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