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

Original post by GregMc

You are not concerned about the different issue/views of others #yolo

If you want to expand on that and get more marks, get rid of the "#yolo" and state that tolerance requires you to object to something, as Rainer Forst states. :wink:

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 323

>Username<

19

Original post by bananaterracottapie

dont panic haha. im certain its something to do with the external world :wink:

haha for epiphany, if you have the aqa text book there is a small section on art gives us an opportunity to reflect....so im sure it has something to do with that.

does anyone know the difference between illuminate experience and truth or can thjey be used interchangebly?

What textbook are you referring to specifically?

Illuminate experience = see things in a new way
truths = show truths

Tbh, they both sound the exact same. I find it hard to tell the difference... What do you mean can they be used interchangeably?

Reply 324

user3267

14

Original post by dlaiden

About 62/63+ is 90-100 UMS. I think 100 is around 67/68. Some guy on my class managed to get 65, which was 94 UMS.

Ah not too bad...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 325

user3267

14

Personally I think it seems really hard to distinguish between an A grade candidate and a B/C grade candidate in Philosophy.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 326

the argument from deisgn.docx17.7KB

I'm going to bed. If anyone wants a Tolerance Q&A tommorow I'll be more than happy to join in the fun. :biggrin:

Talk tommorow!

Reply 327

Onoderas

Original post by MBee

please can you post the God and the world notes?

Yes of course here you go :smile:

Sorry these are a bit late, been revising but hope they help!

(edited 10 years ago)

argument from design development.docx21.1KB

the problem of evil.docx21.6KB

The Problem of Evil-Development.docx22.2KB

the religious point of view.docx34.2KB

Reply 328

>Username<

19

Original post by LordFishlock

Personally I think it seems really hard to distinguish between an A grade candidate and a B/C grade candidate in Philosophy.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I agree. I got my script back and my teacher said I was marked harshly on one of the questions. And on another one I was marked too generously. I think it really is subjective more so than any other subject. Although there are things everyone must include. Its really really broad. What one person may think is an evaluation another person may think otherwise. When I read people's essays I honestly don't know what they've got. The only time I can tell is if they've wrote about the wrong thing. Other than than everyone's essays are different that its so hard to tell.

Plus only having 30 minutes to write an essay... Some may concentrate on one thing others may concentrate on a different thing. There is no set rule to what is actually correct. The question can be answered in many ways. This can be both a good thing and bad thing tbh.

Reply 329

akastudent

6

hey, does anyone has any predictions for "god and the world" and "value of art"? thanks :smile:

Reply 330

Ronak134

10

Original post by PaulyRivs

If you want to expand on that and get more marks, get rid of the "#yolo" and state that tolerance requires you to object to something, as Rainer Forst states. :wink:

yup, basically that.. tolerance requires the idea of putting up with something you may find for some reason to show some dislike to (but if it is the esteem conception of tolerance you might still admire these practices even if you don't follow them), because it is for the greater good in some way; you may value the autonomy/diversity, find it more pragmatic, believe in people's natural rights, etc.

indifference means you don't have any particular stance on the issue.. you only accept it because you're not bothered, rather than because you particularly care about the advantages and disadvantages.. i may be indifferent about someone's choice to wear a coloured t shirt that i don't like, because it really doesn't matter to me in any way; it would be odd to say that i tolerate it.

outline and illustrate repressive sublimation? and two criticisms of it if you're feeling adventurous..

Reply 331

OP

Original post by PaulyRivs

Just read your message above... I would be more than happy to do a Q and A on Tolerance tommorow! :biggrin:

I'll be available from 9:35 until 12:20 and then free for the rest of the day after 1:10! :biggrin:

Talk then! :biggrin:

Hello, ok i'll start:

Explain two characteristics of a Tolerant individual. :biggrin:

Reply 332

Original post by the A* guy

Hello, ok i'll start:

Explain two characteristics of a Tolerant individual. :biggrin:

Somebody who objects to something but accepts it?

Reply 333

Original post by Ronak134

yup, basically that.. tolerance requires the idea of putting up with something you may find for some reason to show some dislike to (but if it is the esteem conception of tolerance you might still admire these practices even if you don't follow them), because it is for the greater good in some way; you may value the autonomy/diversity, find it more pragmatic, believe in people's natural rights, etc.

indifference means you don't have any particular stance on the issue.. you only accept it because you're not bothered, rather than because you particularly care about the advantages and disadvantages.. i may be indifferent about someone's choice to wear a coloured t shirt that i don't like, because it really doesn't matter to me in any way; it would be odd to say that i tolerate it.

outline and illustrate repressive sublimation? and two criticisms of it if you're feeling adventurous..

Repressive desublimation is the idea that we would be wasting our time accepting something which is no good to us and that we could be out seeking something in real life rather than wasting it on something of no value. This is a Marcuse point of view, as he does not object to pornography or TV, but believes that by watching it, this is a repressive desublimation in which we are wasting our time with this type of stuff when we could be seeking a real life relationship or living live outside of the TV world. He simply believes this is a waste of time.

However, if you want to criticise it, you could say that, in the case of JS Mill, as a Utiliterian, it is the greatest good for the greatest number, and by watching TV or pornography, we are enjoying it and are causing no harm to anybody. Another reason is that repressive desublimation would not enable us to live life as we choose.

Does that sound any good? :O

Reply 334

OP

Original post by PaulyRivs

Somebody who objects to something but accepts it?

That is basically Forst's first two components of tolerance, what I was asking was two characteristics that an individual that is truly tolerant possesses. Eg: tolerance as a virtue, or Reasonableness.

Reply 335

Original post by the A* guy

That is basically Forst's first two components of tolerance, what I was asking was two characteristics that an individual that is truly tolerant possesses. Eg: tolerance as a virtue, or Reasonableness.

Dunno then. :P

Reply 336

OP

Original post by PaulyRivs

Dunno then. :P

ok then, can you explain the 4 conceptions of tolerance, (permission co-existence, etc)

P.S. how did you find unit 1?

Reply 337

Original post by the A* guy

ok then, can you explain the 4 conceptions of tolerance, (permission co-existence, etc)

P.S. how did you find unit 1?

Permission - Not approving of something that people do but allowing them to do it so long as it is not in their presence. I.e. engaging in homosexual activity.

Coexistence - Not approving of something but tolerating it for the greater good and to avoid conflict. I.e. Coexisting with your nextdoor neighbours terrible music taste.

Respect - Having respect for a persons differences and having respect for what they are doing and being able to see the good qualities that a certain thing might have over the negatives. I.e. the prospect of opening up a Mosque in the UK and respecting the Muslim community.

Esteem - Encouraging the differences to be put forward and seeing the advantages and benefits of it. This is a very liberal prospective. Different cultures and lifestyles, although some people do not choose to live in these ways, encourage these different lifestyles and have the utmost respect for it. I.e. a liberal society.

Any good?

Reply 338

EleanorKeats

Ok so for two characteristics of a tolerant individual, would you just write a paragraphy on reasonableness and a paragraph on tolerance as a virtue?

Some people appear to be confused as to what they are- I literally just copied this off a handout but I hope it helps.

REASONABLENESS
So perhaps, to be tolerant, a person’s opposition must be ‘reasonable’ in the sense that it does not rest on irrational prejudice and hatred. Of course, responsible judgement will
often uncover these irrational sources. But we need to add this condition, because even
when people think about their beliefs and values, they are sometimes unable to see their
irrational basis. What is needed is not that the person refrains from acting on their
opposition to views, but that their beliefs and values themselves change.
One obvious difficulty with this suggestion is finding an account of what is ‘reasonable’,
and being able to discover when disapproval rests on irrational prejudice. People are very
good at ‘rationalizing’, giving reasons for their beliefs or values that do not depend on
those reasons at all.

TOLERANCE AS A VIRTUE
In not trying to suppress those of whom they disapprove, racists are acting in a tolerant
way. But this is not enough to say that they are genuinely tolerant. We can distinguish
between tolerant behaviour and tolerance as a virtue.
With any virtue, we can act in accordance with the virtue but without being virtuous. For
example, you can make a ‘generous’ donation to charity but without being a generous
person – if the reason you made the donation was to impress someone. So someone can act in a ‘tolerant’ way without being what we would want to call a tolerant person.
We need to look at the kinds of reason a tolerant person gives for being tolerant. The
racist who simply doesn't want to get into trouble with the law, or thinks that the time is
not yet right to expel all other races from the country, is not tolerant. The truly tolerant
person thinks it is right – for moral or political reasons – not to act on their opposition
to the views of others; and this is why they restrain themselves. Why it is right to be
tolerant, people may disagree about. As examples of the relevant types of reason we may think of respect for others (moral) or a commitment to live peacefully with others
(political).

I am slightly confused though, both reasons have flaws- should we point them out? Also how would you illustrate it?

Reply 339

OP