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

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 :/

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.

it sounds like you wrote exactly the same thing as me!

you may well be right, but i think (hopefully) that you could approach the question by writing about pre-determined/innate conceptual schemes as long as you relate it to the question. also 'something innate that allows us to understand' could be seen as an 'innate grasp of the way the world is'. I think because of the word 'grasp' instead of perhaps 'idea', one is allowed to talk about conceptual schemes. But my guess is as good as yours, hopefully both our answers will be fine

I'm scared now. What if the question was about Innate Knowledge but we got it wrong and we'll lose marks for interpreting the question wrong? D:

oh yeah its definitely open to interpretation! i also wrote about conceptual schemes too, i basically just covered all the relevant ground in the rationalism/empiricism debate!
although im slightly worried i havent heard of Sapir-Whorfs like... at all

this has made me worry a lot as well, especially because i knew exactly what to write for an innate knowledge question but i just thought it was about conceptual schemes! This is so irritating! - ah well, there's nothing we can do now, hopefully it will be fine.

I really hope that the question is open to interpretation! D: Considering it said "grasp" instead of "ideas" and said about the world, I would associate "Innate grasp of the world" with Conceptual Schemes, since Conceptual Schemes is about how we view the world, such as the ship, etc. Innate ideas thesis doesn't mention how we see "the world" but how we acquire knowledge, whereas Conceptual Schemes is about how we see "the world". From that, I figured it was Conceptual Schemes and hopefully the examiners will see it that way too. D:

I talked about Kant's Conceptual Schemes theory, then compared it with Sapir-Whorfs theory of it and how SW's theory differs from Kants theory, talked about Kant and the ship, A to B, how the movement of the ship needs a conceptual scheme to understand how the changes in the world and not just how we see the world change, how SW uses the Hopi tribe to criticise Kant's idea of tense and Kant's idea of unconceptualised schemes, then threw Locke and Hume into the mix, using Locke to criticse the idea that Kant puts forward that Conceptual Schemes are universally accepted without being culturally limited and used "children and idiots" to criticise it with Locke, and a few other things as well. I hope this sounds good and relevant to the question that was being asked! D:

from the sounds of it there was a fairly even split of people talking about innate knowledge and conceptual schemes!
i think the examiners will understand that grasp could be interpreted different ways, theres no correct answer in philosophy after all, im just glad i shoved some stuff on conceptual schemes in the end haha

ok that it literally word for word what i thought. i'll ask my teacher tomorrow and let you know if you'd like, but when i spoke to him about it today quickly after the exam he seemed to think that what i had written (the same as you) was absolutely fine.

I talked about Kant's Conceptual Schemes theory, then compared it with Sapir-Whorfs theory of it and how SW's theory differs from Kants theory, talked about Kant and the ship, A to B, how the movement of the ship needs a conceptual scheme to understand how the changes in the world and not just how we see the world change, how SW uses the Hopi tribe to criticise Kant's idea of tense and Kant's idea of unconceptualised schemes, then threw Locke and Hume into the mix, using Locke to criticse the idea that Kant puts forward that Conceptual Schemes are universally accepted without being culturally limited and used "children and idiots" to criticise it with Locke, and a few other things as well. I hope this sounds good and relevant to the question that was being asked! D:

This is pretty much exactly what I wrote, hopefully it's ok. It should be though, as the question was relatively vague and allowed you to answer what you like, so they should be expecting a variety of responses. It was the word 'grasp' that made me think it was conceptual schemes though.

For those who did WSIBM, I thought it went pretty well but the questions were a bit strange as they were pretty much contradicting each other, so I felt pretty hypocritical the way I'd just attacked the view in the 15 marker in the 30 marker, then had to defend it when I did the 15 marker

For the 30 marker I talked about how without power you cannot have authority because you need power in order to authorise your authority and although you still have the authority, it cannot be authorised without having power. I talked about authority being legitimate and power as being simply an ability to do something, but how authority is justifiable and used Chairman Mao's "power comes from the barrel of a gun" example as to how power is associated with intimidation and supremacy. As for the 15 marker, well, I just talked about protests turning violent and how it cannot be justified if a civil protest turns violent and people end up getting seriously injured and killed or how innocent people get their shops destroyed and how that isn't justifiable, etc. I hope that sounds promising for the WSIBG question. As for R+E, the first question was great and the second question was pretty good, although I'm just hoping the exam board will accept me interpreting it as a Conceptual Schemes question... D:

everyone says that the 15 mark question for R and E was good and i agree as i knew what both were, so i gave definitions with an illustration but i found that my answer was Very short. What did you put?