Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 99 Red Balloons)
    Can I ask, for anyone doing the eliminative materialism question in section A, what were your arguments if you were arguing against it? I feel I rambled slightly..
    I just typed up the gist of my answer, if you're interested. And I'm sure you were fine - I know I rambled a bit at points, particularly in the conclusion. The markers do understand that you're thinking and writing under pressure, so they'll be a bit forgiving!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AG_SILVA)
    Did anyone do the question from philosophy of religion on relgious experience. WHAT THE HELL DID THE QUOTE MEAN!! How did you find it?

    FML
    I was so daunted when I saw that quote :|

    I took it to mean that from a scientific point of view, there is no difference between religious experiences and hallucinations. That science cannot understand them, and that there is no evidence for these experiences.

    I basically outlined the argument from religious experience and the evaluations and arguments for/against it. And I went on to talk about social science maybe explaining what religious believers mean when they talk about their experiences. I finished by talking about Wittgenstein's language games, and how that explains that science cannot judge religion and vica versa etc etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by freija)
    I just typed up the gist of my answer, if you're interested. And I'm sure you were fine - I know I rambled a bit at points, particularly in the conclusion. The markers do understand that you're thinking and writing under pressure, so they'll be a bit forgiving!
    Wow - looks like you did really well with it! Sadly, it made me realise that I probably did terribly! :p: I started off by defining eliminative materialism, then went on to say how it didn't manage to capture the notion of qualia, using the idea of being anaesthetised, yet the physical activity still taking place to illustrate this. I then said that the argument was self-defeating, saying that I can know through introspection that I have beliefs, and then by this point I had completely forgotten everything about folk psychology, so said that eliminative materialism fails as it does not correlate with folk psychology, as that was a view that has progressed as is recognised as an adequate way of explaining behaviour. Hopefully I justified everything well enough to scrape a few marks though, and hopefully the second question made up for it! Ahh well, political philosophy next Thursday!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by freija)
    A philosopher of mind, here.

    And for moral philosophy, I attempted the question on Kant and duties - but I failed horribly, didn't get past an exposition of why he believed moral motivation should come from duty (or reason; I used those two terms interchangeably) - i.e that reason is part of the noumenal, free self whereas desires and beliefs are part of the causally-determined phenomenal self... and that as 'ought implies can', moral actions have to be free to BE moral, and so must come FROM reason - and a brief illustration about a sweetshop owner choosing whether or not to raise his prices after school to trick children into paying more: and that if he did choose not to, this still wasn't truly moral unless he acted out of REASON, or just because it was right; if he had not-raised-his-prices out of a desire not to get caught, this would not be moral. Then I got to putting down the implication that self-interest must be divorced from morality, although it can coincide.

    I'm not sure what I would have said at that point - I ran out of time (but love me! I made your grade boundaries go down...) - but I think I would have gone on to explain how the categorical imperative is to be used to show exactly how we should act in a particular situation. Also would have noted the strength - that although there are moral laws, we can also go by a case-by-case basis thanks to reason. Then I'd have shown how the categorical imperative seems to fail in a conflict between two duties.
    I'd have argued then that Kant's deontology only seems to have to follow anyway, if you subscribe to Kant's view in the first place - and that other, entirely different accounts of moral motivation are possible. I'd probably have brought in utilitarianism here, as allowing for an act to be moral by redefining what 'being moral' means, and I'd have explained why this seems to give a better account of motivation. Then I'd have explained why this fails, why rule utilitarianism tries to fix this and how rule utilitarianism fails, too, and how it all falls prey to the problem of naturalising morality, i.e. the naturalistic fallacy. Then, maybe I'd have pointed back to deontology as an account which avoids this. Then I'd have spoken about the Arguments from Queerness and how deontology as a whole seems to falter here. Or... something.

    I just hope I can still scrape a B in the A-level overall...
    I love you anyway
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Litlun)
    Thank you so much, you've just made me feel so much better about my essay! I went along the same lines as you and thought i'd done it wrong once I spoke to everyone else!
    Lol, gd gd!!
    How did everyone else take it then? Down the distributive justice root?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
    Thanks! I really like your approach to it actually, far more coherent and decisive than mine. I think I would struggle for the AO3 marks if everyone wrote as good an answer as that.
    Lol, yeah i think evaluation nd stuff won't be a problem, however i didn't apply and illustrate as much as i should have so i might lose marks there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    so pissed I didn't learn eliminative materialism, that would have been a gift of a question. I just talked about problem of interaction for dualism, how behaviourism tries to explain it away by denying the mind exists separately and then moved to identity theory and analysed how the proposal of contingent identities fails (used Kripke's analysis of rigid/non-rigid designators) so I basically went a bit off-topic but I hope I get some good marks. I nearly kissed the paper when I saw the Moral questions, did Kantian ethics but again, went a bit of topic and finished early-not a good sign. I applied it practically to euthanasia and abortion, showing conflict of duties. I also found myself referring a lot to Virtue Theory towards the end, showing how it could address some of the problems. I think I got a mid B...will have to get really high marks on Unit 4 to get an A overall now :/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Siobhanbligh)
    how did you answer the natural rights question?
    Started talking about Bentham and his view that they don't exist

    Compared it a bit to Locke, saying that he thought Rights were inalienable (is that right? ) using US Declaration of Independence as an example, as well as the State securing the basic rights

    Mentioned a bit of Hart and how he saw rights from our rationallity, talked about problem of entaliment and problem of the irrational. Then decided to compare Hart with a bit of Peter Singer about the rights of animals.

    Moved onto Dworkins with his "rights as trumps" thingy

    Ermm pretty sure after that I talked about the Conservative view as there being the existence of responsiblities instead of rights.

    Then the Marxist view of rights as a bougois value. Followed by a conclusion

    What about you?

    (Original post by Merk that Sike of a Mike)
    Were you able to mention any philosophers in that one? I did that too, but was only properly able to talk about c.s. lewis and thomas aquinas, nd that wasn't even from philosophy classes or the textbook but from my own reading so i don't think they'll find them to be the best people to quote :s
    You mean for the Moral one yeah? I think I may have ended up rambling slightly, found it quite hard to not move away from all the Normative relativism. Pretty sure I mentioned Plato and Aristotle, trying to introduce virtue ethics because of the fact that all cultures have "Do not kill, lie" etc Tried talking about Plato and his Transcendence using examples of moral progress with slavery, then countering with Emotivism and the view that we haven't progressed morally, just have become more informed and reason more. Something like that.

    Quickly tried to bring in Mill and Moral truths based on natural facts. Different cultures may have different views of what happiness is (leading to different views of the good life)
    Tried countering with Naturalistic fallacy and Open question argument, then did the argument against the open question argument (lol)

    Think that's about it, can't remember much more. Pretty sure I ended up rambling during that question and didn't answer it head on, I think my first one was quite a bit stronger.

    How'd you find it then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 99 Red Balloons)
    Wow - looks like you did really well with it! Sadly, it made me realise that I probably did terribly! :p: I started off by defining eliminative materialism, then went on to say how it didn't manage to capture the notion of qualia, using the idea of being anaesthetised, yet the physical activity still taking place to illustrate this. I then said that the argument was self-defeating, saying that I can know through introspection that I have beliefs, and then by this point I had completely forgotten everything about folk psychology, so said that eliminative materialism fails as it does not correlate with folk psychology, as that was a view that has progressed as is recognised as an adequate way of explaining behaviour. Hopefully I justified everything well enough to scrape a few marks though, and hopefully the second question made up for it! Ahh well, political philosophy next Thursday!
    Thank you - I just hope so, because I did so terribly in the other question that I need as many marks for the first one as I can scrape! I didn't write anything about folk psychology at all, which is a shame, because it would have really helped me make the point I was trying to make on behalf of the eliminative materialist about not just 'reducing' mind to brain, but actually getting rid of mind as a theory (i.e. throwing out 'folk psychology') and replacing it with brain. And it shows just how... extreme eliminative materialism is, too.

    It sounds as though you did pretty well, you know. I mean, you did assess and analyse the theory, which apparently quite a few candidates don't, really, and I'd like to have stolen your point about eliminative materialism being self-defeating.

    Seriously, though, you're in a better boat than me, if that was your weaker question - as I said, that was my strong answer, and I didn't manage to evaluate deontology, for the second question, at all. *headdesk*

    I just feel as though I shoot myself in the foot in exams - I know the stuff, mostly (or I could work up a decent shot at an essay if I had enough time) but then I just panic, or I get into the first essay and don't drag myself back out again fast enough. So I can go through a year getting As and Bs in the work I write at home, then walk out of an exam with a D.

    But yes! As you say, the last exam is still to come. I'm studying Descartes, so maybe I can regain a bit of ground, if I really work hard between now and then!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
    I love you anyway
    Thank you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by freija)
    Thank you - I just hope so, because I did so terribly in the other question that I need as many marks for the first one as I can scrape! I didn't write anything about folk psychology at all, which is a shame, because it would have really helped me make the point I was trying to make on behalf of the eliminative materialist about not just 'reducing' mind to brain, but actually getting rid of mind as a theory (i.e. throwing out 'folk psychology') and replacing it with brain. And it shows just how... extreme eliminative materialism is, too.

    It sounds as though you did pretty well, you know. I mean, you did assess and analyse the theory, which apparently quite a few candidates don't, really, and I like your point about eliminative materialism being self-defeating.

    Seriously, though, you're in a better boat than me, if that was your weaker question - as I said, that was my strong answer, and I didn't manage to evaluate deontology, for the second question, at all. *headdesk*

    I just feel as though I shoot myself in the foot in exams - I know the stuff, mostly (or I could work up a decent shot at an essay if I had enough time) but then I just panic, or I get into the first essay and don't drag myself back out again fast enough. So I can go through a year getting As and Bs in the work I write at home, then walk out of an exam with a D.

    But yes! As you say, the last exam is still to come. I'm studying Descartes, so maybe I can regain a bit of ground, if I really work hard between now and then!
    It's annoying as after about an hour or so I start to feel more confident, so the last questions are always better. If I had time to redo the first question then my argument may have been more coherent! I always think of things as I'm walking out of the exam :rolleyes: Good luck with Descartes, I'm yet to finish reading Mill! :woo:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A New Hero)
    You mean for the Moral one yeah? I think I may have ended up rambling slightly, found it quite hard to not move away from all the Normative relativism. Pretty sure I mentioned Plato and Aristotle, trying to introduce virtue ethics because of the fact that all cultures have "Do not kill, lie" etc Tried talking about Plato and his Transcendence using examples of moral progress with slavery, then countering with Emotivism and the view that we haven't progressed morally, just have become more informed and reason more. Something like that.

    Quickly tried to bring in Mill and Moral truths based on natural facts. Different cultures may have different views of what happiness is (leading to different views of the good life)
    Tried countering with Naturalistic fallacy and Open question argument, then did the argument against the open question argument (lol)

    Think that's about it, can't remember much more. Pretty sure I ended up rambling during that question and didn't answer it head on, I think my first one was quite a bit stronger.

    How'd you find it then?
    Yeah I did actually talk quite a bit about Plato now that I think about it, but that was like the most that i was able to properly link directly to the q.
    i tried to stick rigidly to the question in hand, but that meant not really showing mcuh of my knowledge of the rest of the whole topic of moral realism, so i don't really know how that's gonna turn out lol
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Did anyone else feel that an hour per question was not enough! I think for the questions asked needed a lot of detail, something an hour did not sufficiently give you the time to answer... Or is that just me haha ! Glad its over now i have PHIL4 to panic over haha
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Merk that Sike of a Mike)
    Yeah I did actually talk quite a bit about Plato now that I think about it, but that was like the most that i was able to properly link directly to the q.
    i tried to stick rigidly to the question in hand, but that meant not really showing mcuh of my knowledge of the rest of the whole topic of moral realism, so i don't really know how that's gonna turn out lol
    Haha yeah well in hindsight what you did was probably better, I seemed to have waffled a bit.
    What you doing for PHIL4? Mill?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A New Hero)
    Haha yeah well in hindsight what you did was probably better, I seemed to have waffled a bit.
    What you doing for PHIL4? Mill?
    Yh i am, should be alright though, you can practically prepare your whole essay in advance lol, it's either gonna be about democracy, individual development, harm principle or freedom of thought nd expression. nd we get a choice so i don't need to revise individual development and i'm fine lol
    also i've done 2 really extensive essays for the mill side so for revision i literally just have to read my essays and jsut try and remember as much as possible.

    what about you? how are you feeling about mill?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Mine and Kneechuh's text is Mill, that was the one we "studied" in class.
    However, I'm so tempted by Nietzsche :erm:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A New Hero)
    Started talking about Bentham and his view that they don't exist
    Woo, another person who both answered the question I did, and vaguely answered it in the same way as me! Well I talked about Betham and Mill, but then went on some long tangent explaining exactly why natural rights don't exist as they're in conflict with the naturalism in utilitarianism.

    Why worried me is that you went into so many other political theories! I must have thought that I was answering the moral question or something silly like that... because I brought up the is/ought gap afterwards instead of something more sensible like Marx or Locke. But that could still be applied politically right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    At the risk of sounding like an idiot.. Do we have to read whatever book we're studying for Unit 4? I'm self-teaching and I don't know if I should just crack on with the analysis of the book from Lacewing, or actually read On Liberty first. Cheers.

    Also, I'm sure you all did well! I (selflessly) dragged down the pass mark with an abysmal couple of essays :P
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lookinglass)
    At the risk of sounding like an idiot.. Do we have to read whatever book we're studying for Unit 4? I'm self-teaching and I don't know if I should just crack on with the analysis of the book from Lacewing, or actually read On Liberty first. Cheers.

    Also, I'm sure you all did well! I (selflessly) dragged down the pass mark with an abysmal couple of essays :P
    I'd definitely read it..my teacher said that there is a clear difference between essays from those who have read Mill and those who haven't, so it can only benefit you if you do. You'll be able to go into more detail in your analysis anyway. Start with the last chapter; I spent months reading and taking notes on the first four and realised that it was pretty much summed up in the final chapter!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 99 Red Balloons)
    I'd definitely read it..my teacher said that there is a clear difference between essays from those who have read Mill and those who haven't, so it can only benefit you if you do. You'll be able to go into more detail in your analysis anyway. Start with the last chapter; I spent months reading and taking notes on the first four and realised that it was pretty much summed up in the final chapter!
    Ah thanks loads for the advice! Do you reckon I'll be able to understand all the ideas if I only read the last chapter? Any time saving tips like that are really appreciated though, got to do the whole thing and revise it in 10 days
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: June 20, 2012
The home of Results and Clearing

2,462

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year

University open days

  1. London Metropolitan University
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Sat, 18 Aug '18
  2. Edge Hill University
    All Faculties Undergraduate
    Sat, 18 Aug '18
  3. Bournemouth University
    Clearing Open Day Undergraduate
    Sat, 18 Aug '18
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?

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.