[AlphaWulf]

I feel at home here among the confused and scared students.

Basically I normally enjoy this sort of thing, but the language that the philosophers use here makes even the easiest paragraphs seem like wading through mud. I tried to read the Donovan essay this morning, but it took me well over an hour to do even the first page, besides understanding it fully or having answers to questions on it. The problem was I've got 3 lessons left in class now, and when we went through the stuff in class I couldn't understand a word, so I was (honestly) just staring blankly at the paper as the rest of my class, who are all a lot better at this than me, read on and discussed it.

Having said that, I've got conflicting thoughts on this. It feels like it "should" be easy enough. It's about 12 pages of texts to read and understand, with some background work that I'm doing anyway. Besides that, we have 75 mins to read the passage and then get 40 marks, so that's about 1.5 mins per mark +15 mins planning and reading. I don't feel very optimistic, it's just that I feel like I should be able to get at least 30/40, which is as close to an A as I can manage.

Maybe we should all just start making notes on here. I know I'm not going to learn much in my lessons, as I need people who can communicate it in basic enough ways that I might be able to get it.

[king4321]

were all screwed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[katied1990]

(Original post by king4321)
were all screwed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i know the feeling!!! I just can't get over how few reasources there are!
I'm starting to get the hang of writing essays for the Ayer text but the Donovan one is just so hard!

[Sunshine =]]

I'm studying the Ethics set, but the way we tackled it may well be useful -

We split the passage into smaller sections, and created headings for each (based on our first impressions), and then used sub-headings to create questions/highlight the main points. We then answered the questions/explained key words etc. This meant that we each had a personalised copy of a brief 1 A4 page (ish) overview, which made it look less scary.

Yep, it's time consuming, but it was quite useful.

I presume we've all seen the same example question! As long as you write something, seeing as they've messed up a fair bit, vaguely related to the question & bring in other area's of the course, all we can do is hope!

Good luck!

[qwirtykid]

I'm hopeful, seeing as we are all the "guinea-pigs" of this new exam, the grade boundaries will be nice and low!

[Jezthebest]

weve only gone through the papers but If anyones got any notes or stuff on this could you send it to me at jezthebest@hotmail.com???????
Cheers

[sourcesgal]

Can I ask what the implications paper is out of? Cos after my disasterous unit 3 paper stupid edexcel i wanna try and figure out with the mark i think i got wat i could end up with

[katied1990]

the question will be out of 40 marks on the paper

[sunburnt_note]

In UMS it's out of 150 - worth the same as Unit 3.

[sourcesgal]

Thanks our class has been basically studying the extract, we were told not to do Westphal either but we went over it, I really want Ayer to come up theres so much to argue about whereas Donovan repeats himself.

Basically the gist of what to do is to for part a.) get as much knowledge to wider things the passage could be linked to e.g. talking about intuition link it to love, about terrorism, religious language, existence of God, to atheism and evil and suffering

And for part B say what you think, the argument against it and then just bang on about implications for society e.g. if God is proved untrue ecetera

I am really worried I will panic and have a block but I think they will go easy on the marking I hope but then again it's Edexcel

[jkyng1]

who has the sample answer for ayer?

[Nateface]

grr! synoptic is really doing my head in!, my answer to part a) is just going to be loads of linkages to other theories, made up real life examples and definitions of key words.
part b) im a lil unsure about, but im getting the impression that i should just weigh up the points ive made in part A, nd then judge them according to how they would affect non religious people, or religios people....thas what ive bin told to do neways...if any of u guys have anyhting ive missed out lemme know! lol

i REALLY need to get a B in this!...i know for sure that ive got an E for the 'developments' part on the 6th...so hopefully with the B in this exam it should pull my grade up to at least a D! ...rite?

anyways...ive started a seperate thread for all the people doing the ethics part to this exam. thought it would be a good idea seeing as it can get confusing hearing about all the other anthologies and philosophers.

[wytpak1]

u lot think uv got it bad im doin sumthin completely different doin 3 of the ethics essays modern moral philosophy, personal relationshios, and method and moral philosophy

[StandingOnAir]

A few people have mentioned sample answers for the Philosophy of Religion questions distributed by Edexcel ... does anyone have a link? Or something they can email me?

I feel like I'll have enough to say in the exam, I just don't know how to structure my answers. We haven't really done any essays in class.

Ugh, I hate being a guinea pig...

[Sincere Bird]

I'm doing ethics... I seriously hope the last reading doesn't come up, the crappy historical drivle one, because we don't get to choose which we answer a question on, right? I want to do the first one and rant about Kierkegaard!

Lawdy, I'm confused.

[Emily0267]

Am doing the philosophy paper too, was good to find this link and see that most of you have overlooked the Westphal text too! My teacher kept banging on about how it was unlikely and that the examiners had hinted that it wouldnt come up, but being the worrier I am I'm convinced it bloody well will!!!
Be great to share ideas on here!!
Also, does anyone have any contextual info on Donovon or Westphal?? Here's a bit for Ayer...
He was a Logical Positivist (which is evident in the extract) and was responsible for bringing the movement to Britain. Extract from book "Language, Truth and Logic." He later crticised his work.

Would love to hear any ideas you have on the texts, will post mine as I go through

[Sunshine =]]

Ah, Sincere Bird, 'Modern Moral Philosophy' what a gem.. What a particularly awful gem it is.
It's complete waffle about nothing in particular, but if you know your emotivism/utilitarianism/intuitionism and basic Aristotelian/Kantien ethics, it shouldn't be too hard to prattle on about.

With any luck, it wont come up. My teacher, who went to the conference thingie, seems to think it's highly unlikely.

No, we don't get to choose.. it would be an awful lot easier if we could!

[marksykid]

so are philosophers forgetting about westphal? because to be honest i just don't have time, but im scared he'll come up and i'll be screwed!

does anybody know how to structure a and b?
and does anybody know exactly what it means when it asks for the implications it has on human experience.. what is it referring to exactly?
please help.. im screwed for this!!!

[Emily0267]

(Original post by marksykid)
so are philosophers forgetting about westphal? because to be honest i just don't have time, but im scared he'll come up and i'll be screwed!

does anybody know how to structure a and b?
and does anybody know exactly what it means when it asks for the implications it has on human experience.. what is it referring to exactly?
please help.. im screwed for this!!!

Im not going to ignore Westphal completely, just in case, but it seem VERY unlikely it'll come up. After all the examiners wouldnt suggest it wasnt then put it on there - they want us to pass after all, esp since its the first time the exams been set. So im planning to revise Ayer (fingers crossed!) and Donovan in depth and just touch on Westphal for piece of mind!!

Not sure for a set structure for the question, get the impression there isn't a set structure as the model answers are completely different!! I usually start A with a little background info about the philosopher and the text, and then go through the extract chronologically.
An implication can be any effect the argument(s) would have on society if they were true. For example, Ayer argues that just because we have a word for something doesn't mean that it exists, as unless it is empirically verifiable then it cannot be said to symbolize anything. He argues that the existence of the noun creates an illusion that the thing in question actually exists. He concludes by saying that when we discover what God's attributes are and hence discover that he is not a genuine noun, that it is completely meaningless.
If this were true the implications for society would be...
1. Fiction would have no effect on the physical world, so books wouldnt bring pleasue? (although that last link may be a bit of a jump...)
2. If cannot prove something, then it is meaningless, but what about emotions like love? We cannot empirically prove its existence, but almost everyone would argue that it exists.
3. Would result in no religion, as people are unable to prove that God exists, so he must not. Ayer doesn't allow for maybes. Be massive change for society as a great number of people are theists.
Hope this helps!

[marksykid]

thankyou that helped so much.. just spent the last 3 hours going over ayer and still not finished so god knows if i'll ever get round to westphal

thankyou again