1. What is nirvana according to Buddhism Explain.
Bring out a comparison between the idealism of Plato and Hegel.
2. Give an exposition of anekantavada.
Explain Aristotle's theory of causation.
3. How does Christianity reconcile Divine omniscience and omnipotence with human free will Discuss.
4. Discuss the commonalities and differences between Buddhism and Jainism.
5. Explain the conception of soul in Zoroastrianism.
3. Bring out Frege's distinction between concept and object.
4. What are Strawson's arguments against Russell's theory of descriptions
5. Discuss Quine's critique of the theory of meaning of the logical positivist.
What is the aim of phenomenological reduction Discuss following Husserl.
3. Explain the standpoints of Samkara and Ramanuja on Brahman.
4. State and explain the relation between maya and world according to Samkara.
5. Discuss how Samkara, Ramanuja and Madhva explain the concept of moksa.
3. Explain Gandhi's views on self, world and God.
4. What is Satyagraha Is it relevant to the present day world
5. What, according to Gandhi, are the moral foundations for good life
6. Explain the difference between vyavaharika satta and paramarthika satta.
7. Explain Aristotle's notion of substance.
8. Give an exposition of arthapatti (implication) according to Prabhakara.
9. Explain Descartes' criterion of truth.
10. Explain the different forms of pratyaksa in Nyaya.
11. Explain the Jaina conception of Triratna.
12. Explain the concept of distributive justice.
13. Discuss Kant's theory of morality.
14. Bring out the distinction between truth and validity.
The inappropriateness of describing Kant's system as a synthesis of rationalism and empiricism becomes clear if we recall his fundamental problem, the pervasive problem, so to speak, of his philosophy. As we saw, he was faced with the problem of effecting a harmonization between the world of Newtonian physics, the world of mechanistic causality and determinism, and the world of freedom. True, Descartes also had been faced with an analogous problem: it was not a problem peculiar to Kant but one which arose out of the historical situation when natural science had once begun its remarkable development. But the point is that in grappling with this problem Kant submitted to critical examination both rationalism and empiricism and worked out his own philosophy, not as a synthesis of these two movements, but as a triumph over them. Empiricism, he thought, is inadequate because it is unable to account for the possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge. If we take scientific knowledge seriously, we cannot embrace sheer empiricism, even if we agree that all knowledge begins with experience. We must have recourse to a theory of the a priori formal element in knowledge. That is to say, we cannot explain the possibility of scientific knowledge if we assume that experience is simply given: we have to allow for the subject's construction of experience if we are going to account for the possibility of a priori knowledge. But this does not mean that we should accept rationalist metaphysics. If anyone takes moral experience, freedom and religion seriously, it may seem to him that the dogmatic metaphysics of the rationalist philosophers, at least of those who allowed for freedom, offers a sure rational basis for the moral law and for belief in freedom, immortality and God.

15. What is Kant's fundamental problem

16. Why, according to Kant, empiricism is inadequate

17. Why cannot we accept rationalist metaphysics, if we admit that empiricism is inadequate

18. What is required to account for the possibility of apriori knowledge

19. What contribution of dogmatic metaphysics does Kant appreciate