AS Philosophy Exam January 2012

In terms of the ordering of the paragraph, this is pretty much what I did (I think at least - I may not be absolutely accurate in recalling them):

Introduction
Why our senses can derive all possible knowledge e.g. knowing your neighbour's door is red - non-trivial knowledge is derived a posteriori
If we had innate ideas, we'd all assent to it - which we don't, so there no innate ideas
Kant's argument on having innate knowledge of e.g. causality
How our minds augment it, therefore meaning it isn't innate

Why sensory experience could be facilitated by innate knowledge - Plato's argument about mathematical knowledge
Why this may not be purely cognitive, e.g. Meno's slaveboy could've had physical inferences from his environment e.g. one may abstract from a rock the idea of a perfect circle
But this process may be triggered by an innate recollection of the perfect shape e.g. a circle
Overall this is a compelling argument

Conclusion: Generally most ideas are derived a posteriori, but some, such as mathematical knowledge seems to be innate - so the claim is wrong.

I did it completely different:

Introduction: Assess Rationalism: A priori; Deductive; necessary e.t.c.

Mathematics: Rationalism: A priori e.t.c. Plato; numbers not from sense experience Empiricists: Relation of Ideas; logical abstraction from two sense impressions Hume tautology 7+5 another way of saying 12

Plato: Form:
Plato: Meno: Geometry: Slave boy
Phadeo: Sticks: Hume 'equality comes from sense experience'
Nietzsche: Metaphysical assertions based on one's viewpoint of the world

Descartes: Meditations
Mediation 1: Waves of doubt: Does not take doubt far enough: Wittgenstein Public Language theory
Meditation 2: Cogito ero sum: Ayer: Verifcation Principle

Leibniz: Veined Marble:

Locke: 1+1=2: Children not at stage of development: Attack Plato rather than Rationalism

Russell: 1+1=2 logical axioms

Innate Ideas: Do not know much of the world at all e.g. adding marbles in one hand and the other does not tell us anything about the concept of a marble.

Kant: Synthesis: Confusion: Quote

Conclusion: Kant: Absurd epistemological theory: Combine

I think I messed up :/

I conflicted it with immanence o_O I said about being present in a particular place conflicting with existing outside of time.

Yeah I think you're right; I think I wrongly chose transcendence I talked about this with someone else, and she thought immanence would've been more appropriate.

You'll probably still get marks for knowledge and appropriate examples.

I didnt like question A for reason and experience. ugh

It was only half a page :\
I outlined the term 'eternal' in about 5 lines; then the problem in about 5, too. I advertently didn't spend long on it, due to the fact I didn't know what to put.

I remember saying in the 'outline' paragraph, that he isn't restricted to any time period, because if he is, then he won't be able to exercise his attributes at any given time. I said the problem is that it conflicts with transcendence, because if he's going to exist within time, then he can't exist outside of the universe; it's one or the other (e.g. within or outside of the world).

How many marks would you approximate I'd get for a 10 line answer, with those points?

I liked the reason and experience questions.

I did the idea of god and got mixed up with the meanings of 'eternal' and 'everlasting' DOH!

Introspection = A priori: Tautological = Analytic
Reference both to certainty

Oh yeah, got this right too by lucky chance was like intro=inside? inside=innate? innate=rationalism/analytic/a priori truths?

Should've revised more but

I thought introspection related to Descartes' cogito ergo sum. :/

sounds like grade boundaries for Reason and Experience part 1 are deffinately gonna go down!

sounds like grade boundaries for Reason and Experience part 1 are deffinately gonna go down!

Certainly seems like it, doesn't it? I hope it does; I think quite a few people were thrown off by the A question on Reason and Experience!