[Trailblazer]

(Original post by Unique..)
he was a hybrid of Dualism and Materialist views

You could argue "substance dualism" or "materialism"

There is a debate to be had because many of Aristotle's writings on the subject have been destroyed or lost in translation

[Unique..]

(Original post by raaachek)
Damn it... Think you're right.

Aristotle isn't a dualist but people can argue he is in the book it says he is neither dulist nor materalist and that makes sense even doe he says that the body and soul cannot be separated he believes that the souls ability to reason survives death confuses people and we question whether he is a dulist hence no ones wrong all depend on how you worded and argued the point So Dw im sure you'll me Ok

[ManPowa]

(Original post by Unique..)
I should have done islam did you have a choice it seem's like really interesting

Our school do Islam and Ethics. Islam specification is beautiful. AS is very easy hence the highest grade boundaries out of the R.e lot( 57/58 for an A) and in A2, you learn about the wars of expansion, sharia law, quran, sufism, shia-sunni split and explaining it all in a scholarly way from two sides (hence the analysis) and we also learn about surah 4 from the quraan which is about women and its importance now. Absolutely loved Islam A -level. Benefited immensely compared to lets say ethics esp A2, really despised A2.

[Unique..]

(Original post by Trailblazer)
This exam has been bugging at me for a while since I did it, out of insecurity really. I walked out of the exam with a smile on my face given that the questions were nice and the timing was okay.

Philosophy - I did 1. Wittgenstein and 2. Dawkins/Aristotle

1. Intro outlined that Wittgenstein's religious language game theory is ultimately successful. Outlined Wittgenstein's argument - that meaning is ultimately all a matter of perspective, and that religion therefore is meaningful to those who use it. Religion has such a profound effect on people's lives that it is rather ignorant to suggest otherwise. A02: Then proceeded to discuss how ultimately the language games are a philosophically sound conclusion. However, there is the dangerous implication of Fiedism; why should religion be exempt from the normal rules of empirical justification?

Ayer's challenge via weak verification - statements describing the nature of a transcendent deity can have no literal significance. In the factual sense religious statements are nonsense. They may be of personal significance, yet in the wider logical sense they are conclusively meaningless unless verifiable.

A02 - verification is convincing to us atheists and those of reason. It in the end however misses the point and commits an oversimplification. It still doesn't change the fact that these statements of nonsense have such personal significance, and are therefore still meaningful. Meaning at the end of the day is a personal, subjective concept. Religious statements are indeed "bliks" they are irrational claims with no proper justification. This view arises however from one's own perspective, and is essentially an arbitrary decision on my part.

Conclusion - LGT does allow religious statements to have personal meaning. Science and reason can't change this, therefore we shouldn't waste our time on it.

2. Dawkins - Essentially outline the two theories then contrast to determine which is superior - monism v materialism, survival suit, "life force". Favour Dawkins due to being more modern and not written by a scientifically ignorant man in a loin cloth. Both however in their conclusions on the body/soul identity make assumptions which hitherto are unproven; nothing to stop "survival machines" having "life forces". In the end I sided with Dawkins on an empirical technicality rather than its merits as a philosophical argument; the burden of proof lies with Aristotle, otherwise all his claims about the five faculties are simply explained by the brain - the teapot argument.

Well done the questions were easy i just didn't have time to conclude and i couldn't choose between Wittgenstein's and Religious experience i wish i did Q1 i had so much too write.

Did you mention D.Z Phillips and his criticism on Language Games otherwise spot on for comparing his theory with Verification and oh did you mention his quote where of one cannot speak one must remain silent how the logical positivist thought of it as suggesting religious language to be meaningless ..

Anyway Good luck I bet you,,ve done Great Don't worry about it

[Unique..]

(Original post by ManPowa)
Our school do Islam and Ethics. Islam specification is beautiful. AS is very easy hence the highest grade boundaries out of the R.e lot( 57/58 for an A) and in A2, you learn about the wars of expansion, sharia law, quran, sufism, shia-sunni split and explaining it all in a scholarly way from two sides (hence the analysis) and we also learn about surah 4 from the quraan which is about women and its importance now. Absolutely loved Islam A -level. Benefited immensely compared to lets say ethics esp A2, really despised A2.

Wow i would have loved that the debates and essay on Islamic questions would be really interesting.
The grade boundaries are bloody High 57/ 58 whoa what did you get ?? i hope you done alright

[Unique..]

(Original post by ManPowa)
Our school do Islam and Ethics. Islam specification is beautiful. AS is very easy hence the highest grade boundaries out of the R.e lot( 57/58 for an A) and in A2, you learn about the wars of expansion, sharia law, quran, sufism, shia-sunni split and explaining it all in a scholarly way from two sides (hence the analysis) and we also learn about surah 4 from the quraan which is about women and its importance now. Absolutely loved Islam A -level. Benefited immensely compared to lets say ethics esp A2, really despised A2.

So did you have do to Religious Ethics to then ??

[Trailblazer]

(Original post by Unique..)
Well done the questions were easy i just didn't conclude and i couldn't choose between Wittgenstein's and Religious experience i wish i did it i had so much too write.

Did you mention D.Z Phillips and his criticism on Language Games otherwise spot on for comparing his theory with Verification and oh did you mention his quote where of one cannot speak one must remain silent how the logical positivist thought of it as suggesting religious language to be meaningless ..

Anyway Good luck a bet you,,ve done Great Don't worry about it

Thank you I didn't mention D.Z. Phillips by name. My first analysis of the language games was essentially his argument though wasn't it? I didn't throw that quote from Wittgenstein's earlier work. This is where the insecurity comes from; typing out what I wrote though makes me feel less worried. I think perhaps I might have gotten lazy, I was so happy about the questions.

I looked at the conversion question, and decided that it wasn't as good. It was still a great question though.

The first question will probably get a higher mark I think. Ethics on the whole seemed better, which questions did you do for that?

[TheLocomotive]

(Original post by lighterthanAyer)
Yeah I don't think its ever come up I started by just outlining language game theory. Then I went on about how Ayer and verification attacks it (can't verify language within the game/ religious language). But I criticised that saying verification isn't very scientific since science involves falsifications too.

Then I used falsification against LGT, since you can't falsify statements within a language game. Talked about how language games overlap , ie Religion language game with Science Language game- so there is a degree of scrutiny and analysis even if its not complete falsification. Also talked about how meaning of religious language isn't about objective truths; catholic church even teaches that Creation is a myth with hidden truths.

At the end I used Wittgenstein's own Picture Theory of language from Tractatus against LGT, saying how language can only picture the world. Went on about how that's too limiting and how abstract concepts like aesthetics and religion impact society blah blah... in the end language game theory is a strong one for supporting meaning in Religious language.

Sorry for the long essay lol

-massive sigh of relief- You wrote the general format I did xD

Though I didn't talk about falsification but I covered language games and verification in more detail and did as much A02 analysis as I could.

Hope I've done enough for an A :£

[Unique..]

(Original post by Trailblazer)
Thank you I didn't mention D.Z. Phillips by name. My first analysis of the language games was essentially his argument though wasn't it? I didn't throw that quote from Wittgenstein's earlier work. This is where the insecurity comes from; typing out what I wrote though makes me feel less worried. I think perhaps I might have gotten lazy, I was so happy about the questions.

I looked at the conversion question, and decided that it wasn't as good. It was still a great question though.

The first question will probably get a higher mark I think. Ethics on the whole seemed better, which questions did you do for that?

See i really regret not doing Wittgenstein i did conversions instead
and for ethics i did the conscience question and environmental ethics but i feel like i should have done business i knew both really well all the questions on the ethics paper where good ... what did you choose from the ethics paper ?

[ManPowa]

(Original post by Unique..)
So did you have do to Religious Ethics to then ??

In ethics yes. we just explain Islam as our religious ethic question.

[Trailblazer]

(Original post by Unique..)
See i really regret not doing Wittgenstein i did conversions instead
and for ethics i did the conscience question and environmental ethics but i feel like i should have done business i knew both really well all the questions on the ethics paper where good ... what did you choose from the ethics paper ?

I went for 1. Butler and Meta-Ethics. Both I thought were really expansive questions. I can't remember ethics as well, probably because I wrote more.

Question 1 was effectively explaining, then rejecting Butler's claim through Piaget and Fromm's theories on conscience, supported via evidence such as moral diversity, cases of feral children and attitudes to marriage in cultures. Human morality and our sense of right and wrong is ultimately too subjective and determined by environment to be innate - it does not "magesterially assert itself". One's moral compass is instilled by upbringing and circumstance, and without these influences we all ultimately would be animals. Butler was writing at a time when we knew virtually nothing about child development, or psychology. It was also seen as okay for people to keep African slaves

Question 2 - There can be no objective meaning for moral statements. Opened with an explanation of naturalism - e.g. the 10 commandments. Shredded naturalism with Hume's "is""ought" problem - its a logical fallacy. Proposed emotivism as the only viable alternative. Asserted in A02 that emotivism is correct, ethical statements can have no objective meaning because we can never come to any absolute cognitive meaning about what is right and wrong. Acknowledged however that things become dangerous, and put forward G.E. Moore's intuitionism. That based on intuition we can come to definitions on what moral statements mean. Shredded this in A02 however as illogical. You cannot base morality on something as loose as intuitionist. Human morality is just too diverse to sustain any objective answer to what moral statements mean - e.g. my attitude to capital punishment v a Texan's.Christian marriage v Muslim marriage

Conclusion - there can never be an objective definition to moral statements. We must work on a case by case basis to decide what right and wrong is, based on our human feelings - which is ultimately the only viable approach to morality.

I think this went better, I may or may not be wrong; speculating is pretty useless.

[raaachek]

(Original post by Unique..)
Aristotle isn't a dualist but people can argue he is in the book it says he is neither dulist nor materalist and that makes sense even doe he says that the body and soul cannot be separated he believes that the souls ability to reason survives death confuses people and we question whether he is a dulist hence no ones wrong all depend on how you worded and argued the point So Dw im sure you'll me Ok

Thanks for all your information, Unique..

[tdkr]

(Original post by Trailblazer)
Question 2 - There can be no objective meaning for moral statements. Opened with an explanation of naturalism - e.g. the 10 commandments. Shredded naturalism with Hume's "is""ought" problem - its a logical fallacy. Proposed emotivism as the only viable alternative. Asserted in A02 that emotivism is correct, ethical statements can have no objective meaning because we can never come to any absolute cognitive meaning about what is right and wrong. Acknowledged however that things become dangerous, and put forward G.E. Moore's intuitionism. That based on intuition we can come to definitions on what moral statements mean. Shredded this in A02 however as illogical. You cannot base morality on something as loose as intuitionist. Human morality is just too diverse to sustain any objective answer to what moral statements mean - e.g. my attitude to capital punishment v a Texan's.Christian marriage v Muslim marriage

Conclusion - there can never be an objective definition to moral statements. We must work on a case by case basis to decide what right and wrong is, based on our human feelings - which is ultimately the only viable approach to morality.

I think this went better, I may or may not be wrong; speculating is pretty useless.

did you not put forth RM Hare's Prescriptivism too ?

[rwoodhard1]

[QUOTE=Trailblazer;37977340]I went for 1. Butler and Meta-Ethics. Both I thought were really expansive questions. I can't remember ethics as well, probably because I wrote more.

Question 1 was effectively explaining, then rejecting Butler's claim through Piaget and Fromm's theories on conscience, supported via evidence such as moral diversity, cases of feral children and attitudes to marriage in cultures. Human morality and our sense of right and wrong is ultimately too subjective and determined by environment to be innate - it does not "magesterially assert itself". One's moral compass is instilled by upbringing and circumstance, and without these influences we all ultimately would be animals. Butler was writing at a time when we knew virtually nothing about child development, or psychology. It was also seen as okay for people to keep African slaves

How much detail did you go into when outlining Butler's theory? I've seen stuff about his 5 sermons on here which I didn't even get taught... instead looked to compare Butler with other theories of conscience. Do we think lack of detail in outlining his theory at the start of the essay is a problem?

[rwoodhard1]

*you think it is a problem

[swiftylol]

(Original post by rwoodhard1)
How much detail did you go into when outlining Butler's theory? I've seen stuff about his 5 sermons on here which I didn't even get taught... instead looked to compare Butler with other theories of conscience. Do we think lack of detail in outlining his theory at the start of the essay is a problem?

I hope not, I did the same thing as you; didn't spend time outlining his theory but instead I just compared it to the others while rejecting it.

[rwoodhard1]

(Original post by swiftylol)
I hope not, I did the same thing as you; didn't spend time outlining his theory but instead I just compared it to the others while rejecting it.

That's good to hear. Came out the exam thinking that question went well but then saw all the detail people had put in their answers to it and got a bit insecure. Good luck with the results

[Trailblazer]

(Original post by tdkr)
did you not put forth RM Hare's Prescriptivism too ?

[QUOTE=rwoodhard1;37981994]

(Original post by Trailblazer)
I went for 1. Butler and Meta-Ethics. Both I thought were really expansive questions. I can't remember ethics as well, probably because I wrote more.

Question 1 was effectively explaining, then rejecting Butler's claim through Piaget and Fromm's theories on conscience, supported via evidence such as moral diversity, cases of feral children and attitudes to marriage in cultures. Human morality and our sense of right and wrong is ultimately too subjective and determined by environment to be innate - it does not "magesterially assert itself". One's moral compass is instilled by upbringing and circumstance, and without these influences we all ultimately would be animals. Butler was writing at a time when we knew virtually nothing about child development, or psychology. It was also seen as okay for people to keep African slaves

How much detail did you go into when outlining Butler's theory? I've seen stuff about his 5 sermons on here which I didn't even get taught... instead looked to compare Butler with other theories of conscience. Do we think lack of detail in outlining his theory at the start of the essay is a problem?

I didn't bother with prescriptivism. You only have 40 minutes after planning and I didn't think it was necessary. The focus on the question was on objective meaning rather than usage.

For top answers the examiners look for "relevant and appropriately selected factual material" and also a demonstration of understanding. Its no use reeling off everything you know about Butler if it isn't all focused on the question. I hadn't heard of the five sermons but I essentially outlined what they say via my knowledge of Butler's theory. I wouldn't worry about it because "five sermons" isn't actually in the textbook.

"magisterially exerts itself" is a direct quote from the sermons which I used.

[tdkr]

[QUOTE=Trailblazer;37982748]

(Original post by rwoodhard1)

I didn't bother with prescriptivism. You only have 40 minutes after planning and I didn't think it was necessary. The focus on the question was on objective meaning rather than usage.

true but you could have used prescriptivism as an additional alternative view to argue that moral statements have a prescriptive meaning rather than an objective or emotive one, and then evaluate it in the face of intuition/emotivist views in relation to the question.

[Alevelsareboring]

(Original post by Unique..)
Don't worry it depends on what got on AS and also if you did dawkins Ao1 and two you can get a C i fink in that essay but it all depends on the examiner also they combine both the essay points together to give you an overall grade you can still get an ok grade imagine if you got an A star in one essay and in the Body soul you got a C over all you can get a B .

Also a girl in my class left out an essay only did a paragraph because she ran out of time and she still got an A .. Dw because weve all made silly mistakes and Hope fullly Good Luck and youve done ok

Thanks