Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
    well, what did you all think?

    I did the minimal intervention question for pol...
    Talking about Mill for negative freedom, critique of happiness as the underlying goal and how this was not contingent with some lifestyles like buddhism
    Then Marx for negative, critique of egalitarianism and how strict equality fails to recognise individuality
    Moved on distributive justice and how this might be more interventionalist but actually increases liberty compared to strict equality.
    Integrated a bit of Burke and desert theory and tore it down with Rawls again. Subvertion of natural hierarchy etc
    Then talking about interventionalist conservatism in terms from the old Tolerance module - Devlin, Raz etc
    Can't really remember how I concluded but I basicly said despite the shortfalls, Mill's notions seem most coherent then mentioned preference utilitarianism as a better ideal that happiness as it is more inclusive.

    For moral I did the deontology and duty question

    I basicly talked through Cat Imperative and critiqued. Did a bit of realism with Plato - duty found in elitism - tore down elitism as a basis for finding anything about about moral actions
    Talked about how our emotions can give us a sense of duty with emotivism - so we can have "duty" without having a moral action and talking about logical positivists a bit ermrmmm
    can't remember anymore. I think I finished how our emotions will always dictate maxims we try to apply to cat imperative so as a basis for finding anything out about moral actions practical wisdom offered a more coherent view of human nature and how to act in a virtuous way without trying to appeal to transcendental ideas of duty. I think I ended by saying something like "all we can do is seek to maximise our faculties of reason and temperance with regard for human emotion"

    BLEGH prolly not what they wanted at all.
    Sounds like you nailed it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ludwig Wittgenstein)
    well, what did you all think?

    I did the minimal intervention question for pol...
    Talking about Mill for negative freedom, critique of happiness as the underlying goal and how this was not contingent with some lifestyles like buddhism
    Then Marx for negative, critique of egalitarianism and how strict equality fails to recognise individuality
    Moved on distributive justice and how this might be more interventionalist but actually increases liberty compared to strict equality.
    Integrated a bit of Burke and desert theory and tore it down with Rawls again. Subvertion of natural hierarchy etc
    Then talking about interventionalist conservatism in terms from the old Tolerance module - Devlin, Raz etc
    Can't really remember how I concluded but I basicly said despite the shortfalls, Mill's notions seem most coherent then mentioned preference utilitarianism as a better ideal that happiness as it is more inclusive.

    For moral I did the deontology and duty question

    I basicly talked through Cat Imperative and critiqued. Did a bit of realism with Plato - duty found in elitism - tore down elitism as a basis for finding anything about about moral actions
    Talked about how our emotions can give us a sense of duty with emotivism - so we can have "duty" without having a moral action and talking about logical positivists a bit ermrmmm
    can't remember anymore. I think I finished how our emotions will always dictate maxims we try to apply to cat imperative so as a basis for finding anything out about moral actions practical wisdom offered a more coherent view of human nature and how to act in a virtuous way without trying to appeal to transcendental ideas of duty. I think I ended by saying something like "all we can do is seek to maximise our faculties of reason and temperance with regard for human emotion"

    BLEGH prolly not what they wanted at all.
    Sounds like you got a lot more in on the first question than I did. My answer was much more rudimentary in comparison... I feel really uneasy now! haha. Which text are you studying?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I spent half an hour of that exam stupidly trying to decide whether to go for the Natural Rights Political question or the liberty of the individual question. Ended up choosing Natural Rights and regretted it, especially since my Unit 4 topic is John Stuart Mill, which would've supported that kind of quote 100% - I think it might even be his.

    Anyway, I waffled on about Natural Rights, Natural Law and John Locke for almost 2 pages (epic fail) - four paragraphs worth of that basically and using this silly example of 1 man wanting to live in the property another man wants to live.

    Then I criticised this with the "physical incapabilities of the human condition" - HLA Hart - since applying Natural rights physically (as universal to all human beings) is impossible and contradictory.
    I alluded to the problems of this with Negative Freedom (compared with Positive Freedom) and referred back to my analogy of the two men wanting one house and one illustrating the free market - 1 man takes all the bread in the shop and no-one else can get any.
    - This led on to me supporting Positive Rights over Natural rights, and justified why this suggests Natural rights can't exist. It's rather what SHOULD be, not what is.

    Then I ended up spending an entire page reinforcing this argument AGAIN with Utilitarianism and Bentham.
    HOWEVER, I didn't outline the main Utilitarian principle - what its actually all about, and how they change what morality is about to utility. This would've led me onto Fuller nicely and used Singer's analogy from "Practise Ethics" of letting those outside a nuclear shelter in after a nuclear war, but I was running out of time, so I just jumped 2 Marx - who ****s off rights altogether, and gave some quotes from the German Ideology about the oppressing Capitalist State, referring back to the free market example.
    But honestly, I think I should've mentioned Proudhon's "Property is Theft" instead of referring back to the free market example.

    Then I put out my own sort of criticism that just because Natural Rights are impractical doesn't mean they don't exist. You can have a right - a right is what you deserve, but you might not be able to get it - that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
    This led me to my conclusion, cos some people do think they exist, some people think not and that rights only come from State (Hart) or are merely ideological (Marx). We can't make any specific judgment on whether they exist, cos if they're pre-social and God-given, it's difficult to proove God - He can't be empirically verify, so it can't be prooved whether he gave them to us.
    But that's not what's really important. Rights are important to allow people justice and liberty, but the implications of their practicality means that they should be regulated. Nevertheless, regardless of this, they exist.

    Btw, I pretty much said that ^ at the beginning of my essay and said the essay would show how I came to this conclusion.

    Whoops, pretty much wrote out my essay in the end, lol.

    Omg, I just realised that was just my Political essay... oh dear...

    The second one was the Religion question: "Assess the possibility of miracles" - I made a reinterpretation of the question since it was open-ended and vague and argued whether the impossibility of miracles argues for the existence of God since only something that omnipotent could violate nature in such a way.
    I referred to Hume - who gave the violation of nature's law quote in the first place, then James - who talks the most about Religious Experience - linked it to miracles, Bultmann, Tillich and Braithwaite to arguean Anti-Realist argument why testimony of miracles are meaningful, then Ayer's Verification Principle to say that only cognitive statements are meaningful so miracles in that way are meaningless regardless of possibility.
    I used Hume to bridge the gap to Swinburne who counter-argues this with the principles of testimony and credulity making belief in God through the impossibility of miracles justifiable. However, I didn't have enough time to evaluate Swinburne and had to link it straight onto my conclusion and say despite arguments against, they're quite flawed and therefore arguments like Swinburne's are justifiable/considerable arguments to believe in God through impossibility of miracles. I referred to miracles such as Jesus' resurrection, resurrection of Lazarus and feeding the 5000 as illustrations.

    Wow, sorry it's so long. I wonder if anyone will even read this. It's just that when I'm writing any kind of outline for a philosophy essay that's not a plan, I just HAVE to write it in a the format required to get good marks according to the mark scheme. I just can't help it - It's been wired into my body operating system.

    So, how do those essays stand? C? B? A? or was it dismally below somehow?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clarehistory101)
    Sounds like you got a lot more in on the first question than I did. My answer was much more rudimentary in comparison... I feel really uneasy now! haha. Which text are you studying?
    On Liberty. Hoping to merk it but I need to relearn most of it :erm:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Niwdog)
    Sounds like you nailed it
    Thank you, I sure hope so. Good luck!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    did anyone do the miracles question and the one for epistemology and being unable to gain knowledge due to error?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlackZebra)
    I did the 2nd question on the mind body interactions, mentioned about 5 theories and went over a point or two for each..

    >.<!
    Cool, did you relate it to like a big grand point about the whole of philosophy of the kind, such as the notion that mind and body interaction cannot truely be explained by any theory, i did this I also did biological naturalism and i think i completely ****** up lol! What thoeries did you talma bout, i started with substance dualism, and then talked about token identity theory and finnished with searles biolgical naturalism. It seemed a fairly open ended question, so im hoping that its easy to get good marks for it!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Siobhanbligh)
    Cool, did you relate it to like a big grand point about the whole of philosophy of the kind, such as the notion that mind and body interaction cannot truely be explained by any theory, i did this I also did biological naturalism and i think i completely ****** up lol! What thoeries did you talma bout, i started with substance dualism, and then talked about token identity theory and finnished with searles biolgical naturalism. It seemed a fairly open ended question, so im hoping that its easy to get good marks for it!
    Well at the end I wrote about how no theory at the moment explains it fully.

    I mentioned Bio naturalism too! Forgot what it was for a second, but I think I explained it okay, I started with Substance Dualism too [mentioned occasionalism and parallelism too] and then talked about biological naturalism I think. I also mentioned behaviourism and functionalism at one point, but only for a few sentences.

    I hope I did it alright! I really don't know how it went!

    Sounds like you did pretty much the same as me, but probably went into more detail on each thing because I couldn't remember a lot... so should be good!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlackZebra)
    Well at the end I wrote about how no theory at the moment explains it fully.

    I mentioned Bio naturalism too! Forgot what it was for a second, but I think I explained it okay, I started with Substance Dualism too [mentioned occasionalism and parallelism too] and then talked about biological naturalism I think. I also mentioned behaviourism and functionalism at one point, but only for a few sentences.

    I hope I did it alright! I really don't know how it went!

    Sounds like you did pretty much the same as me, but probably went into more detail on each thing because I couldn't remember a lot... so should be good!
    Welll to be honest it sounds like we both took the correect approach to the question and actually answered it, so i think we are already in with a chance of doing very well. I felt though, that all my studies pf the epistemoligcal consequences of making an ontological distinction didnt really need to come up in the exam, but then it felt like there was only really one thing to talk about in reference to the theories we used What do you think, it seems like a question that wanted you to use your udnerstanding of thoeries to tackled a big philisophical issue of philosophy of the mind, rather than like assessing a paticular theory really really indepth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'll be doing AQA A2 Philosophy next academic year.... seems like you all had fun! Got any serious advice?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Siobhanbligh)
    Welll to be honest it sounds like we both took the correect approach to the question and actually answered it, so i think we are already in with a chance of doing very well. I felt though, that all my studies pf the epistemoligcal consequences of making an ontological distinction didnt really need to come up in the exam, but then it felt like there was only really one thing to talk about in reference to the theories we used What do you think, it seems like a question that wanted you to use your udnerstanding of thoeries to tackled a big philisophical issue of philosophy of the mind, rather than like assessing a paticular theory really really indepth.
    I agree, I found it hard to find more than one thing to talk about with each theory, but I also agree that I think they wanted you to give an answer that was well balanced accommodating several different viewpoints from different theories. So I think we should have done alright!! Which is good! Because I was super nervous

    Seeing your AS level results, what do you need this year at A2 to keep the A overall?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlackZebra)
    Well at the end I wrote about how no theory at the moment explains it fully.

    I mentioned Bio naturalism too! Forgot what it was for a second, but I think I explained it okay, I started with Substance Dualism too [mentioned occasionalism and parallelism too] and then talked about biological naturalism I think. I also mentioned behaviourism and functionalism at one point, but only for a few sentences.

    I hope I did it alright! I really don't know how it went!

    Sounds like you did pretty much the same as me, but probably went into more detail on each thing because I couldn't remember a lot... so should be good!

    Okay i read that and actually felt faint! I did that question and have never heard of those theories before! I actually read the AQA philosophy textbook back to front! I managed to use Platonism and Aristotlianism to explain how they think universals are strictly intellectual (in plato's case a completely different realm). Then I explained how Hume believes universals to be attached to sense data of particulars and therefore involve the body. I tried to bring in Ayer's phenomalism which claims theres no such thing as a seperate reality so no such things as universals. I also brought in Wittgenstein and Williams to explain that if universals were strictly intellectual there would be a great language barrier as we could not explain how particulars are with evidence.
    Please tell me if thats okay (and be honest). Im applying to Cambridge so i really need to get an A in every unit and im thinking that i failed it now!! :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yousra_e)
    Okay i read that and actually felt faint! I did that question and have never heard of those theories before! I actually read the AQA philosophy textbook back to front! I managed to use Platonism and Aristotlianism to explain how they think universals are strictly intellectual (in plato's case a completely different realm). Then I explained how Hume believes universals to be attached to sense data of particulars and therefore involve the body. I tried to bring in Ayer's phenomalism which claims theres no such thing as a seperate reality so no such things as universals. I also brought in Wittgenstein and Williams to explain that if universals were strictly intellectual there would be a great language barrier as we could not explain how particulars are with evidence.
    Please tell me if thats okay (and be honest). Im applying to Cambridge so i really need to get an A in every unit and im thinking that i failed it now!! :confused:
    Really don't worry! I know the AQA book has a lot I don't know and since it's the official one it is obvs the best to use that.. but I was using a different text book! and my teachers notes, and tbh with you I haven't heard of any of your theories you wrote about!!

    I think you will be fine! Best of luck with Cambridge and what not!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlackZebra)
    Really don't worry! I know the AQA book has a lot I don't know and since it's the official one it is obvs the best to use that.. but I was using a different text book! and my teachers notes, and tbh with you I haven't heard of any of your theories you wrote about!!

    I think you will be fine! Best of luck with Cambridge and what not!
    Thanks for that! I think I was about to suffer from cardiac arrest for a second. I was really insecure about epistemology in general, and the two questions just seemed so daunting! I didnt even define universals and im pretty sure I used 'ontology' in the wrong sense (i called it a theory that entails there is a seperate reality to what we experience). But oh well, c'est la vie. It sounds like you've done really well; hopefully they'll publish a new book with those theories in it!

    Good luck!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    if i have got 180 ums points so far....what grade do i need in these following exams..bearing in mind that 1 is worth 60% and one is worth 40% ?

    i totally screwed up the exam worth 50% tho !
    and i need an A overal !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    if i have got 180 ums points so far....what grade do i need in these following exams..bearing in mind that 1 is worth 60% and one is worth 40% ?
    i totally messed up the exam worth 50% tho !
    and i need an A overal !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    if i have got 180 ums points so far....what grade do i need in these following exams..bearing in mind that 1 is worth 60% and one is worth 40% ?

    i totally screwed up the exam worth 50% tho !
    and i need an A overal
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlackZebra)
    I agree, I found it hard to find more than one thing to talk about with each theory, but I also agree that I think they wanted you to give an answer that was well balanced accommodating several different viewpoints from different theories. So I think we should have done alright!! Which is good! Because I was super nervous

    Seeing your AS level results, what do you need this year at A2 to keep the A overall?
    I need two low Bs to get an A overall, but obviously i want moooore than just a low A hehe, i did very very badly on the political philosophy question though So im hoping that i made up for it in the philosophy of teh kind question, i think im only got a high C for the exam paper tbh, doing a years worth of work in 1 hour was impossible! Im determined to get an A for my synoptic stuff, im doing descartes and once you understand his particular way of thinking its pretty easy to critique him to get a good mark. What about yourself? What other subjects ye doing as well?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BlackZebra)
    I agree, I found it hard to find more than one thing to talk about with each theory, but I also agree that I think they wanted you to give an answer that was well balanced accommodating several different viewpoints from different theories. So I think we should have done alright!! Which is good! Because I was super nervous

    Seeing your AS level results, what do you need this year at A2 to keep the A overall?
    I need two low Bs to get an A overall, but obviously i want moooore than just a low A hehe, i did very very badly on the political philosophy question though So im hoping that i made up for it in the philosophy of teh kind question, i think im only got a high C for the exam paper tbh, doing a years worth of work in 1 hour was impossible! Im determined to get an A for my synoptic stuff, im doing descartes and once you understand his particular way of thinking its pretty easy to critique him to get a good mark. What about yourself? What other subjects ye doing as well?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ghast)
    I'll be doing AQA A2 Philosophy next academic year.... seems like you all had fun! Got any serious advice?
    Haha good luck!
    Seriously though, make sure that throughout the year you spend some time during the week going over your topics so you understand it very well. Unlike me. Absolute nightmare having to learn it all by heart in the space of a couple of weeks.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: June 20, 2012

University open days

  1. University of Bradford
    University-wide Postgraduate
    Wed, 25 Jul '18
  2. University of Buckingham
    Psychology Taster Tutorial Undergraduate
    Wed, 25 Jul '18
  3. Bournemouth University
    Clearing Campus Visit Undergraduate
    Wed, 1 Aug '18
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?

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.