Bac de philosophie 2022: discover the corrected topics of the technological terminal test

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022, students of technical universities passed a written test in philosophy. Learn about all subjects and answers for the 2022 undergraduate test.

This Wednesday, the Tech Terminal students were working on their final written test of the new version of the Bachelor’s degree, a little over a month after the specialty tests. Download the corrected topic of the philosophy of the technological path in pdf.

” READ ALSO – Bachelor of Philosophy 2022: Discover the Common Terminal Test Subjects

SEE ALSO – “Freedom consists in not obeying anyone?”: our journalists analyze the topic of philosophy

Choice of two dissertation topics and an explanation of the text based on one or more of the seven concepts of the program. For work in philosophy, a coefficient of 4 is put in the final grade.

Essay topics:

1/ Does freedom consist in not obeying anyone?

2/ Is it fair to assert one’s rights by any means?

3/ Explanation of the text:

If I could make sure that the witness saw well and that he wanted to tell me the truth, his testimony would become infallible for me: only in proportion to the degree of this double certainty does my conviction grow; it will never rise to full evidence as long as the evidence is unique and I consider the witness in particular; for however much I may know about the human heart, I will never know it well enough to guess its various whims and all the mysterious springs that make it move. But what I would look for in vain in evidence, I find in the coincidence of several evidences, because humanity is depicted there; I can3, following the laws that minds follow, assert that one truth has been able to unite so many people whose interests are so different and whose passions are so opposed. Error takes various forms, according to the mentality of the people, from the prejudices of religion and education, on which they feed; testimony of the same fact, I must in no way doubt its reality. The more you prove to me that the passions that govern men are bizarre, capricious, and unreasonable, the more eloquently you will exaggerate for me the multitude of errors engendered by so many different prejudices; and the more you will confirm to me, to your great amazement, the conviction in which I am, that only the truth can make so many people of an opposite character speak in the same way.

DIDRO, Encyclopedia (1751-1772).

1 “error-free”: absolutely sure

2 “growing”: increasing

3 “I can”: I can

Key to Theme 1. Does freedom consist in obeying no one?

We usually think that being free means doing what we like, doing “what we want”. Freedom is understood primarily as the absence of coercion, and thus the one who does not obey anyone, who does not have to obey anyone’s will, will be free. But when we do what we like, when we are not subject to anyone, are we really independent? Indeed, the absence of external restrictions does not necessarily mean the disappearance of all restrictions. How then can we think that being free can consist in being subject to no one? Moreover, must we conclude that we are never free?

Correction to topic 2:

Is it right to defend your rights in all ways?

At first glance, it is right to defend your rights when they are violated. Protecting one’s rights in general means striving to end injustice, and such a position immediately seems correct. But is it right to do it anyway? This is indeed the end of the question, which poses a problem, since to invoke all means is to immediately recognize the possibility of violence and therefore behavior that may be reprehensible. However, when someone defends his rights, he does it in the name of a moral value, justice, does that then allow to go against the same value where he claims to defend it? Wouldn’t such an attitude be inherently contradictory? Moreover, if we believe that all means are good to protect our rights, do we not risk opening the door to chaos and the reign of violence, which the law must put an end to? However, to refuse to believe that we can use all means is to admit that rights are being violated, and therefore also to question the law, its meaning and value. Then the question arises about the limit: how fair is it to protect your rights? Is it possible to protect your rights only within the framework of the rule of law, and then in the name of respect for the law? But another difficulty arises, because it may well be that the legal framework violates my rights as well. Indeed, if the state lawfully violates my fundamental rights, should I obey it?

Text explanation:

An excerpt from Diderot, Encyclopedia (1751-1772)

1. What is meant by “double insurance”? How does it increase persuasion? The double certainty evoked by Diderot is based on the fact that the witness clearly saw what he testified to and that he wanted to tell the truth, because it is always possible that the witness is lying. Indeed, if a witness reports only what he was told, what others saw, nothing convinces me that the facts really took place, since nothing convinces himself of this, and, secondly, I must be sure that the witness is not trying to deceive me. Diderot then shows that this reinforces my conviction, but it is in no way proof. 2. Why is evidence alone not enough to establish the truth? I never know the witness well enough to be sure that he is telling me the truth, whereas if there is more than one testimony, the chances increase. It is always possible that the witness has hidden intentions, pursues a personal interest, and if he is alone, then there is no one who can testify to what he says. 3. Why does the error take on different forms? An error can take many forms because there can be multiple causes for an error. This may be due to religious beliefs, upbringing, habits, etc. There are many prejudices. If our judgments are influenced by our culture, our education, our beliefs, then this can lead to different readings and different errors each time. 4. Explain, “Only the truth can make so many people with opposite personalities speak the same way.” As soon as the most diverse people with different habits, beliefs, prejudices end up saying the same thing about a fact, it means that only that which is common can be true. Truth has a universal character and does not depend on passions and prejudices. Thus, truth is something that can unite several people with different prejudices.

PODCAST – Man is a wolf to man?

Listen and subscribe to your favorite audio platform