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

ok, i'll start:

Explain briefly, 2 accounts of the origin of the idea of god.

ok, i'll start:

Explain briefly, 2 accounts of the origin of the idea of god.

Reason & Experience Jan 2013 15 marker was about the difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, and 30 marker was 'How convincing is the claim at birth the mind is a tabula rasa?' Would have been so nice to have gotten those two questions, likelihood is our ones will be really hard and conceptual schemes will probably come up Don't know about Why Should I Be Moral, sorry! Would be grateful if anyone else did though as I'm doing that for the exam tomorrow as well as R&E.

I think I'm ok on Conceptual Schemes now but the Sapir-Whorf thing's really confusing me, is it a criticism of conceptual schemes because it shows that we have different concepts of time to Hopi Indians? And Kant thinks that everyone has the same conceptual schemes?

Sapir-Whorf's Conceptual Schemes are a different definition of the term Conceptual Schemes; it's sort of like how Hume and Locke have different definitions of the word 'idea.'

Kant says conceptual schemes are predetermined, and thus innate to everybody. Sapir-Whorf says conceptual schemes are not predetermined, and are shaped by language/culture (so yeah, they're criticising Kant). Which is yes to the Hopi time thing - the Hopi conceive time differently from our culture. This is because, according to Sapir-Whorf, our languages have shaped our conceptual schemes differently.

If conceptual schemes are shaped by empirical experience, then, empiricists can go on to claim that other conceptual schemes are also derived from experience, thus undermining Kant's argument, e.g. Hume argues that we gain the concept of causation by observing two events occurring together again and again until we begin to assume that they must necessarily occur again together in the future. TLDR; Kant says conceptual schemes are known innately/a priori, Sapir-Whorf criticise this by saying that conceptual schemes are known empirically/a posteriori and depend on an individual's language.

Good luck tomorrow!

Sapir-Whorf's Conceptual Schemes are a different definition of the term Conceptual Schemes; it's sort of like how Hume and Locke have different definitions of the word 'idea.'

Kant says conceptual schemes are predetermined, and thus innate to everybody. Sapir-Whorf says conceptual schemes are not predetermined, and are shaped by language/culture (so yeah, they're criticising Kant). Which is yes to the Hopi time thing - the Hopi conceive time differently from our culture. This is because, according to Sapir-Whorf, our languages have shaped our conceptual schemes differently.

If conceptual schemes are shaped by empirical experience, then, empiricists can go on to claim that other conceptual schemes are also derived from experience, thus undermining Kant's argument, e.g. Hume argues that we gain the concept of causation by observing two events occurring together again and again until we begin to assume that they must necessarily occur again together in the future. TLDR; Kant says conceptual schemes are known innately/a priori, Sapir-Whorf criticise this by saying that conceptual schemes are known empirically/a posteriori and depend on an individual's language.

Good luck tomorrow!

Not sure if we're allowed to talk about this yet, but just wondering how everyone felt it went?

I'm personally really happy with it, I'm really happy I'm came on here because you've all really helped, and pretty much predicted the R&E questions completely correctly Anyone doing Value of Art and Free Will for Unit 2 and has any predictions for what will come up on that?

But why does he think we are determined?

I think I did reasonably well with R&E. I enjoyed the questions and had done enough revision to know how to answer the type of questions that came up, although Why should I be governed caught me off guard a bit. All-in-all, hopefully I managed to get a C from that exam, and hopefully I can push my marks up for the PHIL2 exam. I'm doing Value of Art and Tolerance. I think a form question is favoured to come up for the Value of Art, but I have no idea about Free Will, since I did bad in the exam in January, which is why I'm doing Value of Art instead.

Yeah I was thinking Form as well, which wouldn't be too bad. I haven't actually revised Value Of Art which is a bit ridiculous, but I was so dumdbfounded by R&E that I gave all my Philosophy revision to that, so glad it's over now and I never have to think about it again Value of art is generally my favourite of the topics I'm doing though, so revision shouldn't be too hard.

Just want to make sure, conceptual schemes were relevant to the 30 marker right? I thought it was but I wasn't completely sure as it didn't mention 'conceptual schemes' or 'pre determined,' I interpreted it as a question where you could talk about either conceptual schemes or other innate ideas theories such as Descartes, Leibniz, Chomsky etc, but I based my answer around conceptual schemes because I was so ready for it after extensively revising it, and already had a plan for it in my head was I right?

Out of interest what came up in the Jan 2013 for Free Will? If I remember correctly I think my teacher said it was something about implications for morality?

Yeah I was thinking Form as well, which wouldn't be too bad. I haven't actually revised Value Of Art which is a bit ridiculous, but I was so dumdbfounded by R&E that I gave all my Philosophy revision to that, so glad it's over now and I never have to think about it again Value of art is generally my favourite of the topics I'm doing though, so revision shouldn't be too hard.

Just want to make sure, conceptual schemes were relevant to the 30 marker right? I thought it was but I wasn't completely sure as it didn't mention 'conceptual schemes' or 'pre determined,' I interpreted it as a question where you could talk about either conceptual schemes or other innate ideas theories such as Descartes, Leibniz, Chomsky etc, but I based my answer around conceptual schemes because I was so ready for it after extensively revising it, and already had a plan for it in my head was I right?

Out of interest what came up in the Jan 2013 for Free Will? If I remember correctly I think my teacher said it was something about implications for morality?

I'm happy with R&E, but Jesus, did anyone else do Why Should I Be Governed? Question four was just...oh man.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I believe you would have been correct in talking about Conceptual Schemes for the last question. I know I did that, as I interpreted the question as one relating to Conceptual Schemes, so I used Kant and Sapir-Whorf and got them both to argue, then brought Locke and Hume into the mix. I didn't talk much about Rationalism, but I explained what innate meant and briefly talked about Descartes concept of God and how Locke and Hume disagree with this and what Kant puts forward. I hope that sounds about right? D:

And yeah, Value of Art is probably my favourite topic of the four as well. Luckily, there isn't much revision you can do for Value of Art because it's very opinion based, rather than having to follow a particular argument like in R&E. Just remember the three ways of how we value art, what they mean and come up with your own examples to justify them.

As for the January 2013 paper, I think there have been a few posts which show the January 2013 paper, so if you look through the thread you will probably be able to find the paper and the questions that were on it. I hope you did well and I hope we're actually allowed to be talking about how well we did right now. If not, I will remove my posts immediately! D:

also in regards to tolerance:
"A tolerant society should accept cultural expressions that it finds offensive .Discuss" what does cultural expressions here refer to ?

Is this what came up in the exam or is it just a potential question that could come up?