[Pseudo-truth]

(Original post by Rhee_x)
I think it depends on when your other exams are and how much you hate political. I really really hated it and didn't understand it at all (as in nothing). Moral philosophy is easier in my opinion because there are more scholars and arguments to use, whereas with political I found so much of it to be very generalised without many scholars or clear arguments. There are also some really good books for moral (not many good ones for political) the one I've been using is the one by Philosophy in Focus and it's really helpful.

It's up to you really, you could look at some of the moral philosophy and see if it seems easier? If you don't have any books there online resources on the Routledge website might be helpful.

Thanks, I might just do that I have no other exams this June besides philosophy, so I'll have a flick through moral and see if it's any better. Literally, neither me nor the rest of my class can make any sense of it, and we're not thick. And I agree with you about the whole lack of clear-cut arguments... It's really hard to write a focussed essay on some of the topics. Sigh.

[Ttorria]

For anyone doing religion, can someone explain to me in really simple terms what the term "explaining away" is. I get the sociological and psychological explainations but not what it actually means to explain it away. Thanks

[Rhee_x]

(Original post by CanHeTell)
Oh! I call it 'making sense of religion'. My teacher taught us the Reason and Faith stuff really well so I think that's why I prefer it.

It looks okay. It's kind of obviously about the Cosmological Argument so it seems quite contained. When I first saw the 'difference between a man who eats little and sees God and the man who drinks much a sees snakes' question I got kinda scared... the quote ones are off-putting but I think they can be interesting. Although I think I have a fear of questions that look like paragraphs! Another pattern is there seems to be one quote one and one 'assess' one. Not that it makes a whole lot of difference overall.

Going back to applied ethics... have you learnt more than one theory? I really need to practise one with applied in!

I only did one but wasn't sure if I was supposed to be doing more than 1. I agreee I'm not sure how to link it in.

[JustCharley]

Very jealous of everyone doing moral and religion, SO much more simple than philosophy of mind and political. I do RS as well, so the other two would've been a lot easier for me to do instead of political and mind, but I don't trust myself to learn them properly on my own :P

Anyone got any question predictions/useful notes or whatever for mind or political?

[lifegoeson11]

was wondering does anyone have any notes on reason and faith. or can anyone explain it in simple terms?

[rlwat]

(Original post by Ttorria)
For anyone doing religion, can someone explain to me in really simple terms what the term "explaining away" is. I get the sociological and psychological explainations but not what it actually means to explain it away. Thanks

I interpreted this to mean that religion can be explained away by psychology/society. In other words, sociologists and psychologists are explaining why we have a thing such as religion, and are doing so by saying it is a psychological thing, or it has come about as a result of society. Thus they are saying religion(and everything that comes with it, such as God etc) isn't real.

I don't know if I'm right though and I don't know if ive explained that very well!

[LRodel]

Hey people, I'm doing Philosophy of Mind, Epistemology and Metaphysics, and Plato!
Swamped with revision at the moment... can anyone help me with the Epiphenomenalist response to Anomalous Monism? Also I'm basically struggling with the non-reductive physicalist theories and all of the stuff that comes with it, i.e. supervenience, emergence, etc.

Epistemology and metaphysics is fine, as is Plato... I just don't know how I'm going to cram it all into my head by June 14th! AGHHH!!!

[graceburch]

Hello does anyone have any notes for political and or moral philosophy? I need to get a low A to secure an A over all, so kinda worried as I find both topics quite hard to write about especially political. I wish I was doing religion as that really appeals to me... I am even thinking about learning religion myself. If I answered a question from another topic that wouldn't matter right, because you are not entered for the specific sub topic but the exam in general? Good luck to everybody anyway, not long now Also I am doing Mill On Liberty for Unit 4 erghhh!

[JustCharley]

(Original post by LRodel)
Hey people, I'm doing Philosophy of Mind, Epistemology and Metaphysics, and Plato!
Swamped with revision at the moment... can anyone help me with the Epiphenomenalist response to Anomalous Monism? Also I'm basically struggling with the non-reductive physicalist theories and all of the stuff that comes with it, i.e. supervenience, emergence, etc.

Epistemology and metaphysics is fine, as is Plato... I just don't know how I'm going to cram it all into my head by June 14th! AGHHH!!!

I'm also doing mind. What textbook are you using? I find the AQA one alone to not be enough to cover the topics in a way that you could write a good essay about. If you can get hold of "An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind" by K.T Maslin it's a REALLY helpful book. Explains stuff well and actually reads like a proper argument so is good for writing essays. Failing that, the textbook for the old version of the course, which Maslin also writes in, is good for mind. Not as thorough as Maslin's own book, but still better than AQA.

[LRodel]

(Original post by JustCharley)
I'm also doing mind. What textbook are you using? I find the AQA one alone to not be enough to cover the topics in a way that you could write a good essay about. If you can get hold of "An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind" by K.T Maslin it's a REALLY helpful book. Explains stuff well and actually reads like a proper argument so is good for writing essays. Failing that, the textbook for the old version of the course, which Maslin also writes in, is good for mind. Not as thorough as Maslin's own book, but still better than AQA.

I didn't even bother buying the AQA book this year because it so awful. I've got the Lacewing book. Its alright... not great, but alright. Do you think it's worth buying that book so close to the exam?

[JustCharley]

(Original post by LRodel)
I didn't even bother buying the AQA book this year because it so awful. I've got the Lacewing book. Its alright... not great, but alright. Do you think it's worth buying that book so close to the exam?

I would if I were you, I really don't like Lacewing either. I see no reason as to why you wouldn't want to do whatever you could to better your chances. What I tend to do is just read the relevant pages from Maslin according to what the specification requires and compare it and try incorporate into what the AQA textbook says, to flesh it out usefully.

[JustCharley]

Anybody know how important it is that we know the details between a type-type and token-token identity theory of mind? Or is it just more important to understand the objections and replies to mind/brain identity theory? Because learning exactly what type type and token token are is literally frying my brain.

[Rhee_x]

With Moral Philosophy, in the Moral decisions question, if it does not state you need to apply the theories to a practical problem (such as in 2010) does that mean you don't need to use one? Or should you use it whether it states it or not?

[rlwat]

"The argument from religious experience is the best argument of all the arguments for the existence of God" (50)

In this question, does anybody know if you would have to include cosmology or just analyse religious experience?

[angel_xx]

I'm doing Political & Moral for Unit 3 and Descartes for Unit 4. I have absolutely no hope for Philosophy this year

How do you guys revise for Philosophy?

I've done my notes and now I'm just writing up answers to all the past paper questions. How many pages do you guys usually write? My teacher says you should write about 7 to 8 sides for each question (unit 3) Not sure I'll be able to write that much in 1 hour. I find it really hard to keep to the time limit, I'm really worried I won't be able to finish my answer in the exam Is it just me or is 1 hour just not enough for a 50 mark question?

Would love to post up my notes on here if you guys need it, but not sure how to? Help please?
I doubt you'd find them useful anyway LOL they're sort of half in my own words and half copied from the Lacewing book...

[Gibbers]

(Original post by rlwat)
"The argument from religious experience is the best argument of all the arguments for the existence of God" (50)

In this question, does anybody know if you would have to include cosmology or just analyse religious experience?

No don't mention it in detail, just highlight some of the faults with it and the ontological/trademark in a quick intro then get into the main body of the text which is evaluation of the argument from religious experience.

Quick plan for Religious Experience essay:

1) Present the argument - analogy between perception and religious experience and how this leads to the conclusion that religious experience is veridical and so supports God's existence

2) Outline William James' consistent categories of Religious experience (ineffibility, noetic, transience, passivity) and how these properties suggest that a religious experience puts us in touch with a higher power

3) Swinburne: Principle of Credulity
- Unreliable?
- Impossible?
- Evidence to the contrary?
- Alternative account?

4) Reply: Persinger's 'God Helmet' experiments give an alternate account as the Helmet seemed to cause the subject to enter an 'altered state' similar to a 'religious experience'.

5) Critique Persinger, e.g. His results have not been replicated in future experiments.

6) Attack Argument from Religious experience on the basis that the analogy between perception and religious experiences is weak
- Perception is universal whereas RE is private
- Perception has capacity for inter-subjective agreement

7) Reply: flawed to say frequency determines reliability (e.g. few people can identify a 17th century piece of furniture but we don't see them as unreliable because the knowledge isn't universal, so just because few people have RE's doesn't mean they are unreliable)

8) Response: The reply misses the point, it is fallacious (and irrational) to suggest that we take RE's as veridical until there is a reason to doubt them, we see perception as accurate because it is open to everyone whereas RE's are private.

9) Lack of Uniformity in Experiences - Different religions = Differing Experiences = Differing truth claims = Incoherence

10) Reply: John Hick - Blind Men and Elephant example

(if time)

11) Freud's Psychological Analysis of RE's (kind of long to put down here but essentially they are intense hallucinations from the unconscious wish humans have for protection from the uncontrollable forces of nature)

12) Jame's Response to Freud
- Freud commits Genetic Fallacy - psychological origin doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

or you can use Karl Popper and Falsification to highlight Freud's theories as pseudo-science due to his lack of precise predictive claims and his theories closure in the face of falsification and verification.


This is a really rough plan I have in my head for a generic RE essay, it's probably a bit too much to be honest, but you can always adjust it to the question. I'm putting it down for my own revision to be honest. Even so, hope I answered your question at the start.

[JustCharley]

(Original post by angel_xx)
I'm doing Political & Moral for Unit 3 and Descartes for Unit 4. I have absolutely no hope for Philosophy this year

How do you guys revise for Philosophy?

I've done my notes and now I'm just writing up answers to all the past paper questions. How many pages do you guys usually write? My teacher says you should write about 7 to 8 sides for each question (unit 3) Not sure I'll be able to write that much in 1 hour. I find it really hard to keep to the time limit, I'm really worried I won't be able to finish my answer in the exam Is it just me or is 1 hour just not enough for a 50 mark question?

Would love to post up my notes on here if you guys need it, but not sure how to? Help please?
I doubt you'd find them useful anyway LOL they're sort of half in my own words and half copied from the Lacewing book...

Post them deffo for Descartes and political. To attach stuff you go to the "Additional options" bit on the page where you write your post. It's below the bottom line of smileys.

[rlwat]

(Original post by Gibbers)
No don't mention it in detail, just highlight some of the faults with it and the ontological/trademark in a quick intro then get into the main body of the text which is evaluation of the argument from religious experience.
.

Thank you, that is probably what I would have done! Your plan looks really good and detailed! Quite different to the kinds of things I have in my revision!

[conorordan]

I've just finished my Philosophy of Religion notes so I'll attach them here, would love it if people could share theirs too so I could see if I'm missing out on anything I/my teacher might not have covered.

What resources are people using to revise? Aside from class notes and teacher handouts I've been using the AQA textbook (a piece of ****e btw), Lacewing, and 'Philosophy of Religion' by Gerald Jones.

[angel_xx]

OK here are my notes for Political Philosophy
Feel free to point out any mistakes/improvements
I'll post the others separately.