IB Diploma Programme Philosophy HL (current guide). This topic equips
the INTERNAL ASSESSMENT — the philosophical analysis 哲学分析: a
2 000-word analysis of a NON-PHILOSOPHICAL STIMULUS (a news photo, an
advert, a cartoon, a song lyric — anything not already philosophy),
worth 25% at SL and 20% at HL. The paper's other half is examined
elsewhere; the IA is the craft of finding the philosophical issue IN
the world. This handout walks the marked components and carries one
worked stimulus end to end.
Must-know for the analysis:
Component
What it rewards
stimulus
non-philosophical, chosen by the student, rich in issue
issue
a genuine philosophical question drawn from the stimulus
treatment
the core theme's craft applied: concepts, arguments, objections
personal
the student's own voice: developed, evaluated, not reported
The stimulus 刺激材料 must be non-philosophical — no textbook extracts, no
famous thought experiments lifted whole: the point is to philosophise
the world, not summarise the canon. Rich stimuli: a news photograph
(a rescue triage), an advertising image (beauty and manipulation), a
cartoon (freedom and surveillance), a game's rules (fairness), a
lyric (personal identity and change). The issue 问题 is found by asking
the core theme's questions OF the stimulus: what does this assume
about persons? about freedom? about knowledge? about what matters?
The question must be PHILOSOPHICAL (answerable by reasoning, not by
polling or measurement) and the student's OWN (not the stimulus's
slogan, not a teacher's framing).
The framing sentence is the IA's spine: “This advertisement raises
the question of whether treating someone as a means requires
intending to use them” — stimulus, concept, question, in one line.
The ANALYSIS (2 000 words) develops the question philosophically:
Explain the concept 概念 (deontology's means-ends principle, precisely,
with a source attributed), APPLY it to the stimulus (the specific
features of the image read through the concept), DEVELOP the
argument (the student's reasoning — not a tour of positions but a
pursued line), Consider the objection 反对意见 (the strongest counter-view
stated and answered), and CONCLUDE (the finding, with its limits
owned). The marked criteria reward: philosophical TREATMENT (concepts
used correctly and applied, not name-dropped), PERSONAL engagement
(the student's own argument, developed and evaluated), and CLARITY
(the writing of someone thinking, not performing). The classic
failures: the gallery (five philosophers, no argument), the essay-report (all exposition, no position), and the non-philosophical
drift (sociology or psychology where the reasoning should be).
Worked stimulus. A photograph: commuters stepping over a rough
sleeper outside a luxury shop window. The issue: does the ordinary
duty to help survive when the helper's own plans must be sacrificed —
the supererogation question, run through the core's craft. Concept:
duty vs charity (deontology's imperfect duties; consequentialism's
demandingness objection). Application: the window's display (the
good life advertised) against the sleeper (the person unseen) — the
image's structure IS the demandingness problem. Development: the
commuter's duty cannot be read off the image; the question is what
a willing of the maxim would require. Objection: the singer's pond
case — distance and salience do not change the duty; reply: the
image's window does change it (institutional, not individual,
responsibility). Conclusion: the photograph indicts the arrangement,
not the commuter — and the analysis owns that this is one reading of
an image that supports others.
The stimulus: non-philosophical, specific, the student's own; the framing sentence in one line (stimulus).
The issue: philosophical (reasoning-answerable) and genuinely drawn from the stimulus (issue).
Treatment: concept explained with attribution, applied to the stimulus's specific features, argument developed (treatment).
Objection stated at its strongest and answered; conclusion owning limits (treatment).
Personal voice: a pursued line of the student's own, not a gallery or a report (personal).
The worked sleeper stimulus's framing, development and conclusion understood (worked).
Boundary notes: 2 000 words, marked on philosophical treatment,
personal engagement and clarity; the stimulus is attached to the
submission. The worked stimulus and its development are original.
Supported preparation: Stimulus and philosophical analysis
Scope and prerequisites
IB philosophy first assessment 2025. Core Being human; one optional theme at SL, two at HL; one school-selected prescribed text. HL extension is Philosophy and contemporary issues. No unverified prescribed text is chosen by default.
Mapped preparation outcomes: ib_philosophy_hl.3.1, ib_philosophy_hl.3.2. Read the matching native lesson first. Actual approved choices, evidence and final learner work remain separate.
Source vocabulary
personhood 人格地位; counterargument 反论证.
Explanation and worked method
A non-philosophical stimulus starts an issue; analysis must develop reasons, objections and judgement. Describing a film or image is not yet a philosophical argument.
Task: an original image depicts a robot completing a conversation. Form an issue about mind and analyse one inference.
Ask whether successful conversation is sufficient for consciousness. Behaviour supplies evidence of performance, while the inference to subjective experience requires an argument. An objection can question whether simulation establishes experience; a reply can ask what evidence is available for other minds.
Independent transfer
Is successful conversation a necessary or sufficient condition for consciousness in the proposed argument?
Attempt independently before reading the model.
Checked original model
The original inference treats it as sufficient: successful conversation would establish consciousness. A necessary-condition claim would instead say consciousness requires that capacity. Neither implication follows automatically from the other; give relevant objections to the one actually proposed.
These are authored formative expectations, not official IB descriptors. Accept other justified arguments with evidence and material limits.
Source and task holds
This supplement teaches the method for this part of the course. The full assessment criteria and any texts your school chooses come from your teacher.