Group for those who do OCR A2 Philosophy & Ethics [Post Exam Discussion]

Does anyone else hate business ethics? I may not even bother revising it because there is only going to be one question on it if it does come up

I really dislike writing questions on it. The Jan 2011 question:
would literally be the last question I would answer on the paper. It seems like you're being asked to make descriptive economic judgements rather than ethical ones, which doesn't leave that much room for ethical debate, imho.

I really dislike writing questions on it. The Jan 2011 question:
would literally be the last question I would answer on the paper. It seems like you're being asked to make descriptive economic judgements rather than ethical ones, which doesn't leave that much room for ethical debate, imho.

Ok, confused again! Does anyone understand Kant's views on determinism? At first I thought he was a soft determinist...but now I'm not sure because from what I have been reading he might be a libertarian?

What did Augustine say about predestination?

Augustine said only God can choose who’ll receive the grace of salvation ‘The potter has authority over the clay from the same lump to make one vessel for honour & another for contempt’

Is this linked to his theodicy in any way?

and what about John Calvin? Thanks

Kant basically said we should assume free will if morality is to exist, otherwise we can't be accountable for our actions, so theoretically a libertarian.

Ok, confused again! Does anyone understand Kant's views on determinism? At first I thought he was a soft determinist...but now I'm not sure because from what I have been reading he might be a libertarian?

“God” is a symbol. The reality is an Absolute state.

Therefore “God” cannot act. “God” the Absolute is everywhere. On every level of creation known and unknown to a human mind. Therefore “God” cannot move since no where to move to. Therefore “God” cannot act.

“God” has no attributes whatsoever as any attribute is a limit and “God” is Absolute.

So that bins all theistic religions of the bat.

“God” cannot know anything of creation, and has nothing to do with creation. “God” is not inside or outside creation. “God” has no inside or outside.

“God” exists as self-existent. Creation cannot exist without “God”. In that sense only can “God” be said to cause creation.

The nearest conception a mind can get to Absolute is nothingness. But for a mind nothingness equates to vacuity, nihilism, and a mind cannot think of no attributes.

Yet every conception of “God” runs intro contradiction since duality is trying to define unity. No chance.

As Lao Tzu wrote “Darkness within darkness. The Gate to all Mystery”.

Mankinds attempt to make sense leads to human inventions. Yet even the bible says, “Thou shalt not worship graven images” Doesn't restrict to just physical images and mental are far more insidious.

You can never know “God” only be God. “Be still and know that I am God.” But all creation is movement without beginning or end. So creation in part or whole can have no knowledge of the Absolute. Only “God” can be “God”. “Be still and know that I am God”.

So your tutors are spinning wheels and wasting there time and yours unless you are beginning to appreciate that even knowledge is a limit to be transcended as knowing is a requirement and “God” has no requirements.

Hope this just helps you question the questions a bit more.

Have a great day.

Kant sees us as spanning two realms - the phenomenal 'things as they appear' realm and the noumenal 'things as they are' realm. Our will lies in the noumenal and if we have a good will which acts only upon reason then we are free - if we follow the whims of the phenomenal passions then we are allowing ourselves to be determined by them. The whole drive behind Kant is this attempt to gain autonomy - and he sees the only way to do this as to follow the categorical imperative - which is based upon reason and does not depend upon the phenomenal realm.

However if we follow hypothetical imperatives then we place our actions as the whims of "if". So if we have the imperative "if it rains then put up an umbrella" then our will is determined by whether or not it rains.

All in all, Kant is complex but ultimately a libertarian - all of us can be free (even if not all of us are). Just remember your AS ethics on Kant and you'll be fine

Ok, for philosophy: religious language is this correct:
Non-cognitive theories: Falsifcation principle and verification principle
Cognitive theories: Via negativa, Analogy, symbol and myth, language games.

“God” is a symbol. The reality is an Absolute state. Apart from fitting with your concept of 'God' why else should we subscribe to your belief - prove it

Therefore “God” cannot act. “God” the Absolute is everywhere. On every level of creation known and unknown to a human mind. Therefore “God” cannot move since no where to move to. Therefore “God” cannot act. Your concept of a pantheistic God doesn't mean he can also be theistic as in he can act within the nature he created

“God” has no attributes whatsoever as any attribute is a limit and “God” is Absolute. Absolute is an attribute, and again, prove it

So that bins all theistic religions of the bat.

“God” cannot know anything of creation, and has nothing to do with creation. “God” is not inside or outside creation. “God” has no inside or outside. If God is everywhere, he is creation. Your also ascribing him attributes (or lack of)

“God” exists as self-existent. Creation cannot exist without “God”. In that sense only can “God” be said to cause creation. You just said that God has nothing to do with creation, make your mind up and of course - prove it

The nearest conception a mind can get to Absolute is nothingness. But for a mind nothingness equates to vacuity, nihilism, and a mind cannot think of no attributes. Why can't a mind think of no attributes? You just describe a lack of belief in religion, your moving from nihilism to equating that with the only way of thinking of 'nothing'

Yet every conception of “God” runs intro contradiction since duality is trying to define unity. No chance. Why?

As Lao Tzu wrote “Darkness within darkness. The Gate to all Mystery”.

Mankinds attempt to make sense leads to human inventions. Yet even the bible says, “Thou shalt not worship graven images” Doesn't restrict to just physical images and mental are far more insidious.

You can never know “God” only be God. “Be still and know that I am God.” But all creation is movement without beginning or end. So creation in part or whole can have no knowledge of the Absolute. Only “God” can be “God”. “Be still and know that I am God”. You can only be God, then you say, only God can be God - clarify or contradiction.

So your tutors are spinning wheels and wasting there time and yours unless you are beginning to appreciate that even knowledge is a limit to be transcended as knowing is a requirement and “God” has no requirements.

Hope this just helps you question the questions a bit more.

Have a great day.

Source? Cause I'm pretty sure you've got that completely wrong.