Philosophy (Senior Secondary / Class XII): Arguments, Schools, and Evaluation
The PSEB Class XII Philosophy paper rewards accurate reconstruction of arguments from Indian and Western traditions, not personal opinion. It tests definitions (philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, logic), comparisons between schools, and the ability to evaluate a claim with stated criteria. The paper often pairs a definition with a comparison, so answer in two moves: define, then contrast. Use Sanskrit terms with a short gloss, and state the school, doctrine, and reason in one sentence.
Core map
- Branches: metaphysics (reality), epistemology (knowledge), ethics (conduct), logic (inference), aesthetics (beauty).
- Indian orthodox schools: Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, Vedanta. Heterodox: Charvaka, Buddhism, Jainism.
- Pramanas: pratyaksha (perception), anumana (inference), shabda (testimony), upamana (comparison); Nyaya accepts four, Charvaka mainly perception.
- Key doctrines: Sankhya's purusha/prakriti dualism; Yoga's chitta-vritti-nirodha; Vedanta's Brahman and maya; Jainism's anekantavada and syadvada; Buddhism's anatta and dependent origination; Mimamsa's dharma.
- Western: Plato's Forms; Aristotle's four causes and virtue ethics; Descartes' cogito and dualism; Locke's tabula rasa; Berkeley's esse est percipi; Hume's fork; Kant's synthetic a priori and deontology; Mill's utilitarianism.
- Logic: validity is about form (if premises true, conclusion cannot be false); soundness adds actually true premises. Know syllogism figures and fallacies such as begging the question and false dilemma.
Worked example
'Is the self permanent?' Answer: Sankhya treats purusha as eternal, unchanging witness-consciousness; Buddhism denies a permanent self (anatta) and explains continuity through dependent origination. Evaluate by asking whether continuity needs an unchanging substratum. A good answer states the criterion-explanatory power, parsimony, or coherence-and applies it, instead of concluding 'both are correct.'
Mark-losing traps
- Confusing shabda (testimony) with anumana (inference).
- Calling Charvaka merely 'atheist' while ignoring its materialism and rejection of rebirth.
- Confusing validity with truth in logic.
- Writing thinker biographies instead of arguments.
- Comparing schools without defining the disputed term first.
- Treating maya as 'illusion' without noting Sankara's account of avidya.