OCR AS Philosophy & Ethics: Official Thread for May/June 2016

I basically forgot irenaeus' theodicy and just said stuff about how he looks at Genesis and how we are made in the image of God and learn from mistakes to become in the likeness of God (I forgot to say how we are born immature) I did mention Augustine tho and how they differ from each other.. lol would I get any marks?

Reply 381

sianne4c

4

Well that went terribly .. I did iraneaus and Kant because the part B on the other questions was just no.

Reply 382

carpe.noctem

14

For the Iranaeus question would I loose marks for talking about Hick ?

Reply 383

nizmo786

Original post by Louise12307

That was immense! Plato STILL hasn't come up!!!! I did Kant and Anselm.... However in the Anselm one I did two paras on his arguments then a third on Descartes.. Will I get marks for mentioning Descartes even tho the Q was asking to explain Anselm's attempt to demonstrate God's existence?! I hope so cause I had nothing else to write lol

The question specifically said Anselm. So you had to discuss both parts to his ontological argument in detail. You wont be marked on your answer on Descartes. Also you could have included Gauinillo's critisism of Anselms ideas and also write Anselms reply to him.

Reply 384

username2444493

1

Personally I think that exam was ok. It couldve gone better. I did Anselm and Kant.
In my class there was mixture of people who either did Anselm and Ireanus or Anselm and Kant (no one did irreducible complexity. Everyone know it but the question looked dirty).

For Anselm was you supposed to mention Gaunilo as our teacher said if the question only specifies Anselm only mention Anselm

Reply 385

nizmo786

I was expecting either plato or Humes critisisms on the cosmological argument or russell and copleston's debate. But anyway exam was good chose Anselm and Ireneus questions.

Reply 386

Louise12307

3

Original post by nizmo786

The question specifically said Anselm. So you had to discuss both parts to his ontological argument in detail. You wont be marked on your answer on Descartes. Also you could have included Gauinillo's critisism of Anselms ideas and also write Anselms reply to him.

Yes I definitely discussed both parts of the argument in detail. I also wrote about the argument itself being a priori, deductive and analytic. I thought about adding in the part with Gaunilo but decided that it was classed as evaluation, which isn't need in 25 markers. They only want knowledge - so I just went with a hunch and developed the answer with Descartes.

Reply 387

nizmo786

Original post by Dyl98an

Well f*** you ho3s. No one answered my question. "Like for real. Are you dumb. You know who mans are"

And your question is......?

Reply 388

jmartinzahid

3

Original post by Louise12307

Yes I definitely discussed both parts of the argument in detail. I also wrote about the argument itself being a priori, deductive and analytic. I thought about adding in the part with Gaunilo but decided that it was classed as evaluation, which isn't need in 25 markers. They only want knowledge - so I just went with a hunch and developed the answer with Descartes.

damn i forgot to write about how it's analytic

Reply 389

2062629

5

Original post by Dyl98an

Well f*** you ho3s. No one answered my question. "Like for real. Are you dumb. You know who mans are"

Whats ur question? I can answer :smile:

Reply 390

nizmo786

Original post by Louise12307

Yes I definitely discussed both parts of the argument in detail. I also wrote about the argument itself being a priori, deductive and analytic. I thought about adding in the part with Gaunilo but decided that it was classed as evaluation, which isn't need in 25 markers. They only want knowledge - so I just went with a hunch and developed the answer with Descartes.

Last time this question came on the exam, the mark scheme said candidates could mention Gaunilo and Anelms reply, as this comes under Anselms version of the ontological argument.

Reply 391

Louise12307

3

Original post by nizmo786

Last time this question came on the exam, the mark scheme said candidates could mention Gaunilo and Anelms reply, as this comes under Anselms version of the ontological argument.

Interesting. Was it asked after 2010? I found a 2010 mark scheme which almost mirrors today's exam and it mentioned nothing about Gaunilo. It says about explaining both arguments, how the argument is analytic etc and some can also mention rationalism. However I don't claim to know it all, I imagine my paragraph on Descartes may well be discarded however I hope to scrape 1 or 2 marks for general extra knowledge!

Reply 392

sianne4c

4

Original post by nizmo786

Last time this question came on the exam, the mark scheme said candidates could mention Gaunilo and Anelms reply, as this comes under Anselms version of the ontological argument.

You'd get marks for it so long as for the most part you mentioned Anselm and didn't spend the whole toe talking about Ganilo

Reply 393

Maz A

16

The REAL question is how many pages of the booklet did you take up ?jks I did questions 1 and 3, its quite ironic I gave my teacher a couple of days before the exam essays on Kant's moral argument and the concept of Irreducible Complexity; both topics came up but I did neither xD

Reply 394

nizmo786

Original post by sianne4c

You'd get marks for it so long as for the most part you mentioned Anselm and didn't spend the whole toe talking about Ganilo

Now just need to concentrate on Ethics. Got a week and a bit to go.

Reply 395

Maz A

16

Original post by nihil_nimis

For the Iranaeus question would I loose marks for talking about Hick ?

I highly doubt it as long as you explain Iraneus' theodicy then showed Hick as presenting a modern Iranean theodicy and... linked this back to the question that natural + moral evil is essentially for development it should get you more marks.

Reply 396

carpe.noctem

14

Original post by Maz A

I highly doubt it as long as you explain Iraneus' theodicy then showed Hick as presenting a modern Iranean theodicy and... linked this back to the question that natural + moral evil is essentially for development it should get you more marks.

Alright good I think I did that, thank you

Reply 397

Jooosmooon

So for the Anselm question did you just have to write about the ontological argument? I just wrote his first part then gaunilos critisisms and then I wrote his second part of the argument .. What else should I of wrote ?!

Reply 398

rehmanator

2

Original post by Maz A

The REAL question is how many pages of the booklet did you take up ?jks I did questions 1 and 3, its quite ironic I gave my teacher a couple of days before the exam essays on Kant's moral argument and the concept of Irreducible Complexity; both topics came up but I did neither xD

i finished the booklet and needed more paper wrote aload of drivel

Reply 399

samsun12345

2

Original post by Maz A

The REAL question is how many pages of the booklet did you take up ?jks I did questions 1 and 3, its quite ironic I gave my teacher a couple of days before the exam essays on Kant's moral argument and the concept of Irreducible Complexity; both topics came up but I did neither xD

What did you talk about for 1B?

OCR AS Philosophy & Ethics: Official Thread for May/June 2016

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you