The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

A2 OCR Philosophy and Ethics 2016

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Avatar for sa13
sa13
5
I though it was a really nice paper. Did wittengstein and miracles. But I screwed up my miracles essay, ran out of time so missed out a conclusion and I only talked about Hume :/ . Annoying I ran out of time as it was such a nice question.
Original post by sa13
I though it was a really nice paper. Did wittengstein and miracles. But I screwed up my miracles essay, ran out of time so missed out a conclusion and I only talked about Hume :/ . Annoying I ran out of time as it was such a nice question.


Didn't you counter Hume with anyone??
Original post by Jamyes
wasnt too hard tbh how did you find it


Thought it was a great paper, I did miracles and soul/body division. How about you??
Original post by sa13
I though it was a really nice paper. Did wittengstein and miracles. But I screwed up my miracles essay, ran out of time so missed out a conclusion and I only talked about Hume :/ . Annoying I ran out of time as it was such a nice question.


Wittgenstein - the language question?
Reply 24
Avatar for sa13
sa13
5
Original post by patronus7
Wittgenstein - the language question?

Yep. For how successful are philosophers arguments for religious language being meaningless, i spoke about wittengsteins concept that metaphysical things such as god cant be verified and so religious language is meaningless. Spoke about how it was developed by ayer with weak verification. Then how language games in wittengsteins later book 'a philosphical investigation' undermine the successes of arguing that religious language is meaningless as language games give conceptual subjective meaning.
Reply 25
Avatar for sa13
sa13
5
Original post by De Re Publica
Didn't you counter Hume with anyone??

As in I didnt talk about Wiles.. i only spoke about humes problems with miracles - induction showing their improbable and his subsidary arguments saying miracles are usually due to humans misperseving them. I countered induction with poppers flaws with induction and subsidary arguments with swinburne who says we should trust testimony and credulity ...but i didnt talk about wiles who i really ought to have done and his problems with miracles.
Reply 26
Avatar for Fibsy
Fibsy
9
Lovely paper :smile:

I did the miracles question and of course discussed Hume and Wiles + Swinburne's criticisms of both of them.
Also did the soul/body question and contrasted Plato's dualism with Aristotle's hylomorphism. For criticisms I discussed Bertrand Russell, and Plato's Parmenides dialogue of self-criticism.
Original post by sa13
As in I didnt talk about Wiles.. i only spoke about humes problems with miracles - induction showing their improbable and his subsidary arguments saying miracles are usually due to humans misperseving them. I countered induction with poppers flaws with induction and subsidary arguments with swinburne who says we should trust testimony and credulity ...but i didnt talk about wiles who i really ought to have done and his problems with miracles.


Oh, that sounds alright. I used Hume, John Lennox, Cs Lewis, Wiles and Keith Ward
Original post by Fibsy
Lovely paper :smile:

I did the miracles question and of course discussed Hume and Wiles + Swinburne's criticisms of both of them.
Also did the soul/body question and contrasted Plato's dualism with Aristotle's hylomorphism. For criticisms I discussed Bertrand Russell, and Plato's Parmenides dialogue of self-criticism.


Basically did the same! How many marks do you reckon for it altogether??
Original post by sa13
Yep. For how successful are philosophers arguments for religious language being meaningless, i spoke about wittengsteins concept that metaphysical things such as god cant be verified and so religious language is meaningless. Spoke about how it was developed by ayer with weak verification. Then how language games in wittengsteins later book 'a philosphical investigation' undermine the successes of arguing that religious language is meaningless as language games give conceptual subjective meaning.


Ah great that's roughly what I did, I was worried about whether I had misinterpreted the question
Reply 30
Avatar for Fibsy
Fibsy
9
Original post by De Re Publica
Basically did the same! How many marks do you reckon for it altogether??


I think I got an A* :smile: I think I got at least 32/35 for my miracles essay and at least 34/35 for my body/soul essay. My criticisms had so many counter-arguments that I'm certain that I nailed it!! Now I can afford to only do a few hours of revision for ethics, yay!!! (My other subjects namely chemistry are killing me and I need to allocate as much time to them as possible otherwise I'm not gonna meet my offer fml)
(edited 7 years ago)
Did anyone answer the Conversion Experience essay? I thought that was an amazing essay. My conclusion said that conversion experiences can theoretically prove God by inductive proof but I said that it wasn't possible to prove God deductively because as Kant has shown, it doesn't make sense to define existence as a predicate. However, I added to this conclusion by saying that Wittgenstein would argue that the question was meaningless for trying to allow the empiricism and religious belief language games to interact which doesn't make sense as they have different contexts... so question itself is meaninglessand it doesn't matter what conclusion I reached
Reply 32
Avatar for Fibsy
Fibsy
9
Original post by Kody Marley
Did anyone answer the Conversion Experience essay? I thought that was an amazing essay. My conclusion said that conversion experiences can theoretically prove God by inductive proof but I said that it wasn't possible to prove God deductively because as Kant has shown, it doesn't make sense to define existence as a predicate. However, I added to this conclusion by saying that Wittgenstein would argue that the question was meaningless for trying to allow the empiricism and religious belief language games to interact which doesn't make sense as they have different contexts... so question itself is meaninglessand it doesn't matter what conclusion I reached


I was tempted to answer that question because I have read the chapter on conversion in William James' book The Varieties of Religious Experience, but I was worried I wouldn't be able to link it back to proving the existence of God enough.
Original post by Fibsy
I was tempted to answer that question because I have read the chapter on conversion in William James' book The Varieties of Religious Experience, but I was worried I wouldn't be able to link it back to proving the existence of God enough.


My explanation for conversion experiences wasn't massively complex because I wanted to leave myself enough time to finish the rest of the essay

Pretty much, this is the essay plan that I used

Paragraph 1: Introduction - what is RE? How will this question be structured

Paragraph 2: What are conversion experiences? What are the causes of conversion experiences e.g. naturalistic causes can suggest that they would not caused by God, and therefore cannot prove God

Paragraph 3: Despite whether it is possible for conversion experiences to prove God, can God even be proven inductively or deductively?
- Deductively e.g. Descartes ontological argument but is existence a predicate?
- Inductively e.g. Eshcatological verification but David Cheetham said would lead to lack of "total commitment to faith"

Paragraph 4: What is language games? How does it relate to the question? Question is essentially meaningless for trying to allow empiricsm and religious belief language games to interact
Original post by De Re Publica
How did people find that??


I found the questions a bit too broad, so much you could speak about but in Order to get marks the selected material will have to have great a01 as well as a02
Original post by 09AmyApril
I found the questions a bit too broad, so much you could speak about but in Order to get marks the selected material will have to have great a01 as well as a02


What questions did you do??
I did 1 & 3
1: talked about how religious lang can be used in intro e.g performatively. Then went on to logical pos, saying it was overall successful but verification is not itself synthetic or analytic. Also talked about Flew's falsification.

3: basically outlined diff types of religious ex in intro and William James, criticised his accounts but said voices and visions were convincing so overall likely
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by De Re Publica
What questions did you do??


Language games: verification, language games, symbols: then used law to critique language games and Russell and the impossibility of dialogue due to subjectivity to critique symbols

Miracles: wiles Hume Holland and Aquinas and Dawkins and Swinburne to cirque
I did 1 and 3 and thought it went well. But when I finished and spoke to others I think I've done it wrong. For 1- I spoke about verification principle- Ayer, waismann and Wittgenstein and John hick (as a criticism) and had loads of arguments for an against. Question 3- what a conversion experience is, how it's simply product of the mind, Saul paul conversion and whether that could prove God. Then c s Lewis and criticisms such as Starbuck and Freud etc. Really worried because I need a B and got a B last year
Reply 39
Avatar for caramt98
caramt98
I did Questions 1 and 2, but I'm feeling less confident about my answers after seeing everyone else's...yikes

For Question 1, I focused entirely on logical positivism and the ideas put forwards by the Vienna circle (verification/falsification principles etc), and its critics/criticisms for my counter argument (Swinburne, Hare, Hick with eschatological verification). I'd thought about talking about Language Games, but I'd hoped a thorough look at religious language would do - maybe not though.

I was really short on time with the miracles question and ended up using/critically assessing criticisms put forward by Hume and Flew. I'd intended to talk about Wiles too but just didn't have enough time and wanted a decent conclusion to end with. I'm really not sure I went about the paper the right way now, so I'm a little worried.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you