Helpful stuff for A-level Philosophy/RS

This index is a work in progress.

Hi!
This is a glossary of key philosophical terms which you are expected to know for all of your A-level philosophy units, though they will be of particular use for epistemology and you are welcome to use this as a beginner’s guide to philosophical terminology even if you are not currently studying for an A-level. The content of this guide is based on the new AQA specification, which you can find here. If there are any other terms which you feel should be included here or if you would like me to clarify something, please let me know!
The bits in spoilers are just interesting addenda, not content you need to know for A-level (don’t panic!).

Assertions/claims and propositions

click here

Propositions in ethics:

Spoiler

Conditionals, antecedents and consequents

click here

For people who like grammar:

Spoiler

Proofs with conditionals:

Spoiler

Analytic vs. synthetic truth

click here

A priori vs. a posteriori

click here

Kant and synthetic a priori knowledge:

Spoiler

Necessary vs. contingent

click here

Inductive vs. deductive argument

click here

More coming soon!

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 1

Joe312

here's a common mistake my students make when doing their evaluation in Religious Studies evaluation style essays.

This isn't exactly a 'mistake' in the sense that it's false. But it does limit the essays to around a C grade.

After you've explained an idea/theory/philosopher, in most cases you should evaluate it.

The mistake is to simply bring up another idea/theory/philosopher that has a different view to the first one.

That is not evaluation. Evaluation is you saying which is right, and most importantly - why.

For example:

On the topic of Religious Experience, let's say I first explained William James' view. Then I want to evaluate James.

The bad way would simply be to bring up someone with a different view - like Dawkins. I could explain that Dawkins thinks there's no evidence that religious experiences are caused by God, so they are delusions and can be explained by science as mental illness, random brain hallucinations, fasting, drugs, alcohol, etc.

The problem is, I haven't said who I think is right, or why. I've just said:

'here is James's view. Here's dawkins' view. Dawkins thinks James is wrong.'

And that's it. That's not saying who is right let alone why!

Just adding 'Dawkins' argument is stronger as it is based on empirical evidence' would be a huge step in the right direction, though it's not nearly enough.

What is really needed are arguments which establish that one is right and the other is wrong.

For example: I could also get into a debate about whether we could have evidence of God as the cause of religious experience anyway - perhaps dawkins is wrong to look for evidence as there wouldn't be any?. Or that just because some religious experiences are caused by scientifically understandable means, that doesn't mean all are. James also made some arguments such as inviting us to consider that religious experiences occur all over the world, to tribes that have never met other tribes, and there are interesting similarities between them - that fact needs explaining - perhaps by a God or 'higher spiritual reality' as James believed.

James also pointed to the good effects of religious experiences. Religious experiences are not simply random brain hallucinations like seeing a dog in your room at night when really there isn't one or something. Religious experiences are deeply meaningful and have a profound impact on someone's life, often for the better. Why should that be? How is that the case? Again, James thought that religious experiences genuinely tapping into a higher spiritual realm was the best explanation. Though of course there could be other explanations of these things that would back up Dawkins instead.

These would all be fine arguments to make, some of which would end up pointing to that Dawkins being right, others of which would suggest James is right. Use whatever you are arguing for in the essay.

This is getting much closer to then saying who is actually right, which is what we need to do for evaluation.

To really make the evaluation perfect after doing those sorts of arguments though, it's good finally to add something about the clash in the two different perspectives from which the philosophers you are adjudicating view the world.

Dawkins represents the standard scientific view. James is a pragmatist (someone who thinks that if something is good for us, then that is reason to think it is true).

If I could say something about which of those two perspectives is correct then I would really be doing the best kind of evaluation possible.

In short, don't simply bring up different ideas/theories/philosophers one after another - use your brain to think how their views interact with each other and ultimately which one is right and most importantly - why!