Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrltt)
    i thought it was more about rationalism as a whole, as conceptual schemes arent innate understanding but more something innate that allows us to understand
    ahh :/
    you may well be right, but i think (hopefully) that you could approach the question by writing about pre-determined/innate conceptual schemes as long as you relate it to the question. also 'something innate that allows us to understand' could be seen as an 'innate grasp of the way the world is'. I think because of the word 'grasp' instead of perhaps 'idea', one is allowed to talk about conceptual schemes. But my guess is as good as yours, hopefully both our answers will be fine
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PaulyRivs)
    Most of the answer I gave was linked to Conceptual Schemes and Kant and Sapir-Whorfs different approaches to Conceptual Schemes, since Conceptual Schemes are regarded as innate and effect how we view the world, so I assumed the question was on Conceptual Schemes.
    it sounds like you wrote exactly the same thing as me!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student8)
    it sounds like you wrote exactly the same thing as me!
    I'm scared now. What if the question was about Innate Knowledge but we got it wrong and we'll lose marks for interpreting the question wrong? D:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'll just offer what I did. I started with Plato and that we can have innate knowledge of perfect moral standards as illustrated in the Phaedro. Then I criticised with Hume saying that we can imagine perfection. Defended Plato through Descartes' principle of causal adequacy and then refuted this through the counter-example of evolution. Then I offered Kant as an alternative, arguing that we can have innate knowledge of the phenomenal world, more specifically that objects will appear to stand in causal relation to each other, but we cannot have innate knowledge about how the world really is, or the noumenal world.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    My teacher said it was an innate ideas essay plus i didn't finish the OA essay therefore im already prepared to get an U. can you guys just explain if i would have to retake the whole year if i get an U in this exam but get a good grade on unit 2.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've heard on the grapevine that if I end up having to resit PHIL2 i'll also have to resit PHIL1 next year (even though I've already got the mark I want in it) -- can anyone tell me if this is right/wrong?

    Cheers
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student8)
    you may well be right, but i think (hopefully) that you could approach the question by writing about pre-determined/innate conceptual schemes as long as you relate it to the question. also 'something innate that allows us to understand' could be seen as an 'innate grasp of the way the world is'. I think because of the word 'grasp' instead of perhaps 'idea', one is allowed to talk about conceptual schemes. But my guess is as good as yours, hopefully both our answers will be fine
    oh yeah its definitely open to interpretation! i also wrote about conceptual schemes too, i basically just covered all the relevant ground in the rationalism/empiricism debate!
    although im slightly worried i havent heard of Sapir-Whorfs like... at all
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PaulyRivs)
    I'm scared now. What if the question was about Innate Knowledge but we got it wrong and we'll lose marks for interpreting the question wrong? D:
    this has made me worry a lot as well, especially because i knew exactly what to write for an innate knowledge question but i just thought it was about conceptual schemes! This is so irritating! - ah well, there's nothing we can do now, hopefully it will be fine.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrltt)
    oh yeah its definitely open to interpretation! i also wrote about conceptual schemes too, i basically just covered all the relevant ground in the rationalism/empiricism debate!
    although im slightly worried i havent heard of Sapir-Whorfs like... at all
    I talked about Kant's Conceptual Schemes theory, then compared it with Sapir-Whorfs theory of it and how SW's theory differs from Kants theory, talked about Kant and the ship, A to B, how the movement of the ship needs a conceptual scheme to understand how the changes in the world and not just how we see the world change, how SW uses the Hopi tribe to criticise Kant's idea of tense and Kant's idea of unconceptualised schemes, then threw Locke and Hume into the mix, using Locke to criticse the idea that Kant puts forward that Conceptual Schemes are universally accepted without being culturally limited and used "children and idiots" to criticise it with Locke, and a few other things as well. I hope this sounds good and relevant to the question that was being asked! D:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student8)
    this has made me worry a lot as well, especially because i knew exactly what to write for an innate knowledge question but i just thought it was about conceptual schemes! This is so irritating! - ah well, there's nothing we can do now, hopefully it will be fine.
    I really hope that the question is open to interpretation! D: Considering it said "grasp" instead of "ideas" and said about the world, I would associate "Innate grasp of the world" with Conceptual Schemes, since Conceptual Schemes is about how we view the world, such as the ship, etc. Innate ideas thesis doesn't mention how we see "the world" but how we acquire knowledge, whereas Conceptual Schemes is about how we see "the world". From that, I figured it was Conceptual Schemes and hopefully the examiners will see it that way too. D:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    R+E 15 marker: Very easy, very pleased.
    R+E 30 marker: I interpreted it as innate ideas, namely Plato - which I contrasted with Locke/Hume stating that we don't in fact have innate ideas at all and that all of our ideas come from sensory experience, concluding that whilst empirical knowledge is not certain, it is a more useful theory as it allows us to trust our senses and learn new things about the world whereas Plato's Forms are quite elitist and doubtful.

    WSIBM 15 marker: A little bit iffy, quite an unusual choice of question IMO.
    WSIBM 30 marker: Discussed egoism (Nietzsche and Hume), and contrasted with Kant - critiquing both, concluding that whilst both are problematic, we need to use our own ideas of sympathy/self-interest as Kant's deontology is simply too rigid and insensitive to circumstances, and it lacks guidance.

    No idea as a whole how I thought it went, I've just got used to expecting nothing now, you never know what your result is going to be like with a subject like Philosophy! Hope everybody is satisfied on results day, I'm done with AS now - it's back to A2 revision! Good luck in your future endeavors with PHIL2, I hope you find my notes useful!
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PaulyRivs)
    I really hope that the question is open to interpretation! D: Considering it said "grasp" instead of "ideas" and said about the world, I would associate "Innate grasp of the world" with Conceptual Schemes, since Conceptual Schemes is about how we view the world, such as the ship, etc. Innate ideas thesis doesn't mention how we see "the world" but how we acquire knowledge, whereas Conceptual Schemes is about how we see "the world". From that, I figured it was Conceptual Schemes and hopefully the examiners will see it that way too. D:
    ok that it literally word for word what i thought. i'll ask my teacher tomorrow and let you know if you'd like, but when i spoke to him about it today quickly after the exam he seemed to think that what i had written (the same as you) was absolutely fine.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PaulyRivs)
    I talked about Kant's Conceptual Schemes theory, then compared it with Sapir-Whorfs theory of it and how SW's theory differs from Kants theory, talked about Kant and the ship, A to B, how the movement of the ship needs a conceptual scheme to understand how the changes in the world and not just how we see the world change, how SW uses the Hopi tribe to criticise Kant's idea of tense and Kant's idea of unconceptualised schemes, then threw Locke and Hume into the mix, using Locke to criticse the idea that Kant puts forward that Conceptual Schemes are universally accepted without being culturally limited and used "children and idiots" to criticise it with Locke, and a few other things as well. I hope this sounds good and relevant to the question that was being asked! D:
    from the sounds of it there was a fairly even split of people talking about innate knowledge and conceptual schemes!
    i think the examiners will understand that grasp could be interpreted different ways, theres no correct answer in philosophy after all, im just glad i shoved some stuff on conceptual schemes in the end haha
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrltt)
    from the sounds of it there was a fairly even split of people talking about innate knowledge and conceptual schemes!
    i think the examiners will understand that grasp could be interpreted different ways, theres no correct answer in philosophy after all, im just glad i shoved some stuff on conceptual schemes in the end haha
    I hope the examining board will accept different interpretations. As long as the information is good and relevant and you can justify why you interpreted it the way you did, surely the examining board can see that!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student8)
    ok that it literally word for word what i thought. i'll ask my teacher tomorrow and let you know if you'd like, but when i spoke to him about it today quickly after the exam he seemed to think that what i had written (the same as you) was absolutely fine.
    Let me know what your teacher says tommorow. I'll be speaking to my Philosophy teacher tommorow as well, so we'll both get an understanding of whether the examining board will allow interpretation. Hopefully it will!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PaulyRivs)
    I talked about Kant's Conceptual Schemes theory, then compared it with Sapir-Whorfs theory of it and how SW's theory differs from Kants theory, talked about Kant and the ship, A to B, how the movement of the ship needs a conceptual scheme to understand how the changes in the world and not just how we see the world change, how SW uses the Hopi tribe to criticise Kant's idea of tense and Kant's idea of unconceptualised schemes, then threw Locke and Hume into the mix, using Locke to criticse the idea that Kant puts forward that Conceptual Schemes are universally accepted without being culturally limited and used "children and idiots" to criticise it with Locke, and a few other things as well. I hope this sounds good and relevant to the question that was being asked! D:
    This is pretty much exactly what I wrote, hopefully it's ok. It should be though, as the question was relatively vague and allowed you to answer what you like, so they should be expecting a variety of responses. It was the word 'grasp' that made me think it was conceptual schemes though.

    For those who did WSIBM, I thought it went pretty well but the questions were a bit strange as they were pretty much contradicting each other, so I felt pretty hypocritical the way I'd just attacked the view in the 15 marker in the 30 marker, then had to defend it when I did the 15 marker
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NiallD)
    This is pretty much exactly what I wrote, hopefully it's ok. It should be though, as the question was relatively vague and allowed you to answer what you like, so they should be expecting a variety of responses. It was the word 'grasp' that made me think it was conceptual schemes though.

    For those who did WSIBM, I thought it went pretty well but the questions were a bit strange as they were pretty much contradicting each other, so I felt pretty hypocritical the way I'd just attacked the view in the 15 marker in the 30 marker, then had to defend it when I did the 15 marker
    For the 30 marker I talked about how without power you cannot have authority because you need power in order to authorise your authority and although you still have the authority, it cannot be authorised without having power. I talked about authority being legitimate and power as being simply an ability to do something, but how authority is justifiable and used Chairman Mao's "power comes from the barrel of a gun" example as to how power is associated with intimidation and supremacy. As for the 15 marker, well, I just talked about protests turning violent and how it cannot be justified if a civil protest turns violent and people end up getting seriously injured and killed or how innocent people get their shops destroyed and how that isn't justifiable, etc. I hope that sounds promising for the WSIBG question. As for R+E, the first question was great and the second question was pretty good, although I'm just hoping the exam board will accept me interpreting it as a Conceptual Schemes question... D:
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PaulyRivs)
    For the 30 marker I talked about how without power you cannot have authority because you need power in order to authorise your authority and although you still have the authority, it cannot be authorised without having power. I talked about authority being legitimate and power as being simply an ability to do something, but how authority is justifiable and used Chairman Mao's "power comes from the barrel of a gun" example as to how power is associated with intimidation and supremacy. As for the 15 marker, well, I just talked about protests turning violent and how it cannot be justified if a civil protest turns violent and people end up getting seriously injured and killed or how innocent people get their shops destroyed and how that isn't justifiable, etc. I hope that sounds promising for the WSIBG question. As for R+E, the first question was great and the second question was pretty good, although I'm just hoping the exam board will accept me interpreting it as a Conceptual Schemes question... D:
    everyone says that the 15 mark question for R and E was good and i agree as i knew what both were, so i gave definitions with an illustration but i found that my answer was Very short. What did you put?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm sitting Phil 2 on Friday, (Knowledge of the external world & Free will and determinism) anyone have any idea of what questions could come up?!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student8)
    everyone says that the 15 mark question for R and E was good and i agree as i knew what both were, so i gave definitions with an illustration but i found that my answer was Very short. What did you put?
    Inductive is a rule based on experience; if I throw a ball in the air ten times and it always comes back down, I make the inductive ruling that it will always hit the floor, but I cannot always be certain it will hit the ground, no matter how many times I throw it, because something might change, such as the laws of gravity. I used Russell's turkey to illustrate the problem of inductive thinking. I then talked about Deductive thinking, where you apply a rule based on what you see. "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal" and that I could deductively say that my teacher will take off a mark for every grammar mistake I make, therefore I can deductively say that if I make five grammar mistakes, I will lose five marks. That's the basic jist of the answer I gave.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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.