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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elshiexx)
    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'm sure you'll be fine I have my fingers crossed whatever you wrote is on the mark scheme it may be as they tend to be very vague and abstract so don't lose hope!! If you think 4 is low try being the only one in the school to do it was so awkward sitting there on my own row next to all the physics students! I thought it was ok moral was fine but I messed up the political as was thrown by qs as hadn't prepared for last years units to come up again but just want to get the 20th out of the way now !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euseangel)
    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 :\
    It's a different interpretation but it still sounds like an impressive answer! it was a pretty broad question so I'm sure there will have been loads of different approaches - I wouldn't worry about it too much!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan37)
    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?
    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 ...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by millie-rose)
    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
    that's so true. i just realised that it was a mistake not to go into more depth on a couple of theories. it's always been my problem in philosophy, too much AO1 stuff and not enough AO2 and AO3
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan37)
    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?
    Damn I think I may have done it wrong...

    I said like we can't be sure the mind & brain interact cos hasn't been proven. Then went onto dualism & said how they fail mind body problem. Then how type identity improves but still can't prove the mind & brain interact. Then an the view of Elim materialism...

    Oh god I just hope I done enough to get like a lowish B or C and can pull my grade up on the other question
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by totopink)
    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?
    I did epistemology and religion, answered questions 5 and 9. For question 5 I just did the standard nominalist, conceptualist, and realist positions and looked at whether or not realism or conceptualism solve any problems faced by nominalism and the problems that they create. In the end I concluded that they do create more problems than they solve.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fatcats)
    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 ...
    Hey don't worry, I did the behaviourism question too- I found it completely the opposite way, because I looked at the other question and had no idea what they were asking us for so thought the behaviourism would be best. I know I made a few mistakes though particularly when I was talking about the good parts of it :/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kkkassikassi)
    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...
    i would appear that we've written the exact same essay
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Camilla321)
    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'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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    I did 02 and 06, definitely the only one in my class to choose 06, and one of two to choose 02. Thinking back on it maybe the behaviourism one would have been better because I didn't quite get to finish what I was saying about anomalous monism..., but I preferred it because it had a wider scope / could bring it lots of things. Essentially wrote about how different theories argue that mind interacts with body. Lots of fun.

    Anyone doing Descartes' Meditations next Thursday?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah I am doing descartes


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Is anyone else lacking motivation atm for Unit 4, or is it just me?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AJ35)
    i would appear that we've written the exact same essay
    this makes me feel hopeful!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RebeccaBuxton)
    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
    minus the pluralism part and add in anarchism, i pretty much wrote the same thing
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RebeccaBuxton)
    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 reckon it could be a philosopher qualities fifteen marker - though the line would be lovely!

    I'm also hoping for a Forms question for the 45 marker because I feel you can criticise that so strongly.

    What about you? What would you like to come up?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lisa_)
    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
    Just see it as this, you pivked up some marks at least! Better the one you don't understand than the one you weren't taught tbh!

    Fingers crossed for us!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fatcats)
    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 ...
    quite a few people in my class did the behaviourism question because we covered it in class. If i'm being honest though a few of them said they did it without even looking at the second question, and if they had then they would have done the dualism q!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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