2025 IB DP Philosophy Practice Paper with Answers

### Philosophical Analysis of the Stimulus

This stimulus invites a deep exploration of **personal identity over time**—a central debate in the Core Theme "Being human". It questions the metaphysical and physical foundations of what constitutes the self across temporal changes, explicitly contrasting physical transformation ("every cell has turned over") and psychological divergence ("did not recognize... the thoughts") with social/legal conventions of singular persistence.

#### Key Philosophical Issues to Address:
1. **The Nature of the Self:** Does a unified, enduring "self" exist, or is it a convenient fiction?
2. **Criteria for Personal Identity:**
* **Physical/Animalist Criterion:** Continuity of the biological body or brain.
* **Psychological Criterion:** Continuity of consciousness, memory, character traits, and beliefs.
* **Narrative Identity:** The self as a constructed story that unites disparate phases of life.
3. **The Social and Legal Construction of Identity:** The external demand for accountability and consistency versus the internal experience of fragmentation.

#### Relevant Philosophical Perspectives:
* **John Locke (Psychological Continuity):** Locke argued that personal identity consists of a continuity of consciousness, primarily through memory. If the author of the stimulus cannot "recognize the thoughts" or lacks psychological connectedness to the person ten years ago, Locke's view suggests they may literally not be the same "person," even if they are the same "man" (biological organism).
* **David Hume (Bundle Theory / No-Self):** Hume asserted that when we look inward, we find only a bundle of fleeting perceptions, not a stable "self." The "past ghost" in the photograph is simply a different set of perceptions, and any claim of identity is an illusion generated by the imagination.
* **Derek Parfit (Reductionism & Relation R):** Parfit argues that personal identity is "not what matters." Instead, what matters is psychological connectedness (holding particular memories/beliefs) and continuity (overlapping chains of connectedness). Since these relations admit of degrees, identity is not an all-or-nothing affair; we are survivors of our past selves rather than numerically identical to them.
* **Paul Ricoeur (Narrative Identity):** Ricoeur distinguishes between *idem* (sameness/numerical identity) and *ipse* (selfhood/narrative identity). The self is maintained over time through the act of narration, weaving changes in cells and beliefs into a coherent autobiography.

The essay is assessed against the standard IB Philosophy Paper 1 rubric (Total: 25 marks):

**Criterion A: Expression and identification of the philosophical issue (5 marks)**
* **5 marks:** Clear, precise formulation of the philosophical issue of personal identity over time and its relation to physical/psychological criteria. The connection to the stimulus is seamless and sophisticated.
* **3-4 marks:** Good identification of the core issue (e.g., "what makes us the same person"), but with less precision or a slightly superficial link to the stimulus.
* **1-2 marks:** Misunderstands the stimulus or identifies a marginal issue with little relevance to the core theme.

**Criterion B: Use of concepts and terminology (5 marks)**
* **5 marks:** Highly accurate and sophisticated use of terminology (e.g., numerical vs. qualitative identity, psychological continuity, reductionism, somatic criterion).
* **3-4 marks:** Clear understanding of relevant terms, though some definitions could be tighter or more consistently applied.
* **1-2 marks:** Minimal or inaccurate use of philosophical vocabulary.

**Criterion C: Argumentation and analysis (5 marks)**
* **5 marks:** Structured, logically compelling argument that thoroughly analyzes the tension between different criteria of identity. Highly critical approach to assumptions.
* **3-4 marks:** Clear line of argument but may feature minor logical leaps or rely on summarizing theories rather than critically engaging with them.
* **1-2 marks:** Anecdotal or heavily opinion-based writing with weak philosophical structure.

**Criterion D: Evaluation and alternative perspectives (5 marks)**
* **5 marks:** Excellent evaluation of competing theories (e.g., contrasting Locke's psychological view with Hume's bundle theory or biological animalism). Evaluates the implications of these views for moral responsibility.
* **3-4 marks:** Discusses different viewpoints, but the evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses is somewhat unbalanced.
* **1-2 marks:** One-sided presentation with no serious consideration of counterarguments.

**Criterion E: Structure and clarity (5 marks)**
* **5 marks:** Excellent structure with a clear introduction, sustained focus, and a persuasive conclusion. Flawless written clarity.
* **3-4 marks:** Generally well-structured but might drift slightly in focus or have minor stylistic issues.
* **1-2 marks:** Poor organization, making the philosophical path difficult to follow.

An excellent essay should be structured as follows: 1. Introduction: Define the core terms of the debate. Contrast individualist epistemology (e.g., Descartes, classical empiricism) with social epistemology. State a clear thesis regarding the extent to which justification is dependent on social factors. 2. Arguments in support of the claim (Social Epistemology): Discuss the necessity of testimony. Most of what an individual claims to know (scientific facts, historical events, geographical locations) is acquired via the testimony of others. Discuss the role of language and concepts. Drawing on Ludwig Wittgenstein's Private Language Argument, argue that concepts and rules of justification cannot be purely private; they require a linguistic community to establish correctness. Introduce social epistemology frameworks (e.g., Alvin Goldman or Helen Longino), highlighting how scientific and everyday knowledge is peer-reviewed, collaborative, and socially constructed. Mention Miranda Fricker's work on epistemic injustice, showing that social power dynamics directly shape who is recognized as a justified knower. 3. Arguments against the claim (Individualist Epistemology): Discuss classical foundationalism, exemplified by René Descartes' Meditations, where the solitary search for certainty begins with the self ('Cogito, ergo sum') and relies on individual rational intuition. Discuss classical empiricism (e.g., John Locke, David Hume), which emphasizes direct sensory experience as the primary foundation of knowledge, which can be achieved independently of social consensus. Discuss reductionism regarding testimony (e.g., Hume's view that we only trust testimony because we have individual, empirical observations of its general reliability). 4. Critical Evaluation: Examine whether a middle ground is possible. Is social justification itself dependent on individual cognitive faculties (like perception and memory) being reliable first? Or is individual perception itself mediated by socially acquired conceptual schemes? 5. Conclusion: Synthesize the arguments. Provide a nuanced final judgment on whether individual knowledge can stand alone or if it is inherently bound to a social web of justification.

The essay is graded out of 25 marks using the standard IB Philosophy assessment criteria: 1. Focus and Structure (5 marks): Evaluates how well the essay addresses the specific question and maintains a clear, logical, and structured argument. 2. Knowledge and Understanding (5 marks): Evaluates the accuracy and depth of philosophical knowledge, including relevant theories (e.g., foundationalism, social epistemology) and philosophers (e.g., Descartes, Wittgenstein, Fricker, Hume). 3. Analysis (5 marks): Evaluates the student's ability to critically analyze the arguments, identify assumptions, and unpack the implications of both individualist and social models of knowledge. 4. Evaluation (5 marks): Evaluates the quality of critical counter-arguments, the balanced treatment of alternative perspectives, and the strength of the final synthesis/conclusion. 5. Quality and Clarity of Language (5 marks): Evaluates the precise use of philosophical terminology, clarity of expression, and overall readability. Mark Band Guidelines: 21-25 marks: Persuasive, highly detailed, and deeply analytical essay showing sophisticated understanding of the social-individual epistemology debate with precise terminology. 16-20 marks: Well-structured and clear essay showing very good knowledge of the topic, balanced evaluation, and clear critical arguments. 11-15 marks: Adheres to the prompt with a clear structure; shows adequate understanding but may be more descriptive than analytical in parts. 6-10 marks: Limited or superficial understanding of the prompt; lacks balanced evaluation or relies heavily on narrative. 1-5 marks: Minimal relevance, unstructured, or significant misunderstandings of basic epistemological concepts.

In the Second Meditation, after establishing the certainty of his own existence (*ego cogito, ergo sum*), Descartes examines the nature of physical objects, which seem to be more distinct to us than the mind. He introduces the example of a piece of fresh wax.

### 1. The Sensory Properties of the Wax
Initially, the wax has specific sensory qualities: it tastes of honey, smells of flowers, has a distinct color, shape, and size, is hard and cold, and makes a sound when tapped.

### 2. The Transformation
Descartes places the wax near a fire. All its sensory qualities change: the taste vanishes, the smell goes away, the color changes, the shape is lost, the size increases, it liquefies, gets hot, and no longer makes a sound when tapped.

### 3. The Continuance of Identity
Despite all sensory properties changing, we still judge it to be the *same* piece of wax. Descartes asks what remained of the wax that was so clearly perceived. It cannot be any of the sensory details, because all of them have changed.

### 4. Intellect versus Senses and Imagination
* **Not the Senses:** Since all sensory data altered, the senses alone do not grasp the identity of the wax.
* **Not the Imagination:** The wax is capable of an infinite number of changes in shape and extension. The imagination cannot run through an infinite number of configurations; therefore, the concept of the wax as an extended, flexible, and mutable thing is not a product of the imagination.
* **The Mind/Intellect:** The wax is grasped by an *inspectio mentis* (an inspection of the mind or intellectual intuition) alone.

### 5. Conclusion regarding the Mind
This analysis shows that our knowledge of physical objects is conceptual and intellectual, not sensory. Crucially, Descartes uses this to show that the mind is better known than the body: every time he judges that the wax exists because he sees or touches it, it follows with absolute certainty that his mind—which is doing the perceiving and judging—must also exist. Therefore, the mind is known more clearly, distinctly, and certainly than any physical body.

### Mark Breakdown (Total: 10 Marks)

* **9–10 marks:** Excellent grasp of Descartes's argument. Explains clearly the step-by-step transition of the wax from solid to liquid, the inadequacy of the senses and imagination to account for its identity, the concept of *inspectio mentis* (intellectual inspection), and provides a precise explanation of how this leads to the conclusion that the mind is more clearly and distinctly known than the body.
* **7–8 marks:** Very good understanding of the wax argument. Explains the transformation of the wax and Descartes's critique of sensory perception. Connects this to the mind's priority, though some logical steps or philosophical vocabulary (such as the distinction between imagination and intellect) might be slightly less detailed.
* **4–6 marks:** Basic understanding. Identifies the wax example and notes that the wax changes when heated. Offers a basic or somewhat confused explanation of why this means the mind is better known than the body, perhaps focusing mostly on the physical description without the philosophical import.
* **1–3 marks:** Minimal or superficial understanding of the text. Mentions the wax or Descartes but fails to reconstruct the argument or its epistemological purpose.
* **0 marks:** No relevant content or response.

Descartes's argument for the 'real distinction' between mind and body in the Sixth Meditation relies on his theory of clear and distinct perception and his theology:
1. I have a clear and distinct idea of myself as a thinking, non-extended thing.
2. I have a clear and distinct idea of my body as an extended, non-thinking thing.
3. Whatever I can clearly and distinctly understand can be created by God exactly as I understand it.
4. Therefore, I (my mind) can exist without my body, meaning mind and body are distinct substances.

To evaluate this argument, essays should examine several critical challenges:
- **The Epistemic vs. Ontological Gap (Arnauld's Objection):** Arnauld argues that someone might understand a right-angled triangle clearly without knowing that the square of its hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Thus, epistemic distinction (conceiving one without the other) does not guarantee ontological separation. Descartes's reply depends heavily on the completeness of his clear and distinct ideas, which remains controversial.
- **The Interaction Problem (Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia):** If the mind is completely immaterial and unextended, and the body is physical and extended, how can they causally interact (e.g., how can mental decisions cause physical movements, or physical injuries cause mental pain)? Descartes's appeal to the pineal gland is widely seen as philosophically and scientifically inadequate.
- **Modern Perspectives:** Gilbert Ryle's 'category mistake' argument suggests that Descartes treats the mind as a 'ghost in the machine,' mistakenly placing mental states in the same logical category as physical substances. Physicalism and functionalism offer alternative, monistic explanations of consciousness that avoid Cartesian dualism's difficulties.

**IB Philosophy Paper 2 Part B Rubric (15 Marks total):**

* **13–15 Marks:** The response shows excellent knowledge and understanding of the Sixth Meditation. The argument for the real distinction is reconstructed with high precision. The evaluation is highly sophisticated, exploring key objections (such as Arnauld or Princess Elisabeth) with depth and philosophical maturity. The structure is logical, and the writing is clear and coherent.
* **10–12 Marks:** The response shows very good knowledge and understanding of Descartes's argument. It reconstructed the steps clearly and evaluates key points of tension, though one of the objections might be explained with less depth than the other. The argument is well-structured and uses appropriate philosophical vocabulary.
* **7–9 Marks:** The response shows basic knowledge of the mind-body distinction. The evaluation is present but tends to be descriptive rather than critical, or relies on superficial criticisms. The essay structure is mostly coherent.
* **4–6 Marks:** The response shows limited or confused understanding of the Sixth Meditation. The argument is poorly reconstructed and the evaluation is weak, unfocused, or missing.
* **1–3 Marks:** The response shows little to no understanding of Descartes's philosophy or the question.