INTERVIEW FOR CSE 2019
All ForumIAS members selected for CSE 2019 Personality Test must submit their details and DAF and register below to receive further instructions and guidance from ForumIAS. Click here to register now
INTERVIEW 2020 CHANNEL
ForumIAS Channel for Interview Preparation is now Active! Please join the channel by clicking here
We are hiring!

Philosophy 2017 doubts,discussions and answer writing

1246715

Comments

  • @leapoffaith May be https://www.quora.com/What-does-Hegel-mean-by-real-is-rational-and-rational-is-real can help.

    PS : Have you taken your user name from one of Danielle Steel's novels ?
  • Hey @Vivaan

    ur criticism about God may be logically right but have u ever read it in Berkeley's criticism from some authentic source (book, notes, etc) or is it something that u think? I'm stressing on this point coz in philo checking, it's a clear instruction that we can't criticise unless its coming from some philosopher (got to know it from 2 authentic sources). We can sometimes write without naming that philosopher due to paucity of time and space but it has to be a genuine one.
    I haven't read this criticism for Berkeley (may be my sources are silent on this) but if you've read it, then go for it :smiley:

    can u please mention ur sources...it is said that we cant criticize by ourselves because of our limited understanding..thats why we take shelter in thinkers(no matter we often come across that even they taking the things from their point of view and criticizing them eg shankara-ramanuja duel)...but if ur understanding is decent i think then we must go for it...how can upsc expect us to vomit out the things merely?by the way the point was taught to me by a renowned professor(by sumit nandan)..dont want to doubt him but will see for it in my references
    thank you :)
  • Who is your favorite western philosopher or whose philosophy do you consider explain questions most satisfactorily? Why?
    puri western khatam ho jaye pahle tab is que ka answer dena sahi rahega..i will ans this question for sure..in indian if u ask me i will vote for shankaracharya..his philosophy has the power to defeat almost all Indian thinkers...

  • Wittgenstein is best...with his language games
  • Hey @Vivaan

    ur criticism about God may be logically right but have u ever read it in Berkeley's criticism from some authentic source (book, notes, etc) or is it something that u think? I'm stressing on this point coz in philo checking, it's a clear instruction that we can't criticise unless its coming from some philosopher (got to know it from 2 authentic sources). We can sometimes write without naming that philosopher due to paucity of time and space but it has to be a genuine one.
    I haven't read this criticism for Berkeley (may be my sources are silent on this) but if you've read it, then go for it :smiley:

    can u please mention ur sources...it is said that we cant criticize by ourselves because of our limited understanding..thats why we take shelter in thinkers(no matter we often come across that even they taking the things from their point of view and criticizing them eg shankara-ramanuja duel)...but if ur understanding is decent i think then we must go for it...how can upsc expect us to vomit out the things merely?by the way the point was taught to me by a renowned professor(by sumit nandan)..dont want to doubt him but will see for it in my references
    thank you :)
    Hey my references don't go beyond basic books. And it is true that upsc expects us to "vomit out " stuff instead of making our own. There is a reason: Philosophy is a divided house, so the examiner may not agree with our criticism if we don't ascribe it to some philosopher.
    Coming to this specific instance, if Dr. Nandan has told and you're sure about him then there is no harm in going for it. :)
  • @leapoffaith May be https://www.quora.com/What-does-Hegel-mean-by-real-is-rational-and-rational-is-real can help.

    PS : Have you taken your user name from one of Danielle Steel's novels ?
    .Its from inception where Cobb asks Saito to come back to reality...
    Anyways Thanks for the link I went through it, actually i needed something short I can grasp.. ;)
    Cudnt study Western well (working) n now only 20 days to go for mains i need to cover as much as possible :#
  • Write a short note on esse est percipi.(150 words,10 marks,2015)
    Ans-Concept of esse est percipi was given by Berkeley.It means that to be is to be perceived. Berkeley believed that nothing can exist independent of our mind.Esse est percipi is necessary condition for something to be real as per him. In his 'Three dialogues' through the mouthpiece of Philonous he conveys the idea that there exists no material substance as it is made up of primary and secondary qualities. But neither primary qualities like extension, solidity,dimension etc nor secondary qualities like color,taste ,heat etc have independent existence. The common argument that he takes to refute the qualities is that they are perceived differently by different people. Had there existence been independent of mind, they would have appeared same to all. Even abstract ideas have been refuted by him.
    However he faulted when in order to avoid solipsism he proposed that things exist even when they are not perceived by us as they are the thoughts in God's mind. Also, Philosophers like Moore have made the distinction between things in themselves and things as perceived by us. Things existing in themselves have independent existence. Samuel Johnson criticizes Berkeley by giving an analogy. I kicked a stone and I got bruises which does not involve mind. Lastly Perry criticized him for committing the fallacy of exclusive particularity.
    Though there are problems in Berkeley's esse est percipi but he can be said to be a 'Locke made consistent' by proposing such theory and defending it appropriately.

    very good article. Though I have one genuine doubt regarding criticism :
    1. from where do you guys get the criticism beyond the regular ones. like in this case- criticism related to Jhonson and Perry. I have not heard about them. Please enlighten me.

  • Who is your favorite western philosopher or whose philosophy do you consider explain questions most satisfactorily? Why?
    Kant... just think about his...balancing and reconciling app. He didnt opt for any extreme unlike rationalist, empiricist, LP etc...and thats the essence...even...gave space for God and faith....shows his.. capability to even embrace something beyond reason amd mental capabilities.

    Just personal opinion... :)
  • Write a short note on esse est percipi.(150 words,10 marks,2015)
    Ans-Concept of esse est percipi was given by Berkeley.It means that to be is to be perceived. Berkeley believed that nothing can exist independent of our mind.Esse est percipi is necessary condition for something to be real as per him. In his 'Three dialogues' through the mouthpiece of Philonous he conveys the idea that there exists no material substance as it is made up of primary and secondary qualities. But neither primary qualities like extension, solidity,dimension etc nor secondary qualities like color,taste ,heat etc have independent existence. The common argument that he takes to refute the qualities is that they are perceived differently by different people. Had there existence been independent of mind, they would have appeared same to all. Even abstract ideas have been refuted by him.
    However he faulted when in order to avoid solipsism he proposed that things exist even when they are not perceived by us as they are the thoughts in God's mind. Also, Philosophers like Moore have made the distinction between things in themselves and things as perceived by us. Things existing in themselves have independent existence. Samuel Johnson criticizes Berkeley by giving an analogy. I kicked a stone and I got bruises which does not involve mind. Lastly Perry criticized him for committing the fallacy of exclusive particularity.
    Though there are problems in Berkeley's esse est percipi but he can be said to be a 'Locke made consistent' by proposing such theory and defending it appropriately.

    very good article. Though I have one genuine doubt regarding criticism :
    1. from where do you guys get the criticism beyond the regular ones. like in this case- criticism related to Jhonson and Perry. I have not heard about them. Please enlighten me.

    thank you..go beyond regular books..keep a tab on coaching materials too.. these criticisms,i already told, i was taught by sumit nandan.. for wesern i m taking mitra's notes+copleston+y.masih....i love philosophy(not for UPSC only) so many sources i have :p ..even random search helps sometimes...
  • Hey @Vivaan

    ur criticism about God may be logically right but have u ever read it in Berkeley's criticism from some authentic source (book, notes, etc) or is it something that u think? I'm stressing on this point coz in philo checking, it's a clear instruction that we can't criticise unless its coming from some philosopher (got to know it from 2 authentic sources). We can sometimes write without naming that philosopher due to paucity of time and space but it has to be a genuine one.
    I haven't read this criticism for Berkeley (may be my sources are silent on this) but if you've read it, then go for it :smiley:

    can u please mention ur sources...it is said that we cant criticize by ourselves because of our limited understanding..thats why we take shelter in thinkers(no matter we often come across that even they taking the things from their point of view and criticizing them eg shankara-ramanuja duel)...but if ur understanding is decent i think then we must go for it...how can upsc expect us to vomit out the things merely?by the way the point was taught to me by a renowned professor(by sumit nandan)..dont want to doubt him but will see for it in my references
    thank you :)
    Hey my references don't go beyond basic books. And it is true that upsc expects us to "vomit out " stuff instead of making our own. There is a reason: Philosophy is a divided house, so the examiner may not agree with our criticism if we don't ascribe it to some philosopher.
    Coming to this specific instance, if Dr. Nandan has told and you're sure about him then there is no harm in going for it. :)
    though i dont agree with ur reason..but point noted...i used mouthpiece of Hume,not mine...and i was correct as Hume makes passing reference while talking about self in Essay concerning with human understanding about Berkeley's esse est percipi...our debate will continue on philo answer writing technique...but since u are writing mains so wont argue anymore as of now...lets meet after mains here to know ur experience and have ur knowledge...my best wishes for ur mains...and thank you for controversial yet fruitful discussions..:)
Sign In or Join to comment.

Welcome!

We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.

Just dont spread the word ;)

Sign in or join with Facebook or Google