30번 문제 (문맥상
낱말의 쓰임이 적절하지 않은 부분 찾기)
다음 글의 밑줄 친 부분 중, 문맥상 낱말의 쓰임이 적절하지 않은
것은?
In the realm of metaphysical inquiry, the
distinction between essence and existence has been a focal point of debate
among philosophers. Rooted in the work of Aristotle, this dichotomy has
influenced various branches of philosophy, from ontology to existentialism.
Aristotle proposed that essence refers to the fundamental nature or the whatness
of a being, while existence pertains to the thatness or the fact that a
being exists in reality. The medieval scholastics, especially Thomas Aquinas,
built upon this foundation, arguing that existence precedes essence in the
hierarchy of being, as without existence, essence cannot manifest.
In Aquinas' framework, existence is seen as
a gift bestowed by a higher power, and the essence of all things remains fixed,
independent of human perception. Aquinas posited that the essence of things is
immutable and eternal, having been created in the mind of God before their
physical manifestation. However, the existence of these things, he argued, was
contingent upon divine will. For Aquinas, the universe operates as a hierarchy
of beings, each with its unique essence, but ultimately dependent on divine causality
for its existence. This view reinforced the ① ontological necessity of a
prime mover or first cause, which he identified as God.
The existentialist tradition, however,
breaks sharply from this view. Jean-Paul Sartre, for instance, famously claimed
that ② existence precedes essence, a radical departure from the
classical understanding. Sartre argued that human beings are born without a
predetermined essence, and it is through action and choice that they create
themselves. In this existential framework, humans are burdened with the
responsibility of defining their essence through the exercise of freedom. This
freedom, however, is not without consequences, as Sartre believed that humans
are condemned to be free, living in an absurd universe devoid of
intrinsic meaning.
Martin Heidegger took a different approach,
focusing not just on existence but on the being-there or Dasein
of human experience. Heidegger’s ③ transcendental exploration of being
emphasizes the primacy of existence, but unlike Sartre, he does not dismiss
essence altogether. Instead, Heidegger seeks to uncover the structures of being
that define human existence, arguing that humans are uniquely positioned to
question their own being. His work diverges from Sartre's by emphasizing that
while humans exist first, they do so within a pre-existing world of meaning
that shapes their choices and actions.
This philosophical tension between essence
and existence continues to influence contemporary debates, especially in
postmodern thought. Postmodern theorists, such as Jacques Derrida, critique the
binary nature of essence and existence, arguing that both are constructed
through language. Derrida’s concept of différance illustrates that
meaning is always deferred, never fully present, and that essence and existence
are interdependent, continually shaped by the structures of language and
context. In this view, the rigid separation of essence from existence is ④
conceptually obsolete, as both are fluid categories that exist only in
relation to one another.
Despite these advancements in philosophy,
some critics argue that the existentialist dismissal of essence is ⑤
logically inevitable, given the challenges posed by modern science and
quantum mechanics, which suggest that existence itself may be more uncertain
than previously thought. The question remains: can essence exist without
existence, or is it merely a theoretical construct that dissolves under closer
scrutiny?
① ontological necessity
② existence precedes essence
③ transcendental exploration
④ conceptually obsolete
⑤ logically inevitable
31번 문제 (빈칸에
들어갈 말 고르기)
다음 글의 빈칸에 들어갈 말로 가장 적절한 것은?
The problem of free will and determinism
has perplexed philosophers for centuries, raising questions about the nature of
human autonomy and responsibility. Determinism, the view that all events are
causally determined by prior conditions, suggests that human actions are
inevitable outcomes of preceding states of affairs, leaving little room for
personal agency. In contrast, the concept of free will upholds the notion that
individuals possess the capacity to make choices independent of external causal
forces, allowing for moral responsibility and ethical deliberation.
Philosophers like David Hume sought to
bridge the gap between these seemingly irreconcilable perspectives through a
position known as compatibilism. Hume argued that determinism and free
will are not mutually exclusive, claiming that freedom can exist within a
deterministic framework, provided that human actions are guided by internal
motivations rather than external coercion. According to Hume, a person is free
if they act according to their desires, even if those desires themselves are
determined by prior causes. This view of freedom emphasizes internal agency and
volition, as opposed to an absolute absence of causation.
However, proponents of hard determinism
reject compatibilism, maintaining that true freedom requires complete
independence from any form of causal determination, a condition they argue is
impossible given the deterministic nature of the universe. This perspective
raises significant ethical concerns, particularly in the realm of moral
responsibility. If human actions are determined by forces beyond individual
control, can individuals be held accountable for their choices? The
implications of hard determinism challenge the very foundation of legal and
moral systems, which assume that individuals are free agents capable of making
rational decisions.
In contrast, libertarian
philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, argue for a conception of free will that
is entirely independent of determinism. Kant maintained that moral
responsibility requires the existence of a rational will that is free from the
constraints of natural causality. For Kant, true freedom is the ability to act
according to the dictates of reason, unimpeded by external influences. This
form of freedom, he argued, is a necessary condition for moral action. Without
it, the concept of duty or ethical obligation would lose its meaning, as
individuals could not be held responsible for actions that were determined by
factors outside their control.
Contemporary debates on free will and
determinism continue to explore the nuances of this philosophical problem,
particularly in light of advancements in neuroscience and psychology. Some
scientists argue that recent discoveries about the brain suggest that human
behavior is more predictable than previously thought, reinforcing the
deterministic view. On the other hand, defenders of free will contend that
human consciousness allows for a level of self-reflection and deliberation that
transcends mere biological processes, enabling genuine autonomy.
This ongoing debate raises fundamental
questions about the nature of human existence: are we the authors of our own
actions, or are we simply products of a chain of events beyond our control? The
answer to this question has profound implications, not only for philosophy but
also for our understanding of morality, law, and human nature itself.
In conclusion, while determinism offers a
compelling explanation for the causal structure of the universe, it remains to
be seen whether human beings can reconcile their desire for autonomy with the
seemingly ( ) nature of the world.
① deterministic
② random
③ unpredictable
④ ethical
⑤ intentional
32번 문제 (빈칸에
들어갈 말 고르기)
다음 글의 빈칸에 들어갈 말로 가장 적절한 것은?
The concept of the Other has been
central to modern existential and phenomenological thought, particularly in the
works of philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre, Emmanuel Levinas, and Martin
Buber. The Other refers to any being that is fundamentally distinct from
the self, representing an external consciousness that cannot be reduced to the
subject’s own experience or perspective. In Sartre's existential framework, the
Other is often seen as a threat to the subject's freedom. Sartre
famously wrote that "hell is other people," reflecting the idea that
the presence of another person forces the subject to become an object of the Other’s
gaze, stripping away their freedom and individuality.
For Sartre, the self is defined through its
ability to make choices and exercise freedom, but the Other introduces
an external point of view that can limit that freedom. The self becomes aware
of itself as an object for the Other, experiencing a form of existential
anxiety as it realizes that it is being judged or observed. This dynamic
creates a fundamental tension between the subject and the Other, as the
subject must continually navigate the experience of being both a free agent and
an object for another consciousness.
In contrast, Levinas offered a radically
different interpretation of the Other, one that focuses on the ethical
responsibility the self has toward the Other. For Levinas, the encounter
with the Other is not primarily a source of existential anxiety, but
rather the foundation of ethical relations. He argued that the face of the Other
places an infinite ethical demand on the self, a demand that precedes any
formalized system of rules or obligations. In this view, the Other is
not a threat to the self’s freedom, but rather a call to ethical action,
requiring the subject to respond with care, empathy, and responsibility.
Levinas’s perspective challenges the
traditional Western philosophical emphasis on individual autonomy and
self-sufficiency, suggesting that true freedom is found not in isolation, but
in relationship with the Other. His ideas have had a profound impact on
contemporary ethics, influencing discussions on human rights, social justice,
and interpersonal relationships. By shifting the focus from the self to the Other,
Levinas reframes the nature of ethical responsibility, suggesting that the self
is always already in relation to others, and that this relation forms the core
of what it means to be human.
This debate between Sartre’s existentialism
and Levinas’s ethics raises important questions about the nature of freedom,
responsibility, and interpersonal relationships. Is the presence of the Other
fundamentally limiting to the self, as Sartre suggests, or does it open up new
possibilities for ethical engagement, as Levinas contends? The answer to this
question has far-reaching implications for how we understand the nature of
human existence, particularly in a world where the boundaries between self and Other
are constantly being negotiated.
Ultimately, the philosophical exploration
of the Other reveals the complexity of human relationships, showing that
( ).
① the self cannot exist without the Other
② ethical responsibility is secondary to freedom
③ freedom is a purely internal experience
④ the self is always fully autonomous
⑤ the Other is irrelevant to self-identity
33번 문제 (빈칸에
들어갈 말 고르기)
다음 글의 빈칸에 들어갈 말로 가장 적절한 것은?
The concept of existential freedom, as
articulated by Jean-Paul Sartre, centers on the belief that human beings are
condemned to be free. This notion is based on the idea that, in the absence of
a divine being or predetermined essence, individuals must take full
responsibility for creating their own essence through their actions and
choices. Sartre’s famous dictum, “existence precedes essence,” reflects this
view, as it posits that individuals first exist without any inherent purpose or
meaning, and only later define themselves through their engagements in the
world.
This freedom, however, comes with a heavy
burden. Without any external source of meaning, individuals are forced to
confront the anxiety of absolute freedom, which Sartre referred to as anguish.
In this state of freedom, every decision carries immense weight, as it defines
not only the individual’s present state but also their entire future. Moreover,
Sartre argued that this freedom extends beyond the individual to affect all of
humanity. When one makes a choice, they implicitly endorse it as a model for
all others, adding to the gravity of decision-making.
Sartre’s view contrasts sharply with
deterministic philosophies that see human actions as constrained by external
forces, such as biology or social conditioning. In rejecting determinism,
Sartre emphasizes the radical freedom of the individual, a freedom that demands
constant self-reflection and authenticity. To live authentically, according to
Sartre, one must embrace the full scope of their freedom and avoid falling into
patterns of bad faith—a state in which individuals deceive themselves
into thinking they have no choice, thereby shirking responsibility for their
actions.
The existential freedom Sartre describes,
however, is not the carefree freedom of doing whatever one pleases. Instead, it
is a freedom that requires individuals to take full ownership of their lives,
including the consequences of their choices. This responsibility can be
overwhelming, as it confronts individuals with the reality that there is no
ultimate guide or authority to provide direction. In this sense, Sartre’s
philosophy challenges individuals to live deliberately and with full awareness
of the weight of their decisions.
Thus, existential freedom is both an
opportunity and a burden, as it provides the individual with the potential for
self-creation, while simultaneously confronting them with the responsibility of
( ).
① shaping their own moral code
② finding an external source of authority
③ relying on predetermined outcomes
④ seeking guidance from religious texts
⑤ conforming to societal norms
34번 문제 (빈칸에
들어갈 말 고르기)
다음 글의 빈칸에 들어갈 말로 가장 적절한 것은?
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics,
the concept of virtue is central to his ethical theory. Aristotle defines
virtue as a mean between two extremes—excess and deficiency. For example, the
virtue of courage lies between the extremes of recklessness and cowardice. In
this framework, virtue is not an inherent quality but something that is
developed through practice and habituation. Aristotle believed that individuals
become virtuous by consistently making choices that align with the rational
mean, which is determined through practical wisdom, or phronesis.
Aristotle’s view of virtue is deeply tied
to his conception of eudaimonia, often translated as “flourishing” or “well-being.”
For Aristotle, the ultimate goal of human life is to achieve eudaimonia,
which can only be attained through the cultivation of virtues. He argues that
human beings have a natural inclination toward seeking the good, and that this
good is realized through virtuous actions. However, virtue is not merely a
matter of following rules or fulfilling obligations. Instead, it involves the
development of character traits that enable individuals to live in accordance
with reason and to contribute positively to their communities.
Aristotle’s emphasis on habituation
underscores the importance of moral education. He believed that individuals are
not born virtuous but must be trained to develop the right habits from a young
age. This process of habituation is guided by reason and requires the exercise
of judgment. Virtue, therefore, is not a static trait but a dynamic process of
continual growth and refinement. Through repeated virtuous actions, individuals
cultivate their character and become more attuned to the demands of reason.
One of the key challenges in Aristotle’s
ethical theory is the role of emotions. While emotions are often seen as
obstacles to rational decision-making, Aristotle acknowledged that they can
play a positive role in moral development. He argued that emotions, when
properly aligned with reason, can reinforce virtuous behavior. For example,
feeling fear in the right circumstances can guide an individual to act
courageously, just as feeling compassion can motivate acts of generosity.
In conclusion, Aristotle’s ethics presents
a vision of moral development that is deeply connected to the cultivation of
reason and the practice of virtue. For Aristotle, the path to eudaimonia
is ( ).
① rooted in the habitual practice of
virtues
② determined by external rules and obligations
③ dependent on the avoidance of emotions
④ achieved through solitary contemplation
⑤ guided solely by the pursuit of pleasure
35번 문제 (글의
흐름과 관계 없는 문장 찾기)
다음 글에서 전체 흐름과 관계 없는 문장은?
The idea of teleology—the
explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve—has been a cornerstone of
philosophical thought since Aristotle. According to Aristotle, everything in
nature has a purpose or an end (telos), and understanding the purpose of
a thing allows us to fully comprehend its nature. For instance, the purpose of
an acorn is to grow into an oak tree, and this teleological perspective
provides insight into the acorn’s development.
The modern rejection of teleology began
with the scientific revolution, where thinkers like Galileo and Newton
prioritized mechanical explanations over purposive ones. They sought to explain
natural phenomena in terms of physical laws, rather than by the ends they might
serve. This shift marked a fundamental change in the way the natural world was
understood, as it moved away from questions of "why" to questions of
"how."
Yet, despite this shift, the concept of
teleology persists in certain domains. In biology, for example, evolutionary
theory often employs language that seems teleological. Biologists may speak of
traits evolving "for" a specific purpose, even though the
evolutionary process itself is not guided by any particular end. Critics argue
that such language is misleading and reflects a residual teleological mindset
that should be abandoned in favor of purely mechanistic explanations.
(A)
Furthermore, teleology also plays a significant role in existential philosophy,
particularly in the works of Jean-Paul Sartre. (B) Sartre famously
rejected the idea of any preordained purpose in life, instead arguing that
humans must create their own meaning. (C) While Aristotle believed that
understanding the purpose of a thing was essential to understanding its nature,
Sartre argued that human beings have no inherent purpose and must define
themselves through their actions. (D) In contrast, Aristotle’s
teleological perspective emphasized the importance of understanding the natural
ends of things, claiming that such understanding is necessary for human
flourishing. (E)
① (A)
② (B)
③ (C)
④ (D)
⑤ (E)
36번 문제 (A, B, C 지문의
순서 배열)
다음 A, B, C를 읽고, 글의
흐름에 맞는 순서로 바르게 배열한 것은?
[A] The
existentialist notion of freedom, particularly as articulated by Jean-Paul
Sartre, posits that humans are radically free, condemned to make choices in a
world devoid of inherent meaning. Sartre’s famous dictum, "existence
precedes essence," reflects his belief that humans are not born with a
predetermined purpose or nature. Instead, each individual must define
themselves through their actions, and it is through these choices that one’s
essence is created. This responsibility to define oneself, however, brings with
it profound existential anxiety, as every choice carries the weight of defining
not only one’s own identity but also what is possible for humanity.
[B] In
contrast to existentialism’s emphasis on individual freedom, determinism posits
that every event or action, including human decisions, is the result of
preceding causes. From a deterministic perspective, all human actions are
determined by prior events, biological factors, or environmental influences,
leaving little room for autonomous decision-making. Thinkers like Baruch
Spinoza and Pierre-Simon Laplace argued that if we knew all the variables at
play, we could predict every future event with complete certainty, including
human behavior.
[C] The
reconciliation of free will and determinism has been a central issue in modern
philosophy, giving rise to the school of thought known as compatibilism.
Compatibilists, such as David Hume, argue that free will and determinism are
not mutually exclusive. According to Hume, humans can be considered free as
long as they are able to act according to their desires, even if those desires
themselves are determined by prior causes. Compatibilism redefines freedom not
as the absence of causation but as the ability to act in accordance with one’s
internal motivations, without external coercion.
문제
위 지문들을 연결할 때, 가장 적절한 순서는?
① A - B - C
② B - A - C
③ C - A - B
④ B - C - A
⑤ A - C – B
37번 문제 (A, B, C 지문의
순서 배열)
다음 A, B, C를 읽고, 글의
흐름에 맞는 순서로 바르게 배열한 것은?
[A] In
Kantian ethics, the concept of the categorical imperative serves as the
foundational principle for moral action. According to Immanuel Kant, moral laws
must be universal and unconditional, applying equally to all rational beings
regardless of their desires or circumstances. The categorical imperative
requires that one act in such a way that their actions could become a universal
law. For example, if lying were universally acceptable, trust would collapse,
undermining the very possibility of moral society. Therefore, Kant argues,
moral duties are absolute and must be adhered to under all circumstances.
[B] John
Stuart Mill, a proponent of utilitarianism, offers a sharply contrasting view
of ethics. According to Mill, the rightness of an action is determined by its
consequences, particularly in terms of the happiness or utility it produces.
Mill argues that actions should be evaluated based on their ability to maximize
pleasure and minimize pain for the greatest number of people. Unlike Kant's
deontological approach, which emphasizes the importance of adhering to moral
rules, utilitarianism focuses on the outcomes of actions as the primary
criterion for ethical decision-making.
[C] The
tension between deontological ethics and consequentialism lies at the heart of
many contemporary ethical debates. While deontologists, like Kant, argue that
certain actions are morally right or wrong regardless of their consequences,
consequentialists, such as Mill, maintain that the morality of an action
depends entirely on its outcomes. This fundamental disagreement raises
important questions about how we should approach moral dilemmas, particularly
when following a rule may lead to negative consequences, or when breaking a
rule may produce greater overall happiness.
문제
위 지문들을 연결할 때, 가장 적절한 순서는?
① A - B - C
② B - A - C
③ C - A - B
④ A - C - B
⑤ B - C - A
38번 문제 (주어진
문장이 들어가기에 가장 적합한 곳)
주어진 문장:
"However, this attempt to reconcile freedom with moral obligation
presents a paradox that seems inescapable: How can one be both free and morally
obligated to act in a certain way?"
다음 글에서 위 문장이 들어가기에 가장 적절한 곳은?
The tension between freedom and moral
obligation has been a central issue in ethical philosophy. On the one hand,
proponents of free will argue that individuals must have the autonomy to choose
their actions. Without such freedom, it would be impossible to hold people
morally responsible for their actions. Kant, for example, posited that moral
obligation arises from the rational will and the categorical imperative, which
commands individuals to act in ways that can be universalized as moral laws. ( ①
)
Kant’s theory suggests that freedom and
obligation are not mutually exclusive; rather, freedom is a necessary
precondition for moral duty. One must be free to choose their actions, but that
freedom is constrained by the requirements of reason. In this sense, moral
obligation is not an external imposition but an expression of rational
autonomy. ( ② ) The problem arises when we consider the implications of this
theory in practical situations.
If moral laws are universal and binding,
how can individuals retain their sense of freedom while simultaneously being
obligated to act in specific ways? ( ③ ) This question has led to various
interpretations and critiques of Kantian ethics, with some arguing that Kant’s
model fails to account for the complexities of human emotion and circumstance.
( ④ ) Nonetheless, Kant’s emphasis on the rational will as the source of moral
obligation remains a cornerstone of modern ethical theory. ( ⑤ )
문제
위 주어진 문장이 들어가기에 가장 적절한 곳은?
① ( ① )
② ( ② )
③ ( ③ )
④ ( ④ )
⑤ ( ⑤ )
39번 문제 (주어진
문장이 들어가기에 가장 적합한 곳)
주어진 문장:
"This epistemological crisis forces us to reconsider the relationship
between knowledge, belief, and certainty."
다음 글에서 위 문장이 들어가기에 가장 적절한 곳은?
The search for certainty in human knowledge
has been a central concern in the history of philosophy. Philosophers from
Descartes to Wittgenstein have wrestled with the question of how we can know
anything with certainty, given the limitations of human perception and
reasoning. Descartes famously began his inquiry with radical doubt, stripping
away all beliefs that could potentially be false until he arrived at the
indubitable truth, "Cogito, ergo sum"—"I think, therefore I
am." ( ① )
However, many philosophers have challenged
the idea that certainty is possible. The empiricists, such as David Hume,
argued that all knowledge is derived from sensory experience, which is
inherently fallible and subject to doubt. Hume’s skepticism extended to cause
and effect, suggesting that our belief in causality is a habit of thought
rather than a rationally justified certainty. ( ② )
Contemporary philosophers, particularly
those influenced by postmodernism, have taken this skepticism even further,
questioning whether objective knowledge is possible at all. They argue that all
knowledge is mediated through language, culture, and power structures, which
shape and limit what we can know. ( ③ )
This crisis of knowledge has led to a
reevaluation of the traditional philosophical quest for certainty. Some
philosophers now argue that instead of seeking absolute certainty, we should
focus on achieving a more pragmatic understanding of knowledge, one that
acknowledges its provisional and context-dependent nature. ( ④ )
The future of epistemology may lie not in
the pursuit of certainty, but in the acceptance of uncertainty as an inherent
feature of human knowledge. ( ⑤ )
문제
위 주어진 문장이 들어가기에 가장 적절한 곳은?
① ( ① )
② ( ② )
③ ( ③ )
④ ( ④ )
⑤ ( ⑤ )
40번 문제 (글의
내용 한 문장 요약)
다음 글을 읽고, 내용을 한 문장으로 요약하고자 한다. 빈칸 (A), (B)에 들어갈 말로 가장 적절한 것은?
Throughout the history of Western
philosophy, the concept of knowledge has undergone profound transformations,
particularly in its relationship to belief, justification, and truth.
Epistemology, the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge,
seeks to answer fundamental questions about the nature, limits, and origins of
human understanding. One of the most enduring problems in this field is the
distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge—knowledge
that is independent of experience versus knowledge that is derived from
experience. Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, attempted to
bridge this divide by introducing the concept of synthetic a priori
knowledge, a form of knowledge that, while grounded in logical structures, also
applies universally to empirical phenomena.
Kant’s approach to knowledge, however,
faced significant challenges from subsequent philosophical movements,
particularly empiricism and skepticism. David Hume’s radical empiricism
questioned the very foundation of causality, suggesting that our belief in
cause and effect is not a rational deduction but rather a psychological habit
formed through repeated observations. According to Hume, while we may observe
that certain events follow others, there is no rational basis to assume that
they will always do so. This skepticism about causality undermines not only
scientific reasoning but also our everyday assumptions about the predictability
of the world.
In response to Hume, philosophers like Kant
and, later, Karl Popper, sought to preserve the validity of scientific inquiry
while acknowledging the limitations of human knowledge. Popper introduced the
principle of falsifiability as a criterion for scientific theories, arguing
that no theory can ever be definitively proven true, but it can be shown to be
false. This marked a shift from traditional views of knowledge as certain and
infallible to a more nuanced understanding that knowledge is always provisional
and subject to revision.
In contemporary philosophy, the debate over
the nature of knowledge has expanded to include issues of social epistemology
and the role of testimony in the acquisition of knowledge. Feminist
epistemologists, for instance, have critiqued traditional epistemology for
privileging certain kinds of knowledge—typically the knowledge of elite, white
men—while marginalizing other ways of knowing. According to thinkers like
Miranda Fricker, epistemic injustice occurs when individuals are wronged in
their capacity as knowers, either through testimonial injustice (where their
credibility is unfairly diminished) or hermeneutical injustice (where their
experiences are not understood or validated by prevailing conceptual
frameworks).
As the scope of epistemology has broadened,
it has become clear that knowledge is not just an abstract, individual endeavor
but also a social and political practice. The question of who gets to be
considered a legitimate knower, and what counts as valid knowledge, is deeply
tied to power dynamics and social hierarchies. Thus, the pursuit of knowledge
is not only a matter of intellectual curiosity but also of justice and
inclusion.
In summary, knowledge is a complex,
multifaceted phenomenon that (A) ________ both individual and collective
dimensions, and the pursuit of knowledge is constantly evolving as new
challenges to its definition and scope arise. As philosophical inquiries continue
to unfold, it becomes clear that the true nature of knowledge is one that (B)
________ both certainty and doubt in equal measure, reflecting the dynamic
interplay between belief, justification, and truth.
(A) ①
rejects
② encompasses
③ isolates
④ dismisses
⑤ trivializes
(B) ①
eliminates
② guarantees
③ entertains
④ resists
⑤ excludes
[41-42번 문제] 다음
글을 읽고, 물음에 답하시오.
Throughout the history of philosophy, the
concept of truth has undergone numerous transformations, particularly as it
relates to its correspondence with reality. Traditionally, truth was seen as a
simple matter of aligning statements or propositions with the external world, a
view most famously (a) challenged by Aristotle, who defined truth as
"saying of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not."
This correspondence theory of truth dominated much of early Western thought,
remaining largely unchallenged until the rise of modern skepticism.
In the 17th century, philosophers like
Descartes and Hume began questioning the reliability of human perception and
the possibility of obtaining certain knowledge about the world. Descartes, in
his famous Meditations on First Philosophy, posited that all sensory
experience could be a product of deception by a malevolent demon, thus casting
doubt on the validity of any belief grounded in empirical observation. For
Descartes, the only indubitable truth was found in the act of thinking itself:
"Cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). This radical shift away
from the correspondence theory opened the door to new ways of understanding
truth, including coherence theories, where the truth of a proposition is
determined by its consistency with a set of other beliefs, rather than its
direct relationship to an external reality.
Fast forward to the 20th century, and
philosophers like Ludwig Wittgenstein and the logical positivists further
complicated the notion of truth by introducing the idea that truth is not a
property of propositions alone, but also a function of the language games in
which those propositions are embedded. Wittgenstein, in his later work, argued
that the meaning of a word is its use in language, and that truth itself cannot
be divorced from the social and linguistic contexts in which it is spoken. This
view challenges the idea of an objective, context-independent truth, suggesting
instead that truth is a dynamic, socially (b) deferred phenomenon,
always in flux and dependent on the specific language practices of a given
community.
Postmodern philosophers, such as Michel
Foucault and Jacques Derrida, took this critique of objective truth even
further by arguing that all truth claims are inextricably tied to power
relations and social structures. For Foucault, knowledge and power are (c)
intertwined in a way that makes it impossible to separate the two.
According to this view, truth is not a neutral reflection of reality but a
construct that serves the interests of those in positions of authority.
Derrida, through his concept of différance, suggested that meaning is
always deferred, never fully present, and thus truth itself is perpetually
elusive, subject to reinterpretation and revision.
This postmodern skepticism of truth has had
profound implications for a variety of fields, from politics to science. In the
realm of scientific inquiry, for instance, the question of whether scientific
truths are objective or socially (d) posited has sparked intense debate.
While many scientists continue to hold to a correspondence theory of truth,
arguing that scientific theories aim to describe an objective reality, others—particularly
those influenced by social constructivist theories—argue that science is itself
a human endeavor, shaped by cultural values, social expectations, and
historical contexts. This view raises questions about the neutrality of
scientific knowledge and the extent to which it can be truly (e) constructed.
41번 문제
윗글의 제목으로 가장 적절한 것은?
① The Evolution of Truth in Western
Philosophy
② The Relationship Between Language and Truth
③ Objectivity and Power: A Philosophical Dilemma
④ From Aristotle to Derrida: How Truth Became Unstable
⑤ The Crisis of Scientific Truth in Postmodern Philosophy
42번 문제
밑줄 친 (a)~(e) 중에서 문맥상 낱말의 쓰임이 적절하지 않은
것은?
① (a) challenged
② (b) deferred
③ (c) intertwined
④ (d) posited
⑤ (e) constructed
댓글 영역
획득법
① NFT 발행
작성한 게시물을 NFT로 발행하면 일주일 동안 사용할 수 있습니다. (최초 1회)
② NFT 구매
다른 이용자의 NFT를 구매하면 한 달 동안 사용할 수 있습니다. (구매 시마다 갱신)
사용법
디시콘에서지갑연결시 바로 사용 가능합니다.