OCR Philosophy and Ethics Study Group (AS & A2)

How does everyone structure their essays - is it

Intro, AO1, AO2, AO1,AO2, AO1, AO2 and conclude more or less?

I'm studying religious language at the moment, but don't fully understand the subject of symbol and myth; could someone possibly explain it to me?

Do you ever feel like if you plan and think out a question for too long you start to realise all the angles it could be approached from and end up feeling like you'd need to write a thesis to properly answer the question? Like if I really quickly plan and write an answer to the question I can do well, but if I spend a lot of time thinking about it I confuse myself on how to tackle it

Really hope it's not just me that gets this

You're over thinking it. Make a point, back it up and then counter it. Try not to get personal when answering a question. I often argue against what I believe to be the case...


Posted from TSR Mobile

I would approach this differently.

1. Explain visions and the 3 types of vision, corporeal, imaginative and intellectual.

2.Explain the psychological challenge Paul etc and asses weakness

3.Link to Swinburne's principle of credulity and question if we should believe that one has actually experienced a vision. Counter with Vardy UFO criticism then counter Vardy with Alston's views to back up Swinburne.

4. Then argue that visons can be explained in terms of psychology. Discuss and asses his view. Then explain Jungs views to suggest that psychology doesn't rule out god.

5. Finish with short paragraph using either James or Feuerbach depending on the conclusion I make.

Do you think I could get an A with that? How much freedom do you get to answer the question?

Pascal's wager simply suggests that a decision matrix means that we ought to believe than not believe in God (i.e the probability of God existing at the potential pay-offs of such are higher than the opposite). Thus, we ought to believe that God exists. It fits in because these attributes are what makes the pay off so high but there is so much material that I wouldn't worry about it too much!

Hey! This is what I worte for this question and I got a high B/low A and yeah I'm aware i haven't finished :P

.

what is everyone revising within the nature of god topic?

Okay so in brief:

Myth:
- Key proponent Bultmann
- Biblical stories/religious language may not necessarily be factually accurate, but it is a literary tool that we can use to uncover significant and meaningful truths - need to "demythologise" the Bible to discover its hidden truths.
- e.g. when looking at the creation story in Genesis, might not be true that God created the world in 6 days etc., but the meaning we gain is that he is omnipotent and involved with the world.
- someone (can't remember who) said "myth is a servant, not a master" which is a good quote to explain
- then evaluate it

Symbol:
- key proponent Tillich
- can use language to talk about God, but need to interpret it as symbolic i.e. points to something beyond itself and 'participates' in that something
- can open up new levels of reality + dimensions of the soul by using our soul to interpret the symbols
- also develop a deeper connection with God because we're not just taking the language literally at face value, but working to understand it
- pretty strong theory imo

hope this helps!

Could someone recommend the 3 easiest/best philosophy topics to revise for? Thanks in advance

I'd say attributes, miracles and religious experience - smallest topics and they link very well together though I'd suggest doing 4 incase there's a question you hate!


Posted from TSR Mobile