This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

OCR Synoptic - please please help

they aren't really available, I have a friend who si a genius and gets 55+ for all of her essays. She has lent them to me and I have been learning from the master.

But seriously the only differnece between her 55+ adn my 45s was that she had so many more criticisms of individual arguments. Also apparently my echnical language was not as good as it could have been. So brush up on these things in addition to the things that you already know from the exams last wednesday. :wink:

Reply 21

Laus

13

argh! I'm worried now. I'm pretty confident-ish on religious and ethical lang, conscience/moral arguments and free will and deter... not so confident on life after death and psycho/socio! I hope only one of those come up! or neither!

Reply 22

ChezMoi

I'm the same dont have aclue about psychology/sociology. Think im going to have to blag this exam so much. How did u lot find last weds exams?

Reply 23

Kerris007

7

I thought it was ok, but only because I'd revised the ontological argument inside out. What did you think about it??????

Reply 24

Anne_Price

With the religious/ethical language, can we apply all the stuff we learnt for the phil paper (verification principle, falsification, wittgenstein etc) to ehtical language as well? Can see how I could but wanted to check

Reply 25

Kerris007

7

I think so, but I'm not completely sure.

Reply 26

Laus

13

Speaking of ethical language - what sort of things do we really need to include/home in on? 55 out of what?! I thought the paper was out of 90! I know connections is out of 120... I think. what quests do u think are likely to come up this yr? fhs/lhglsglh lh argh!

Reply 27

Laus

13

excuse my madness.. its the stress of it all. just think itl all be over soon :smile:

how did everyone do last wed? I think mine went ok - I answered religious exp, F.principle, natural law and sexual ethics, free will and determinism. What kind of stuff did you lot include in your answers?

Reply 28

Caroline_321

Anne_Price

With the religious/ethical language, can we apply all the stuff we learnt for the phil paper (verification principle, falsification, wittgenstein etc) to ehtical language as well? Can see how I could but wanted to check

Yes, you can apply the verification principle, and conclude that both are meaningless, as it rejects all ethical, religious, artistic, poetic language, because, having no cognitive value, they cannot be verfied.

Apply the falsification theory in the same way as with religious language.

However, replies to this come from a number of critics. Braithwaite says that "theological propositions are not about facts", but prescribe moral behaviour and are non-cognitive moral discourse. This may support Hare's prescriptivism. He also talks of the oxford don example, from which he pretty much concludes that a statement doesnt have to be true for it to have meaning. I think this is the anti-realist approach? I may be wrong. This is also supported by Wittgensteins language games- they have meaning within a given community.

Not sure if this is of any help.

Reply 29

liiv

she was getting 55/60 for the individual synoptic questions. You have to answer 2 for teh total of 120 marks

Reply 30

User20906

wat does g.e moore say about ethical language, would he say it is meaningful with his idea of intuitionism? or not meaningful?

Reply 31

liiv

Moore thought that ethical language was not factual and could not be proved empirically.

I think that he would only say that ethical statements are meaningful provded that we don't propogate the naturalistic fallacy in our moral statement.

Then I get confused because he then says that the intuition could be wrong. Which in my opinion would make it meaningless.
Can anyone enlighten?

Reply 32

Flickeeby

intuitionism is non-cognitive right? So we just know what is good and what is not.. whether this be an absolute good, or a good because God commands it we don't know. maybe. GAH!

Reply 33

dameythemagikmonk

I think part of what Moore says is that we can't define what good is, but we can still through intuition recognise something that is good.

Reply 34

User20906

i got it down in my notes as cognitive

Reply 35

dameythemagikmonk

I think the emotivism, prescriptivism and intuitionism stuff is all non-cognitive; basically saying the statements can't be proven true or false

Reply 36

Helena224

But arent prescriptivism, emotivism and intuitionism arguments for ethical language being meaningless?? Like for example with intuitionism, what about how we cannot form an evaluation from a statement of fact, such as goodness. Good is good in its self which is saying that it is factual and must be cognitive?? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH im confused?? :confused:

Reply 37

Kerris007

7

Logical positivism def. says that moral statements are meaningless. But then emotivism, says that they express the feelings of the person, so are they still meaningless. Same with prescriptivism & intuitionism, do they think moral statements are meaningless?????

This is driving me crazy!!!! :mad:

Reply 38

dameythemagikmonk

they're meaningless when the verification principle is applied i think. if they're non-cognitive, its saying they arent open to proof, so the verification principle would render them meaningless. gaaa im confused now too!

Reply 39

Kerris007

7

Found it:
Logical Positivism= Meaningless= Non Cognitive
Prescriptivism= Meaningful
Emotivism= Meaningful
Intuitionism- Can be meaningful- depends on situation, we use our intuition to decide= Cognitive

OCR Synoptic - please please help

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you