What test series are you people thinking of? Don’t think we can take topper testimonials about promptness of correction and quality of comments at face value. Anyone have any reliable reviews from previous attempts?SR crash course is a one-stop solution in my opinion. It helped me last year. The only issue with SR test series is their pathetic evaluation. There is no standard criteria, but the test-discussion is good.
As regards the test-evaluation, I am a strong votary of peer evaluation in PSIR.
I have no knowledge of GS Score PSIR test series. Many people join it. May be they can enlighten.
bro do you have previous year evaluated answersheets of shubhra mams testseries?
Hey guys, has anyone come across a substantive critique of Arendt on any count? Did not find anything in my standard sources.
difficult to find critique on arendt, she is the most consistent thinkers whom we have studied
however i would have used the following criticism
1. her justification that it was not Eichmann rather the culture of obedience which gives rise to totalitarianism takes away the onus from human action. In any system there is a culture of obedience ,either to law or to monarch, each individual cant decide right from wrong for themselves, it would amount to anarchy
2. Her idea of zoon politikon= Farid Zakarias view that constitutionalism should preeceed democractic participation, (mill as a reluctant democrat).
also political culture theorists argue that excessive pol participation leads to mobocracy.
cant think of anything else.
Learning for Myself:
Personally, I scored 117 in both papers (Total - 234). Was expecting better score than last mains (129+134=263), even though I wasn't able to complete my papers. So would have to focus a lot more on just consolidating on my optional (Proper note making) , writing practice to complete the papers and just hoping Leviathan is merciful next time :)
can you tell us what you think might have gone wrong in this attempt ? was it note-making,revision process or lack of it? or maybe over reliance on shubhra mams note?
will be highly helpful for us 1st attempters at mains.
Not seeing very high scores in psir this year as previous years even though it has highest number of selections.
My score has been 267 (125+142). Paper 1 was simple this year yet dont know why such low scores.
seems like a great score for this year.. how are you planning to change your approach... also how much were shubhra mams notes part of ur prep?
Shubhra Ma'am notes were 100% solely part of my prep. Nothing absolutely NOTHING beyond them. This was a conscious choice since i prepared after prelims mostly.
Her crash course notes are a gold mine for paper 2. In paper 2 i attempted 2 ques in 2B part all thanks to her notes. 142 in paper 2 only because i could quote books and scholars from her crash course answers.
In paper 1, it seems i need to add more content for which i think test series, pyq and selected reading of standard books might help.
Although this time csat is stuck so not so hopeful :(
Thank you :) and i truly hope you clear the csat, would be great to learn alongside someone who has scored such good marks
i guess my ending is abrupt but tried to write this within 12 minutes -266 words
‘Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no justice’-Hobbes
Hobbes, by his virtue of delineating powers between state and the church, has often been held as the 1st modern thinker
For Hobbes, no two entities can have equal sovereignty therefore state for Hobbes becomes the ultimate leviathan.
Through his social contract, he has endowed the state with ultimate powers as a bargain against order peace and preservation of life. Hobbes argues that in the state of nature condition of a man is " poor nasty brutish and short"
Through his rcm Hobbes has shown that man is utilitarian in nature, he brings in the dilemma of unlimited wants and limited means. A utilitarian man would try to increase his pleasure and reduce his pain, each man would see other as a source of conflict rather than virtue, therefore the state of nature will be a state of war; a war of all, against all
Law for Hobbes is reason , since a man is avaricious and materialist, it is not possible to have reason in the state of nature. therefore to come out of the state of nature man endows the state with unlimited powers and hence state becomes the ultimate sovg.
state comes with the 'covenants with swords' ie state has the power to enforce and make people compliant against the law.For hobbes ' liberty is only where the law is silent' in all other cases man is bounded by the whip of the state
Therefore where there is no common power, man is bounded by his own impulse and hence has no reason/law and therefore the state of nature is also the state of injustice.
i guess my ending is abrupt but tried to write this within 12 minutes.
‘Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no justice’-Hobbes
Hobbes, by his virtue of delineating powers between state and the church, has often been held as the 1st modern thinker
For Hobbes, no two entities can have equal sovereignty therefore state for Hobbes becomes the ultimate leviathan.
Through his social contract, he has endowed the state with ultimate powers as a bargain against order peace and preservation of life. Hobbes argues that in the state of nature condition of a man is " poor nasty brutish and short"
Through his rcm Hobbes has shown that man is utilitarian in nature, he brings in the dilemma of unlimited wants and limited means. A utilitarian man would try to increase his pleasure and reduce his pain, each man would see other as a source of conflict rather than virtue, therefore the state of nature will be a state of war; a war of all, against all
Law for Hobbes is reason , since a man is avaricious and materialist, it is not possible to have reason in the state of nature. therefore to come out of the state of nature man endows the state with unlimited powers and hence state becomes the ultimate sovg.
state comes with the 'covenants with swords' ie state has the power to enforce and make people compliant against the law.For hobbes ' liberty is only where the law is silent' in all other cases man is bounded by the whip of the state
Therefore where there is no common power, man is bounded by his own impulse and hence has no reason/law and therefore the state of nature is also the state of injustice.
wanted to add a critique however, felt it would end up being forceful therefore left it.
a universal ending for Hobbes btw=
However, critics like Spinoza have pointed out that it is impossible for the monsters of
Hobbes’s state of nature to become law-abiding and docile citizens of a civil society
in the manner prescribed by Hobbes.
@MarcusA Vaughan's criticism that he failed to balance indi liberty with abs sovereignity could go with the question. Rest everything is covered
yes that would have been a nice touch
@MarcusA great answer! But I think it needs to cover the “no law, no justice” part a bit more. Since for upsc covering and showing by underlining that you’ve covered the keywords in the question is important. The only angle I can find is that Hobbes saw justice relating only to man in society and acknowledged no moral character in man that could lead to a sense of justice without law. It’s a rather obvious and simple point and is implicit in what you’ve already said, but I think we would still have to mention it.
thats what i had tought!! however, I find it difficult to shove so many views within 250 words, even more, difficult when I write impromptu.
dont know what to make of paper 2(have not written a mock on it), lengthy tha ,missed a ten marker , misquoted 1-2 facts, otherwise i had option of using a lot of IR thinkers which i guess should cover for the mistakes. paper 1 was fine.