Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miscalulate)
    Hey, I just ganked the notes too, thanks! I'm so unprepared for tomorrow's exam D:
    Me too. I mean - really, really unprepared. I'm just sleeping lots tonight, then going in to college early tomorrow to revise like mad.


    Good luck - I'm sure you'll be okay. What do you need, do you think?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by freija)
    Me too. I mean - really, really unprepared. I'm just sleeping lots tonight, then going in to college early tomorrow to revise like mad.


    Good luck - I'm sure you'll be okay. What do you need, do you think?
    Honestly, I need a miracle. I'll be surprised if I pass A2 - I got an E at AS and had to resit it this year. I got an A in Photography and a C in English Language last year though, so those subjects are my focus anyway. If I can get a D or C from Philosophy, I'll be happy. And I have my English exam tomorrow morning so I can't try and cram beforehand!

    I'm absolutely bricking it, which is annoying because I've sort of resigned myself to the idea that I'm not going to do well, but for some reason I'm still worrying about it!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miscalulate)
    Honestly, I need a miracle. I'll be surprised if I pass A2 - I got an E at AS and had to resit it this year. I got an A in Photography and a C in English Language last year though, so those subjects are my focus anyway. If I can get a D or C from Philosophy, I'll be happy. And I have my English exam tomorrow morning so I can't try and cram beforehand!

    I'm absolutely bricking it, which is annoying because I've sort of resigned myself to the idea that I'm not going to do well, but for some reason I'm still worrying about it!
    Mm, I know the feeling. This is my third year of A-levels (I came out with an A, a B and a C last year, and missed my offer for English) and I started Philosophy in September, doing both the AS and A2 at the same time. I need a B in it now and if I don't get that, then since I've already taken one gap year, I really don't know what I'll do. But then, like you, the other, practical half of me knows I'm just not sufficiently prepared to do well tomorrow. I always do this to myself, too - my work is fine throughout the year, then I fall apart just before the exam. :facepalm:

    You got an A in photography, though? That's brilliant! I took it in my AS year, got a B, and it was still easily my most time-consuming subject - so I can imagine the amount of work you must have put in!

    Good luck with your English exam - I won't say 'you'll be fine' for philosophy, because it's a really difficult subject and a ***** of an exam, but I do wish you luck (or a miracle!) there, too. Just try to go in feeling calm, focus on the question, and if all else fails, I bet you can take one year out to resit without too many problems.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Did anyone do Hume in today's exam? How did everyone do?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Mill questions anyone? I'm not too sure that the democracy question went too well..ended up explaining about social tyranny and then something about government tyranny suppressing the public and not allowing for individual development, but felt like I was waffling :\ Second question I did freedom of expression, saying that we needed free discussion of beliefs in order to establish and understand our own. Another point was pretty much the same, only in terms of society as a whole, saying that dead dogma stunted our mental development etc. Then I argued that the government could have control of what beliefs we're allowed to hear through the media, saying that everything should be free to be written and published, as that allows us to learn more and to develop our understanding and so on, and then my final point was that only when freedom of expression is allowed we can live up to our full potential, with genius and eccentric characters being allowed to grow, leading our development and progression. I rambled slightly..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Did anyone do the descartes question , i thought it was pretty easy ^_^
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 99 Red Balloons)
    ...
    Yeah I did Mill and the same 45 marker as you.

    Q1. Tyranny of the Majority - Legal, Social --- How Mill said social was worse -> In abscence of the state, where such stigmatization is often not in complete view of government, social tyranny majority is far more "dangerous".

    I don't really know what else I wrote really. I just kind of waffled too. Strange choice for a 15 marker imo.

    Q2. 4 arguments for freedom of speech: Infallibility, Dead Dogma, [Link to action] and then overarched with partial truths. Gave examples of then how freedom of speech was actually beneficial in overcoming calvinistic states of affairs, experiments of living, "collision with error" = substantiated opinions -> flourishing. experience which arises from freedom of speech = "the only freedom worth that name.." etc
    urrrm.... talking about the intrinsic and instrumental value of liberty and utility in relation to speech...so therefore censorship has no utility...
    talked about how freedom of speech leads to eccentrics / geniuses flourish in atmosphere without censorship

    The said mill conceeded that some instances actually damages the liberty of others - used mills example of the speaker angrevating the mob outside the corn sellers house or sammits. Talk about the pragmatic issues with dead dogma argument, whether partial truth actually exists, whether remonstration and discussion through freedom of speech really leads to a better outcome... does absolute freedom of speech simply lead to lots of "individuals", self interested and isolated?

    urm said something at one point about how a lack of censorship simply leads people to make bad choices... as we are fallible...
    used the example of a drug addict - without censorship he is making a bad lifestyle choice. even though we might argue that it is his choice and his action is "self regarding" some guy called stephens who was in the textbook said that actions are never completely self regarding and that mill is wrong about this.

    used devlin - to basicly infer on those grounds, government intervention is of some utility.

    talked about how freedom of speech leads to eccentrics BUT ... elitist...
    merr i can't remember everything
    i finished by basicly saying that the actually application of his theory works well but some of the reasons for doing it are not.
    brought up elitism again and basicly said that the few individuals that have the ability to coerse people in the social realm and up being the people with real power... and not the government this is simply shifting the notion of despotism to a different level... which is just not as obvious and therefore more dangerous.
    i did some weird twist at the end where i then said that he may not be right about eccentrics... it doesnt seem coherent ... but his observations about custom and social norms are. censorship should be refuted simply on the grounds that we are fallible and we never have "truth" in the fullest sense and we should not hide from the truth of the world around us
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Siobhanbligh)
    Did anyone do the descartes question , i thought it was pretty easy ^_^
    I thought they asked the best questions that they could - but I think in the 'assess Descartes' proofs for the existence of God' question, I wrote way too much for the Trademark argument and not nearly enough for the Ontological argument (I explained it, wrote it in standard form, noted that it fell prey to the 'Cartesian Circle' criticism again - then I had to rush through one knock-down objection and reply and Caterus' objection in bullet points. I didn't even have time to talk about Kant's response). *headdesk*

    I didn't talk about Gaunilo's 'perfect island', either, or Descartes' triangle reply - but since it wasn't a very strong objection, do you think it would have been okay not to bring it up at all? I mean, it's under exam conditions, so they don't expect you to say everything on the specification, right? I could have said something but I just didn't have time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by freija)
    I thought they asked the best questions that they could - but I think in the 'assess Descartes' proofs for the existence of God' question, I wrote way too much for the Trademark argument and not nearly enough for the Ontological argument (I explained it, wrote it in standard form, noted that it fell prey to the 'Cartesian Circle' criticism again - then I had to rush through one knock-down objection and reply and Caterus' objection in bullet points. I didn't even have time to talk about Kant's response). *headdesk*

    I didn't talk about Gaunilo's 'perfect island', either, or Descartes' triangle reply - but since it wasn't a very strong objection, do you think it would have been okay not to bring it up at all? I mean, it's under exam conditions, so they don't expect you to say everything on the specification, right? I could have said something but I just didn't have time.
    Its sounds like you did a good job, I did the same question. you definitely dont have to bring in every argument against descartes ontological or trademark argument, as there are loads! perhaps missing kant out might make your argument less amaze, but as long as you brought some critiques against it your definately going to get a high C or more me think. It will be fine without gualino, i only used gualino as an example of how descarte was arguing about necessary rather than contingent existence. I did a little conclusion using kan at the end about the whole of the meditations using his argument about analytical statements not telling us anything new and shiz, i dont think i got an a but i would be upset if i got lower than a b tbh. What did you write for the first question, were we supposed to bring in critiques of the 15 mark one?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
    .
    Sounds like you did well! I completely forgot about the corn-dealer analogy Glad you see you wrote about eccentrics, as I thought I was going off topic into freedom of action rather than expression. Ahh well, nothing can be done now!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 99 Red Balloons)
    Sounds like you did well! I completely forgot about the corn-dealer analogy Glad you see you wrote about eccentrics, as I thought I was going off topic into freedom of action rather than expression. Ahh well, nothing can be done now!
    Nah I'm sure they will be looking for that - The effects of speech how they actually apply in the world.

    Yeah no worries, seems like we both had a similarly successful bash at it.

    Gurd lurk
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Siobhanbligh)
    Its sounds like you did a good job, I did the same question. you definitely dont have to bring in every argument against descartes ontological or trademark argument, as there are loads! perhaps missing kant out might make your argument less amaze, but as long as you brought some critiques against it your definitely going to get a high C or more me think. It will be fine without gualino, i only used gualino as an example of how descarte was arguing about necessary rather than contingent existence. I did a little conclusion using kan at the end about the whole of the meditations using his argument about analytical statements not telling us anything new and shiz, i dont think i got an a but i would be upset if i got lower than a b tbh. What did you write for the first question, were we supposed to bring in critiques of the 15 mark one?
    Descartians!!!!!
    When did you finsih the paper?!? Was it just me who struggled to fill time?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I did Descartes... easy paper!
    I could have written more for the part 2 (i did mind/body not God) but time ran out... I covered the divisibility and doubt bits and some of the extra point that were covered on the specimen mark scheme (v. similar question). For method of doubt there is only a bit to write so it took 15 mins. I normally go well over my time so the fact that I finished dead on te time limit show it was probably a bit of a short paper!

    P.S. Ross by reading this you as bad as I am :P
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bacforever3)
    Descartians!!!!!
    When did you finsih the paper?!? Was it just me who struggled to fill time?
    About 1 min before the end i just introduced lots and lots of arguments to make it more rounded ^_^
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Siobhanbligh)
    About 1 min before the end i just introduced lots and lots of arguments to make it more rounded ^_^
    With descartes its awful (though I make that sound like I have experience and did practise essays when I didnt lol) becasue the argument sort of goes....
    The trade makr argument is circularly justified so deosnt work
    The Ontological argument might but...
    the argument doesnt work (gaunilo)
    well it sorta does (triangle)
    but it doesnt (idea is subjective)
    and doesnt (existence not necessary)
    and whilst one might argue for a clear idea of god, as shown in the trademakr argument, that doesnt work
    and it still doesnt work (kants predicate)

    and then I just sit there like... hmmm... what now!
    I think I will lose substantial marks for a lack of two sides!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bacforever3)
    Descartians!!!!!
    When did you finsih the paper?!? Was it just me who struggled to fill time?
    Well, I ran out of time before I finished - but it may be simply that you managed to word everything succinctly. If you're happy about everything you put down, I wouldn't worry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Siobhanbligh)
    Its sounds like you did a good job, I did the same question. you definitely dont have to bring in every argument against descartes ontological or trademark argument, as there are loads! perhaps missing kant out might make your argument less amaze, but as long as you brought some critiques against it your definately going to get a high C or more me think. It will be fine without gualino, i only used gualino as an example of how descarte was arguing about necessary rather than contingent existence. I did a little conclusion using kan at the end about the whole of the meditations using his argument about analytical statements not telling us anything new and shiz, i dont think i got an a but i would be upset if i got lower than a b tbh. What did you write for the first question, were we supposed to bring in critiques of the 15 mark one?
    Oh, I hope so. I really, really, really hope so - I need a B to get into my Firm choice, so... :

    For the Trademark argument, I spent lots of time explaining how it was circular (and I wrote the Cartesian circle in standard form! *proud*), then talked about Hume's idea of us creating God in our own image - because we are imperfect and finite, so we get the concepts of infinity and perfection simply by reversing the concepts we do have. I explained that in this, it seemed that Hume was saying that we don't need to suppose that a God must exist for us to have concepts such as infinity and perfection, and so that the causal adequacy principle isn't applicable to ideas.
    I then noted that this doesn't actually invalidate Descartes argument, but it shows that it isn't definitely correct, because Hume IS able to offer a perfectly plausible alternative account.
    I then went on to explain Hume's complete redefinition of causation, argued that surely, if we have no grounds to BELIEVE that causal necessity is true and so, it can be doubted, then by Descartes' own logic he cannot presuppose it. I explained that without causal necessity, there cannot be causal laws (such as the causal adequacy principle) - and so, it seemed that Hume wasn't simply saying that the Causal Adequacy Principle was inapplicable to ideas, but that the whole principle itself was untenable, and so Descartes has nothing upon which to base the Trademark argument.
    I basically wrote it off as devastated and unsupportable at this point, and went onto the Ontological argument, which I briefly noted was possibly better than the trademark argument, in the hopes of not being penalised for juxtaposing the two. But then I ended up trying to criticise it to death anyway. And ran out of time before I got very far. :o:

    For the first question, I basically just regurgitated the First Meditiation! No analysis, though - only illustration. The question didn't ask for analysis, so if you'd given any, I think it wouldn't have been awarded any marks.

    I started off by writing about what Descartes was trying to achieve through methodological scepticism - basically, to revolutionise what we think of as knowledge and to provide a formal, secure form of foundationalism based upon Clear and Distinct ideas. I used the analogy with Archimedes' fulcrum here, with his 'clear and distinct ideas' as the fixed point on which the world can be turned.

    I talked about C+D ideas for a bit (said that they are a priori and that 'clear and distinctness' is NOT what makes an idea true, but is a way of knowing if it is true or not), and explained the importance of immunity to doubt for knowledge. I then explained how an attempt to doubt everything can help reveal those things which ARE immune to doubt - those things which we can know. I used his analogy with the edifice; that by removing the unsecure foundations of his old beliefs, the rest of them will fall and he will be left able to rebuild afresh.

    I then went on to HOW he used doubt as a tool for achieving this. I basically just walked through his three waves of doubt, explaining the move from local, to global scepticism, how local scepticism gave him cause to question his beliefs in the FIRST place, and how, once he had achieved global scepticism with the Evil Demon argument, he was left in a position to discover his 'clear and distinct ideas' and go on to rebuild the framework of knowledge from them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by freija)
    Oh, I hope so. I really, really, really hope so - I need a B to get into my Firm choice, so... :

    For the Trademark argument, I spent lots of time explaining how it was circular (and I wrote the Cartesian circle in standard form! *proud*), then talked about Hume's idea of us creating God in our own image - because we are imperfect and finite, so we get the concepts of infinity and perfection simply by reversing the concepts we do have. I explained that in this, it seemed that Hume was saying that we don't need to suppose that a God must exist for us to have concepts such as infinity and perfection, and so that the causal adequacy principle isn't applicable to ideas.
    I then noted that this doesn't actually invalidate Descartes argument, but it shows that it isn't definitely correct, because Hume IS able to offer a perfectly plausible alternative account.
    I then went on to explain Hume's complete redefinition of causation, argued that surely, if we have no grounds to BELIEVE that causal necessity is true and so, it can be doubted, then by Descartes' own logic he cannot presuppose it. I explained that without causal necessity, there cannot be causal laws (such as the causal adequacy principle) - and so, it seemed that Hume wasn't simply saying that the Causal Adequacy Principle was inapplicable to ideas, but that the whole principle itself was untenable, and so Descartes has nothing upon which to base the Trademark argument.
    I basically wrote it off as devastated and unsupportable at this point, and went onto the Ontological argument, which I briefly noted was possibly better than the trademark argument, in the hopes of not being penalised for juxtaposing the two. But then I ended up trying to criticise it to death anyway. And ran out of time before I got very far. :o:

    For the first question, I basically just regurgitated the First Meditiation! No analysis, though - only illustration. The question didn't ask for analysis, so if you'd given any, I think it wouldn't have been awarded any marks.

    I started off by writing about what Descartes was trying to achieve through methodological scepticism - basically, to revolutionise what we think of as knowledge and to provide a formal, secure form of foundationalism based upon Clear and Distinct ideas. I used the analogy with Archimedes' fulcrum here, with his 'clear and distinct ideas' as the fixed point on which the world can be turned.

    I talked about C+D ideas for a bit (said that they are a priori and that 'clear and distinctness' is NOT what makes an idea true, but is a way of knowing if it is true or not), and explained the importance of immunity to doubt for knowledge. I then explained how an attempt to doubt everything can help reveal those things which ARE immune to doubt - those things which we can know. I used his analogy with the edifice; that by removing the unsecure foundations of his old beliefs, the rest of them will fall and he will be left able to rebuild afresh.

    I then went on to HOW he used doubt as a tool for achieving this. I basically just walked through his three waves of doubt, explaining the move from local, to global scepticism, how local scepticism gave him cause to question his beliefs in the FIRST place, and how, once he had achieved global scepticism with the Evil Demon argument, he was left in a position to discover his 'clear and distinct ideas' and go on to rebuild the framework of knowledge from them.
    wow
    thats an a grade essay
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Siobhanbligh)
    wow
    thats an a grade essay
    ...you think so? But surely not, with everything I missed out on ontological scepticism? Or did you mean just the 15-mark question? I pretty much have no idea, you know - I'm fast-tracking, so I have never had marks back for an externally-assessed philosophy exam.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I also did the Descartes the whole class thought it was a gift of a paper.

    For the first part began by saying Descartes was a believer in the then new discipline of science but was troubled by its uncertainty, then in excruciating detail went through the 3 waves. I completely missed out talking about certainty being a metal state unlike truth etc as I thought it was just a describe question. A bit worried about that now . Overall though I think I got in quite a bit of detail about the 3 waves and illustrated each of them.

    For the second part I did the God question. I began by saying that God is the lynch pin in Descartes system that allows him to move from the temporary truth of his CD ideas and guarentee them throughout time so he can build a foundation from his hyperbolic doubt.

    Then introduced the ontological argument using the mountain valley/ triangle illustration. Then went through both of Kants criticisms but I think i credited the first one to Russel 1. that it only shows the necessary connection of the two ideas not that God actually exists 2. Existence is not a real predicate. I didn't mention the cartesian circle or any descartes specific criticisms so may lose out because of it

    Went through the trademark argument that there is a causal adaquacy principle, hierarchy of ideas and that the causes must have as much reality eminently or formally as the effect. Made the God can be defined negatively criticism and said I agree with it and we do have a fuzzy rather than clear and distinct idea of God. Then made the ideas are ideas and there can be no hierarchy so the causal adaquacy principle does not apply. Said exactly this in one line 'Descartes also takes for granted causal necessity without which the causal adaquacy principle does not apply'

    Concluded in a massive rush that both arguments therefore fail and that I disapprove that Descartes takes for granted that God is the traditional omnipotent/benevolent etc God and does not justify this (Medieval idea of God).

    Really unhappy with the breadth of points I think I focussed too much on specific points and hence did not get enough coverage. Only 2 criticisms of each argument. oh well a bit of symmetry.

    Hopefully I'll get an A but my philosophy marks have been all over the bloody shop. I got a D and B at AS a D and an A (that is I got a D in what I got the B in and an A in what I got the D in :?) at resit but I though that all of my essays have been of a consistent quality?????? so currently stand on unit 1 B with 2nd resit out there unit 2 A no resit unit 3 **** knows unit 4 haven't the foggiest
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: June 20, 2012
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

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.