IGNOU MPYE 010 Philosophy of Religion Free Solved Assignment 2022-23

by

IGNOU MPYE 010 Free Solved Assignment 2022-23, IGNOU MPYE 010 Philosophy of Religion Free Solved Assignment 2022-23 If you are interested in pursuing a course in radio production and direction, IGNOU MPYE 010 can be an excellent choice. In this article, we will take a closer look at what IGNOU MPYE 010 is all about and what you can expect to learn from this course.

Important Links : Handwritten Hardcopy 

IGNOU MPYE 010 Free Solved Assignment 2022-23 is a course offered by the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) under the School of Journalism and New Media Studies. As the name suggests, it is a course on “Production and Direction for Radio.” The course is designed to provide students with a comprehensive understanding of radio production and direction and covers various topics related to this field. IGNOU MPYE 010 Free Solved Assignment 2022-23

IGNOU MPYE 010 Free Solved Assignment 2022-23

Q1. Explain and evaluate Ramanuja’s objections against Shankar’s Advaita Vedanta.

Ramanuja and Shankar were both prominent philosophers of Vedanta, a school of Hindu philosophy that emphasizes the oneness of Brahman, the ultimate reality. However, they had differing views on the nature of this oneness and the relationship between Brahman and the individual self. Ramanuja objected to Shankar’s Advaita Vedanta in several ways, which can be summarized as follows:

  • The denial of the reality of the world: Shankar held that the world of appearances is an illusion, or maya, and that only Brahman is ultimately real. Ramanuja objected that this view denies the reality of our everyday experience and the existence of the individual self. According to Ramanuja, the world is not an illusion but a manifestation of Brahman, and the individual self is a real entity that exists in relationship to Brahman.
  • The denial of the existence of individual selves: Shankar argued that the individual self, or atman, is ultimately identical with Brahman and that any sense of individuality is illusory. Ramanuja objected that this view denies the reality of our personal experience and the fact that we have individual lives and identities. According to Ramanuja, the individual self is not identical with Brahman but exists in a relationship of dependence and subordination to Brahman.
  • The emphasis on renunciation and withdrawal from the world: Shankar emphasized the importance of renouncing worldly desires and withdrawing from the world in order to attain liberation. Ramanuja objected that this view is overly austere and neglects the positive value of worldly life and relationships. According to Ramanuja, it is possible to attain liberation while still living a fulfilling and meaningful life in the world.

Overall, Ramanuja’s objections to Shankar’s Advaita Vedanta reflect a more positive and inclusive view of the world and the individual self, emphasizing their reality and value rather than denying or transcending them. However, it is worth noting that both philosophers were engaged in a deep and complex dialogue about the nature of ultimate reality and the human condition, and their views should be understood in the context of this ongoing conversation.

Q2. Elucidate the idea of religious experience, in detail?

Religious experience refers to subjective experiences that individuals have that are believed to be related to the divine or supernatural. These experiences can be deeply personal and can be considered a source of spiritual growth and insight.

The idea of religious experience is not new, as many religions have long recognized the possibility of encountering the divine in some way. For example, in Christianity, the idea of a personal relationship with God is often emphasized, and individuals may describe experiences of feeling the presence of God, receiving guidance or inspiration, or feeling a sense of peace or awe in the presence of the divine.

Religious experiences can take many different forms, and they may be experienced in different ways depending on an individual’s cultural and religious background. Some common types of religious experience include:

  • Mystical experiences – These are experiences of union with the divine or a sense of transcendence beyond ordinary reality. Mystical experiences are often characterized by a sense of oneness, timelessness, and profound insight.
  • Near-death experiences – These are experiences that individuals report having when they are on the brink of death, or have been resuscitated after being clinically dead. These experiences often involve feelings of peace, a sense of being outside of one’s body, and encounters with deceased loved ones or spiritual beings.
  • Religious visions – These are experiences in which individuals report seeing or hearing messages from God, angels, or other spiritual beings. These experiences are often described as vivid and transformative.
  • Peak experiences – These are experiences of intense joy, ecstasy, or euphoria that may be related to spiritual or religious practices such as meditation, prayer, or worship.

The interpretation of religious experiences can vary widely depending on an individual’s cultural and religious background, and many scholars argue that such experiences are shaped by a combination of biological, psychological, and cultural factors. Some religious traditions view religious experiences as evidence of the existence of the divine, while others view them as a natural part of human consciousness that can be experienced through various means.

Overall, religious experiences can be a deeply meaningful and transformative aspect of human experience, providing individuals with a sense of connection to something greater than themselves and a source of spiritual growth and insight.

Q3. Answer any two questions in about 250 words each.

a) Compare the English school and the French school of materialism.

The English school of materialism and the French school of materialism are both philosophical traditions that emerged during the Enlightenment era and share a common focus on the material world. However, there are some significant differences between the two schools.

The English school of materialism, also known as empirical or Lockean materialism, emphasizes the role of sensory experience and observation in shaping our understanding of the world. It holds that knowledge comes primarily from experience and that our mental states are the result of the interaction between the mind and the external world. This school of thought is associated with philosophers such as John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.

In contrast, the French school of materialism, also known as rationalist or Cartesian materialism, emphasizes reason and logic as the foundation of knowledge. It holds that the material world is the only reality, and that all mental states are reducible to physical processes in the brain. This school of thought is associated with philosophers such as René Descartes, Pierre Gassendi, and Julien Offray de La Mettrie.

Another significant difference between the two schools is their view of human nature. The English school emphasizes the role of experience in shaping human nature, while the French school tends to see human beings as fundamentally rational and logical creatures whose behavior can be explained by physical laws.

In summary, while both the English and French schools of materialism share a focus on the material world, they differ in their emphasis on sensory experience versus reason and logic as the foundation of knowledge, and their views on human nature.

b) What are the main arguments of St. Augustine to prove the existence of God?

St. Augustine was a Christian philosopher who lived in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. He wrote extensively on theology and philosophy, and his arguments for the existence of God are found primarily in his work “The City of God” and “Confessions.” Here are some of his main arguments:

  • The argument from causation: Augustine argued that everything in the universe has a cause, and that this chain of causes cannot go back infinitely. Therefore, there must be a first cause, which he identified as God.
  • The argument from design: Augustine believed that the beauty and order of the universe must be the result of an intelligent creator, rather than a product of chance.
  • The argument from morality: Augustine argued that there is a universal sense of right and wrong that exists in all people, and that this moral law could only come from a divine source.
  • The argument from consciousness: Augustine believed that our ability to think and reason was evidence of a higher power, as the human mind could not have evolved from mere matter.
  • The ontological argument: Augustine also made use of the ontological argument, which posits that the very concept of God implies his existence.

It’s worth noting that Augustine’s arguments were heavily influenced by his Christian faith, and he believed that faith was ultimately necessary to truly understand and know God.

c) Compare St. Augustine’s and John Hick’s theodicy.

St. Augustine and John Hick present two different theodicies, but they share some similarities and differences.

St. Augustine’s theodicy is based on the idea that evil is a necessary consequence of free will. According to Augustine, God created humans with free will, and this freedom includes the possibility of choosing evil. In Augustine’s view, humans are responsible for the existence of evil because they choose to sin. However, Augustine believed that God uses evil to bring about greater good. For example, Augustine argued that suffering can lead to spiritual growth and that evil can help people recognize their need for God. Ultimately, Augustine believed that God is perfectly good and that he allows evil for a greater purpose.

John Hick’s theodicy, on the other hand, is based on the idea that evil is necessary for the development of human beings. Hick argues that God created the world in such a way that it allows for moral development. In Hick’s view, evil is necessary for people to develop virtues such as compassion and courage. According to Hick, God is not responsible for evil, but he allows it because it is necessary for human development.

One similarity between Augustine and Hick is that they both see evil as necessary for some greater purpose. Augustine believes that evil is necessary for spiritual growth, while Hick believes that it is necessary for moral development. However, Augustine sees human free will as the cause of evil, while Hick sees evil as a necessary part of the world that God created.

Another difference between Augustine and Hick is their views on the afterlife. Augustine believed in the existence of heaven and hell, where people are rewarded or punished for their actions on earth. In contrast, Hick believed in the idea of soul-making, where people continue to develop morally after death. According to Hick, the afterlife provides people with the opportunity to continue to develop morally and to overcome the challenges they faced on earth.

Overall, Augustine and Hick present different views on the problem of evil. Augustine sees evil as a consequence of free will, while Hick sees it as necessary for human development. Augustine believes that God uses evil to bring about greater good, while Hick believes that God allows evil because it is necessary for moral development.

d) Write a note on the problem of evil.

The problem of evil is a philosophical argument that attempts to reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent God. The problem of evil can be stated in various ways, but the basic argument is as follows:

  • If God is all-powerful, he can prevent evil from existing.
  • If God is all-knowing, he knows that evil exists.
  • If God is benevolent, he wants to prevent evil from existing.
  • Evil exists.

From these premises, it is argued that God cannot be all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent at the same time. If God were all-powerful, he would be able to prevent evil; if he were all-knowing, he would know that evil exists; and if he were benevolent, he would want to prevent evil. Therefore, the existence of evil is seen as evidence against the existence of such a God.

There have been many attempts to resolve the problem of evil, including the free will defense, the soul-making theodicy, and the natural evil defense. The free will defense argues that God gave humans free will, and the existence of evil is a result of their misuse of that free will. The soul-making theodicy argues that God allows evil to exist to enable the development of human character and the growth of the soul. The natural evil defense argues that some evil is a result of the laws of nature, such as earthquakes and disease.

Despite these attempts to resolve the problem of evil, it remains a challenging issue for religious believers and philosophers alike.

Q4. Answer any four questions in about 150 words each.

a) Differentiate Religion, Philosophy of religion and Theology.

b) Write a note on the dialectic materialism.

c) Critically evaluate the understanding of ‘History’ in Marx’s Philosophy

d) What is charismatic experience? How does Martin Buber characterize charisma?

e) Write a short note on the idea of religious language.

f) What is free-will? Write a note on the free-will argument.

Q5. Write a short note on any five in about 100 words.

a) Suleh-Kul

b) Kalam Argument

c) Neurothelogy

d) Numinous

e) Process Theodicy

f) Ritual

g) The Buddha Experience

h) Contribution of St. Anselm in the development of philosophy of language

GET Handwritten Hardcopy 
All Over India Delivery 
WhatsApp – 8130208920

Leave a Comment