[s_axo]

HAI.

Right, there seems to be a total lack of people on the AQA board for this exam soooooooooooooooooooo, I thought we could do some practise papers here? eg someone sets a question and we all answer it and give feedback. I did this for psycholology (PYSA1) and recieved 100%.

Anyone in?

[FudgeMonkeys]

I'm in

Are you doing both units in May or just one?

[sarahlabrosse]

I'm in, i have a bunch of A*-A answers that got given to me in class too! yay!

also, im so glad someone one else on here aknoeledges this eexam even exists! yous AS or A2?

[s_axo]

(Original post by FudgeMonkeys)
I'm in

Are you doing both units in May or just one?

Both! Reason and experience, God and the world, free will and determinism, and persons. PHEW.

(Original post by sarahlabrosse)
I'm in, i have a bunch of A*-A answers that got given to me in class too! yay!

also, im so glad someone one else on here aknoeledges this eexam even exists! yous AS or A2?

OH WOW. could you possibly attach them? in every past paper i do i get 25-27/30 but just ant some reassurance! AS you?

[sarahlabrosse]

(Original post by s_axo)
Both! Reason and experience, God and the world, free will and determinism, and persons. PHEW.



OH WOW. could you possibly attach them? in every past paper i do i get 25-27/30 but just ant some reassurance! AS you?

Are we on about the same exam? Mine are out of 35?!

[sarahlabrosse]

omg, i'm on OCR! hahahaha, im such a ****! sorry guys! *leaves quietly*

[FudgeMonkeys]

(Original post by s_axo)
Both! Reason and experience, God and the world, free will and determinism, and persons. PHEW.

I'm doing why should I be governed rather than persons, but other than that they're the same units as you. So we should have loads of stuff to swap

(Original post by sarahlabrosse)
omg, i'm on OCR! hahahaha, im such a ****! sorry guys! *leaves quietly*

I swear sometimes I think there are about 20 people doing AQA in the whole country!

[Betelgeux]

Hey man, you're doing the English course but in your section on God and the world do you cover Descartes? I need help on Meditation 6 and his trademark. Especially evaluation on whether God is successful in proving ****.

[s_axo]

(Original post by FudgeMonkeys)
I'm doing why should I be governed rather than persons, but other than that they're the same units as you. So we should have loads of stuff to swap




I swear sometimes I think there are about 20 people doing AQA in the whole country!

Hahaha! Totally concur. How much revision have you got left to do? For reason and exp I just have conceptual schemes, god and the world just the theodicies, and free will and determinism compatiblism and responsibility stuff! xx

[s_axo]

(Original post by Betelgeux)
Hey man, you're doing the English course but in your section on God and the world do you cover Descartes? I need help on Meditation 6 and his trademark. Especially evaluation on whether God is successful in proving ****.

Hiya!!! I sadly don't (sad cos im a BIG Descartes fan, SO readable!!). I think you are doing the 'idea of god' instead :P xx

[FudgeMonkeys]

(Original post by Betelgeux)
Hey man, you're doing the English course but in your section on God and the world do you cover Descartes? I need help on Meditation 6 and his trademark. Especially evaluation on whether God is successful in proving ****.

Sorry, I wouldn't know how to help you with that. We do study Descartes but I think it's different stuff to what you're doing.

(Original post by s_axo)
Hahaha! Totally concur. How much revision have you got left to do? For reason and exp I just have conceptual schemes, god and the world just the theodicies, and free will and determinism compatiblism and responsibility stuff! xx

Reason and experience: Conceptual schemes
God and the world: All this business about "seeing-as" and a bit on language games
FW&D: Basically everything. I missed about 90% of my lessons on this so it's not even about revising, I'm still trying to learn the content for the first time!

[s_axo]

(Original post by FudgeMonkeys)


Reason and experience: Conceptual schemes
God and the world: All this business about "seeing-as" and a bit on language games
FW&D: Basically everything. I missed about 90% of my lessons on this so it's not even about revising, I'm still trying to learn the content for the first time!

We seem pretty much on the same, minus FWD! if you need any help, let me know!! ill be more than happy to give you some of A grade answers I've done etc xx

[FrankieG95]

I'm in!

I do Reason & Exp, Why Should I Be Moral, F/W & Determinism, and Knowledge of the External World.

I actually got full marks for 3 of my Reason & Experience answers - one 30 mark question, two 15 mark questions, if anyone wants to see them, just feel free to ask.
Could do with some help on Knowledge of the External World though, anyone got any advice or revision on it?

Also, Conceptual Schemes is a right b****!

[s_axo]

(Original post by FrankieG95)
I'm in!

I do Reason & Exp, Why Should I Be Moral, F/W & Determinism, and Knowledge of the External World.

I actually got full marks for 3 of my Reason & Experience answers - one 30 mark question, two 15 mark questions, if anyone wants to see them, just feel free to ask.
Could do with some help on Knowledge of the External World though, anyone got any advice or revision on it?

Also, Conceptual Schemes is a right b****!

Hola!!! Could i possibly take a look at your reason and exp questions? would be big help!!! xx

[DeadGirlsDance]

I wish my sixthform did a proper Philosophy course :/

[FrankieG95]

(Original post by s_axo)
Hola!!! Could i possibly take a look at your reason and exp questions? would be big help!!! xx

Yeah of course. I'll type them up for you in a few hours xx

[s_axo]

Hi guys!! it seems that most of us are doing reason and experience soooooooooo wanna do a group question?! in which I set a question and we all respond


SO, the question....

"Everything that we know is derived and justified by sense experience" Discuss (30).

Would be nice

[FrankieG95]

(Original post by s_axo)
Hi guys!! it seems that most of us are doing reason and experience soooooooooo wanna do a group question?! in which I set a question and we all respond


SO, the question....

"Everything that we know is derived and justified by sense experience" Discuss (30).

Would be nice

Just for the sake of it being a really long day, I can't physically be arsed doing the actual essay so I'll just bullet point what I'd write.

Introduction
-Reference to Empiricism, why it is philosophically significant
-Including Philosophers that I'll use in my essay
-Outline how I'm going to argue (whether I agree with the quote or not, which I do)

Argument 1
John Locke's - Tabula Rasa (mind as a blank state)
Counter Argument from Rationalists: Innate Knowledge, people's concepts and capacities develop etc
Defeating the counter-argument to support my argument: John Locke's "Children and Idiots"

Argument 2
-Hume's Missing Shade Argument
-Counter Argument from Rationalists:
If we can know the missing shade of blue independent of sense experience, then we can know other concepts independent of sensory experience
-Defeating the counter-argument to support my argument:
We have sense experience from the other colours, this is not based on a priori/innate knowledge.

Argument 3
Locke and Hume - Acquiring concepts through sensory experience
-Counter Argument from Rationalists:
Descartes - Innate Ideas - Meditations - The Trademark Argument
-Defeating the Counter Argument to support my argument:
Hume - God is a complex idea based on opinion and knowledge learnt through experience, so the idea or god niether proves or disproves the idea of God (Note: Hume was an atheist, and he does disprove God, I just haven't got round to reading that)

Conclusion
-Locke is right
-Hume is right
-Descartes can't prove a f****** thing except that he is thinking, so he exists and comes up with dualism lol, which is utter b***s***.

Obviously I struggle with conclusions :P ^

[FudgeMonkeys]

(Original post by FrankieG95)
Conclusion
-Locke is right
-Hume is right
-Descartes can't prove a f****** thing except that he is thinking, so he exists and comes up with dualism lol, which is utter b***s***.

Obviously I struggle with conclusions :P ^

Absolutely made my day

[FudgeMonkeys]

Because it's pretty much the same question every year (except that year where they probably terrified everyone with that conceptual schemes Q), I've done a really detailed plan and memorised it. So I've typed it out here and tweaked it a little to fit the question.
If you can't be bothered to read it, I honestly don't blame you.

"Everything that we know is derived and justified by sense experience"

INTRO:
• An empirical claim. Is empiricism correct?
• Different types of knowledge: synthetic, analytic, a priori, a posteriori. Debate between rationalism and empiricism is over the existence of synthetic a priori knowledge
• I am going to discuss the views of three philosophers and assess the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments
• I disagree with the original statement and agree with Descartes’ theory of how we can come across synthetic a priori knowledge
KANT:
• We know that intelligible experience is possible because we have it
• But how is it possible?
• Conceptual schemes – a set of concepts that a group of human beings have
• All humans share the same basic conceptual scheme (contains the 12 categories)
• We could not have experience at all unless we already possessed these concepts
• Causality. We are aware of the relationship between cause and effect (event A caused event B, or event B is the effect of even A). This is an a priori concept
• So not everything we know is derived and justified by sense experience

• Weaknesses:
o We don’t have knowledge of the world as it really is. Through the schemes, our minds mediate the sense data that we receive. This means that what we believe to be knowledge of the world is just an interpretation of it, and so we can never really consider it to be truth.
o We all have the same basic conceptual scheme, but do we also have different concepts in addition to this? If we don’t all have the same concepts then different people will see the world in different ways.
• Strengths:
o Empiricists are unable to fully explain how we come to be aware of things such as causation, whereas Kant can

• The argument creates a problem – it assumes that there is a truth that transcends what we believe to be knowledge. So we have no real knowledge of the world.

LOCKE:
• Tabula rasa. At birth, the mind is a blank slate. Data is then added once we begin to have sense experience
• The senses let in ideas which furnish the ‘empty cabinet’ of our mind. The mind then grows familiar with these ideas, remembers them, abstracts them, and learns names for then
• The best argument for innate ideas says that 1) There are certain truths everyone is aware of and 2) If everyone is aware, then it must be an innate truth
• Locke disagreed that if everyone is aware of something it must be innate. Perhaps it comes from sense experience
• Moreover, there are no ideas that everyone shares. Everyone must include “children and idiots”, but there is no truth that all adults, children and idiots are aware of from birth.
• Locke’s argument for innate ideas not existing is essentially that the argument in favour of their existence fails
• So everything that we know is derived and justified by sense experience

• Weaknesses:
o It would seem that the mind’s way of letting in and interpreting data is innate, but Locke never explains this. It would appear that this is an innate capability.
• Strengths:
o Locke does identify an issue with an argument for the existence of innate knowledge

• I disagree with the argument – Locke fails to fully explain away the possibility of innate ideas existing

DESCARTES:
• A priori intuition and demonstration
• It is possible to reach a priori knowledge of three claims:
o ‘I exist’ (I think therefore I am. By thinking, I am proving that my mind exists in some form)
o ‘God exists’ ( 1) The definition of God is of a perfect being. Something is not perfect if it doesn’t exist, therefore God exists. 2) The idea of God cannot have come from experience. It includes the idea of infinity, and we cannot have gained this from experience.)
o ‘A world external to my mind exists’ (We have sense experience of the things around us. Even if these things do not actually exists and are merely a hologram or trick, something is causing them so something external to my mind exists)
• So not everything that we know is derived and justified by sense experience"

• Weaknesses:
o We could come up with the idea of infinity using our experiences. We understand that some things have limits; by negating the idea of finitude and making something not finite, we can create the idea of infinity.
• Strengths:
o “I think therefore I am” is a plausible argument.

• The argument is flawed in some areas – Descartes makes incorrect assumptions about what ideas we cannot create through experiences. However, it is very difficult to argue against the claim that through introspection, we can reach an a priori claim about our own existence.

CONCLUSION:
• Sense experience cannot be the source of all knowledge
• Locke’s argument doesn’t fully explain why innate ideas can’t exist. Kant’s theory cannot be correct because it assumes we have no knowledge of the world around us.
• Descartes’ method of a priori intuition and demonstration is the most plausible theory