiment in which someone is imagined to
associate some recurrent sensation with a symbol by writing S in their calendar
when the sensation occurs. Such a case would be a private language in the
Wittgenstein essence.
Wittgenstein imagines a case roughly like the following. Suppose a person is

stranded on a deserted island and has managed to bring along a diary. One day he
decides (maybe in order to keep himself sane) to begin recording a mark – ‘S’ for
example – in his diary whenever he experiences a certain sensation. Whenever
the sensation occurs, he focuses his attention upon it (in effect, he tries to
mentally ‘point’ to it) and marks ‘S’. Wittgenstein’s conclusion is that it is not
possible to meaningfully use a term to refer to a private mental state in this way.
Thus, there can be no private language.

34
Wittgenstein thinks there can be no (meaningful) private language. The reason

should by now be clear. If I wanted to use a term to refer to some private mental
state, what would be the criteria governing whether I used the term correctly or
not? There would be no public criteria (since the state is private) yet all internal
criteria have been ruled out. So, there would be nothing to determine when I
used the term correctly and when I did not. So, the term would be meaningless
The core of Wittgenstein’s arguments is that “he thinks that we need to appeal to
the practice and “customs” of our linguistic community”.

35
Distinguish necessary from empirical proposition. How is necessary proposition

is justified? Explain (2013/10)
Model Answer
Knowledge-based on sense experience cannot be necessary.2 options- necessary

propositions based on experience- Necessary propositions are based on language
and nothing to do with empirical object, sense control and matter of fact
1. Knowledge arises out of experience but validity doesn’t depend on

experience- 2 conditions- Validity based on experience and not based on
experience- Synthetic aposteori- Analytic apriori
2. KANT- Synthetic and analytic judgments
3. A. J. AYER-
1. Difference b/w Synthetic and analytic judgments is correct but
criterion of difference is incorrect
2. Not applicable to all statements- A>B, B>C, then A>C
3. Psychological criterion- 7+5=12
Logical positivists view- accepted 2nd alternative
1. Accepted difference b/w Synthetic and analytic judgments on

linguistic ground
2. Validity decided on basis of meaning of words- analytic proposition-
does not require experience- linguistic content- necessary- Maths
and Logic

36
3. Validity not decided on basis of meaning of words- synthetic

proposition- requires experience- factual content
Criticism
1. Quine- Analyticity is based on concepts which are not clear or they involve
circularity
2. Reduction is not sufficient
3. Analyticity based on- Meaning of meaning is not clear, based on
synonymity

37
Bring out the significance of ‘Language Games’ in Wittgenstein’s Use theory of

meaning. (2014/10)
Model Answer
In the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, Wittgenstein argued for a representational

theory of language. He described this as a ‘picture theory’ of language: reality
(‘the world’) is a vast collection of facts that we can picture in language, assuming
that our language has an adequate logical form. ‘The world is the totality of facts,
not of things’, Wittgenstein claimed, and these facts are structured in a logical
way. The goal of philosophy, for early Wittgenstein, was to pare language back to
its logical form, the better to picture the logical form of the world.
A language game (also called secret language) is a system of manipulating

spoken words to render them incomprehensible to the untrained ear. Language
games are used primarily by groups attempting to conceal their conversations
from others.
language is like a game in which the words are used as tools like the pieces of
chess. This view is expressed in the philosophical Investigations where he
considered language as a form of life, a way of performance and behaviour, a kind
of game. Language is not only for picturing facts but also for asking, cursing,
greeting, praying, commanding and so on. Such varieties use of language
expresses his emphasis on ordinary language. Language is the vehicle of life. The
use of words that may be called speech activity plays important role in his theory

38
of ‘Language game.’ Wittgenstein uses the term language game much more
broadly than speech activity. The pure speech activities like telling a joke and the
activities as constructing an object from a description, obeying orders, which
involve non – linguistic behaviour, are included in language game as essential
components.
Thus, the language game is of two types – pure language game and impure
language game. But pure and impure language games cannot be divided into two
watertight compartments; they differ only in degree. Impure means to have
slightest regulative force. Wittgenstein considers the impure language game as
the basic and holds that pure language games are parasitic upon the impure in a
crucial way.

39
Discuss why Heidegger introduces the concept of Dasein in his metaphysics.

(2015/15)
Model Answer
Dasein is a German word that is often translated as Being-there or Being-here. It

represents an existence (a being) that is located in a familiar world, in a mood.
The precise reason why Heidegger used Dasein to represent this is that other
concepts such as soul, person, consciousness, spirit, are laden with metaphysical
consequences. For instance, the usage of soul invokes something religious, and
the usage of consciousness takes one towards mind/body duality. Thus, to avoid
hinting engagement into any of these convoluted topics, Heidegger employs
Dasein as a new terminology.
1. Man is the being-in-the-world. Call man “dasein”- being there- existence-

manner in which human individuals exist
2. Dasein is different from existence of things- it is a range of possible ways to
be
3. I determine by my actions what my existence will be
4. Existence is temporal- stretches towards indefinite future limited by death
5. Awareness of mortality is part of dasein
6. Authentic (self-determining and self-revising) and inauthentic life
(superficiality and idle chatter, determined by social convention)

40
7. By revealing fundamental features of Dasein, we come to understand other

kinds of being
8. Shortcomings in traditional metaphysics(single out certain privileged
entities like god self, spirit,etc) – “forgetfulness of being”- our
understanding of being is based on the way we are in the world- misguided
quest
SORGE: 3 basic elements of dasein- 1) contingency of one’s existence through

anxiety, dread 2) thrown-ness or sheer contingency of existence 3) decline, decay
Dasein is the pre-reflective state of being, which means that it is simply pure
existence without us thinking about what is actually is. The nature of Dasein is
inherently social and bounded to this world, with a unique sense of “mineness”
that defines itself as an issue for itself. So one cannot understand Dasein unless it
is expressed as a mode of something, for example, Being-in-the-world, Being-for-
itself, Being-for-others etc., and these modes are the primary tools of analysis in
his magnum opus Being and Time.

41
Strawson’s distinction between ‘M’ and ‘P’ predicates. (2015/10)
Model Answer
Strawson was an ordinary language philosopher who first rejects the ownership
and no- ownership theories and hence gave his irreducible entity as a person
whose aspects material and immaterial aspects are M and P predicates.
Person of Strawson is like Monads of Leibnitz and Logical atoms of Russell. A

person is a primitive and unanalysable concept. Persons are credited with physical
characteristics (M-predicate) ex: weight, solidity and state of consciousness ( P-
predicate) ex: Joyful, angry etc. This distinction was necessary after the refusal of
Mind-Body dualism i.e cogitation and extension.
Strawson’s concept of person–
1. Concept of person is a primitive concept

2. Primitive means- identification, origin and explanation cannot be
explained on the basis of others
3. Cannot be reduced to other concepts
4. Doesn’t mean mind without body or body without mind- also not
merely a combination of both
5. Here conscious and material qualities are attributed equally
6. Strawson divides these characters into 2 types- M-predicates and P-
predicates
7. M-predicates- ascribed to both conscious and material objects

42
8. P-predicates- ascribed to only conscious beings

9. Applied to oneself and others in the same sense
2. Problem- One ascribes p-predicates to oneself on one ground and to others
on the basis of his observation of body behaviour
3. Two answers- Skepticism and behavioralism- Strawson rejects both
4. Criteria for imposition is different but their meaning is one
CRITICAL EVALUATION
1. Theory is applicable to some higher animals

2. Philosophers accepting person as material, to them, memory and
knowledge are functions of brain based on mind, brain being part of body
decays after death- accepted by Strawson
3. I am able to ascribe to myself, inner state even if we are not able to ascribe
it to others at time
However, he was criticised for escaping the problem rather than solving it and his
distinction is nothing but analysis of the person.

43
Bring out the relationship between existence and essence in the case of human
being. Explain the issues it gives rise to for human beings according to Sartre.
(2015/15)
Model Answer
Essence, in this case, refers to the ancient philosophical idea (most closely
associated with Plato) that all things have a predefined, ideal set of
characteristics. For instance, the Essence of a chair is that it has four legs, a back,
and people sit on it.
However, not everything matches its Essence. You might have a chair with three
legs, or a broken back, or that no one sits on. The actual details of a particular
chair make up its Existence.
The idea that Existence precedes Essence is that –for human beings –there is no
predefined pattern that we must fit into. We live our lives, and that in turn
defines what we truly are, not any idealized set of characteristics. This idea is the
heart of Sartre’s version of Existentialism.
EXISTENCE- ESSENCE
1. If God has created man, he cannot be free- God created man according to
his own conception- essence of man already there in God’s mind- essence
precedes existence

44
2. Man is not related to nature as cause and effect- nature cannot determine
consciousness- consciousness first exists- “Existence precedes essence”
3. Human nature is the product of person’s existence
4. Man creates himself the essence of what he is- he is what he wills to be-
man is nothing but what he makes of himself
5. Human nature does not exist- only that which a man develops himself by
his own initiative
6. A born child is non-existent until he realizes his existence- existence comes
with feelings of existence
7. Man creates his own essence- defines essence
8. Man is his future possibility- “Man is not what he is, he is what he is not”
The implications are that we must create our own meaning, place our own value
on our acts and that our individual freedom is absolute and unbounded.
As a side note, Sartre, although an atheist, gave what I consider to be one of the
best ever descriptions of God, as the “Union of Existence and Essence”, meaning
that God is the full Existential realization of every perfect, ideal or Essential
attribute of God. Sartre, of course, described that as an impossibility, but it is also
a good description of what a believer believes God to be.

45
How far are Quine’s arguments in ‘two dogmas of empiricism’ justified? Discuss.
(2014/10)
Model Answer
Quine was one of the influential American linguistic philosophers. He has given a
famous article called- “Two dogmas of empiricism”.
First Dogma-There is a categorical difference between synthetic and analytical

judgement.
Second dogma-Statement regarding objects can be reduced to sense data
statements.
As per quine, these dogmas are blind beliefs and superstitions of empiricists’
philosophers and for being empiricist it is not required to accept this postulates.
Quine has challenged the first dogma by saying that there is no boundary
between the synthetic and analytical statements, there is only quantitative
difference but has no qualitative difference.
1. Distinction b/w analytic and synthetic proposition

2. Reductionism of all meaningful statements to statements about immediate
experiences (Reductionism)
Quine was aware that rejecting these dogmas meant blurring the boundary b/w
speculative metaphysics and natural science
Distinction b/w analytic and synthetic proposition

46
1. Leibnitz- Truths of reason- truths of fact

2. Hume- Knowledge of relation to ideas and knowledge of matter of fact
3. Kant- synthetic and analytic dichotomy
4. Logical Positivists- Linguistic content(Analytic) – Empirical content
(synthetic)
In the same way, he argued that all our knowledge begins when an object reflects
upon our sense organ. To explain the stability and objectivity of knowledge, we
have to accept the existence of objects outside and independent of our mind.
In fact, Quine was also empiricist philosopher which can be called as the radical
empiricist. He has been criticised also that he was not able to differentiate
between the pure mathematics and the practical mathematics.

47
Explain the arguments of Carvaka to reject transcendental entities. (2015/15)
Model Answer
Charvaka rejected the idea of transcendental entities like soul and God. He
refutes the existence of an eternal, unchangeable and immortal soul and stated
that the so-called soul is nothing but the body with consciousness. Here,
consciousness is regarded as the byproduct of matter. It is produced when
material elements are combined in a particular proportion. It is always found
associated with the body and vanishes when the body disintegrates.
Just as the combination of betel leaves, areca nut and lime produces the red
colour, or just as fermented yeast produces the intoxicating quality in the wine,
though the ingredients separately do not possess of either the red colour or the
intoxicating quality, similarly a particular combination of the elements produces
consciousness, though the elements separately do not possess it. This led to the
doctrine of Dehatmavada. Charvaka gave following arguments in favour of
Dehatmavada-
1. As long as body is alive consciousness is present in it. This shows that
consciousness is the attribute of living body.
2. When our body is not alive, consciousness also becomes absent in it. Therefore,
consciousness doesn’t exist independent of body.
1. Being true Materialist, Charvaka also denies the existence of God because it
is not perceived. He believes people believe in God three main reasons-
1.God is creator of the world

48
2.God as governor of law of karma

3.God as an intellectual regulator.
But according to Charvaka, the world is not created by God. Therefore,
there is no need for God as an efficient cause of this world. Charvaka
believed in this-worldliness and hence disbeliever of the concept of the law
of karma, there we even cannot accept God by this logic.

49
“Limits of knowledge and world are determined by my sense perception”.

Discuss this claim of Carvaka. (2014/10)
Model Answer
Carvaka was an atheist and a materialist who believed sense perception to be the
only source of valid knowledge. According to him, only sense perception can be
trusted as a valid source, hence he outrightly rejected inference, upmana and
shabda pramana.
Charvaka’s philosophy is based on its epistemology which is positivistic. According

to it, Perception is the only source of valid knowledge as it is reliable and
authentic. All other pramanas like inference, verbal testimony and comparison etc
are rejected.
Inference is based on Vyapti Gyan. but according to charvaka Vyapti gives rise to
the fallacy of illicit generalization, petitio principi and infinite regress. so,
inference can’t be accepted as a pramana.
Charvakas have refuted verbal testimony as a valid source of knowledge because

it is based on the statement of some reliable person/ scripture. And to find a
reliable person is based on an inference which is not a valid source of knowledge.
A comparison is also not accepted as the source of valid knowledge by charvakas.

We can find knowledge of similarity through perception so no need of a separate
pramana for that.

50
But in process of refuting other pramanas charvakas themselves have taken help
of inference. Also, accepting that perception always gives reliable and authentic
knowledge, leads to the fallacy of illicit generalization. It also limits our scope of
knowledge.
In this way charvakas have left many loophole for criticism and debate in their
epistemology. However, it enriched Indian philosophy by bringing it out from
dogmatism through refutation of transcendental entities in their metaphysics
which is the logical outcome of their epistemology.
Hence, he denied all the metaphysical entities such as God, Soul, Hell, Haven,
Adrasta. For him, this body is a product of matter and everything finishes with
death. There is no God and this world is a result of an accidental combination of
atoms in a certain specific proportion. Hence, he said that whatever can be known
is limited by my capability of sense perception.

51
Jain concept of Dravya.(2015/10)
Model Answer
Jain accepts the common philosophical view of Dravya or Substance. A distinction

is made b/w character and that which possesses the character. The latter is
generally called Drvya or Substance.
Dravya is the one which possesses attributes as well as modes. Gunas are the
permanent essence of the substance like the soul has consciousness. Prayayas are
changing and accidental like desire, volition, pleasure, the pain of soul.
The substance has its unchanging essence and therefore is permanent. It also has
its changing modes, which is subject to production and decay. Therefore, Jains
hold the view of Shanikavada of Buddhism and non-dualistic vedantins as one-
sided and biased.
Jain rejects the Buddhist view that reality consists in causal efficiency i.e. no
object is real if it is capable of causing an effect. The Buddha’s criterion is faulty
because even an illusory snake must be called real as it can cause effects like fear.
So Causal efficiency cannot be a mark of reality.
Further, Substance is classified as extended and non-extended. Extended
classified into Jiva and Ajiva and so on.

52
What is Samavaya? What are the grounds for accepting samavaya as distinct
padartha ? (2013/10)
Model Answer
Samvara and Nirjhara are the two crucial steps in the liberation process of the
Jainas meaning stopping of karmic flow and removal of remaining karmic particle
respectively. The jiva when loses faith in Tirthankars comes under beginning less
ignorance and gets embodied. He then attracts the flow of karmic pudgals i.e
asrava Pudgals are sticky substance. The jiva hence becomes inflicted with
kasayas like anger, greed, pride and delusion. To move on the path of liberation
he needs to follow Tri Ratna i.e Right knowledge, Right faith and Right Conduct.
Following this, the flow of karmic particles gets stopped i.e Smavars. Then
following right conduct the remaining karmic particles get washed away i.e
nirjhara. Hence the jiva first attains Jivamukti i.e sayogi then videhmukti i.e. a yogi
and hence transcends to Siddha Shilla and enjoys anantchatustaya.
BONDAGE AND LIBERATION
1. Bondage is union of soul with matter

2. Anantchatushtaya- obscured by karma pudgalas sticking(like dust particles)
to soul due to-ignorance and kasayas (anger-greed-pride-delusion)
3. Ashrava or inflow – 42 kinds and bandha
4. Liberation is separation of matter from soul
5. Samvar or stoppage of inflow and nirjara or wearing out

53
6. Path- Triratna-three jewels- knowledge( samyak gyan), faith(samyak

darshan) and conduct(samyak charitra)- panchamahavrata
7. Liberation means- cessation of suffering- stoppage of birth-death cycle-
anantachatushtaya

54
What do samvara and nirjara mean?Explain their significance in Jaina theory of

liberation.(2015/15)
Model Answer
Samvara and Nirjhara are the two crucial steps in the liberation process of the
Jainas meaning stopping of karmic flow and removal of remaining karmic particle
respectively. The jiva when loses faith in Tirthankars comes under beginning less
ignorance and gets embodied. He then attracts the flow of karmic pudgals i.e
asrava Pudgals are sticky substance. The jiva hence becomes inflicted with
kasayas like anger, greed, pride and delusion. To move on the path of liberation
he needs to follow Tri Ratna i.e Right knowledge, Right faith and Right Conduct.
Following this, the flow of karmic particles gets stopped i.e Smavars. Then
following right conduct the remaining karmic particles get washed away i.e
nirjhara . Hence the jiva first attains Jivamukti i.e sayogi then videhmukti I,e ayogi
and hence transcends to Siddha Shilla and enjoys anantchatustaya .
BONDAGE AND LIBERATION
1. Bondage is union of soul with matter

2. Anantchatushtaya- obscured by karma pudgalas sticking(like dust particles)
to soul due to-ignorance and kasayas (anger-greed-pride-delusion)
3. Ashrava or inflow – 42 kinds and bandha
4. Liberation is separation of matter from soul
5. Samvar or stoppage of inflow and nirjara or wearing out

55
6. Path- Triratna-three jewels- knowledge( samyak gyan), faith(samyak

darshan) and conduct(samyak charitra)- panchamahavrata
7. Liberation means- cessation of suffering- stoppage of birth-death cycle-
anantachatushtay

56
Is anyathakhyativada an adequate explanation of error?(2015/15)
Model Answer
Anyathakhyativada is the theory of error given by Nyaya-vaisesika they say that

due to the wrong synthesis between the presented and the represented object
the error of knowledge arises. It is similar to Kumarils viprita- khyati i.e The
presented object is perceived elsewise(anyatha) and represented object exists
elsewhere. Ex: shell is misperceived as silver which exists elsewhere (say, in the
market). So nyayaikas accept that reality of both presented and represented
objects. The reality of represented objects is maintained by extraordinary
perception.
According to many philosophers, Nyaya’s theory of error is not adequate for

example:
1.Empiricists like Carvaka and Locke would reject such view. How can shell be
misperceived as silver? Silver is not perceived as there is no sense contact with it.
Extraordinary perception is mere arbitrary assumption.
2.the perception at present time and place of an object which exists somewhere
else is absurd. Further to hold that memory idea can really dislocate an object
from time and place and transport it to other time
3.By proposing such theory nyayayikas are in dilemma(since they are realists):if
silver is real then it can’t be contradicted afterwards by sublating cognition of
shell and if it is real then how can it appear to consciousness during
57
error?Idealists like advaita vedanta would solve it through anirvacaniyakhyati

However, anythakhyativada can’t be completely rejected as it is also accepted by
philosophers like Kumarila.Its significance lies in the fact that while Kumarila
forsakes his realism to maintain ideal element in error, Nyaya preserves it
cautiously with extraordinary perception.Thus, like other philosophers’ theories,
it also has some drawbacks but at least realism has been maintained and basic
position has not been relinquished

58
02-Feb-2018 – Question 1
Alayavijnana (2015/10)
Model Answer
Alaya-vijnana is the eighth of the eight levels of consciousness of Yogacara, a

Mahayana philosophy that is primarily concerned with the nature of experience.
The Sanskrit word alaya literally means “substratum,” which suggests a
foundation or basis. Vijnana is awareness or consciousness, and it is the fifth of
the Five Skandhas. Hence, Alayavijnana is the substratum of consciousness.
The alaya-vijnana is the foundation or basis of all consciousness, and it contains

impressions of all of our past actions. It is not something which western
philosophers referred to as ‘subconciousness’, but like subconsciousness alaya-
vijnana is a part of mind that stores things outside of our conscious awareness.
The alaya-vijnana is the foundation or basis of all consciousness, and it contains
impressions of all of our past actions. Through these impressions, our thoughts,
opinion, desire and attachments grow.
These seeds or impressions are also identified as the seeds of karma or karmic
impressions. Karma is created primarily by our intentions and acting on our
intentions with thought, word and deed. The karma thus created is said to reside
in our subconscious (or, the storehouse consciousness) until it ripens, or until it is
eliminated.

59
What is the role of Pratityasamutpada in explaining dukkha?Elucidate means to

overcome it.(2015/15)
Model Answer
Pratityasamutpada forms the basic foundation of the Buddhist philosophy. It is

derived from the 2nd and the 3rd noble truth, further Buddha explains both
Samsara and Nirvana using this causal wheel of twelve dependent links, also
Kasinkvada, Niaratmavada, Sanghatvada etc logically follow it.
Pratityasamutpada or the jana-marana chakra is the theory of dependent

origination i.e everything in this world has a cause.
“This being, that arises “
It is the causal wheel made up of twelve dependent links, where a multiplicity of

causes are at play. The root cause being beginning less ignorance i.e avidya. The
knowledge of this chakra is Nirvana while an inability to know it is Samsara, which
is full of sufferings i.e. Dukkha. Death is only a new beginning.
This vicious circle can be escaped only by removing ignorance. For this Buddha
lays down the Astangika marga which is about training in wisdom, ethics and
concentration. Only then a person can attain Nirvana, which is an extinction of
suffering not existence.

60
Satkaryavada (2015/10)
Model Answer
Satkaryavada is a hypothesis according to which the effect pre-exists in a

potential state. The causal process involves a modification of a stable underlying
reality. The effect is not produced as a reality that is distinct from its underlying
cause. It is a specific rearrangement of that causal substrate.
The Samkhya system is based on the principle of Satkaryavada. The effect pre-
exists in the cause here. Cause and effect are seen as temporal aspects of the
same thing. It is considered as theory of existent causes. The effect lies latent in
the cause which in turn seeds the next effect. It maintains that effect is real.
Before its manifestation, it is present cause in a potential form.
According to Satkaryavada principle the cause is hidden inside the effect. This
effect exists due to several reasons-
1.what is nonexistent cannot be produced;
2.for producing a specific material cause is resorted to;
3.everything cannot be produced;
4.a specific material cause is capable of producing a specific product alone that
effect;

61
5.there is a particular cause for a particular effect. Adi Sankaracharya found

Satkaryavada as a useful tool against the doctrine of Annica or momentariness.
Two branches of Satkaryavada are vivartavada and parinamavada.

62
How is an absence of an object known according to Naiyayikas and

Mimamsakas ? Discuss. (2014/15)
Model Answer
The controversy between Nyaya-Mimamsakas regarding the perceptual

knowledge of non-existence is great interest in Indian philosophy. The Naiyayikas
tries to explain that the knowledge of non-existence entities is acquired through
the sense-object contact.
The non-existence is as a fact as an existence; but in producing the perceptual

knowledge of non-existence entities, a special kind of operative relation, called
characterizer-characterized (visesana-visesya bhava), plays an important role.
The operative relation between the eyes as the sense organ and the non-
existence as the object can be described as a characterization of that which is in
conjunction. Bhatta Mimamsakas, on the other hand, disagrees with the
Naiyayikas and they hold the view that perception requires sense-object contact
and there cannot be any contact of sense with non-existence.
Non-perception(anupalabdhi) does not prove the nonexistence(abhava) of what is

not perceived. We cannot perceive such super sensible entities as dharma and
adharma, ether and atom, we do not judge them to be non-existent. Non-
perception (anupalabdhi) gives us the knowledge of the non-existence(abhava) of
such objects as should have been perceived if they existed. If a thing should be
perceived under certain circumstances, then its non-perception (anupalabdhi)

63
under those circumstances is a proof of its non-existence(abhava). It is called

appropriate non-perception (yogyanupalabdhi) which is the source of our
knowledge (pramana) of non-existence (abhava)
Thus, the non-existence cannot be known by perception. The Bhatta Mimamsakas

has recognized the appropriate non-perception (yogyanupalabdhi) as a separate
source of knowledge. If a thing should be perceived under certain circumstances,
holds Bhatta Mimamsakas, then its non-perception, under those circumstances, is
a proof of its nonexistence.

64
Pancavidhbheda.(2015/10)
Model Answer
Madhvacharya who was a believer of unqualified dualism .His dualism is different

from Smkhyian dualism . He criticised specifically the abheda concept of
shankaracharya and Ramanujas concept of identity qualified with difference.
Hence he gave the theory of panch vid bheda i.e 5 fold difference such as :
1) God and Soul: God is creator sustainer and destroyer while soul is limited and
subjected to bondage and liberation
2) God and matter: God is pure consciousness and is efficient cause while the
matter is unconscious and the material cause.
3) Soul and matter: Soul is intrinsically conscious and subject to bondage and
liberation while matter is jada.
4) Soul and Soul : some souls are Nitya muktas never bonded while some are
Nitya baddha i.e ever bonded.
5) Matter and matter: Different due to presence of 3 guans
Further he says that difference is an essential component of knowledge and it is

proved by perception, inference and the scriptures.

65
While he is criticized for not being able to explain the identity of Brahman and
self-further he also diminished the importance of liberation by making distinctions
even in the liberated states

66
How does nature of Brahman differ in the philosophy of Shankar , Ramanuja

and Madhva ? Discuss critically. (2014/20)
Model Answer
The single truth will appear in different ways with different concepts
simultaneously correct according to different receivers. The same lady appears as
a wife, sister and mother simultaneously to her husband, brother and son.
Similarly, the same truth is taken as monism, qualified monism and dualism by
different levels of devotees, which are represented by Shankara, Ramanuja and
Madhva respectively. The truth or the object is the human incarnation about
which different devotees have different levels of views. The object of these three
philosophies is the human incarnation, which is the human being charged by God.
The object is not God and the separate human being
According to Shankara, the unimaginable God can never be grasped and cannot
be even separately mentioned in a strict sense. The imaginable human being
alone can be mentioned and hence, there is no point of dualism at any time. The
simile has the limitation since both electricity and wire are imaginable items.
Since the only unimaginable item is God, you can take no other unimaginable
item for the comparison of God. There cannot be two unimaginable since you
cannot distinguish the phase boundaries of the two unimaginable.
According to Ramanuja, the unimaginable God is separately established by

inference if not by perception. An inference is also treated as an authority of

67
knowledge. But every specific inference itself should be based on its specific
perception.
Hence, monism is inevitable in the case of unimaginable God since He was not
perceived at any place and at any time like the fire in the kitchen. Such monism
can be given as a result of lack of separation between the two entities. This theory
is neither monism nor dualism but stands as a bridge between the two extreme
concepts.
As per Madhva, the difference of the unimaginable God from the imaginable
creation clearly establishes the existence of separate unimaginable God at any
place and at any time. If the unimaginable God is non-existent due to lack of
perception, the boundary of imaginable space must have been perceived as an
imaginable item since everything that exists is only imaginable. Therefore, the
human incarnation is always a split personality due to the separate existence of
both unimaginable God and imaginable human being
Shankara preached that perfect knowledge of the monism is sufficient. People

misunderstand that Shankara did not support the devotion and service.
Ramanuja stressed on devotion because the concept of dualism will lower the
respect towards the human incarnation. Such lowering should be compensated by
special effort in increasing the devotion
Service is an automatic consequence of devotion and need not be separately

mentioned. You serve your child or parents only due to your love (devotion) on
them.

68
The knowledge of Monism automatically results in devotion and subsequent

service. The devotion is the product of knowledge and its automatic consequence
is service. Service being the final product includes its chain of causes, which are
devotion and knowledge.

90 Days Answer Writing Philosophy - Paper 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

90 Days Answer Writing Philosophy - Paper 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

90 Days UPSC Mains Optional Answer Writing

Question and Model Answers from Subject Experts

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

In what sense ideas be both immanent and transcendent? Discuss in this

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

Explain Leibnit’z princple of ‘identity of indiscernibles’.(2015)

Leibnitz was a rationalist philosopher who believed in the use of the

Each monad contains the whole of a universe in itself. It is a self-contained unit

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

multitude of monads? For this Leibnitz uses the principle of Pre-established

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

 Hume analysis of substance – denial of rational cosmology

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

Critically examine Hume’s views on relation of cause and effect.(2016)

 Explain Hume’s refutation of cause-effect

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

Plato rejects the sophist notion of ‘Knowledge is perception’ since perception or

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

What is Antinomy? Describe the major antinomies discussed by Kant. (250)

Antinomy, in philosophy, contradiction, real or apparent, between two principles

The Mathematical Antinomies

The First Antinomy (of Space and Time)

The Second Antinomy (of Atomism)

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

 Thesis: Every composite substance in the world is made up of simple parts,

The Dynamical Antinomies

The Third Antinomy (of Spontaneity and Causal Determinism)

The Fourth Antinomy (of Necessary Being or Not)

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

G. E. Moore’s refutation of idealism. comment (200)

1) analytic and logical method

Proposition Esse est percipi has following meaning:

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

refutation can be traced in following arguments

(a) It is our common-sense knowledge that existence of X is different from

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

1. Robert E. Allinson in ‘a non-dualistic reply to Moore’s refutation of

 Moore’s argument against idealism rests on the dualism of subject-object

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

Explain Kant’s division of categories.

According to Kant, for knowledge sensibility and understanding both are

According to Kant without assuming these categories, our experience will be

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

Quality Quantity Relation Modality

1. universal- 4. affirmative- 7. categorical-inherence 10. problematic-

2. particular- 5. negative- 8. hypothetical-causality 11. Assertoric-existence

3. singular- 6. infinite- 9. Disjunctive- 12. apodictic-necessity

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

Are G.E. Moore’s arguments in defence of common sense satisfactory? Give

According to common sense position, our ordinary common-sense view of the

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

realist or phenomenalism or direct realist. Their existence is the external

He was not satisfactorily able to defend his common-sense arguments as:

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

How are synthetic apriori judgements justifiable according to Kant?

In order to make such judgements justifiable, he divides the question “how