Higher Philosophy 2009

How did everyone find it?
I know it's not the most taken of subjects, so maybe not many people will respond to this :smile:

.

Critical Thinking -
Was easy, obviously fallacies were coincidental correlation and appeals to authority.

Moral Philosophy -
Absolutely fantastic, just explained both theories and applied. Shoulf get near 30/30 i hope.

Emotivism, was easy as expected. There's not much they canr eally ask you.

Epistemology-
I was surprised they asked about meditation 3, but it was good questions. Glad it wasn't big marks, the analysis and evaluation for descartes was 16 marks, but overall it was fine. I found the first part harder, but I should have done okay.

Metaphysics-
I'm glad identifying the argument was only worth 4 marks, because i did cosmological. Idiot. It was teleological two years in a row. Surprised me :smile:

Should get the error carried forward for doing the Evaluation and Analysis of the cosmological.

Good paper guys, harder than 2008 but should be an A or B :smile:

!

Reply 1

wawa1906

i pretty much wrecked most of critical thinking. had a couple of strange hidden premises. i got the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and i wrote down appeals to illegitimate authorities, but then i decided that the government of new zealand are probably within their right to comment on how many people have returned.

metaphysics, i felt the questions were somewhat bizarre in that it didn't really make it explicit what argument it was talking about, and i didn't make reference to the word teleological once.

the rest was fine, i thought, other than the epistemology question on necessary and contingent truths, which we hadnt been taught - took a guess though.

Reply 2

Connorrr

OP

6

wawa1906

i pretty much wrecked most of critical thinking. had a couple of strange hidden premises. i got the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and i wrote down appeals to illegitimate authorities, but then i decided that the government of new zealand are probably within their right to comment on how many people have returned.

metaphysics, i felt the questions were somewhat bizarre in that it didn't really make it explicit what argument it was talking about, and i didn't make reference to the word teleological once.

the rest was fine, i thought, other than the epistemology question on necessary and contingent truths, which we hadnt been taught - took a guess though.

Yeah, It talked about a chain of causes and then about design which was why I got confused.

Also, I can totally agree, it was such an odd question, most of my class also guessed. Good paper though!

Reply 3

wawa1906

i just kept on finding ways of showing how it was a poor analogy...mechanistic/organic, kant says we can only understand things within the finite limits of space and time, which god and the universe are kinda outwith. god is far more than humans, that sorta stuff.