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

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Also, in terms of Sartre "Physical things may limit choices but that doesn’t limit freedom"... I don't understand because we if someone is born without legs they are limited in the choices they make...?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cottam96)
    My revision is going okay I guess, just busy with IT2 Coursework atm, erm this is referring to Determinism incompatible with chance and that really chance is an illusion, if we knew enough about the prior causes and given what we know about the Laws of nature then we could accurately predict say the roll of a dice, Libertarianism seems to be we have free Will because there's a Gap in universal causality and that therefore we have the ability to do otherwise in exactly the same situation and Determinism is false!
    Sorry but I'm still confused. I understand what Libertarianism is, however I don't understand how coincidence, ignorance and probability relate to Libertarianism... I just don't understand what the point is... ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by >Username<)
    Sorry but I'm still confused. I understand what Libertarianism is, however I don't understand how coincidence, ignorance and probability relate to Libertarianism... I just don't understand what the point is... ?
    Well if something is by coincidence or probability it would prove that we have free will as it'd be a form of indeterminism as this would mean that we have an uncaused action to do with us and therefore would be free, but the objection points out that infact that isn't a free action either as if your arm jerks around for no reason you are not incontrol of your actions and therefore are not free and libertarianism is false
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cottam96)
    Well if something is by coincidence or probability it would prove that we have free will as it'd be a form of indeterminism as this would mean that we have an uncaused action to do with us and therefore would be free, but the objection points out that infact that isn't a free action either as if your arm jerks around for no reason you are not incontrol of your actions and therefore are not free and libertarianism is false
    I understand the first part, but not the second (sorry if I ask too many questions) I don't understand the objection... Why would someone's arm move involuntarily?

    So is coincidence and probability strengths of libertarianism?

    Also, if you don't mind me asking, what did you get in your Philosophy exams?

    Thanks for all the help, btw. I really appreciate it...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by >Username<)
    Thank you so much for uploading your revision notes.

    Please could you explain this to me "If we think in the physical, why do we claim it is non-physical? It is misleading to talk of thinking as a ‘mental activity’ – i.e. hand -> writing. The mind is not a thinking thing, why does the mind use physical representations if it is matter? (Ryle)".

    I understand there is a language problem... When do we claim we think in the non-physical? I don't understand the whole mental activity thing either. And how the mind isn't a thinking thing? I'm really confused. Sorry if this sounds like stupid questions or anything.
    It's a specific criticism of Descartes' dualism which claims the mind and body are separate, essentially the critique is an extension of the mind-body problem. We don't claim it is non-physical but Descartes does, i.e. we don't think 'I want to use my hand to write' and then write, it's an automatic process.

    Further to this, with regard to 'the mind is not a thinking thing', I think it is essentially saying (this was a critique given by my teacher so I don't fully understand it) that the mind as we understand it uses representations e.g. when we think of a pen, we tend to imagine one. If the mind was otherworldly, this probably wouldn't happen.

    Sorry, I'm not too good on Descartes - I usually try to stick to Sartre in libertarianism questions! Hope this helps though.

    (Original post by >Username<)
    Also, in terms of Sartre "Physical things may limit choices but that doesn’t limit freedom"... I don't understand because we if someone is born without legs they are limited in the choices they make...?
    For Sartre, freedom is understood as making conscious decisions and being creative with respect to your character. Thus, if somebody is born without legs, that is simply part of the 'facticity' - thus whilst certain choices may not be available, freedom is not limited as freedom is making co-ordinated choices to essentially better yourself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can anyone explain sense data? Please? I'll bake you cupcakes.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RunningInHeels)
    Can anyone explain sense data? Please? I'll bake you cupcakes.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Sense data confuses me but I can try and explain some of my teachers notes to you

    Sense data is our mind's internal representation of the object in the external world. When we see an object, we are actually directly seeing the sense data caused by this object. We are directly aware of the sense data but indirectly aware of the actual object. So we therefore see the world indirectly.

    Example
    I take a coin out of my pocket and look at it. What do I see? I see a silver circle. As I rotate it in my fingers the shape changes into an even thinner silver ellipse. Common sense tells me that there is one coin but many appearances. The appearances are the sense-data. The coin is the thing they relate to and I see the coin indirectly.

    This is how indirect realism can solve the hallucination/illusion problem that direct realism faces. There are many sets of sense data (like the different appearances of the coin). Seeing the real coin, hallucinating the coin, or even mistaking a button as the coin, all share the same thing in common, and that is the EXACT same sense data that I am directly aware of.

    I hope that helps a bit
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jodie_Lea)
    .

    I hope that helps a bit

    You are a star!!! Cupcakes whenever you want :mmm:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RunningInHeels)
    You are a star!!! Cupcakes whenever you want :mmm:
    ahaha you're welcome! I'm glad it helped
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I am doing Value of Art + Tolerance for Unit 2 and Reason and Experience + Why Should I Be Governed? for Unit 1. I feel as though I understand the Value of Art very well and I have a strong revision strategy for Reason and Experience.

    However, my mind needs refreshing on Tolerance and Why Should I Be Governed? If anybody has any revision tips for Why Should I be Governed? and Tolerance it would be greatly appreciated if you could show me them!

    Also, does anyone have any predictions for what type of questions will come up for Unit 1 and 2 in relation to the four topics I'm doing?

    Much appreciated! I hope someone can help!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PaulyRivs)
    I am doing Value of Art + Tolerance for Unit 2 and Reason and Experience + Why Should I Be Governed? for Unit 1. I feel as though I understand the Value of Art very well and I have a strong revision strategy for Reason and Experience.

    However, my mind needs refreshing on Tolerance and Why Should I Be Governed? If anybody has any revision tips for Why Should I be Governed? and Tolerance it would be greatly appreciated if you could show me them!

    Also, does anyone have any predictions for what type of questions will come up for Unit 1 and 2 in relation to the four topics I'm doing?

    Much appreciated! I hope someone can help!
    Don't take my word as proof but I have a Really strong feeling form is gonna come up for the value of art.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onoderas)
    Don't take my word as proof but I have a Really strong feeling form is gonna come up for the value of art.
    I wouldn't be surprised if a question relating to form came up either, but luckily I find Value of Art probably the easiest of the four topics I'm doing in AS Philosophy!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jool)
    x
    Thank you so much. I really do appreciate it. Thanks again for the help...

    I have another question in terms of Sartre what does 'transcendence' mean?

    And yeah I also find Descartes really hard as well I always write about Sartre its much easier.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PaulyRivs)
    I wouldn't be surprised if a question relating to form came up either, but luckily I find Value of Art probably the easiest of the four topics I'm doing in AS Philosophy!
    Haha I'm the complete opposite! I think The Value of Art is my second least favourite/difficult (R&E being number one), with Form being the most difficult topic for me! What other units are you doing? My other optional ones are both the God units and I'm really good at the Theological side, hence The Value of Art being somewhat more difficult for me.

    Also have a feeling something like 'Explain and illustrate two reasons for rejecting the view that we value art as it expresses the emotions of the artist'. Think I'd go for intentional fallacy and how appeals to art proper are circular hoping it counts
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onoderas)
    Haha I'm the complete opposite! I think The Value of Art is my second least favourite/difficult (R&E being number one), with Form being the most difficult topic for me! What other units are you doing? My other optional ones are both the God units and I'm really good at the Theological side, hence The Value of Art being somewhat more difficult for me.

    Also have a feeling something like 'Explain and illustrate two reasons for rejecting the view that we value art as it expresses the emotions of the artist'. Think I'd go for intentional fallacy and how appeals to art proper are circular hoping it counts
    For Unit 1 (PHIL 1) I'm doing Reason and Experience + Why should I be governed? and for Unit 2 (PHIL 2) I'm doing Value of Art + Tolerance. The hardest topic of the four for me personally is definitely Reason and Experience. There are multiple theories for each of the Philosophers and its frustrating to learn them all. I prefer Empiricism personally, but I hate how just as I thought it was all coming together another completely different theory (Conceptual Schemes) had to come along and made it even harder! Get lost Kant! I was doing well until you came along and ruined it!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by >Username<)
    Thank you so much. I really do appreciate it. Thanks again for the help...

    I have another question in terms of Sartre what does 'transcendence' mean?

    And yeah I also find Descartes really hard as well I always write about Sartre its much easier.
    No worries. Transcendence essentially means above and beyond, so in terms of Sartre we mustn't act suddenly or irrationally without taking the facticity (the physical constraints) and everything else (the transcendence) into consideration, if you do so it is an uncoordinated action and it is in bad faith.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by >Username<)
    I understand the first part, but not the second (sorry if I ask too many questions) I don't understand the objection... Why would someone's arm move involuntarily?

    So is coincidence and probability strengths of libertarianism?

    Also, if you don't mind me asking, what did you get in your Philosophy exams?

    Thanks for all the help, btw. I really appreciate it...
    It's, someone's arm moving involuntary is an arguement of an action that isn't caused as libertarians and hard determinism argue that the opposite of a free action is a caused action. The arm moving involuntary is an uncaused action and therefore supposedly free, but it isn't free because you have no control over it. Probability and concidence if proven right can be used as arguements against hard determinism rather than a strength of libertarianism. In january doing PHIL 1 I got 86 UMS and it's okay I have to take a while to get my head around things!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RunningInHeels)
    I do anthropology too, and there is a section on personhood for that. Descartes; Res Cogitans and all that lovely jazz. R+E was my favourite! For that (R+E) learn the key words from the spec, I.e. necessary and contingent, synthetic and analytic, a'priori etc. The theory for R+E is nowhere near as complex as the rest.

    My only concern is that I really don't like knowledge of the external world so I dread revising it. . But we still have time until the exam to smash it! How did you do in you January exam?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Apologies, only just noticed this. Thanks for the advice on R+E, I think my problem is lack of motivation for revision lol. It's a great topic, though I do find the theory for the others a lot easier. Writing the essays is what I'm finding difficult for both persons and r + e. Need to crack down right now, exam in 13 days!

    What is it about the external world that you dislike? For Jan I managed to get an A with 88 UMS, and I'd simply recommend writing essays. As obvious as this seems, the essays will let you churn out specific content and revise them in the process, while improving time management. I'd glance over the mark schemes but really, the language is too convoluted most of the time so get your teacher to mark them and rewrite sections you were weaker on.

    For the 30 markers you can only really get questions asking you about the strengths/weaknesses of a form of realism, or one where you have to compare two of them so try writing a couple of those under exam conditions. Let me know if you have any questions, hope I helped!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hi

    Im doing Tolerance and God and the World in PHIL2, I'm just finishing off some essays and notes im going to post up later,

    does anyone have any essays or notes they can post up for these two topics pleaaaaaaaaaase?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jool)
    No worries. Transcendence essentially means above and beyond, so in terms of Sartre we mustn't act suddenly or irrationally without taking the facticity (the physical constraints) and everything else (the transcendence) into consideration, if you do so it is an uncoordinated action and it is in bad faith.
    Sorry, but please could you explain transcendence again? I'm really confused to how it relates to Sartre.

    Also, I understand that 'for itself' means why we do things? But again, how is this relevant?

    Also, what is an authentic human being?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • 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

    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.