WBCHSE HS Philosophy study plan
WBCHSE HS Philosophy · Give each week a clear focus.
8 weeks · About 6 hours per week
Indian Philosophy: introduction, schools and basic concepts & Indian epistemology and metaphysics (Cārvāka, Nyāya, Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Mīmāṃsā, Vedānta)
List the nine darśanas and classify each as āstika or nāstika, writing one sentence on why.
Define key terms: darśana, āstika, nāstika, pramāṇa, prameya, and saṃśaya.
Outline the shared structure of Indian philosophical inquiry: doubt, means of knowledge, object of knowledge, and liberation.
Explain the basic tenets of Cārvāka epistemology and metaphysics, including its rejection of inference and testimony.
Your checkpoint
A one-page table listing all nine schools with their āstika/nāstika status, core pramāṇas accepted, and one distinctive metaphysical claim each.
Indian epistemology and metaphysics (Cārvāka, Nyāya, Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Mīmāṃsā, Vedānta)
Summarize Nyāya's four pramāṇas and give an original example of each.
Explain the Nyāya theory of perception (nirvikalpaka and savikalpaka) and its account of error (anyathākhyāti).
Describe Sāṃkhya's dualism of puruṣa and prakṛti and list the three guṇas.
Outline the eight limbs of Yoga and distinguish Yoga's practical orientation from Sāṃkhya's theoretical one.
Your checkpoint
A 300-word comparative note on how Nyāya and Sāṃkhya each explain the world and the self, with at least three points of contrast.
Indian epistemology and metaphysics (Cārvāka, Nyāya, Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Mīmāṃsā, Vedānta)
Explain Mīmāṃsā's theory of intrinsic validity of knowledge (svataḥ prāmāṇya) and its debate with Nyāya.
Distinguish Advaita Vedānta's concepts of Brahman, māyā, and avidyā, and explain śruti as a pramāṇa.
Compare Advaita's non-dualism with Viśiṣṭādvaita's qualified non-dualism in at least two respects.
Identify the six pramāṇas accepted by Mīmāṃsā and give an example of each.
Your checkpoint
A 400-word essay contrasting Mīmāṃsā and Advaita Vedānta on the authority of the Vedas and the nature of liberation.
Western epistemology (knowledge, scepticism, rationalism and empiricism) & Western metaphysics (substance, causality, mind and body, freedom)
Define knowledge as justified true belief and explain each condition with an original counterexample.
State the problem of scepticism using Descartes' method of doubt and evaluate one response to it.
Distinguish rationalism from empiricism by comparing Descartes and Hume on the source of ideas.
Explain the substance-attribute distinction and contrast rationalist and empiricist accounts of substance.
Your checkpoint
A 500-word essay that explains the JTB analysis, presents one Gettier-style counterexample, and assesses whether the counterexample refutes the analysis.
Western metaphysics (substance, causality, mind and body, freedom) & Western philosophy: nature, scope and methods
Analyze the four Aristotelian causes and explain Hume's critique of necessary connection in causality.
Compare dualism, materialism, and one form of mind-body identity theory, stating one objection to each.
Explain the compatibilist and libertarian positions on free will and apply each to a concrete case.
Describe the nature, scope, and methods of Western philosophy, including dialectic, analysis, and phenomenology.
Your checkpoint
A 400-word position paper arguing for one view on free will, using at least two arguments and one counterargument.
Ethics: Indian and Western moral theories
Outline the central claims of Indian moral theories: the role of dharma, ṛṇa, and the four puruṣārthas.
Explain the ethical dimensions of Yoga's yamas and niyamas with examples.
Compare utilitarian and Kantian ethics on the criterion of right action.
Apply virtue ethics to a contemporary dilemma and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses.
Your checkpoint
A 400-word comparative essay on how one Indian and one Western moral theory would resolve the same ethical dilemma.
Logic: deductive and inductive reasoning, syllogism
Distinguish deductive from inductive reasoning and identify the criteria for validity and soundness.
Analyze categorical propositions using the square of opposition and test syllogisms with Venn diagrams.
Identify common formal fallacies and explain why each is invalid.
Evaluate the strengths and limits of inductive reasoning, including the problem of induction.
Your checkpoint
A set of ten original syllogisms: five valid and five invalid, each with a one-line explanation of its form or fallacy.
Indian Philosophy: introduction, schools and basic concepts & Indian epistemology and metaphysics (Cārvāka, Nyāya, Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Mīmāṃsā, Vedānta) & Western philosophy: nature, scope and methods & Western epistemology (knowledge, scepticism, rationalism and empiricism) & Western metaphysics (substance, causality, mind and body, freedom) & Ethics: Indian and Western moral theories & Logic: deductive and inductive reasoning, syllogism
Review all seven domains using a self-made concept map linking key terms and thinkers.
Practice timed essay answers on two previously weak topics.
Complete a full-length mock exam and score it against a rubric.
Create a one-page cheat sheet of definitions, distinctions, and standard objections.
Your checkpoint
A scored mock exam with a written reflection identifying the three weakest areas and a plan to revisit them before the exam.
Milestones
Week 2: Can explain Nyāya's four pramāṇas and Sāṃkhya's puruṣa-prakṛti dualism from memory, with examples.
Week 4: Can write a 500-word essay on the JTB analysis and Gettier problem without notes, scoring at least 70% on a self-made rubric.
Week 6: Can compare one Indian and one Western moral theory on a single dilemma, naming at least two points of contrast.
Week 8: Completes a full mock exam under timed conditions and identifies three specific areas for final revision.