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

Scroll to see replies

For a question along the lines of 'Asses the claim that religious language is meaningless'. Is it necessary to discuss everything from early Verificationists, falsification, wittgenstein, via negative right through to analogy, myth & symbol?

If such, how much detail should I be writing in? I'm a little bewildered.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. :smile:

Reply 1081

Clareicles

Hi,

I wouldn't....you've only got 45 minutes in an examination and you wouldn't have time to do the question justice. You have to go into depth to get evaluative marks.

I'd pick two from each side of the 'meaningful/meaningless' debate, so maybe Verification (OR falsification) then maybe the Via Negativa before moving to symbol/analogy/myth (2 of them) and maybe language games.

All the best,

Clareiclesx

Reply 1082

ndubz4lyf

has anyone got any notes on these three questions

critically evlaUATE THE APPRAOCH OF VIRTUE ETHICS TO BUSINESS

UTILITERISM IS THE BEST APPROACH TO BUSSINESS ETHICS

NATUIRAL LAW IS THE MOST RELIABLE APPRAOCH WHEN MAKING JUDGMEnt S ABOUT SEX AND RELATIONSHIPs

thanks in advance

Reply 1083

et cetera

Original post by ndubz4lyf

I would check this site out, it has great revision notes for almost everything philosophy and ethics related.
http://sites.google.com/site/farrowsthings/revision/a2-religious-ethics

Reply 1084

ndubz4lyf

Original post by et cetera

I would check this site out, it has great revision notes for almost everything philosophy and ethics related.
http://sites.google.com/site/farrowsthings/revision/a2-religious-ethics

thank you so much

Reply 1085

et cetera

Does anyone know whether we need to learn the chapter on Revelation & Holy Scripture?

A quick and comprehensive response would be appreciated. :biggrin:

Reply 1086

EricEdwardSelvaraj

Original post by et cetera

Does anyone know whether we need to learn the chapter on Revelation & Holy Scripture?

A quick and comprehensive response would be appreciated. :biggrin:

It is now the last part of Religious experience.

Reply 1087

PatrickD

Do we need to know the psychological and sociological challenges to religious experience as the 'guide to what has changed' on the OCR website seems to suggest they have been removed...? :confused:

I'm tempted just to revise them, as well as the separate topic on revelation and holy scripture in the textbook, anyway as they may be of some use.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 1088

lampshade1

Original post by PatrickD

Do we need to know the psychological and sociological challenges to religious experience as the 'guide to what has changed' on the OCR website seems to suggest they have been removed...? :confused:

I'm tempted just to revise them, as well as the separate topic on revelation and holy scripture in the textbook, anyway as they may be of some use.

Worth learning them, they're good criticisms for the AO2 part.

Reply 1089

PatrickD

Original post by lampshade1

Worth learning them, they're good criticisms for the AO2 part.

Yeah that was my thinking. I like the fact that the specification and questions are pretty open, enabling you to bring in extra knowledge that isn't required but is useful for picking up extra marks.

I'm going to include the psychological and sociological challenges to religious experience in my notes as I make them but I think I'll leave the revelation and holy scripture chapter until last just so I've revised everything else first.

Reply 1090

et cetera

Original post by PatrickD

Do we need to know the psychological and sociological challenges to religious experience as the 'guide to what has changed' on the OCR website seems to suggest they have been removed...? :confused:

I'm tempted just to revise them, as well as the separate topic on revelation and holy scripture in the textbook, anyway as they may be of some use.

I would definitely learn them, I've seen previous mark schemes where it has suggested the inclusion of Freud, Marx and Stanley Koren.

Reply 1091

PatrickD

Original post by et cetera

I would definitely learn them, I've seen previous mark schemes where it has suggested the inclusion of Freud, Marx and Stanley Koren.

Yeah, they'll certainly be useful as extra criticisms to throw in if need be.

Reply 1092

xthelasthorcrux

Does anyone have any predictions on what is going to come up? I don't do Ethics (we do Buddhism instead) but I have been looking at Philosophy and have come up with a few logical ideas of what they might ask:

Via Negativa - it has NEVER come up, and is pretty much the only thing in Religious Language that hasn't (other than Verification, but Falsification was asked about in January...)

God as Eternal - the only part of the Attributes spec that has never come up

Some kind of Religious Experience, probably something quite niche. Visions has been asked about before, so maybe voices, conversion or "Numinous" experience maybe?

Life after Death - this didn't come up in January and has come up every previous year. Perhaps something about Hick?

Wiles has never been asked about either, but the question about miracles in January required him to be talked about in the answer. Revelation through scripture has also been absent for over a year...

What do you think? These seem pretty likely to me, but OCR seem to like repeating certain things. Omniscience and analogy have come up a few times already.