Anyone good at AQA Philosophy?

I'm an A2 student studying AQA Philosophy.

At times I don't understand things and I'd like someone to explain it to me. Equally I'd be happy to explain stuff to other people (if I know the answer that is). I need specific help on the A2 work.

If anyone would be willing to help me out, message me or post below. :smile:

Btw I'm studying:

AS: (PHIL1) Reason and Experience + (PHIL2)The value of art
A2: (PHIL3)Moral philosophy, Political philosophy + (PHIL4) Mill

Reply 1

TSR Learn Together

Official Rep

Hi there,

While you're waiting for an answer, did you know we have 300,000 study resources that could answer your question in TSR's Learn together section?

We have everything from Teacher Marked Essays to Mindmaps and Quizzes to help you with your work. Take a look around.

If you're stuck on how to get started, try creating some resources. It's free to do and can help breakdown tough topics into manageable chunks. Get creating now.

Thanks!

Not sure what all of this is about? Head here to find out more.

Reply 2

Saima12345

Hi, I did moral and political at A2, so I could help out, if I can if you don't understand stuff. Been on here after a while, and I remember philosophy being tricky, but interesting, just finished my alevels, taking a gap year then uni. The only thing is I may forget to go on here regularly, but hopefully I won't. So with political and moral, you can ask stuff, and I'll let you know what I think, also have some revision guides etc, I didn't make them, but found them on the internet, I thought they were good-ish to revise from. So I can attach them if you want.. We did Plato not Mill. Which was good, did well in Plato :smile:

What result did you get in AS level for philosophy?

Reply 3

ritaora

what could come up for the questions reason and experience PHIL1 AND PHIL2 the idea of GOD?

Reply 4

ThisIsn'tSpam

What are you stuck on? I'd be more than happy to help.

Reply 5

khushboo3097

What were the questions of 'idea of God' and 'reason and experience' in JUNE 2013

Reply 6

>Username<

Original post by Saima12345

What result did you get in AS level for philosophy?

Thanks for replying, its very much appreciated. :smile:

It'd be good if you could upload your notes online. I'd really appreciate it. :smile:

I got a C in AS...

What do Mill and Locke mean when they say neutral umpire?

Original post by ThisIsn'tSpam

What are you stuck on? I'd be more than happy to help.

Thanks for replying. :smile:

I appreciate it. :smile:

What do Mill and Lock mean when they say neutral umpire?

Reply 7

>Username<

Original post by ritaora

what could come up for the questions reason and experience PHIL1 AND PHIL2 the idea of GOD?

Original post by khushboo3097

What were the questions of 'idea of God' and 'reason and experience' in JUNE 2013

Philosophy isn't really a guessing game sort of subject. You sort of need everything to argue against your point, if that makes sense... :frown:

Reply 8

>Username<

What does this mean? Its a weakness of Locke's theory...

Punishment is only effective if there is someone really powerful in charge that its impossible to resist them. But this would be the end of the state of nature and the beginning of the state".

I'm really confused on the part in bold. :s-smilie:

Bump.

I'm studying Political and Moral Philosophy and Plato. It's all so complicated. I achieved a B last year and I need an A this year.

Reply 11

>Username<

Original post by HarryAlexander

I'm studying Political and Moral Philosophy and Plato. It's all so complicated. I achieved a B last year and I need an A this year.

Tell me about it! I don't suppose you could help me out... :s-smilie:

Reply 12

Saima12345

Original post by >Username<

Thanks for replying, its very much appreciated. :smile:

It'd be good if you could upload your notes online. I'd really appreciate it. :smile:

I got a C in AS...

What do Mill and Locke mean when they say neutral umpire?

Thanks for replying. :smile:

I appreciate it. :smile:

What do Mill and Lock mean when they say neutral umpire?

You're welcome. And yeah like someone said below to get the high marks you need to pick a side, (don't stay in the middle), and argue all the points for that side, and then counterargue, so what the opposition would say but ALWAYS bring it back to your answer and opinion, so it is clearly one sided, though showing both aspects, (how I differs from history). Anyway..my actual philosophy notes, are like lots of scraps of paper, just what we learnt in class, I found some useful guides on student rooms etc, so If I still have those I'll upload them.
Okay so neutral umpire for political philosophy Is in regards to the state acting as a neutral judge, in relation to how humans are naturally free, and their liberty should only be restricted if it is beneficial for us (to get more liberty/not to harm one another) The idea of a neutral umpire is for the state not to be biased and having one interpretation of the law.
We were told the Aqa book wasn't very good for revision at all, but there are some good books for the topics you will find that cover a lot indepth, in regards to perspectives, and also make things easier to understand. Like I remember some good ones on Political and moral philosophy that were in our school library, and philosophy in focus I think for moral and political is really good :smile:

! And lots more...

Reply 13

Saima12345

Original post by >Username<

So I think this is basically saying that if there was someone really powerful who could punish people (as otherwise potentially there would be people who were mistreated, forming groups, quarrels etc.), they would have to be impossible to resist (otherwise no one would follow them i.e. government, police), and it is a weakness of Locke's theory because he talks about punishment (to prevent for example killing etc, so for the greater good), and the end of the state of nature, as the state of nature relates to humans without anyone ruling over us, without power or authority, but the 'punishment' above, and the person who is 'powerful in charge' would show that this is the beginning of the state, with rules, goverments, etc. So Locke advocates a State of nature basically, but in saying that we would need an effective punisher, highlights the flaw in his theory..to have an effective punisher would mean someone ruling/leading, so not everyone is neutral anymore, it is now a state. Hope this makes sense?

Reply 14

HarryAlexander

Original post by >Username<

Tell me about it! I don't suppose you could help me out... :s-smilie:

I could definitely help anyone out, I love philosophy.

Reply 15

Hody421

Original post by HarryAlexander

I could definitely help anyone out, I love philosophy.

I am not the author of the post, but just an outsider

Can you explain to me, morality as a 'conventional agreement' for our mutual advantage.

Reply 16

>Username<

Original post by Hody421

I am not the author of the post, but just an outsider

Can you explain to me, morality as a 'conventional agreement' for our mutual advantage.

I'm not saying this is 100% right. But I'd say its about 90% right, lol.

Its conventional for us to be moral because its part of the social contract. The best way I can explain this is through an example... Lets say your neighbour asks you for a lift to the library, you don't want to do it because you've just go in from work. But you take your neighbour to the library because of the social contract. By this social contract I mean its a tacit agreement between society. You've never agreed to this but its how we all live. You helped your neighbour so in the future its likely you're neighbour will help. Its a mutual advantage we all share.

If we didn't live this way they'd be complete chaos. So morality is a conventional agreement for our mutual agreement.

Another example could be... We could all kill each other, but due to the social contract we don't. I know if I kill someone its likely someone will find out and kill me/someone I know, so I don't do it. No has as ever signed up to anything its just the way we live our lives, that's why its a mutual advantage.

I hope this make sense, any questions feel free to message/quote me. :smile:

Reply 17

>Username<

Original post by Saima12345

Thanks for replying. :smile:

I cannot even express how grateful I am for your help. :smile:

(See bold) I thought the reason for having a punisher was because the introduction of property leads people to argue ect so we need a state.

:s-smilie:

Reply 18

>Username<