Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • MPY 02 English December 2023 June 2024

    Uploaded by

    Rajni Kumari
    64 views16 pages
    IGNOU

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    IGNOU

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    64 views16 pages

    MPY 02 English December 2023 June 2024

    Uploaded by

    Rajni Kumari
    IGNOU

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 16
    IGNOU ALL SOLVED ASSIGNMENT PDF AVAILABLE ORDER NOW- 9350849407 HAND WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT HARD COPY (By Courier) & PDF FILES AVAILABLE a) b) °) a b) °° 4d Assignments for TEE December 2023 and for June 2024 (MAPY Second Year) MPY-002 Western Philosophy Give answer of all five questions. Alll five questions carry equal marks. ‘The answer of questions no. | and 2 should be in about 500 words. Discuss and evaluate Whitehead’s conception of God. 20 Or Discuss and evaluate the spectator theory of knowledge? 20 Discuss arguments to prove the existence of God given by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. 20 or Compare Socratic dialectic method with Hegel's dialectic method, 20 Answer any two questions in about 250 words each. 2*10= 20 Do you agree that there is some coirimon underline theme present in Early and later Wittgenstein? Give arguments to support your answer. 10 Discuss Anti-Cartesian foundation of Pragmatism. 10 ‘What is pure phenomenology? Explain. 10 Discuss the significance of Frege's sense-reference theory. 10 ‘Answer any four questions in about 150 words each. 4*5= 20 How Nietzsche uses “Death of God.” metaphor to explain the cultural transformation of his time? 5 ‘What is the idea of tabula rasa? 5 Discuss some of the general characteristics of existentialism. 5 Explain Marx’s view of historical materialism. 5 1 4 Read GPH Help Book for IGNOU Exam IGNOU ALL SOLVED ASSIGNMENT PDF AVAILABLE ORDER NOW- 9350849407 HAND WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT HARD COPY (By Courier) & PDF FILES AVAILABLE ©) Discuss Russell’s distinction between knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. 3 £) Critically evaluate the Picture theory of Wittgenstein. 5 5. Write short notes on any five in about 100 words each, s¥4=20 a) Epoche b) Alienation ©) Language game 4) Second wave of feminism ©) Linguistic Tura f) Hermeneutics ) Family resemblance h) Pre-established harmony RRRRR RRS 2 2 Read GPH Help Book for IGNOU Exam IGNOU ALL SOLVED ASSIGNMENT PDF AVAILABLE ORDER NOW- 9350849407 HAND WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT HARD COPY (By Courier) & PDF FILES AVAILABLE ASSIGNMENT REFERENCE MATERIAL (2023-24) MPY-02 WESTERN PHILOSOPHY 1, Discuss and evaluate Whitehead’ conception of God ‘Ans.Whitehead’s conception of God was not fully worked out, in his early works. Tt receives a more detailed explication in PR. Whitehead finds that God’s nature is not exhausted by the primordial nature. Moreover, a notion of God limited to his primordial nature alone will not do justice to his basic contention that God is an actual entity. Thus, Whitehead recognises in God @ consequent nature, which corresponds to the physical pole of any actual entity. God, being an actual entity, bears and expresses all the characteristics of an aetual entity. Thus, with every actual entity God is endowed with a conceptual as well as a physical prehension (consequent nature). “Analogously to all actual entities, the nature of God is dipolar. He has a primordial nature and a consequent nature, The consequent nature of God is conscious; and it is the realisation of the actual world in the unity of his nature, and through the transformation of his wisdom. The primordial nature is conceptual, and the consequent nature is the weaving of God’s physical feelings upon his primordial concepts (PR 345)." Following are the chief characteristics of the Consequent Nature of God: 1. God’s consciousness and knowledge: “the consequent nature of God is conscious...” (PR 345). 2. The finitude of the consequent nature: “One side of God’s nature is constituted by ... Conceptual experience can be infinite, but it belongs to the nature of physical experience that it is finite” (PR 345). 3, The consequent nature as everlasting: “The primordial nature of God is eternal, but the consequent nature is everlasting.” Everlasting in the Whiteheadian sense means “the property of combining creative advance with the retention of mutual immediacy” (PR 346). Here ‘everlasting’ means involving a creative advance that the earlier elements are not lost while at the same time new ones are added which remain with God forever (Cobb 1971, 223). Moreover, Whitehead understands God as the Principle of Limitation in the sense that it is God who gives structure and order to the universe. In the Whitcheadian understanding God is the source of potentiality and source of novelty and the wisdom that permeates the universe. Whatever position one may take with regard to Whitehead’s understanding of 3 Read GPH Help Book for IGNOU Exam IGNOU ALL SOLVED ASSIGNMENT PDF AVAILABLE ORDER NOW- 9350849407 HAND WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT HARD COPY (By Courier) & PDF FILES AVAILABLE God it is true that Whitehead has presented a way to think the God question anew. He has brought out some relevant insights conceming God and religion, Nevertheless, it highlights the tension between the classical view of God and the one Whitehead drew up. In this context only, one can see some of the criticism raised against Whitehead or process theodicy. Whitehead wanted to make God relevant in the modem world, but in his attempt to make God relevant, by a vision of God that is more attuned to modern world and science and metaphysics, the identity of the notion “God” is attenuated, in light of the classical perspective. The point is that he does not pay adequate attention to the religious sensitivity and the milieu in which the meaning of the term God originated, Nevertheless, whatever his critics might say, it is deemed necessary to add that one cannot conclude that Whitehead’s notion of God is a failure. Or Discuss and evaluate the spectator theory of knowledge? Ans. Pragmatists resemible Kant in yet another:respect: they, 100, ferociously repudiate the Lockean idea that the mind resembles either a blank slate (on which Nature impresses itself) or a dark chamber (into which the light of experience streams). What these august metaphors seem intended to convey (among other things) is the idea that observation is pure reception, and that the mind is fundamentally passive in perception. From the pragmatist standpoint this is just one more lamentable incarnation of what Dewey dubbed “the spectator theory of knowledge.” According to spectator thearists (who range from Plato to modem empiricists), knowing is akin to seeing or beholding. Here, in other words, the knower is envisioned as a peculiar kind of voyeur: her aim is to reflect or duplicate the world without altering it to survey or r contemplate things from a practically disengaged and disinterested standpoint. Not so, says Dewey. For Dewey, Péiiee; and like-minded pragmatists, knowledge (or warranted assertion) is the product of inquiry, a-problem-solving process by means of which we move fromdoubt to belief. Inquiry, however, cannot proceed effectively unless we experiment that is, manipulate or change reality in certain ways. Since knowledge thus grows through our attempts to push the world around (and see what happens as a result), it follows that knower as such must be agents; as a result, the ancient dualism between theory and practice must go by the board. This insight is central to the “experimental theory of knowledge,” which is Dewey’s alternative to the discredited spectatorial conception, This repudiation of the passivity of observation is a major theme in pragmatist epistemology. According to James and Dewey, for instance, to observe is to select to be on the lookout for something is it for a needle in a haystack or a friendly face in a crowd. Hence our perceptions and observations do not reflect Nature with passive impartiality; first, because observers are bound to discriminate, guided by interest, expectation, and 4 Read GPH Help Book for IGNOU Exam IGNOU ALL SOLVED ASSIGNMENT PDF AVAILABLE ORDER NOW- 9350849407 HAND WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT HARD COPY (By Courier) & PDF FILES AVAILABLE theory; second, because we cannot observe unless we act. But if experience is inconceivable apart from human interests and agency, then perceivers are truly explorers of the world not mirrors superfluously reproducing it. And if acceptance of some theory or other always precedes and directs observation, we must break with the classical empiricist assumption that theories are derived from independently discovered data or facts. ‘Again, it is proverbial that facts are stubborn things. If we want to find out how things really are, we are counseled by somber common-sense to open our eyes (literally as well as figuratively) and take a gander at the world; facts accessible to observation will then impress themselves on us, forcing their way into our minds whether we are prepared to extend them a hearty welcome or not. Facts, so understood, are the antidote to prejudice and the cure for bias; their epistemic authority isso powerful that it cannot be overridden or resisted. This idea is a potent-afid reassuring One, but it js apt to mislead. According to hholists such as James and Schiller, the justificatory status of beliefs is partly a function of how well they cohere or fit with entrenched beliefs or theory. Since the range of “facts” |we can countenance or, aeknowledgesis|d¢cotdingly constrained By, our body of previous acquired beliefs, no “fact” can be admitted into-our minds unless it can be coherently assimilated or harmonizéd with beliefs we already hold. This amounts to a rejection of Locke’s suggestion that the mind is a blank slate, that is, a purely receptive and patient tabula rasa. 2, Discuss arguments to prove the existence of God given by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. ‘Ans.The proofs for the éxistence of Godiat@also means of knowing something of God's essence. This knowledge, however,’ remains “always essentially inadequate and incomplete. One way of knowing ‘God is-the-way of negative theology, that is, by removing from the concept of Godall that implies~“imperfection, potentiality, and materiality. In other words, by this ntethod.we-artive at the knowledge of God through considering what He is not. ‘A second method is that of analogy. God is the cause of the world. Now every object reflects some perfection of the cause from which it proceeds. Hence it is possible for the human mind to rise to the perfections of God from the consideration of the perfection it finds in creatures. This it does, naturally, by removing all imperfection and potentiality from the creatures considered, The resultant idea of the nature of God is thus had through analogy with the perfections of the created universe. But, according to Aquinas, any natural intuitive knowledge of God is precluded to man. For us, only the visible world, which is capable of impressing our senses, is the object of natural intuitive knowledge. Thus any argument a priori for the existence of God is devoid of validity. For him, the existence of God needs to be demonstrated, and 5 Read GPH Help Book for IGNOU Exam IGNOU ALL SOLVED ASSIGNMENT PDF AVAILABLE ORDER NOW- 9350849407 HAND WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT HARD COPY (By Courier) & PDF FILES AVAILABLE demonstration must start from the sensible world without any prejudice. Such demonstrations are possible and are accommodated to anyone who is simply capable of reflecting. But, according to Aquinas, any natural intuitive knowledge of God is precluded to man. For us, only the visible world, which is capable of impressing our senses, is the object of natural intuitive knowledge. Thus any argument a priori for the existence of God is devoid of validity. For him, the existence of God needs to be demonstrated, and demonstration must start from the sensible world without any prejudice. Such demonstrations are possible and are accommodated to anyone who is simply capable of reflecting. 1. The existence of a sensible reality whose existence requires a cause; 2. The demonstration of the fact'that its existente requités)a finite series of causes and consequently a prime cause, Which is what we call God. The Five Ways to prove'thé Existence of God + Movement: Movement is any transit, any change from one state of being to another. According to Aristotle “Movement is a passage from potency to act.” According to Aquinas “whatever is moved is moved by another (“quidquid movetur ab alio movetur’ Thus, if there is a moyement ultimately there should be a mover; as we know there ‘movement, Therefore, there is an ultimate mover whom we call God. + Causality: A cause is anything that contribites to the producing of a thing. That which is produced by cause is effect. God alorie €an be attributed as éreator because He creates everything out of nothing. Thus, if there ‘is-afi-effect, there should be a cause and ultimately the First Cause; as we know-already, the creation of the world itself is an effect. Therefore, there is a cause, ultimately the First Cause whom we call God. + Contingency: Contingency means dependency. Our existence is not of our own. We have received it from the one who has existence on his own; He is God alone. So we are contingent (dependent) beings. But God is self sufficient; such self sufficient being is necessary. If there are contingent beings, there should be a necessary being; as we know there are contingent beings. Therefore, there should be a necessary being whom we call God. + Grades of perfection: We see in the life on the world some things are more perfect, better; at the same time some are not like that; thus the grades of perfection (e.g. stone, vegetation, animal kingdom, human kingdom, and god). If there are grades of perfection,there should be a higher perfection; as we know there exists grades of perfection, Therefore, there exists the higher perfection whom we call God. 6 Read GPH Help Book for IGNOU Exam IGNOU ALL SOLVED ASSIGNMENT PDF AVAILABLE ORDER NOW. 9350849407 HAND WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT HARD COPY (By Courier) & PDF FILES AVAILABLE + Teleological (order and purpose): This is an argument from the design. William Paley (1743-1805) in his “Natural Theology: or Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearance of the Nature” (1802) talks about the order and purpose of the created world. Paley argues that the natural world is as complex a ‘mechanism, and as manifestly designed as any watch. Or Compare Socratic dialectic method with Hegel's dialectic method. ‘Ans.“Dialectics” is a term used to describe a method of philosophical argument that invoivessome Sort of contradictory process between opposing sides. In what is perhaps the most classieversion of “dialectics”, the ancient Greek philosopher, Plato (see entry on Plato), for instance,presented his philosophical argument as a back-and-forth dialogue or debate, generallybetween the character of Socrates,.on\one, side, and some person or group of people to whoriSocrafes was talking (his interlocutors), on the other. In the course of the dialogues; Socrates’interlocutors; propose ‘definitions .of philosophical concepts or express views that Socrateschallenges,or opposes. THe back-and-forth debate between opposing sides produces a kind oflinear progréssion or evolution in philosophical views or positions: as the dialogues go along,Socrates’ interlocutors change or refine their views) in response to Socrates’ challenges andcome to adopt more sophisticated views. The back-and-forth dialectic between Socrates andhis interlocutors thus becomes Plato's way’ of arguing against the earlier, less sophisticatedviews or positions and for the more sophisticated ones later. “Hegel’s dialectics” refers to the particular‘ialectical method of argument employed by thel9th Century German philosopher, G-W.P. Hegel (see entry on Hegel), which, like other“dialectical” methods, relies ona contradictory process between opposing sides. ‘WhereasPlato’s “opposing sides” were’ péople (Socrates ‘nd his interlocutors), however, what the“opposing sides” are in Hegel’s work depends on the subject matter he discusses. In his work onlogic, for instance, the “opposing sides” are different definitions of logical concepts that areopposed to one another. In the Phenomenology of Spirit, which presents Hegel’s epistemologyor philosophy of knowledge, the “opposing sides” are different definitions of consciousness andof the object that consciousness is aware of or claims to know. As in Plato’s dialogues, acontradictory process between “opposing sides” in Hegel's dialectics leads to a linear evolutionor development from less sophisticated definitions or views to more sophisticated ones later.The dialectical process thus constitutes Hegel’s method for arguing against the earlier, lesssophisticated definitions or views and for the more sophisticated ones later. Hegel regardedthis dialectical method or “speculative mode of cognition” (PR §10) as the hallmark of hisphilosophy, and used the same method in the Phenomenology of Spirit [PhG}, as well as in all ofthe mature works he published later—the entire Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences(including, as its 7 Read GPH Help Book for IGNOU Exam IGNOU ALL SOLVED ASSIGNMENT PDF AVAILABLE ORDER NOW- 9350849407 HAND WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT HARD COPY (By Courier) & PDF FILES AVAILABLE first part, the “Lesser Logic” or the Encyclopaedia Logie [EL]), the Science ofLogic [SL], and the Philosophy of Right [PR] The Socratic method, also known as method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, isa form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking andanswering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlyingpresuppositions. It is a dialectical method, involving a discussion in which the defense of onepoint of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themselves in someway, thus weakening the defender’s point. This method is named after the Classical Greekphilosopher Socrates and is introduced by him in Plato’s Theaetetus as midwifery (maieutics)because it is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors’ beliefs, or to helpthem further their understanding, ‘The Socratic method is a method of hypothesis elimifiation, in that better hypotheses are foundby steadily identifying \and eliminating those that Jead to contradictions. The Socratic methodsearches-for géneral, commonly held™truth’, that shape beliefs and scrutinizes them todetermine their consistency; with other beliefs, The basic form is a series of questionsformulated as tests of logic.and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefsabout some topic, exploring definitions or logoi (singular logos) and secking to characterizegeneral characteristics shared by various particular instances, 3. Answer any two questions in about 250 words each. a) Do you agree that there is some common underline theme present in Karly and later Wittgenstein? Give arguitients to suppoft your answer. 22-23 ® Ans. Wittgenstein is famous for revolutisnizing philosophy not once but twice. He claimed to have solved all the problems of philosophy in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, only to retum to philosophy ten years later, repudiate many of the central claims of the Tractatus,and reinvent philosophy a second time with the Philosophical Investigations. Among the central differences between the early Wittgenstein of the Tractatus and the later Wittgenstein of the Philosophical Investigations and his various notebook writings is a shift in emphasis regarding the importance of logic. In the Tractatus, logic is given central importance as determining the structure of language and reality, but it receives scarcely a mention in the Investigations. Wittgenstein’s later philosophy abandons the rigidly structured world of the Tractatus in favor of a less pristine and more modest conception of a complex world that resists any simple articulation. While the differences between the early and later philosophies of Wittgenstein go deep, significant similarities remain. The four themes that follow trace some of the most important points on ‘which Wittgenstein's position does not change radically throughout his career. While Wittgenstein repeats that ordinary language is fine as itis, he also identifies the misuse of that language as the source of much philosophical confusion. Language is suited to its everyday business of facilitating communication between people. Philosophers make the mistake of abstracting language from its ordinary contexts to understand the essences of things. For 8 Read GPH Help Book for IGNOU Exam IGNOU ALL SOLVED ASSIGNMENT PDF AVAILABLE ORDER NOW- 9350849407 HAND WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT HARD COPY (By Courier) & PDF FILES AVAILABLE ‘example, when people talk about knowing things, in most contexts it is perfectly obvious what they mean. But despite the fact that we can talk about what we know without complication, we are puzzled when confronted by a question like, what is knowledge? All of a sudden, wo are faced with an abstract concept, "knowledge," divorced from the contexts in which this concept is used. When philosophers get confused over the question of what knowledge is, they are not confused because the essence of knowledge is difficult to identify. b) Discuss Anti-Cartesian foundation of Pragmatism. ‘Ans.From Peirce and James to Rorty and Davidson, pragmatists have consistently sought to purify empiricism of vestiges of Cartesianism. They have insisted, for instance, that empiricism divest itself of that understanding of the mental which Locke, Berkeley, and Hume inherited from Descartes. According to such Cartesianism, the mind is a self contained sphere whose contents “ideas” or“impressions” are irredeemably subjective and private, and utterly sundered'from the public and objective world they purport to represent. Pragmatists also find, the “Cartesian j¢quest says, “to have lost) God means madness; and when mankind willdiscover that

    You might also like