AQA AS Philosophy (new 2014 onwards spec) Thread!

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bambidear)
    Heya I liked the questions this year however what were we supposed to do for question 3 outline descartes evil demon argument and then what he says about knowledge about the existence of his mind??(i can't remember the wording) because I thought all his arguments have an evil demon in it, also the second part of the question was that referring to the cogito? if not then I am oh so terribly screwed but thank you aqa for the lovely 15 markers let us hope a2 shall be kind as well
    I believe the Descartes 9 marker was to explain how we could be deceived about the existence of the external world. But by doubting whether he exists it proved he must exist to be able to think. And then he arrives at the existence of his own mind and the external world through his cogito. I attached the synthetic a priori to his cogito
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cogito.)
    What did you guys put for the 9 marker in unit1 i.e. the Descartes one, I wrote my second part as clear and distinct ideas so God will not allow such demon to deceive me etc., not sure if it's right
    Anything like clear and distinct ideas, intuition or his cogito are correct. Wasn't a nice question tbh
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Last year was 57 for A, do you think this year will be higher or lower? For me its definitely harder
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cogito.)
    Last year was 57 for A, do you think this year will be higher or lower? For me its definitely harder
    I did last years and this years was more difficult, I think. So the grade boundaries should be the same if not say 55 or 56 for an A.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone remember the questions (both the epistemology & philosophy of religion)? I want to double check I answered them okay but my minds gone blank to what the questions were (especially the wording) thanks
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blueted01)
    Does anyone remember the questions (both the epistemology & philosophy of religion)? I want to double check I answered them okay but my minds gone blank to what the questions were (especially the wording) thanks
    Unit 1
    Define tripartite view of proposition knowledge
    Explain empiricist view of simple and complex ideas
    Outline Descartes 's evil deceiver argument AND how he goes on to his own existence
    Outline Berkeley 's idealism AND how it might lead to solipsism
    Debate about direct realism

    Unit 2
    Define God as eternal(i wrote without beginning and end and screwed up )
    Explain Descartes ontological argument
    Outline the parable of partisan AND how it used to support religious language
    Outline Swinburn's argument from design
    Debate about problem of evil
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    1=define tripartie view of propositional knowledge
    2=explain difference between simple and complex concepts
    3=outline descartes evil deceiver argument and how this relates to his knowledge of his own existence
    4=outline berkely's idealism and explain how it could lead to solipsism
    5=are direct realists right in claiming the immediate objects of perception are mind-indepdngent?
    6=what does it mean to say god is eternal?
    7=outline descartes's ontological argument
    8=outline and explain wswinburne's argument from design
    9=outline and explain mitchell's view of religious language and how he illustrates this with his partisan story
    10=does the existence evil mean an omnipotent, omniscient, supremely god cannot exist?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LIZZIES22)
    1=define tripartie view of propositional knowledge
    2=explain difference between simple and complex concepts
    3=outline descartes evil deceiver argument and how this relates to his knowledge of his own existence
    4=outline berkely's idealism and explain how it could lead to solipsism
    5=are direct realists right in claiming the immediate objects of perception are mind-indepdngent?
    6=what does it mean to say god is eternal?
    7=outline descartes's ontological argument
    8=outline and explain wswinburne's argument from design
    9=outline and explain mitchell's view of religious language and how he illustrates this with his partisan story
    10=does the existence evil mean an omnipotent, omniscient, supremely god cannot exist?
    Thanks you very much
    How did everyone feel the exam went?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm astonished that the Epistemelogy was easier than Religion tbfh. I think I've gained more marks on religion, but some of those questions like

    Mitchell on religious language
    Swinburne's design argument
    Descartes' ontological argument

    Have really royally screwed some people over. Everyone I asked knows nothing about Swinburne and Mitchell (I did, but they are pretty difficult esp. Swinburne).

    And that Descartes question lmao kill me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm I actually think it went ok 😯 wasn't expecting that lol. I don't think I was particularly articulate/ precise/ whatever, but I knew the answers to all the questions including these ones...

    (Original post by Inexorably)

    Mitchell on religious language
    Swinburne's design argument
    Descartes' ontological argument
    ... all of which I agree were a bit harsh. So that's got to be something right? Now just got to deal with A2.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I thought the epistemology section was amazing, and I nearly screamed with happiness when I saw direct realism as the 15 marker.

    I found the start of philosophy of religion quite easy. I love the design argument, so Swinburne was brilliant for me. But, I screwed up on Mitchell, as I didn't thoroughly revise the theory. Then with the problem of evil, I wrote everything I could think of. I didn't think it would come up, argh! Luckily, I went over it with my teacher about half an hour before the exam. I'm hoping I'll get a couple of marks for them, but I did end up talking about Aristotle in a desperate attempt to balance the arguments.

    It's so annoying that I forgot to focus as much on them. But, in total I ended up using 7 pages of extra paper, so hopefully I will be credited for the rest of the paper. I'm totally praying...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clucky_chick)
    I thought the epistemology section was amazing, and I nearly screamed with happiness when I saw direct realism as the 15 marker.

    I found the start of philosophy of religion quite easy. I love the design argument, so Swinburne was brilliant for me. But, I screwed up on Mitchell, as I didn't thoroughly revise the theory. Then with the problem of evil, I wrote everything I could think of. I didn't think it would come up, argh! Luckily, I went over it with my teacher about half an hour before the exam. I'm hoping I'll get a couple of marks for them, but I did end up talking about Aristotle in a desperate attempt to balance the arguments.

    It's so annoying that I forgot to focus as much on them. But, in total I ended up using 7 pages of extra paper, so hopefully I will be credited for the rest of the paper. I'm totally praying...
    you must have written absolutely loads haha
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I still don't get what the epistemology question was asking. Any help?
    I feel like I'm being stupid- I went in there hoping for a 15 marker on perception but I really hated that one.
    What even is the immediate object of perception?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think it was to do with the different perceptual theories of direct realism, indirect realism and idealism and how each theory perceives objects differently
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atwgowing)
    I still don't get what the epistemology question was asking. Any help?
    I feel like I'm being stupid- I went in there hoping for a 15 marker on perception but I really hated that one.
    What even is the immediate object of perception?
    The immediate objects of perception are what we immmediately perceive. So the difference between direct realism and indirect realism is that the former claim that the immediate objects of perception are the physical world whereas indirect realism claims that the immediate objects of perception are sense data.

    So in order to show that the the immediate objects of perception are not mind-independent physical objects you need to show that, in at least one way, the immediate objects of perception do not have the same properties as mind-independent physical objects. If they don't have the same properties then they can't be identical. If they aren't identical, then at most they can be correlated, they can't be one and the same thing.

    Hope that helps. I retook it and A2 Philosophy has really helped the way I structure and plan essays like this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by khaleesi98)
    Hmmm I predict:
    Q5. What are the immediate objects of perception?
    Q10. Does the concept of God make sense?
    Is scary how close those predictions were to that actual questions
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clucky_chick)
    I thought the epistemology section was amazing, and I nearly screamed with happiness when I saw direct realism as the 15 marker.

    I found the start of philosophy of religion quite easy. I love the design argument, so Swinburne was brilliant for me. But, I screwed up on Mitchell, as I didn't thoroughly revise the theory. Then with the problem of evil, I wrote everything I could think of. I didn't think it would come up, argh! Luckily, I went over it with my teacher about half an hour before the exam. I'm hoping I'll get a couple of marks for them, but I did end up talking about Aristotle in a desperate attempt to balance the arguments.

    It's so annoying that I forgot to focus as much on them. But, in total I ended up using 7 pages of extra paper, so hopefully I will be credited for the rest of the paper. I'm totally praying...
    Same, I was so happy with the epistemology questions and not because they were easy, but because it didn't have the harder topics from the "Origin of knowledge" section that I was absolutely dreading. Also, 7 pages extra woow, I was terrified of redundancy so I made sure all of my answers fit in the space they gave us, but now that I think about it, my fear of redundancy probably meant i left out a lot of relevant stuff I could've added...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zprcampbell99)
    you must have written absolutely loads haha
    Yes, I do like to explain myself in excruciating detail, haha! I hope it went well for you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iamShax)
    Same, I was so happy with the epistemology questions and not because they were easy, but because it didn't have the harder topics from the "Origin of knowledge" section that I was absolutely dreading. Also, 7 pages extra woow, I was terrified of redundancy so I made sure all of my answers fit in the space they gave us, but now that I think about it, my fear of redundancy probably meant i left out a lot of relevant stuff I could've added...
    I find epistemology really easy, it's just philosophy of religion which was a pain. I would happily re-take though, as it would mean the philosophy of religion 15 marker would be on Design or Ontological, which I enjoy. I just messed up with the problem of evil, which is a shame.

    Don't worry, my handwriting is quite big anyway, and I was referring back to the question in my paragraphs way more than I should have. As long as what you have is clear and concise with good explanation, I'm sure you will get the marks. As my teacher always says: quality is better than quantity.

    I'm sure you've done great. Good luck with any other exams and with results!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I didn't conclude the 15 marker in the epistemology section as I moved onto religion after realising 1hr 30min were already gone.
    I also couldn't answer the 5 marker on Descartes' Ontological Argument- only remembered St Anselm's version.
    Didn't even answer Descartes' evil deceiver question.
    Looking back, I should've done more work on Descartes.

    Now I'm worried that I'm only going to scrape a D. Just hoping for a C at this point.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 1, 2016
TSR Support Team
Poll
Would you prefer to be told about sex by your:
Useful resources

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.