RC – 3

CAT 2002 RC – Analysis by Rahul Sir, Bfactory Director

The conceptions of life and the world which we call „philosophical‟ are a product of two factors: one, inherited religious and ethical conceptions; the other, the sort of investigation which may be called „scientific‟, using this word in its broadest sense. Individual philosophers have differed widely in regard to the proportions in which these two factors entered into their systems, but it is the presence of both, in some degree, that characterizes philosophy. Philosophy’ is a word which has been used in many ways, some wider, some narrower. I propose to use it in a very wide sense, which I will now try to explain. Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge-so I should contend-belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a „No man’s Land‟, exposed to attack from both sides; this „No Man’s Land‟ is philosophy. Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. Is the world divided into mind and matter, and if so, what is mind and what is matter? Is mind subject to matter, or is it possessed of independent powers? Has the universe any unity or purpose? Is it evolving towards some goal? Are there really laws of nature, or do we believe in them only because of our innate love of power? Is man what he seems to the astronomer, a tiny lump of carbon and water impotently crawling on a small and unimportant planet? Or is he what he appears to Hamlet? Is he perhaps both at once? Is there a way of living that is noble and another that is base, or are all ways of living merely futile? If there is a way of living that is noble, in what does it consist, and how shall we achieve it? Must the good be eternal in order to deserve to be valued, or is it worth seeking even if the universe is inexorably moving towards death? Is there such a thing as wisdom, or is what seems such merely the ultimate refinement of folly? To such questions no answer can be found in the laboratory. Theologies have professed to give answers, all to definite; but their definiteness causes “modern minds to view them with suspicion. The studying of these questions, if not the answering of them, is the business of philosophy. Why, then, you may ask, waste time on such insoluble problems? To this one may answer as a historian, or as an individual facing the terror of cosmic loneliness. The answer of the historian, in so far as I am capable of giving it, will appear in the course of this work. Ever since men became capable of free speculation, their actions in innumerable important respects, have depended upon their theories as to the world and human life, as to what is good and what is evil. This is as true in the present day as at any former time. To understand an age or a nation, we must understand its philosophy, and to understand its philosophy we must ourselves be in some degree philosophers. There is here a reciprocal causation: the circumstances of men’s lives do much to determine their philosophy, but, conversely, their philosophy does much to determine their circumstances. There is also, however, a more personal answer. Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we may become insensitive to many things of very great importance. Theology, on the other band, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge, where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe. Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales. It is not good either to forget the questions that philosophy asks, or to persuade ourselves that we have found indubitable answers to them. To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it.

  1. The purpose of philosophy is to

(1) Reduce uncertainty and chaos.

(2) Help us to cope with uncertainty and ambiguity.

(3) Help us to find explanations for uncertainty.

(4) Reduce the terror of cosmic loneliness.

  1. Based on this passage what can be concluded about the relation between philosophy and science?

(1) The two are antagonistic.

(2) The two are complementary.

(3) There is no relation between the two.

(4) Philosophy derives from science.

  1. According to the author, which of the following statements about the nature of the universe must be definitely true

(1) The universe has unity.                                                                          (2) The universe has a purpose.

(3) The universe is evolving towards a goal.                                               (4) None of the above.


SOLUTION SECTION

Central idea exercise –

  1. Origin of the concept of philosophy.
  2. The positioning of philosophy between the dogmas of theology and the speculation of science.
  3. Purpose of philosophy.
  4. Importance of philosophy in the contemporary world.

Question solving :

  1. The purpose of philosophy is to

(1) Reduce uncertainty and chaos.

(2) Help us to cope with uncertainty and ambiguity.

(3) Help us to find explanations for uncertainty.

(4) Reduce the terror of cosmic loneliness.

Refer to the last part of the passage, “To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it.” From here, we can infer that the true purpose of philosophy is to help us deal with both uncertainty, as well as hesitation or ambiguity. This is precisely what Option (2) states. Hence it is the right answer.

Option (1) is wrong fact, hence ruled out.

Option (3) talks of uncertainty only, hence ruled out

Option (4) is mentioned in the passage but it does not answer this question. Hence, it is ruled out.

  1. Based on this passage what can be concluded about the relation between philosophy and science?

(1) The two are antagonistic.

(2) The two are complementary.

(3) There is no relation between the two.

(4) Philosophy derives from science.

According to the author, philosophy comes intermediate between science and theology. Therefore, it is the existence of both (theology and science ) which characterizes their relation that is reciprocal, supportive or complementary. Option (2) states this fact. Hence, it is the right answer.

Their relation is not antagonistic, hence Option (1) is ruled out.

They are not unrelated either, so Option (3) is ruled out .

Option (4) is wrong fact, so it can be eliminated.

  1. According to the author, which of the following statements about the nature of the universe must be definitely true

(1) The universe has unity.                                                                          (2) The universe has a purpose.

(3) The universe is evolving towards a goal.                                               (4) None of the above.

The author discusses about the nature of the universe when he contemplates about all the perplexing questions regarding the definiteness of the universe that have since long tormented the human mind for which neither science nor theology offers any concrete answers. Rather, they are stated as being found short of proper explanation to support them. From where this support can be garnered is also not discussed in the passage. Therefore Option (1), (2) and (3) do not hold true. Hence Option (4) is the correct answer.


Level of difficulty analysis

Reading :  Medium

Questions :  Medium


Hope you learnt!

See you with the next one tomorrow!

Happy learning!

Rahul sir

CAT Coach

[We will walk the last miles together! Keep the spirit going fellas]

You May Also Like

5 Comments

  1. Why in question 2, option 4 is wrong fact? the first line says philosophy is the product of science and inherited religious and ethical conceptions. So can’t we infer that philosophy is derived from science?

    1. The first line talks of philosophy being a product of two factors -inherited religious and ethical conceptions, on one hand and science , on the other hand. That is why option (4) which talks of only “science” and ignores the other factor is a wrong fact leading to wrong inference.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *