Edexcel Implications A2 - Ayer/Westphal/Donovan

Dear all,

If you require any help or advice on how to prepare for this paper please feel free to ask. I have taught this for the past 5 years.

Reply 1

samim_s

7

Original post by cogitoergo

Dear all,

If you require any help or advice on how to prepare for this paper please feel free to ask. I have taught this for the past 5 years.

Hi,

firstly thank you for the thread, basically im really struggling with revision for this, how do i learn the essays?? do i learn what each paragraph means one by one? (but isnt that far too time consuming) or is there any other way?

Reply 2

cogitoergo

OP

6

Hi,

I think it is important to stress that you are not expected to learn essays as you cannot predict the paragraph chosen by the examiners. It would be wise to think about the topics you have learnt during your whole course and how they can be applied to the set text.

If Ayer came up, for example, you know that his text relates primarily to religious language, however it applies to so many things beyond it!

A general structure for Ayer part (a) could be...

1) Introducting the text..'This text is taken from A.J.Ayer's 'God talk is evidently non-sense. In this passage Ayer argues...(summarise the passage then relate to the rest of Ayer as a whole).

Next paragraph
2) The context of Ayer's writings i.e. Logical Positivism and the Vienna Circle. Introduce the verification principle and the criteria by which a statement can be meaningful (analytic, synthetic, maths)...

next pargraph
3) Now pick out 3-4 key ideas from the text and relate it to other topics you have studied e.g. Language games (Aquinas, Wittgenstein, Tillich) as a critique of Ayer and those who would support Ayer (Flew et al). You could also bring in religious experiences - William James and the set text from Donovan (I-You/I-It relationship). This could be linked to Westphal, particularly Schleiermacher and the importance of 'feelings'.....what would Hume/Kant say? They would see this as the husk of religion. Think about the classical arguments for the existence of God...

This should hopefully give you some ideas. You need to remember to relate key ideas from Ayer to topics you have studied, both at AS and A2.

Reply 3

samim_s

7

Original post by cogitoergo

Hi,

I think it is important to stress that you are not expected to learn essays as you cannot predict the paragraph chosen by the examiners. It would be wise to think about the topics you have learnt during your whole course and how they can be applied to the set text.

If Ayer came up, for example, you know that his text relates primarily to religious language, however it applies to so many things beyond it!

A general structure for Ayer part (a) could be...

1) Introducting the text..'This text is taken from A.J.Ayer's 'God talk is evidently non-sense. In this passage Ayer argues...(summarise the passage then relate to the rest of Ayer as a whole).

Next paragraph
2) The context of Ayer's writings i.e. Logical Positivism and the Vienna Circle. Introduce the verification principle and the criteria by which a statement can be meaningful (analytic, synthetic, maths)...

next pargraph
3) Now pick out 3-4 key ideas from the text and relate it to other topics you have studied e.g. Language games (Aquinas, Wittgenstein, Tillich) as a critique of Ayer and those who would support Ayer (Flew et al). You could also bring in religious experiences - William James and the set text from Donovan (I-You/I-It relationship). This could be linked to Westphal, particularly Schleiermacher and the importance of 'feelings'.....what would Hume/Kant say? They would see this as the husk of religion. Think about the classical arguments for the existence of God...

This should hopefully give you some ideas. You need to remember to relate key ideas from Ayer to topics you have studied, both at AS and A2.

thank you for your reply, that claers alot of confusion for Ayer, in the first paragraph im planning on talking about his intro, then i'll bring in logical positivists and then Verification principle (synthetic and analytic statements)

what i meant by learning all the paragaphs was because the way Ayer has written it confuses me and i sometimes do not understand what he means so would it be a good idea to learn what every paragraph means? also what about the others becauses Ayer seems like an easy one to talk about interms of context but i have no idea as to what i can say for Westphal or Donovan.

Reply 4

cogitoergo

OP

6

It would be good to have an understanding of an overview of the paragraphs, but you are not expected to comment upon every single thing Ayer mentions.

As for Westphal you could do it like this....

Intro: This text is taken from Westphal's 'The emergence of modern philosophy' where he discusses the shift from political theology (talking about God) to philosophy of religion (talking about religon). Briefly mention what the paragraph is saying.

Context the enlightenment. epistemological and ecclesiastical ramifications for the Church. Define scholasticism and deism with supporting examples i.e. Aquinas and his five ways for scholasticism. Mention husk and kernel throughout.

Discovering the Husk (Kant, Schleirmacher, Hegel - a paragraph on each one, what they say and relate to other topics of study...e.g. Kant and deontology, Schleirmacher and religious experience as well as Donovan and Ayer as critque).

Discarding the husk Marx, Nietzsche, Hume - the former were more concerned about the motives of religion. A paragraph on each one, what they say and relate to other topics of study e.g. Marx and religion and morality...religion used as a form of class/social control...Hume and his argument against the C.A etc.

Rememer to bring in the other set texts also.

Reply 5

samim_s

7

Original post by cogitoergo

It would be good to have an understanding of an overview of the paragraphs, but you are not expected to comment upon every single thing Ayer mentions.

As for Westphal you could do it like this....

Intro: This text is taken from Westphal's 'The emergence of modern philosophy' where he discusses the shift from political theology (talking about God) to philosophy of religion (talking about religon). Briefly mention what the paragraph is saying.

Context the enlightenment. epistemological and ecclesiastical ramifications for the Church. Define scholasticism and deism with supporting examples i.e. Aquinas and his five ways for scholasticism. Mention husk and kernel throughout.

Discovering the Husk (Kant, Schleirmacher, Hegel - a paragraph on each one, what they say and relate to other topics of study...e.g. Kant and deontology, Schleirmacher and religious experience as well as Donovan and Ayer as critque).

Discarding the husk Marx, Nietzsche, Hume - the former were more concerned about the motives of religion. A paragraph on each one, what they say and relate to other topics of study e.g. Marx and religion and morality...religion used as a form of class/social control...Hume and his argument against the C.A etc.

Rememer to bring in the other set texts also.

thank you for the reply once again, Can you give me a brief structure for donovan aswell and what I would say for the context.

Reply 6

Megan_LT98

This is really helpful, was just wondering what to include in an part b question for westphal?

Reply 7

jenniew

this thread is so helpful!!! i've always found this exam so difficult but i'm starting to get the hang of it (a day before the exam -_-)... I will admit though i've neglected Westphal slightly because i find it so difficult :frown:

are there any websites or literally any material you could send me which can explain what you've written about up there? I know most of it briefly but i'm worried i can't answer an essay on it yet !! please it would help so much

Reply 8

angharad_jane

1

Hi, I was just wondering what you thought were the chances of Donovan coming up again. I am very concerned that with these papers being the legacy papers that they are going to throw curveballs.