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

Original post by bananaterracottapie

on a past exam paper from the aqa website ! :smile:

think it was from 2011?

another question, in regards to whether tolerance requires us to refrain from being offensive. i can think of many arguments against....but cannot think of any arguments in favour! lol so struggling to start it off. i mean i know esteem and respect conception may argue for that, but i dno how they would justify it.

I can think of reasons for why we would not accept cultural expressions which are offensive, but reasons for... Hmm, I can't say I've really learnt stuff like that. I would strongly advise using the Permission and Coexistance conceptions with regards to a question like this, along with perhaps the acceptance, objection and rejection components. Do you have any other suggestions?

Reply 221

scrltt

ahh i just made an account so im new to this, but i took unit 1 earlier :smile:

im pretty shaky on philosophy, i love it and i do well in class but i struggle to speak with conviction because maaaan everythings so subjective.

for the R&E 30 marker, i started of talking about Liebniz/Menos Slave and how this can show we have innate understanding, then i spoke about Locke and Hume, conjunctions/causality etc so mathematics could be seen as contingent (?) and not proof of innate knowledge
then i spoke about Descartes and how sensory experience can deceive us (pen in water is distorted). so we need innate understanding because we cant really on experience? then about like how babies can swim and animals can know how function in their environments from birth
then i summarised with Kant and the idea that innate understanding/a conceptual scheme is necessary to understand the world but and kinda spoke about conceptual schemes for a little bit before saying that knowledge is metaphysical so its hard to prove/conclude but we probably need some form of innate understanding in order to function as a being

i somehow managed to write 4 sides from that haha

Reply 222

scrltt

Original post by Student8

what did people put as objections to the idea that god is innate ?

i put that the idea of god isnt universal (polytheism, atheism etc) and that if god was innate we firstly would all be theist and secondly would all have at least the concept of an omnipotent creator if that makes sense
also i wrote about from an empirical point of view nothing is innate, wrote a bit about Hume and God is made in our image etc.
my original thoughts were to talk about Freud, Marx, Feuerbach about the idea of god as man-made but that didnt sit right so i guess i compromised between the two ahh im worried about that one

Reply 223

Onoderas

Not too sure about the exam overall. Wrote about understanding the world through repetition and gaining concepts, then Kant and Plato's Forms. Hope it gained some marks :s-smilie:

Felt much better on the ontological argument question, although not too sure on my two ways for rejecting the idea of God as innate.

Reply 224

dlaiden

11

Original post by PaulyRivs

That was certainly a tricky one, but I still managed to get over two sides out of it and was able to illustrate the statement and explain it quite well, I felt. Having said that, it was still quite tricky. Hopefully I didn't lose a large quantity of marks due to the Why should I be governed? questions. D:

I managed to get to about two sides done as well, although I mainly focused on the idea that power wasn't masked. I talked to one of my teachers and he said that I did maintain a general focus on it so, hopefully, I didn't do too bad. :smile:

Hopefully we both did fairly well!

Reply 225

akastudent

6

I'm so disappointed with myself, i actually interpreted the 30 marker for R&E as conceptual schemes. so i wrote the whole essay on it !! Also i didn't finish the Ontological argument!! I totally failed this exam :frown:

btw if get like an U in this exam but manage to get a good grade for unit 2. will i still have to retake the whole year ????? im so upset wit myself right now :frown:

Reply 226

Student8

7

Original post by akastudent

I'm so disappointed with myself, i actually interpreted the 30 marker for R&E as conceptual schemes. so i wrote the whole essay on it !! Also i didn't finish the Ontological argument!! I totally failed this exam :frown:

btw if get like an U in this exam but manage to get a good grade for unit 2. will i still have to retake the whole year ????? im so upset wit myself right now :frown:

the 30 marker for R and E had a lot to do with conceptual schemes, so if you wrote the whole essay on it I'm sure thats fine so don't worry.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 227

Pain room

Original post by PaulyRivs

It might have been Kant who came up with the first and second orders. I'm not sure though. I was rubbish in Free Will, which is why I'm doing Value of Art instead. :P

First and second order desires is Frankfurt (like the sausage :smile:

)

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 228

Ronak134

10

did anyone else do why should i be moral? i hope im not the only person who found that section pretty hard :s-smilie:

Reply 229

Lorn_

Took the exam today and nearly cried.
I did reason and experience and Why should I be governed.

found the 30 mark WSIBG impossible, sat trying to figure out question for about 20 mins. How did you all find it? As difficult as me? I nearly wrote nothing, my answer didn't even make sense.

Reply 230

the A* guy

OP

2

I found the R+E quite good, 15 mark on R+E was easy as it was expected, the 30 marker "the mind contains an innate grasp of how the world is" discuss. was quite easy i think, the stated view was a rationalist view that we have innate synthetic a priori knowledge, so i talked about meno's slave and rejections by locke and hume against innate knowledge as a whole. Then I mentioned Kant's conceptual schemes and how we have certain concepts about how the world is, and more.

The ontological argument question was easy, the 15 mark question was harder, (about rejections to the idea of god as innate).

Overall is was a fairly nice exam, but it could have been better.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 231

elleeeee

I'm just revising the tolerance section for the exam on Friday and i'm not sure how to approach this past question from June 2009...

"Explain and illustrate two reasons why tolerance should not rule out being offensive" 15 marks.

and "Explain one argument for and one against the view that tolerant societies should be nurtured". 15 marks.

My mind is slightly frazzled because i've been focussing on Religious tolerance all of this afternoon! Please can someone give me some help?

Reply 232

PaulyRivs

1

Original post by the A* guy

I found the R+E quite good, 15 mark on R+E was easy as it was expected, the 30 marker "the mind contains an innate grasp of how the world is" discuss. was quite easy i think, the stated view was a rationalist view that we have innate synthetic a priori knowledge, so i talked about meno's slave and rejections by locke and hume against innate knowledge as a whole. Then I mentioned Kant's conceptual schemes and how we have certain concepts about how the world is, and more.

The ontological argument question was easy, the 15 mark question was harder, (about rejections to the idea of god as innate).

Overall is was a fairly nice exam, but it could have been better.

I talked about the 30 mark R+E question as though it was a Conceptual Scheme statement. I hope that was alright. D:

Reply 233

PaulyRivs

1

Original post by Lorn_

Took the exam today and nearly cried.
I did reason and experience and Why should I be governed.

found the 30 mark WSIBG impossible, sat trying to figure out question for about 20 mins. How did you all find it? As difficult as me? I nearly wrote nothing, my answer didn't even make sense.

I did just over two sides for the WSIBG 30 mark question in which I explained how we need power in order to have authority and made reference to Chairman Mao that "Power comes from the barrel of a gun" and how authority means legitimacy and without power we cannot authorise, even though we are still obliged to, etc.

Reply 234

Student8

7

Original post by PaulyRivs

I talked about the 30 mark R+E question as though it was a Conceptual Scheme statement. I hope that was alright. D:

i did the same thing, hopefully they will accept both approaches.

Reply 235

scrltt

Original post by Student8

the 30 marker for R and E had a lot to do with conceptual schemes, so if you wrote the whole essay on it I'm sure thats fine so don't worry.

i thought it was more about rationalism as a whole, as conceptual schemes arent innate understanding but more something innate that allows us to understand
ahh :/

Reply 236

the A* guy

OP

2

Original post by PaulyRivs

I talked about the 30 mark R+E question as though it was a Conceptual Scheme statement. I hope that was alright. D:

Approaching the question from the angle of conceptual schemes is a fairly legitimate way of answering the question, although the stated view was about innate synthetic a priori knowledge, if you kept linking conceptual schemes to the question your answer will be given a fair mark.

Reply 237

the A* guy

OP

2

Original post by scrltt

i thought it was more about rationalism as a whole, as conceptual schemes arent innate understanding but more something innate that allows us to understand
ahh :/

You are correct that it is about rationalism, but you can link in conceptual schemes as the kantian categories of conceptual schemes such as causation, can be taken to be innate knowledge about the world.

Reply 238

PaulyRivs

1

Original post by the A* guy

Approaching the question from the angle of conceptual schemes is a fairly legitimate way of answering the question, although the stated view was about innate synthetic a priori knowledge, if you kept linking conceptual schemes to the question your answer will be given a fair mark.

Most of the answer I gave was linked to Conceptual Schemes and Kant and Sapir-Whorfs different approaches to Conceptual Schemes, since Conceptual Schemes are regarded as innate and effect how we view the world, so I assumed the question was on Conceptual Schemes. :frown:

Reply 239

asdop2211

Did anybody else do the exam on the Old Testament and the paper on the Cosmological argument and the Psychology of Religion?
I feel as if so few people do the Old Testament unit, that I could potentially set the grade boundaries themselves.
Is the ethics side of the course particularly difficult?

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

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you