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

Scroll to see replies

Reply 400

samsun12345

Original post by thepurplerain

Did most people do Q1 and 3?

Yassss, what did you write about for 1B?

Reply 401

meeya

Original post by 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 ?!

That's all you needed - You could have written a paragraph on Anselm, how he was writing from a position of "faith seeking understanding" and how he was writing to support psalms, "the fool in his heart says there is not God"

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 402

Hayjayk89

What did you guys write for irenaeus

Reply 403

Jooosmooon

Original post by meeya

Thank you!!! I had a complete mind blank about Anselm himself so just hope I have done enough :-) thanks!

Reply 404

Jooosmooon

Original post by Hayjayk89

What did you guys write for irenaeus

I had an absolute nightmare with this! Forgot everything! I just wrote that it's soul-making and basically that it's justified cos it allows development and leads us to be a child of God ... Done really bad on this

Reply 405

2062629

Original post by Jooosmooon

I wrote:
Intro : anselm, a prori, deductive and what the kwywords mean
1. Anselms definition of god and his argument
2. Guanilo "on behalf of the fool" and his island parody
3. Anselms second argument
4. Descartes
5.kants criticisms
6. Betand criticisms
Conclusion: summary

Reply 406

TeaAndTextbooks

That exam was sooo bad, I completely messed up :frown:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 407

TeaAndTextbooks

Original post by Jooosmooon

Well at least you didn't write it's soul deciding like I did. I had a complete mental block.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 408

Oliviawicks23

Loved that exam was so good! Dont think i wrote enough for anselm's argument though- i wrote about him and gaunilo, i didnt even mention descartes or kant:/

Reply 409

meeya

Original post by Oliviawicks23

Loved that exam was so good! Dont think i wrote enough for anselm's argument though- i wrote about him and gaunilo, i didnt even mention descartes or kant:/

ayy you didn't need to, part A isnt for analysis - that's part B. You write about what the question asks you to - which is Anselm! and obv a little about gaunilo because he inspired Anselm's second version of his argument

Reply 410

Helzbay

Yeah but the question was "explain Anselms attempt to prove the existence of God" you talk about anselm not Ganulo or any criticism??

The thing is you talk about his arguments and his views

Reply 411

Helzbay

For part b, you talk about Gaunilo and other criticisms am i wrong thats what i did

Reply 412

carpe.noctem

I just talked about Anselm and explained his arguments in depth, I didn't even talk about Guanilo, would I loose marks ?

Reply 413

Helzbay

Original post by nihil_nimis

I just talked about Anselm and explained his arguments in depth, I didn't even talk about Guanilo, would I loose marks ?

You wouldnt did you talk about gaunilo in part B??

Reply 414

Jooosmooon

Original post by TeaAndTextbooks

Well at least you didn't write it's soul deciding like I did. I had a complete mental block.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Oh you'll be supprised!!! I remembered nothing and I couldn't make any key points or explain anything ! I have no explamples and mentioned nothing about image or likeness of God ... Litreally all I wrote was soul-making I couldn't remember anything else :frown:

Reply 415

carpe.noctem

Original post by Helzbay

You wouldnt did you talk about gaunilo in part B??

No, I mainly just talked about general criticisms on the argument and used Descartes, I completely forgot about Guanilo , but to be honest even if I did include him I wouldn't really know how to link it to the question, because it asked about the necessity of God and Gaunilo was more concerned with the way Anselm was defining things into existence.

Reply 416

Maz A

Original post by samsun12345

What did you talk about for 1B?

1.b) God isn't logically necessary-Discuss. I started off by using Gaunilo's example of the island to outline how using reason (i.e. logic) God cannot exist. Then Alvin Platinga who states that an island holds no intrinsic maximum though God is maximally great also reinforced by Anselm's second ontological argument he states that island is contingent unlike God whom is necessary existence (damn forgot to write 'liber apologeticus'). Then I described Descartes explanation of the ontological God's existence being immutable like mathematics thus he must exist (existence a predicate). Then response by Kant saying existence is not a predicate and Aquinas stating that ontological argument is synthetic not self evident of God (forgot to mention Aquinas a posteriori). Also added that Peter Gassendi says we can only talk about perfection of things that exist. Concluded with Van Iwagen supporting Anselm's argument stating without God it is self-contradictory (for contingent things to come into existence). tried to make it sound like an argument and tried to link back to questions t end of paragraphs. Hope that helps, how did you do?

Reply 417

Oliviawicks23

Original post by nihil_nimis

I did that, i used aquinas for 1B to talk about God's necessary existence

Reply 418

Maz A

Original post by nihil_nimis

I just talked about Anselm and explained his arguments in depth, I didn't even talk about Guanilo, would I loose marks ?

I don't think so. I structured the part a with Gaunilo's argument, then added Descarte's and Van Iwagen and linked this back by stating the question how it reinforces Anselm's argument that God exists. In hindsight I think having the Anselm Gaunilo criticism part for the part A would actually be a good structure but I don't think we'll be penalised for not doing so.