The OFFICIAL AQA AS Philosophy May 2013 Exams Thread. (Units 1&2)

We don't use textbooks normally. We use different coloured folder things. The R+E one is a light blue one with Immanuel Kant on the front of it with Conceptual Schemes in his brain.

As for Plato's Meno; Socrates questions an uneducated slave boy with questions relating to geometry. He questions the boy about the size of a square and the amount of feet in a square and the equal sides of a square, etc. The argument is supposed to support the idea that the boy has innate knowledge of this geometry and knows this without having had any experience of geometry or having no education of it. I personally believe the boy needs no knowledge of geometry, because Socrates basically answers the questions prior to asking the slave boy. The slave boy is basically just reiterating what Socrates has already told him.

I have heard this story of plato before and I have to say that I think you explained it perfectly, plus you gave an alternate opinion (yours) with will get you higher marks in the exam. GREAT

Thank you! Explain David Hume's point of view!

Hume's point of view on what?

Explain where David Hume stands in R+E and what his arguments are.

Hume is an empiricist philosopher who along with Locke believes that all knowledge and ideas come and are grounded by sense experience. Hume argues that perception is split into two categories Ideas and impressions. Then impressions are split into impressions of reflection and impressions of sensation. ones of sensation arise from experience such as seeing a car, and ones of reflection arise from the mind, such as feeling emotions. he then goes on to say that ideas are faint copies of impressions, and they become fainter every time one thinks about the idea this is because according to hume, when one of thinks of an idea they have had before then they are not thinking of the original impression that caused the idea, they think of the last time that they had and/or used the idea, thus after times the ideas become fainter.
Plus the is Hume's fork but I already explained that earlier.

thoughts??

Oh yes, ideas and impressions. Impressions being experiences of sensations and ideas being ideas of the experiences... Hume talks way too much. XD

Explain what conceptual relativism is and the implications of conceptual schemes.

Oh God... Again, I don't think we did any of this. All we did was Empiricism, Rationalism, Conceptual Schemes with ideas from; Descartes, Plato, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Kant and a briefly Chomsky. D:

Explain views against conceptual schemes and explain briefly the views of Leibniz.

Well, the views against Conceptual Schemes are that if our language effects our concept of the world, then what happens if we learn different languages? Also, Kant argues that the principles we have are universal ones, but no principles are universally accepted, so, as Locke would argue, how can we all have the same principles with regards to Conceptual Schemes when different nations have entirely different principles and concepts?

As for Leibniz, he uses a block of marble and uses it as a way of describing the mind. He believes that the mind is like a block of marble. It is filled with ideas, but they need to be carved out in order for these ideas we have to come to light. Our knowledge is innate, but we do not know about the innate knowledge we have. We need to have experiences of it in order to recollect and "carve out" the innate knowledge we supposedly have. However, how can our knowledge be innate if we need experience of it in order to know we have it?

I'm an Empiricist, so I disagree with anything to do with Rationalism, especially Descartes. I can come up with a lot of criticisms in relation to his views on the perfect being and the Cogito argument.

Explain to me to views that John Locke has with regards to R+E and what his arguments are.

Good answer. Sorry for late reply I had to help a friend with maths. I will answer your question now.

Well, the views against Conceptual Schemes are that if our language effects our concept of the world, then what happens if we learn different languages? Also, Kant argues that the principles we have are universal ones, but no principles are universally accepted, so, as Locke would argue, how can we all have the same principles with regards to Conceptual Schemes when different nations have entirely different principles and concepts?

As for Leibniz, he uses a block of marble and uses it as a way of describing the mind. He believes that the mind is like a block of marble. It is filled with ideas, but they need to be carved out in order for these ideas we have to come to light. Our knowledge is innate, but we do not know about the innate knowledge we have. We need to have experiences of it in order to recollect and "carve out" the innate knowledge we supposedly have. However, how can our knowledge be innate if we need experience of it in order to know we have it?

I'm an Empiricist, so I disagree with anything to do with Rationalism, especially Descartes. I can come up with a lot of criticisms in relation to his views on the perfect being and the Cogito argument.

Explain to me to views that John Locke has with regards to R+E and what his arguments are.

John Locke is an empiricist philosopher who believes that the mind is tabula rasa at birth, he uses the analogy of the empty cabinet waiting to be filled with valuable objects and items as a metaphor the mind being empty at birth to be later filled with knowledge and Ideas formed from sense experience. Locke refutes to any rationalist who proposes the theory of innate knowledge because he takes innate knowledge to mean knowledge that we have from birth, and he says that there is no common knowledge that all people share from birth, therefore according to Locke, innate knowledge is nonsense and the only source of knowledge to truths that are not analytic, is sense experience.

hows that?

Very good. What other topics do you know about relating to Philosophy?

I do unit 1: R+E, the idea of god
and unit 2: Tolerance, god and the world

Teach me some stuff about Tolerance if you have the time to!

Explain what Chomsky meant when he said that we have an innate capacity for language/grammar?

He meant that we can innately contain language and grammar without having to have experience of the language. We have a capacity for language and grammar embedded into our minds and we take in the language we learn from hearing it.

Something like that isn't it?