AQA Philosophy A2 June 2013

I can't quite remeber the question but I ended up talking about the problem with psychological egoism, that of it not being able to account for sacrifices. But i was talking to one of the guys who did the same question as me (only 4 people our school do philosophy) and he said that it was problems in morality like abortion etc ahhh so angry
but i'm glad that the first q went alright, just got to get as many marks on Hume in the 20th.
how did your's go?

i answered that question really differently. I wrote more like it was possible to find moral knowedge through our conscience- we feel guilt and stuff and through ethical natrualism such as utilitarianism which allows a really easy method of finding moral truth. Then i wrote that it wasn't possible as the forms are unaccesable to the average person and that because there are so many different views finding the truth would be near impossible so even though theres moral truth its not possible to know it. I think i took a literal interpretation when it asked 'assess the claim that it is possible to have knowledge of moral truth' so i hope the way i interpreted it is also accepted or else that 50marks down the drain :\

I hope I interpreted the 2nd mind question correctly! Was it essentially asking us to illustrate Dualist theories and how they fail the mind-body problem, therefore suggesting that it is a mistake to suppose the mind and brain interact?

i'm suure you'll be fine, I didn't even have time to go into Marxism! With the mark scheme for Philosophy though, it's better to have in-depth evaluation of a couple of theories rather than a general narrative of all of them

I hope I interpreted the 2nd mind question correctly! Was it essentially asking us to illustrate Dualist theories and how they fail the mind-body problem, therefore suggesting that it is a mistake to suppose the mind and brain interact?

Did anyone answer philosophy of the mind or the epistemology questions?
I think I chose 02 and 05, they were worded soooo confusingly, how did you approach them?

my friend said he wrote exactly what you said, sounds like you did well! nobody except me and the notoriously thick girl in my class did the Behaviourism question for the mind section... did anybody else do it? i feel like i must have picked the question that was harder by accident what with everyone else doing the other one! anyone you know not do the Dualism q? bothering me ...

i practically wrote about everything to be honest haha! mine went:

- transcendency (plato's forms and analogy with mathematics)
- naturalism (mill and aristotle)
- countered naturalism with moore's open-question argument
- found a criticism for that
- spoke about emotivism and how the verification principle renders itself meaningless, then moved onto stevenson
-is-ought gap
- cultural relativism

i wrote about 7/8 pages and i think it went really well, hopefully i didn't cram too much in because i literally wrote about EVERYTHING, but i argued about everything i mentioned so hopefully that's positive...

Omg! I thought the question was just worded weirdly for political philosophy and did not believe they could do the same two questions!

I did the nation ones all about rights- natural, Locke, Marx all of it ((((((((((((((((

I just kept linking to nations throughout.
I think the actual essay was okay but how badly will this be penalised?!!!!!?

Like actually righting an essay on rights with reference to a nation briefly??????


Ready to commit sucide.

i would appear that we've written the exact same essay

I need someone to tell me whether what I did for the human nature politics one was reasonable

Conservatism (humans are not perefectable and irrational and so need to be told how to behave)
Mill and the value of Negative Freedom (it doesn't matter what our human nature is its better for utility to just leave everyone alone)
Isaiah Berlin and the paradox of positive liberty
Political Authority assumes common goal: therefore ignored value pluralism and could politicise everything?
Harm principle is a bit vague but its better to keep it as harm over offence because otherwise most things wouldn't be allowed
Concluded with Mills liberalism, state as a neutral umpire


Moving on from that awful paper, does anyone have any predicitons for the Plato section of PHIL4? I'm hoping for a divided line fifteen marker

Moving on from that awful paper, does anyone have any predicitons for the Plato section of PHIL4? I'm hoping for a divided line fifteen marker

I'm exactly the same as you! I had to pick between a question I hadn't been taught and a question I didn't understand. I picked the one I didn't understand and now majorly regretting it. I think what you did actually sounds okay, I can't imagine that there's much else you could do! Compared to what I wrote for the human nature question I'm sure it's wonderful

my friend said he wrote exactly what you said, sounds like you did well! nobody except me and the notoriously thick girl in my class did the Behaviourism question for the mind section... did anybody else do it? i feel like i must have picked the question that was harder by accident what with everyone else doing the other one! anyone you know not do the Dualism q? bothering me ...