Catalonia PAU History of Philosophy

Each option pairs a short philosophical text with guided questions - identify the thesis, explain concepts, reconstruct the argument, relate it to the author's wider thought - and a theoretical question on a set author or topic. You write in Catalan. The skill tested is explaining and evaluating positions, not memorising biography or dates.

It is a written paper offering two complete options, of which you answer one. The number of questions, their weighting and the duration are fixed by the official body and can change between sittings, so consult its website for the current model and past papers rather than relying on what older students tell you.

Difficulty comes from precision, not volume. The content is finite and well signposted, but marks are lost through vague paraphrase, misattributed ideas and unanswered parts of a question. Candidates who can define terms sharply and connect a fragment to the author's central problem usually score well; those who revise by rereading summaries often plateau.

Start with the author whose text you find hardest to read, usually Kant or Hume, because they need the longest exposure. Then Plato and Descartes, whose problems of knowledge and reality anchor many comparisons. Add the medieval and contemporary authors later, since they are often examined through contrast with the moderns you already know.

Yes - PAU sittings recur and candidates may resit to raise a subject mark, with the better result generally counting. The number of sittings per year, registration deadlines and how resits combine with your access score are set annually by the official body; confirm the current rules on its site before you register.

You choose one option and answer all of its parts. Read both before deciding: one option may pair a text you know well with a theory question you know poorly, and the reverse. Choose the option whose combined demand you can meet, not the one with the more familiar fragment.

Summarising the text instead of analysing it; explaining a concept without saying what work it does in the argument; confusing one author's term with another's (Kantian and Cartesian 'idea', for instance); ignoring part of a multi-part question; and running out of time because they drafted at length before writing.

Write full answers to past-paper options under timed conditions, then mark them against the published criteria, listing every vague sentence. Alternate text commentaries with theory questions so neither becomes unfamiliar. Keep a single sheet per author of key terms, the central problem and three standard objections you could raise.

It expects a reasoned position, not a personal anecdote. When a question invites evaluation, state a criticism clearly, support it with an argument or a counterexample drawn from the text, and consider a reply the author could make. Neutral summary alone rarely earns the highest band, and unsupported opinion earns little.