Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the A* guy)
    ok, i'll start:

    Explain briefly, 2 accounts of the origin of the idea of god.
    ok err...

    freud said there were three parts to the human mind, the super ego, the ego and the ID, and freud psychology is about rationally facing up to the demands of the ID. he said that children basically only possess the ID and so have essential requirements such as protection, which they get from their parents, however as they get older they realise it cannot all come from their parents, but these requirements never leave you so freud suggests that religion is a 'parent replacement', essentially the outcome of our most primitive desires, an unconscious attempt to fufil the basic desires of humans by creating religion (god) as a psychological crutch.

    Emile Durkheim also believed that god was a human construction but that god was a social construction rather than psychological like freud suggested. Durkheim believed that god was the product of social need, that in order for society to function people must possess shared attitudes towards matters and religion provided this; it gave people a common sense of identity and morality and therefore god is simply an expression of society.

    hope thats alright ?

    ok what are two problems with the idea that god is omnipotent ?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the A* guy)
    ok, i'll start:

    Explain briefly, 2 accounts of the origin of the idea of god.
    forgot to say that freud thought the origin of god was psychological, i meant to write that at the beginning, also i realise because i was trying to type quickly my answer doesnt completely make sense- sorry
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NiallD)
    Reason & Experience Jan 2013 15 marker was about the difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, and 30 marker was 'How convincing is the claim at birth the mind is a tabula rasa?' Would have been so nice to have gotten those two questions, likelihood is our ones will be really hard and conceptual schemes will probably come up Don't know about Why Should I Be Moral, sorry! Would be grateful if anyone else did though as I'm doing that for the exam tomorrow as well as R&E.
    Those were dream questions. Damn. Yep chances are it'll be something really difficult then, oh well, good luck!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NiallD)
    I think I'm ok on Conceptual Schemes now but the Sapir-Whorf thing's really confusing me, is it a criticism of conceptual schemes because it shows that we have different concepts of time to Hopi Indians? And Kant thinks that everyone has the same conceptual schemes?
    Sapir-Whorf's Conceptual Schemes are a different definition of the term Conceptual Schemes; it's sort of like how Hume and Locke have different definitions of the word 'idea.'

    Kant says conceptual schemes are predetermined, and thus innate to everybody. Sapir-Whorf says conceptual schemes are not predetermined, and are shaped by language/culture (so yeah, they're criticising Kant). Which is yes to the Hopi time thing - the Hopi conceive time differently from our culture. This is because, according to Sapir-Whorf, our languages have shaped our conceptual schemes differently.

    If conceptual schemes are shaped by empirical experience, then, empiricists can go on to claim that other conceptual schemes are also derived from experience, thus undermining Kant's argument, e.g. Hume argues that we gain the concept of causation by observing two events occurring together again and again until we begin to assume that they must necessarily occur again together in the future. TLDR; Kant says conceptual schemes are known innately/a priori, Sapir-Whorf criticise this by saying that conceptual schemes are known empirically/a posteriori and depend on an individual's language.

    Good luck tomorrow!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dlaiden)
    Sapir-Whorf's Conceptual Schemes are a different definition of the term Conceptual Schemes; it's sort of like how Hume and Locke have different definitions of the word 'idea.'

    Kant says conceptual schemes are predetermined, and thus innate to everybody. Sapir-Whorf says conceptual schemes are not predetermined, and are shaped by language/culture (so yeah, they're criticising Kant). Which is yes to the Hopi time thing - the Hopi conceive time differently from our culture. This is because, according to Sapir-Whorf, our languages have shaped our conceptual schemes differently.

    If conceptual schemes are shaped by empirical experience, then, empiricists can go on to claim that other conceptual schemes are also derived from experience, thus undermining Kant's argument, e.g. Hume argues that we gain the concept of causation by observing two events occurring together again and again until we begin to assume that they must necessarily occur again together in the future. TLDR; Kant says conceptual schemes are known innately/a priori, Sapir-Whorf criticise this by saying that conceptual schemes are known empirically/a posteriori and depend on an individual's language.

    Good luck tomorrow!
    And suddenly, with a clarity my teacher hasn't been able to muster over the past three years of trying to jam this into my head, it all makes sense.

    Thank you!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dlaiden)
    Sapir-Whorf's Conceptual Schemes are a different definition of the term Conceptual Schemes; it's sort of like how Hume and Locke have different definitions of the word 'idea.'

    Kant says conceptual schemes are predetermined, and thus innate to everybody. Sapir-Whorf says conceptual schemes are not predetermined, and are shaped by language/culture (so yeah, they're criticising Kant). Which is yes to the Hopi time thing - the Hopi conceive time differently from our culture. This is because, according to Sapir-Whorf, our languages have shaped our conceptual schemes differently.

    If conceptual schemes are shaped by empirical experience, then, empiricists can go on to claim that other conceptual schemes are also derived from experience, thus undermining Kant's argument, e.g. Hume argues that we gain the concept of causation by observing two events occurring together again and again until we begin to assume that they must necessarily occur again together in the future. TLDR; Kant says conceptual schemes are known innately/a priori, Sapir-Whorf criticise this by saying that conceptual schemes are known empirically/a posteriori and depend on an individual's language.

    Good luck tomorrow!
    Thanks so much, you've been so helpful Good luck to you with the exam today, and everyone else!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    hope everyone's done well today! has anyone got any last minute advice on tolerance....feeling hideously unprepared, for example, whether a liberal socieyt should be neutral to the good lfe.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Not sure if we're allowed to talk about this yet, but just wondering how everyone felt it went?

    I'm personally really happy with it, I'm really happy I'm came on here because you've all really helped, and pretty much predicted the R&E questions completely correctly :eek: Anyone doing Value of Art and Free Will for Unit 2 and has any predictions for what will come up on that?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NiallD)
    Not sure if we're allowed to talk about this yet, but just wondering how everyone felt it went?

    I'm personally really happy with it, I'm really happy I'm came on here because you've all really helped, and pretty much predicted the R&E questions completely correctly :eek: Anyone doing Value of Art and Free Will for Unit 2 and has any predictions for what will come up on that?
    I think I did reasonably well with R&E. I enjoyed the questions and had done enough revision to know how to answer the type of questions that came up, although Why should I be governed caught me off guard a bit. All-in-all, hopefully I managed to get a C from that exam, and hopefully I can push my marks up for the PHIL2 exam. I'm doing Value of Art and Tolerance. I think a form question is favoured to come up for the Value of Art, but I have no idea about Free Will, since I did bad in the exam in January, which is why I'm doing Value of Art instead.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by >Username<)
    But why does he think we are determined?
    It might have been Kant who came up with the first and second orders. I'm not sure though. I was rubbish in Free Will, which is why I'm doing Value of Art instead. :P
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PaulyRivs)
    I think I did reasonably well with R&E. I enjoyed the questions and had done enough revision to know how to answer the type of questions that came up, although Why should I be governed caught me off guard a bit. All-in-all, hopefully I managed to get a C from that exam, and hopefully I can push my marks up for the PHIL2 exam. I'm doing Value of Art and Tolerance. I think a form question is favoured to come up for the Value of Art, but I have no idea about Free Will, since I did bad in the exam in January, which is why I'm doing Value of Art instead.
    Yeah I was thinking Form as well, which wouldn't be too bad. I haven't actually revised Value Of Art which is a bit ridiculous, but I was so dumdbfounded by R&E that I gave all my Philosophy revision to that, so glad it's over now and I never have to think about it again Value of art is generally my favourite of the topics I'm doing though, so revision shouldn't be too hard.

    Just want to make sure, conceptual schemes were relevant to the 30 marker right? I thought it was but I wasn't completely sure as it didn't mention 'conceptual schemes' or 'pre determined,' I interpreted it as a question where you could talk about either conceptual schemes or other innate ideas theories such as Descartes, Leibniz, Chomsky etc, but I based my answer around conceptual schemes because I was so ready for it after extensively revising it, and already had a plan for it in my head was I right?

    Out of interest what came up in the Jan 2013 for Free Will? If I remember correctly I think my teacher said it was something about implications for morality?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm happy with R&E, but Jesus, did anyone else do Why Should I Be Governed? Question four was just...oh man.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NiallD)
    Yeah I was thinking Form as well, which wouldn't be too bad. I haven't actually revised Value Of Art which is a bit ridiculous, but I was so dumdbfounded by R&E that I gave all my Philosophy revision to that, so glad it's over now and I never have to think about it again Value of art is generally my favourite of the topics I'm doing though, so revision shouldn't be too hard.

    Just want to make sure, conceptual schemes were relevant to the 30 marker right? I thought it was but I wasn't completely sure as it didn't mention 'conceptual schemes' or 'pre determined,' I interpreted it as a question where you could talk about either conceptual schemes or other innate ideas theories such as Descartes, Leibniz, Chomsky etc, but I based my answer around conceptual schemes because I was so ready for it after extensively revising it, and already had a plan for it in my head was I right?

    Out of interest what came up in the Jan 2013 for Free Will? If I remember correctly I think my teacher said it was something about implications for morality?
    I believe you would have been correct in talking about Conceptual Schemes for the last question. I know I did that, as I interpreted the question as one relating to Conceptual Schemes, so I used Kant and Sapir-Whorf and got them both to argue, then brought Locke and Hume into the mix. I didn't talk much about Rationalism, but I explained what innate meant and briefly talked about Descartes concept of God and how Locke and Hume disagree with this and what Kant puts forward. I hope that sounds about right? D:

    And yeah, Value of Art is probably my favourite topic of the four as well. Luckily, there isn't much revision you can do for Value of Art because it's very opinion based, rather than having to follow a particular argument like in R&E. Just remember the three ways of how we value art, what they mean and come up with your own examples to justify them.

    As for the January 2013 paper, I think there have been a few posts which show the January 2013 paper, so if you look through the thread you will probably be able to find the paper and the questions that were on it. I hope you did well and I hope we're actually allowed to be talking about how well we did right now. If not, I will remove my posts immediately! D:
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NiallD)
    Yeah I was thinking Form as well, which wouldn't be too bad. I haven't actually revised Value Of Art which is a bit ridiculous, but I was so dumdbfounded by R&E that I gave all my Philosophy revision to that, so glad it's over now and I never have to think about it again Value of art is generally my favourite of the topics I'm doing though, so revision shouldn't be too hard.

    Just want to make sure, conceptual schemes were relevant to the 30 marker right? I thought it was but I wasn't completely sure as it didn't mention 'conceptual schemes' or 'pre determined,' I interpreted it as a question where you could talk about either conceptual schemes or other innate ideas theories such as Descartes, Leibniz, Chomsky etc, but I based my answer around conceptual schemes because I was so ready for it after extensively revising it, and already had a plan for it in my head was I right?

    Out of interest what came up in the Jan 2013 for Free Will? If I remember correctly I think my teacher said it was something about implications for morality?
    yeah i talked about conceptual schemes as well
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dlaiden)
    I'm happy with R&E, but Jesus, did anyone else do Why Should I Be Governed? Question four was just...oh man.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That was certainly a tricky one, but I still managed to get over two sides out of it and was able to illustrate the statement and explain it quite well, I felt. Having said that, it was still quite tricky. Hopefully I didn't lose a large quantity of marks due to the Why should I be governed? questions. D:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PaulyRivs)
    I believe you would have been correct in talking about Conceptual Schemes for the last question. I know I did that, as I interpreted the question as one relating to Conceptual Schemes, so I used Kant and Sapir-Whorf and got them both to argue, then brought Locke and Hume into the mix. I didn't talk much about Rationalism, but I explained what innate meant and briefly talked about Descartes concept of God and how Locke and Hume disagree with this and what Kant puts forward. I hope that sounds about right? D:

    And yeah, Value of Art is probably my favourite topic of the four as well. Luckily, there isn't much revision you can do for Value of Art because it's very opinion based, rather than having to follow a particular argument like in R&E. Just remember the three ways of how we value art, what they mean and come up with your own examples to justify them.

    As for the January 2013 paper, I think there have been a few posts which show the January 2013 paper, so if you look through the thread you will probably be able to find the paper and the questions that were on it. I hope you did well and I hope we're actually allowed to be talking about how well we did right now. If not, I will remove my posts immediately! D:
    Yeah that sounds about right, I mostly focused on Conceptual Schemes for mine and brought in Locke and how he would object it, and Sapir-Whorf's criticism etc. My second topic was Why Should I Be Moral, and both the questions for that strongly involved Kant's view on morality, so I ended up writing so much about Kant this morning It felt strange as I was writing how I agreed with him in terms of conceptual schemes, but then how I strongly disagreed with his views on morality, and then 15 marker pretty much involved me defending those views of his that I just said about how much I disagreed with
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    also in regards to tolerance:
    "A tolerant society should accept cultural expressions that it finds offensive .Discuss" what does cultural expressions here refer to ?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    what did people put as objections to the idea that god is innate ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bananaterracottapie)
    also in regards to tolerance:
    "A tolerant society should accept cultural expressions that it finds offensive .Discuss" what does cultural expressions here refer to ?
    Is this what came up in the exam or is it just a potential question that could come up?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PaulyRivs)
    Is this what came up in the exam or is it just a potential question that could come up?
    on a past exam paper from the aqa website ! think it was from 2011?


    another question, in regards to whether tolerance requires us to refrain from being offensive. i can think of many arguments against....but cannot think of any arguments in favour! lol so struggling to start it off. i mean i know esteem and respect conception may argue for that, but i dno how they would justify it.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: May 21, 2013
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.