Maharashtra HSC Philosophy study plan

Distinguish normative ethics from meta-ethics and applied ethics, and write a one-line definition of each in your own words

Compare utilitarianism (act and rule), Kantian deontology and virtue ethics on a single worked example, listing where each theory gives a different verdict

State the difference between deductive validity, inductive strength and abductive inference, and label ten short arguments accordingly

Identify and define five informal fallacies (ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, begging the question, hasty generalisation) with a self-written example of each

Explain the fact-value distinction and the naturalistic fallacy, and say how a critic of each ethical theory would deploy them

Analyse two applied moral issues (euthanasia, capital punishment, animal welfare or environmental duty) using two theories each, and state a defended conclusion

Translate ordinary-language arguments into categorical or propositional form and test them with Venn diagrams or truth tables

Construct counterexamples to invalid argument forms (affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent) and explain why each fails

Map the orthodox (astika) and heterodox (nastika) division of Indian schools and state the criterion that separates them

Summarise the core metaphysical claims of Advaita Vedanta, Samkhya and Nyaya on self, matter and causation, noting where they conflict

Explain satkaryavada and asatkaryavada and connect them to the Samkhya and Nyaya-Vaisheshika positions on causation

Define key terms (Brahman, atman, maya, purusha, prakriti, pramana) accurately from memory

Outline Buddhist anatta and dependent origination and contrast them with the Upanishadic account of the self

Explain Carvaka materialism and its epistemology, and assess one standard objection to it

Distinguish the main metaphysical positions on universals (realism, conceptualism, nominalism) and on free will (determinism, libertarianism, compatibilism)

Analyse the concept of causation through one worked case, contrasting regularity, counterfactual and agent-causal accounts

Define knowledge under the tripartite analysis and reconstruct the Gettier problem with one original counterexample

Distinguish rationalism from empiricism and explain how Descartes and Hume would each respond to a perceptual-error case

Compare the pramanas recognised by Nyaya, Mimamsa and Buddhism, and state which school accepts testimony as an independent source

Explain the correspondence, coherence and pragmatic theories of truth and apply each to one disputed claim

State what philosophy is and how it differs from religion, science and common sense, and name the main methods (analysis, dialectic, phenomenology, critical thinking)

Set out the classical arguments for God's existence (ontological, cosmological, teleological, moral) and one strong objection to each

Explain the problem of evil, including the distinction between logical and evidential versions, and one theodicy response

Distinguish faith from reason and describe fideism, natural theology and evidentialism as positions

Compare social contract, utilitarian and Rawlsian justifications of state authority, and define justice as fairness with its two principles

Analyse positive and negative freedom and apply the distinction to one concrete policy dispute

Define beauty, the sublime and aesthetic experience, and distinguish subjective from objective accounts of taste

Explain Kant's notion of disinterested judgement and the problem of the antinomy of taste in plain language

Distinguish the aesthetic attitude, expression theory and formalism as accounts of art, and apply each to one artwork you know well

Describe the scope of philosophy across its major branches and identify which branch a given question belongs to for ten sample questions

Revise the highest-weight domains (ethics, Indian philosophy, epistemology, logic) by re-deriving definitions and arguments without notes

Answer three timed full-length practice papers under exam conditions and mark them against the marking scheme

Compile and drill a correction list of every term or argument you got wrong, re-testing after 48 hours

Practise structuring answers with definition, explanation, argument and evaluation, and rehearse at least four essay skeletons from memory