InPO Stage 2 - Essay Writing (Rules)

The student should follow the general instructions given below while appearing for this round.

1. The competition begins at a specific date & time. (as is informed to the students chosen, via email / text message) The student should connect to the internet at his home / school / cyber cafe at least 15 min before this time.
2. The student gets 3 hrs to write the essay and 15 min more to submit the same by email. Student must ensure that there is no power outage in this period or if there is then he/she can resume their work within a few minutes of the outage.
3. Given the power fluctuations or random reasons why the PC may crash, student must keep saving the essay every few minutes.
4. The essay topics will be emailed to the students selected from Stage 1.
5. The essay should be submitted by email to director@abhinav.ac.in. 
6. If a student is unable to write the essay on the PC, he/she may write on paper in a neat handwriting, then either photograph or scan the pages with good resolution and send the images via email.
7. The student may use the internet or dictionaries during the exam to read about or understand certain issues / terms. However, directly copying content from the net or inserting quotes of other philosophers verbatim (which the student is not likely to know before hand) would be grounds for disqualification.

About The Essay

Writing an essay is the key test of a philosophical thinker, since most deep thoughts cannot be conveyed easily by verbalization and the arguments needed to convince the "audience" are usually intricate. Here are some guidelines about how to write an essay especially for the Olympiads.

1. Philosophy progresses via debates. These debates not spoken, but penned down by philosophers to argue and counter-argue about the work of other philosophers. Thus the primary aim of writing the essay is to discuss the thoughts of the philosopher presented in the topic, with the view to either approve or disapprove of them. Hence the student must first try to explain the philosophers point of view and then put in their own perspectives.
2. The student is free to disagree with the topic, however, agreement or disagreement should be rational and clear reasoning and examples should be presented for either point of view.
3. The criteria of evaluation are:
   1. Relevance to the topic
   2. Philosophical understanding of the topic
   3. Persuasive power of argumentation
   4. Coherence
   5. Originality
4. Students are expected to:
   1. present an argument in an organized way
   2. use clear, precise and appropriate language
   3. identify any assumptions in the topic
   4. develop a clear and focused argument
   5. identify the strengths and weaknesses of their argument
   6. identify counter-arguments and address them if possible
   7. provide relevant supporting material, illustrations and/or examples where appropriate
   8. conclude by making a clear, concise and philosophically informed personal response

Link to the online tasks for InPO Stage 1

Hi All,

The stage 1 tasks are online at http://philo.abhinav.ac.in/InPOStage1_Tasks.htm.

You can give them anytime on Sunday, 21st Dec. 2014 until midnight.

If you cannot see the form please use the alternative link http://goo.gl/forms/FooJlv8ZxQ or http://goo.gl/forms/DbbelxkCP2

For either link you would need a Gmail login.

Indian Philosophy Olympiad 2014

Hello dear friends of wisdom,

I am pleased to announce the start of the Indian Philosophy Olympiad - 2015. This is an online competition for Indian high school students of any stream (Std IX to XII). This is also a selection and training process for the forthcoming International Philosophy Olympiad to be held in May 2015 in Estonia. Please see the poster.

The InPO selection rounds will proceed in two stages - 21st Dec and 28th Dec 2014 - both Sundays. The rounds will be online with the first stage having objective and subjective questions will be an open paper to be solved throughout the day (should not take more than 1.5 hours, ideally). The second stage is an essay test for those selected from the first stage. This will be time bound to be finished within a stipulated time. For more details on the selection process please visit our website.

To enroll please fill up the form here. There are no entry fees.

(Those who already intimated me during the Baltic Sea Event, please fill the form again as I have some trouble getting the data)

The task sheet for Stage 1 will be activated at the scheduled time. The tasks for Stage 2 will be emailed separately to the finalists.

To prepare for stage 1 here is the previous years question paper.

Some of these discussions with the previous participants may help you get some perspective on what sort of thinking you are expected to do, especially during the training. (Please read in the order given) 

1. About preparing for the Olympiad
2. Developing a little intuition about philosophy
3. Solutions to developing intuition ...  Part I  &  part II 
4. Structuring our intuitions
5. Solutions to structuring ... Part I  &  Part II

For stage 2 prep, you could see the essays of the past years winners of the Int'l Olympiad at http://www.philosophy-olympiad.org/ by scrolling down to see the medalists names and the "text" link besides them. Also, you could see the Baltic Sea Essay Event winning essays at http://feto.fi/in_english.htm.

For any other information, please mail me at soni.kedar@gmail.com. 

Continuing from the previous ...

3. Most educated Indians wish that Modi becomes the prime minister. Thus Modi is the ideal choice.

Abhishek: 

3A. Restructuring the argument

Premise 1 - Most educated Indians wish that Modi becomes the prime minister.

Conclusion 1 - Modi is the ideal choice for the post of prime minister.

Unspoken premise - 

Premise 3 - The choice of educated Indians is the ideal choice.

3B. Saying "most educated Indians" is an example of a "hasty generalization" type of fallacy. (Though not as extreme as saying "all educated Indians") Instead of saying that, the writer could have said - according to ABC Survey, XYZ % of educated Indians wish that Modi becomes the prime minister. This would increase the credibility of the argument by citation of a source and avoid hasty generalization.

3C. If Premise 3 is assumed, the argument would be valid. But in order for the argument to be a sound one, there would have to be clarification about the truth value of Premise 3. Premise 3 does not answer the question - "Why is the choice of educated Indians an ideal choice?" Indeed, such a claim is controversial and debatable in itself, as it is establishing the superiority of the choices of educated Indians over those of uneducated Indians. Thus, this premise is an example of "begging the question" type of fallacy. Also, saying that Modi is an ideal choice for the post of prime minister just because most educated Indians think that he is the ideal choice for the post of prime minister is an example of the "ad populum" type of fallacy.

3D. Thus, if we assume Premise 3, the argument would be valid. But it would not be sound or persuasive

4. The following is an argument between a Democratic Statist (D) and an Anarchist (A):

* Note - In order to analyze the statements, they have been numbered as follows

D1: Humans can't be trusted to self-govern!

A1: If you can't trust the people with freedom, how can you trust the people in power?

D2: Because they were elected!

A2: But they are also one of the people (who can't be trusted), are elected by the people (who can't be trusted) and represent the people (who can't be trusted). Why should I trust the system? Is the system run by people made of a finer clay than the rest of humankind?

D3: The system is based on a "social contract" and represents the "will of the people"...

A3: show me the contract and my signatures on it!

D4: "We the people of India....."

A4: Hey! Those aren't my signatures!

D5: Are you not part of the people of India? Do you wish to be exiled from the nation?

A5: I'm part of the people of India, and no, I do not wish to be exiled, but those aren't my signatures. I could create a similar contract and write "We the people of Earth..." on it. Does that mean everyone on Earth, including the future generations to be born on Earth have consented to it?

D6: Did you vote?

A6: No.

D7: Then you cannot complain.

A7: show me the contract and my signatures on it!

D8: "We the people of India....."

A8: Hey! Those aren't my signatures!

D9: Are you not part of the people of India? Do you wish to be exiled from the nation?

A9: I'm part of the people of India, and no, I do not wish to be exiled, but those aren't my signatures. I could create a similar contract and write "We the people of Earth..." on it. Does that mean everyone on Earth, including the future generations to be born on Earth have consented to it?

D10: Did you vote?

A10: No.

D11: Then you cannot complain.

4A. D1 and A1

4A - I. D1 is a hasty generalization. It would have been better to say that some humans cannot be trusted to self govern in some aspects. That would be a more modest statement. Also, D1 is does not answer questions like "Why can't humans be trusted to self govern?" Thus, D1 begs the question. 

4A - II. A1 - If one cannot trust people with freedom, then one cannot trust people in power.

Restatement - Premise 1- One cannot trust people with freedom. (P1) or A1 Part 1

                          Conclusion 1- One cannot trust people in power. (C1) or A1 Part 2

Basically, the anarchist (A) is saying that if P1, then C1. Therefore, if not C1, then not P1. A is applying reductio ad absurdum. According to A, the democratic (D) is saying C1, along with not P1. This is not logical according to A.

Assumptions made by  A - 

That D does not trust people with freedom arises naturally from A1. That is,

Premise 2 - Humans can't be trusted to self govern. (D1)

Conclusion 2 - Humans can't trust people with freedom. (A1 Part 1)

D does not answer the question "Why can't humans trust people with freedom if humans can't be trusted to self-govern". Thus D begs the question here. 

4A - III. "Can't trust people with freedom" has two possible meanings. One meaning is - "people can't be entrusted with freedom or people can't be trusted to use freedom properly". The second meaning is - "people having/ possessing freedom, i.e. - people who are free cannot be trusted". The second meaning seems unlikely as it would lead to the conclusion - "people who are not free can be trusted" which does not seem to be relevant to the discussion. Thus, the first meaning can be taken to be true. However, as no clarification about the second meaning has been given, we can't completely discard it and thus this seems to be a form of equivocation. Also, I do not wan to present a false dichotomy here. It is possible that there may be more possible meanings than those that I have discussed. It's just that I haven't thought of them.

4A - III. The issue raised by D is "not trusting people with self-governance". The response given to it by A lead us to the issue "whether or not to trust people in power". A has raised a side issue. Thus is could be an example of the "red herring" type of fallacy. Then again, I am assuming that the issue raised by A is a side issue and I am not answering the question "Why do you consider the issue raised by A as a side issue?" Thus, I could be considered to be begging the question. 

4A - IV. A1 Part 2 is about whether to trust people in power. The areas in which the people in power are to be trusted or not, are not specified. It would be better to question whether to trust people in power regarding xyz issue, thus avoiding a hasty generalization. Also, instead of generalizing about all people in power, it would be better to talk about trusting abc people who are in power regarding xyz issue. "Trust" can have two meanings. One is comparatively straight forward - regarding specific issues like "I trust abc to develop better transportation". The second is broader, as in "I trust abc will be change our country". Thus, this could be considered as an example of equivocation.

4B. A1 Part 2 and D2

4B - I. Restatement - People in power can be trusted because they are elected. 

Premise 1 - People who are elected can be trusted.

Conclusion 1 - People are in power can be trusted.

The unspoken premises are:

Premise 2 - People who are in power are elected. 

4B - II. Premise 2 seems to be reasonable on a broad scale, as we are talking about democracy which consists of electing the people who are in power. But if we delve into specifics, we can question whether we are talking about direct elections, indirect elections, and other such details.

4B - III. Premise 1 does not answer the question - "Why can people who are elected be trusted?" and thus begs the question. As discussed above, it also makes a hasty generalization. It would have been better to say that "Some people who are elected can be trusted in some issues". 

4B - IV. It is possible to accept Premise 1 if the question - "Why can people who are elected be trusted?" is answered satisfactorily. However, once Premise 1 is established, another question arises. Is "being elected" a necessary condition in order to trust someone. Or is it a necessary and sufficient condition? These questions would probably need to be addressed too.

4C. A2 

A2 Part 1 -  But they are also one of the people (who can't be trusted), are elected by the people (who can't be trusted) and represent the people (who can't be trusted). 

A2 Part 2 - Why should I trust the system? 

A2 Part 3 - Is the system run by people made of a finer clay than the rest of humankind?

4C - I. The doubt raised in A2 Part 1 could be made clearer by specifying the kind of "trust" involved, thus avoiding hasty generalization.

Restatement of A2 Part 1 - But they are also one of the people (who can't be trusted to self-govern), are elected by the people (who can't be trusted with freedom) and represent the people (who can't be trusted with power). 

Without clarifying what kind of trust is involved, equivocation occurs. Different kinds of trust are applied in different places, but are presented to mean the same, The aspects of the different forms of trust that are not relevant to this point are compared, and thus this could be considered as a weak analogy.

4C - II. A2 Part 2 - The "system" that has been introduced has not been clarified. Questions like - "What are the components of this system?" arise. Based on the discussion we could assume the "system" to mean the "system of electing people." A2 Part 2 could be reconstructed as follows:

Premise 1 - The system of electing people involves the untrustworthy people mentioned in A2 Part 1.

Conclusion 1 - The system of electing people cannot be trusted.

Again, questions like - "In which aspects can't the system be trusted?" arise. If this question is answered, we could say that the system of electing people cannot be trusted in xyz aspect. Following that, questions like - "Are the properties of the system of electing people a sum of the properties (regarding not trusting) of its components (people)?" "Which properties (regarding not trusting) that are displayed in the components (people)  will be displayed in the system?" "Are the people the only relevant components of the system of electing people? (To put it more generally - Have we identified all the relevant components of the system that would contribute to its properties?)" would arise. These questions would need to be addressed. 

4C - III. A2 Part 2 and A2 Part 3. 

The thought put forth can be expressed as - If the people who run the system are made of a finer clay than the rest of humankind, then the system can be trusted. 

Premise 1 - The people who run the system are made of a finer clay than the rest of humankind.

Conclusion 1 - The system can be trusted.

Unspoken premise - 

Premise 2 - The people who are made of a finer clay than the rest of humankind can be trusted.

Premise 3 - The properties (regarding trust) of the people who run the system contribute to the properties of the system.

Basically , A is questioning whether Premise 1 is true or not. However, A has not questions regarding Premise 2 and Premise 3 and is thus begging the question.

4C - IV. The main issue put forth by D was regarding the object -  "people". A has introduced a new object - "system". The system, thought related to the people, is more complex and would require a broader perspective. Thus A is digressing from the main issue "people" by introducing a new issue "system". Thus, this can be an example of the "red herring" type of fallacy.

4D. D3 

4D - I. D states the following - 

Premise 1 - The system is based on a "social contract"

Premise 2 - The system is based on the "will of the people"

D does not answer questions like "How is the system based on a social contract?" and "How is the system based on the will of the people?". D thus begs the question and does not establish persuasive premises. D also does not establish clarity about terms like - "social contract" and "will of the people".

4D - II. D3 is presumably in response to A2 Part 2. Thus,

Premise 1 - A system based on a social contract and will of the people can be trusted.

Premise 2 - The system in discussion is based on social contract and will of the people.

Conclusion 1 - The system can be trusted.

D does not answer questions like - "Why can a system based on social contract and will of the people be trusted?", thus begging the question and not providing a persuasive premise. Also, if we assume that D is able to answer this question satisfactorily, other questions arise. They include - "Is it a necessary condition for a system to be based on social contract and on will of the people in order to be trusted?" and "Is it a necessary and sufficient condition for a system to be based on social contract and on will of the people in order to be trusted"

4D - III. The question raised in A2 Part 3 is not answered.

4E. A3 

A3 Part 1 - Show me the contract

A3 Part 2 - (Show me) my signature on it

4E - I. A assumes that the contract is something like a physical object that can be shown. It is possible that the contract could be an abstract. Here, the burden of proof rests on D as it is now D's responsibility to show the aforementioned contract to A.

4E - II. Restatement - 

Premise 1 - The signature of an individual on the "social contract" represents the "will of the people" or the "will of the individual"

A does not answer the question "How does the signature of and individual on the social contract represent the will of the individual, and by extension, the will of the people?". Thus, A begs the question. A is claiming that the existence of his/her signature on the contract will dictate whether it represent the will of A. 

4F. D4

D quotes the Preamble of the Constitution. D assumes that the Constitution is the aforementioned social contract. Why D does not answer the question - "Why is the Constitution the social contract?" thus begging the question.

4G. A4

A commits an "ad populum" fallacy. Just because A's signature is not on the the Constitution, does not mean the Constitution does not represent the will of the people. A could make the statement clearer by saying the the Constitution does not represent the will of A. 

Unspoken premise - The will of each individual is necessary before generalizing and commenting about the will of the people.

The premise would have to clarified as it raises questions like - "How many individuals' will should be taken into account when talking about the will of the people?". A does not address such questions and thus begs the question.

4H. D5

D's argument - Because, A is questioning the non-existence of his signature in Constitution, A does not wish to be considered as a part of the "people of India". Because A does not wish to be considered as a part of the "people of India", he wishes to be exiled from India. Restatement - 

If one questions the non-existence of one's signature, then one does not wish to be considered as part of the people of India. (If P, then Q)

If one does not wish to be considered as a part of the people of India, one wishes to be exiled from India. (If Q, then R)

D does not persuasively establish the above two statements. D thus begs the question.

4I. A5

A's analogy of a contract for the people of Earth to the Constitution of India is a weak analogy. The similarity A is considering is the absence of the signatures of all the involved individuals. A does not take into account other factors which give credibility to the Constitution of India like the background and context in which it was created, its relevance in the lives of Indians and so. Such relevant factors have not been considered in A's "Earth contract"

4J. D6, A6, A7

D6 is an example of the "ad hominem" fallacy where D attacks A personally in order to weaken A's argument.

D's does not answer the question - "Why can a non-voting person not complain?" and thus begs the question.

4K. A7 onwards

No new points are put forth. The argument has become circular and has entered a repeating loop.

How to choose a career

Can one rationally choose a career?

I write this for my many young friends who are either passing out of school or high school or graduating from university, and who are a little troubled by the big decision of their lives. Ah! Yes, deciding our career is a big deal. And yes, there are many hurdles in the path as well as many naysayers and misguides. So how do we objectively take a decision.

Do we decide on the basis of what our elders say? If so, then do our elders know what is right? Do they know the new trends and courses and challenges? And even if so, is what they think right, right for us?

So do we then decide on the basis of the money prospects? Do we choose the "hot" career? What if the trend changes? What if the money is just a hype? What if the "hot" career turns out to be a "hot" seat?

Hmm! Then we must go by what our marks say! But then which marks to choose - school or entrance tests? Can the entrance test we take once or twice decidedly know who or what we are? Can the school know for sure what we are? Are the marks of a written exam sufficient to know my psyche? Can the scholastic subjects like Math and History decide what kind of thinker I am? Can they tell me where I will be successful?

SO, should I not go for success? But then I want to be successful so that I can earn money and that in turn would make me happy. SO should I rather aim for happiness???

Whew!!!

Lot of thoughts ... lot of questions. We have all been through this, those of us who crossed this stage in our lives. I ask them - Are you happy? What parameter did you use to take the decision - Money, Marks, Possibility of Success, Popularity of the career or simply Joy? And I know that most of you who have succeeded and some of you who have not, when we cross our mid-life and our strengths start to dwindle, have realized that .... It Matters Not Whether We Won Or Lost ... But Only How We Played The Game.

But then of course WE the "elders" want the best for our young ones. And so the young persons out there must not ignore the advice of their elders, as neither should they cling on to their elders. So can there be a way in which all the stakeholders - the person concerned, his/her parents, teachers and other relatives (Well they do have a huge role to play in the Indian scene) - take a decision together without conflicts and without bias and reach to a workable plan?

I propose a plan here that has worked for me and for thousands of my students at Abhinav and some through the Philosophy Olympiads.

Step 1. What do I love?

If you do that which you do not love, simply because it is a paying career or because its available or "someone says so", you will never be happy. To find out what do you love ask yourself the following:

• What subjects or activities at school / college do I like doing?
• Which activities out of school / college do I enjoy the most? Even playing or interacting with friends is important.
• What is it that I can enjoy doing for long periods of time?

Hence, shortlist a few activities / interests. This may include reading, chatting with friends, solving puzzles, studying and thinking about history, discovering places on maps, etc. These activities need not be known careers like medicine, engineering and so on. Each career has certain traits which are necessary in the person. The activities you choose here will show you those traits.

Now give marks to the activities on a scale of 10. The one's you love doing most get higher marks.

Step 2. What's my talent?

If you do not have the ability to do that which you like, you will never succeed. So next step is to discover your talents. These may or may not include the above activities. You  may be good at math, but not like it. Never mind, include it in the list. When thinking of your talents do not be biased by what you like doing or what is a "hot" career, etc. Simply focus on these few questions.

• In which subjects at school / college do i score highest? Am I better than most of the class in these, if not then maybe they are not really a talent. e.g. my highest marks are in English, say 50%, while the class highest is at 70%, then English cannot be my talent.
• In which activities outside of school, or those in school but not associated with academics, do I excel? e.g. I may be good at dance or running. Again, if I haven't won any awards in these, then it may not be my talent.
• If I haven't sparkled in front of the world by doing things that win awards, YET ... Are there things that I do in my free time, which are productive, like - teaching other kids, making handicraft items, helping dad with his shop or mom in the kitchen, or simply thinking about how other people think and usually be right in predicting their actions.

Usually  we ignore the last of these. And yet, it is through these free-time activities which have no public recognition, we can find our careers, e.g. teaching, small scale industry, entrepreneurship or even counselling and philosophy. I may not enjoy doing some of these things the most, but if i am good at them I could still make a decent career. 

A more systematic way of finding out about your talents (however not the most accurate) is to take certain online tests. (free for a basic result and paid for detailed analyses) Some of these tests may not work on you if you are too young like say in std VIII or so. The tests may also not work because you may misunderstand the question or you did not think hard enough. These tests will however, help diagnose if you are seriously talented in a particular area.

• Personality types and career indicators - such as the MBTI or the Jung Typology Test. 
• Intelligence - Simple IQ tests, Weschler Scale (for 6-16 yrs), Multiple Intelligence

Now, again rank these activities by assigning marks on a scale of 10. Where you believe you are most talented - since you get awards or recognition or simply because you are able to successfully perform the activities or because the "tests" say so - give more marks.

Step 3. Discover and connect careers to activities?

Here is where the elders come in in an important way. Young people know whet they like and what they think they are good at. Elders can help refine these thoughts. However, what careers demand such personalities, is something only an elder who has been through that stage can know.

For example if someone likes to interact with people a lot, is very shrewd in choosing which people to make friends with and can convincingly argue on certain topics, however, is not good at any school subjects, could make a good career in marketing. Someone who is very quiet and reserved and like to think a lot about the world around and is only interested in talking with adults (that too the wise and educated) at length on different topics, can find a good path as a writer or philosopher. If a young person enjoys working with his hands and accepts / understands the science in the "books" only after he performs the experiments himself, would work well in a practical industry like manufacturing.

So what needs to be done is as follows:

• Find out about different careers online. There is a wealth of information available. e.g. Collegegrad gives a listing and hence details of almost a 1000 careers and you could choose the ones you like to read about. Also, if you cant think of the career which matches your likes and talents, then you could do a keyword search on the career database. These sites give you a fair idea of the job descriptions, the courses you need to do and to some extent the salary you can expect.
• Choose the top 5 interests and talents from your previous listing. For these items ask your parents or other elders in the family to help you guess which careers can your list of activities match-up with.
• Find someone in your friends and family who is already into that career and try talking to them about what are efforts involved or how satisfied they are and whether your personality is appropriate for this work. If nothing, you could always find someone on the internet who is famously into that career and write to them. 

By doing these, you have the knowledge you need to proceed. So now make a fresh list of the careers that your activities can lead to and you assign them marks on the basis of which ones match the most with your likes and talents.

Step 4. What pays?

If you choose a path which wont even pay for your basic necessities, you wont survive for long, leave alone being happy. So with the information from the websites and other elders around you, ask these questions:

• How much money do I need to survive today, if I were living on my own? 
• How much salary / money should I earn to take care of a family living in this part of the world as of today? Would I be willing to live alone my whole life if my career doesn't pay enough?
• How much do my top 5 careers pay?
• If my favorite career doesn't pay enough, can I do something on the side to make enough money and yet retain my main interest?
• Can I do my favorite "career" as a hobby and take up a more paying career? Will I be able to devote time to my favorite job?
• Sometimes some careers are more paying for a few years and then the trend changes. Are my favorite careers just trends (so I must be cautious) or are they "stable and paying" for last many decades?

Mark your list of careers on a fresh scale of 10 if they give favorable answers to the above questions. 

Step 5. What is accessible?

One may find a career for which he is passionate and has talent and it is also will pay him well; however the courses / learning needed may not be easily available. You may want to become a pilot and there may be no course in any nearby college which trains you to be so. You may not want to take a long-cut like do a regular graduation and then try going to a far-away place for this course. You may want to be a doctor, but you got a few marks less than required to get admissions due to the cut-throat competition or the course fees are exorbitant. So think about the following:

• What courses would you need to do to realize your career? Sometimes you may not need a course but rather a particular kind of person (a Guru if you will) to teach you the ropes of the career like an apprentice.
• Are such courses / people available at a convenient place?
• Are such courses / people affordable?
• Is the time required to finish these courses not a problem for you? e.g. If you need to earn in a hurry as your dad is retiring, then a 7 year PhD may not be right.
• Are you capable of putting the efforts that the course demands? e.g. Engineering demands 8 hrs of lectures and almost the same for practical / study work per day. Can you handle that?

Now rank the top few courses in your list on a scale of 10 using this last criteria. 

And ... here's your decision. Try for the top career in your list. If that fails for some reason, move down the list.

Some caution

The road to taking these big decisions of life is never easy. It may take you many days or months to decide after doing the above process, and the decision you take may change after a few years as your circumstances change. And yet the process I have outlined above is the surest way to take a good decision. After doing the steps diligently, you may still not get the best out of life or be the happiest, but you will surely have no regrets. An informed decision is usually the right one. So all the best ...

India's Hat-trick at the IPO

I am very happy to announce that India has won a Silver medal for the third consecutive time at the 22nd International Philosophy Olympiad held Vilnius, Lithuania during 15-18 May 2014. The results were announced on the 18th. 

The Indian contingent consisted of teachers Pooja Bilimogga (Mentor) and Kedar Soni (Team Leader) and students Aparna Mishra (DPS, Bokaro, Jharkhand) and Abhishek Dedhe (SP College, Pune, Mahrashtra). Abhishek Dedhe won the silver for his essay on a quote by Anscombe on the idea of what constitutes murder. Abhishek wrote about how unscrupulous thinking necessarily leads to unethical acts like murder, while Aparna highlighted the brutal killings under the guise of religion or politics or caste.

There were 42 nations competing with 2 students from each country, with the host (Lithuania) allowed a grace of 9 students. There were 4 golds, 8 silvers, 9 bronzes and 9 honorable mentions awarded this year. The total tally of awards is thus about 33%. This has been the highest fraction of awards at any IPO. 

The Indian team had been selected through the Abhinav Philosopher competition during November-December (held in two stages). About 300 students had participated from various parts of the country. They later prepared through this blog (via posts and assignments) and them online on Google Hangouts. Finally a week before departure they attended a camp for more rigorous workouts at my school. Thus they put in almost 10 hours per week for over a few months and more than 14 hours a day at the camp. We even prepared all along the journey until just before the essay round. 

Preparation consists of knowing something about logic and reason and also philosophy of various kinds, isms and issues. It was more about how to apply this knowledge then the knowledge itself. Philosophy cannot be simply learnt as a history of ideas, it must be learnt as a method of passionately debating these ideas and finding rhyme and reason within.

At the IPO Pooja and I evaluated essays of students from other countries. The identity of the essays we evaluate is secret and the international jury comprising of teachers from various countries goes over essays of students of countries other than their own. We discuss the topics and the essays constantly refining our perspectives and hence getting a more accurate judgement of the level of the students. The jury then selects the top few essays to be sent to the steering board comprising primarily of FISP members who are philosophers themselves. Pooja had represented India at the IPO held in Helsinki, Finland in 2009. She had been assisting in the training and selection of the Indian team, since then. This was the first time, she participated as an international jury.

All through the days after the essay round, the students participated in tours of historical interest, museums, etc, and workshops on topics in philosophy. The greatest part of the event though was students from many nations and ethnic divides meeting each other and learning from the other's culture. There a few shocks and a few surprises in store for all of them. Through this they learn to understand and accept different views and ideas as also different people. But then this is what it means to become a citizen of the world. 

I conduct this Olympiad in India without any funding, with only one expectation: I want the youth of my country to learn to reason and think critically about each and everything they deal with - may it be IIT exams or regular studies or teenage problems or politics or may it be their deepest emotions and desires. I want them to be strong intellectually and emotionally to really create a great society ... and a great world.

Solutions to 'Structuring our Intuitions' - I

Dear All,

Lets discuss the solutions (at least a few takes) to the previous assignment.

1. God is Divine

Abhishek: 1A. There do not seem to be separate premises and conclusions here. The statement is presented to us as a fact. Possibility - The statement is the premise. But we have not been given reason to believe in the premise. Thus, even though some potential argument based on this premise could be made and could be "valid", it would not be "sound". Thus, the argument is not "persuasive".

1B. Possibility - The statement is the conclusion. We are not given any reasons to come to the conclusion that "God is Divine". We are left asking - "Why is God Divine?" Thus, this appears to be a form of the "begging the question" type of fallacy

Me: Yes, it's like saying: "A point is a circle with zero dimensions. (and what is a circle - its a set of points at a certain distance from a common point)". "Divine" means "Of or like God" so it is a tautology (statement which is always true), since whether God exists or not, the idea / person of God will always be like the idea of the person of God. This is no argument.

1. Love is like a rainbow. It looks good from far away, but the moment you get closer to it, it disappears. Hence love is but an illusion.

Abhishek: 

2A. Restructuring the argument

Premise 1 - Love looks good from far away.

Premise 2 - The moment one gets closer to love, it vanishes.

Conclusion 1 - Love is like a rainbow.

Conclusion 2 - Love is nothing but an illusion.

Unspoken premises - 

Premise 3 - A rainbow looks good from far away.

Premise 4 - The moment one gets closer to a rainbow, it vanishes.

Premise 5 (Conclusion from Premise 4???)- A rainbow is an illusion.

2B. Premises 3 is a subjective issue. Different people may have different views on whether a rainbow appears good from afar (aesthetic ambiguity). A potential question - "Does a rainbow appear good from afar?" has not been addressed. Instead, a general statement has been made that is debatable. Thus, this represents the fallacies - "hasty generalization" and "begging the question". (The arguer is not trying to prove that rainbows look good. He is simply trying to use a common perception. You may find the argument non-persuasive due to this assumption. This could be an 'Argument from Ignorance')

2C. Premise 4 is persuasive as it is based on the physical nature of a rainbow which depends upon the position of the observer. Before proceeding to Premise 5, we would have to decide upon the relevant meaning of "illusion". For Premise 5 to arise from Premise 4, "illusion" would have to mean "something that vanishes when one goes close to it". This is not necessarily the case. Thus, the persuasiveness of the Premise 5 would depend on using the correct meaning of "illusion", which is difficult to decide. Thus, this could be an example on the "equivocation" type of fallacy.

2D. Premise 1 and Premise 2 are not persuasive. The questions - "Does love indeed look good from far away? If so, why?" and "Does love vanish once one gets closer to it?If so, why?" are left unanswered. Thus, this is an example of the "begging the question" type of fallacy. Also, there is no clarity about what it means to get "closer" to love. Thus Premise 1 and Premise 2 are not very persuasive. (This is an argument in a nutshell, so one cannot expect all explanations. Instead, we can guess what are the possible explanations OR what were the possible reasons for the author to argue thus and hence frame our attack)

2E. The argument relies on the analogy between "love" and "rainbow". However, the points of comparison between them (if they do exist) namely - 1) the existence of the object once we get closer to it, and 2) the appeal/ appearance of the object from afar; do not seem to be relevant in this case. Thus, this is an example of the "weak analogy" type of fallacy.

Me: Thus the general take on this kind of poetic comparisons is that, it does not give a credible evidence of the asserted statement being true.  

Structuring our Intuitions

Dear students of philosophy,

I continue with the next step to understanding philosophy (contd. from the previous step based on the plan ). For those who are new to this business (the business of philosophizing) let me tell you that the word I used many times up till now - intuiting or intuition - is not some hocus-pocus. Its just an happy-ish way of saying that you need to think about doing philosophy. Only since most of us are not so trained, we are unawares of the method we may adopt while thinking about something. I refer to this "unaware use of methods" which already are a part of our thinking process as "Intuition". So let us do some more of this and then eventually grab-the-method, so to say.

I had asked you to read some stuff from the internet such as Jim Pryor's notes and Wikipedia on syllogisms and fallacies. So by now you must know that when we present our philosophical ideas, we do so in form of arguments. (Not that we bash each other up ...) These arguments are similar to the proofs that we study in math or the derivations we do in physics or the case that a lawyer presents in court on behalf of his client. The argument is a neatly structured set of statements, which imply (as rigorously as possible) the truth of a certain statement. They begin with presenting facts (axioms / premises / observations) and continue to present connections (conditionals / middle-terms / reasons). These connections then employ the reader's "logical" thinking to arrive at the conclusion. The emphasis of logic is because, it has many forms. The word could refer to the strict mathematical / deductive logic, where A connects to B and B connects to C leads to saying that A connects to C. The word may also mean syllogistic logic where the connections between the subject, middle-term and predicate exist as strictly as in math, but the meanings of the words denoting the subject, etc. may not be straight-forward and would depend upon correct interpretations, hence leading to some of the fallacies. (Some of the other fallacies are simply devious arguments made so to help the arguer win)

Then again, the word "logic" taken in the lay sense could also mean - reasoning  which itself has many forms - deductive as in the syllogistic logic or inductive (as in: I saw the Sun rise in the east for the past 4 days and so I conclude that it will always rise in the east.) or more vague forms. Read this quick summary. 

Thus you see that arguments need not be automatically foolproof. Hence the need to consider whether they are valid (conclusion follows from the premises, even if the premises or the conclusion may be incorrect) or sound (valid with true premises; conclusion may still be false).

The assignment (What is wrong with the argument? Why?)

Now see if you can find out whats wrong with each of the following arguments. It could be a problem of validity or soundness or simply a fallacy. Try to answer critically by pointing out the exact sentence / sentences where the problem lies and also name the fallacy (if any) and explain in the context of the argument, why is it a problem, i.e. what was probably being implied here and what it ended up with OR what are the implications of the (wrong) argument and why are these implications wrong, etc. It would be helpful if you could start by distinguishing between the premises and the conclusion. Hint: Ask yourself - Are you convinced by the conclusion?

1. God is Divine
2. Love is like a rainbow. It looks good from far away, but the moment you get closer to it, it disappears. Hence love is but an illusion.
3. Most educated Indians wish that Modi becomes the prime minister. Thus Modi is the ideal choice.
4. The following is an argument between a Democratic Statist (D) and an Anarchist (A):

D: Humans can't be trusted to self-govern!

A: If you can't trust the people with freedom, how can you trust the people in power?

D: Because they were elected!

A: But they are also one of the people (who can't be trusted), are elected by the people (who can't be trusted) and represent the people (who can't be trusted). Why should I trust the system? Is the system run by people made of a finer clay than the rest of humankind?

D: The system is based on a "social contract" and represents the "will of the people"...

A: show me the contract and my signatures on it!

D: "We the people of India....."

A: Hey! Those aren't my signatures!

D: Are you not part of the people of India? Do you wish to be exiled from the nation?

A: I'm part of the people of India, and no, I do not wish to be exiled, but those aren't my signatures. I could create a similar contract and write "We the people of Earth..." on it. Does that mean everyone on Earth, including the future generations to be born on Earth have consented to it?

D: Did you vote?

A: No.

D: Then you cannot complain.

A: show me the contract and my signatures on it!

D: "We the people of India....."

Anarchist: Hey! Those aren't my signatures!

D: Are you not part of the people of India? Do you wish to be exiled from the nation?

A: I'm part of the people of India, and no, I do not wish to be exiled, but those aren't my signatures. I could create a similar contract and write "We the people of Earth..." on it. Does that mean everyone on Earth, including the future generations to be born on Earth have consented to it?

D: Did you vote?

A: No.

D: Then you cannot complain.

5. Read the pro-communism argument at http://leninism.org/some/index.htm#pseudopod_vs_hand focusing chiefly on the 4th big statement. Look here for a more elaborate argument.
6.  .... ...... . .... now I am sure you are completely whacked out, so just send me the answers.

We talk about analyzing concepts, thought experiments and outlining arguments in the next session.