AQA Philosophy unit 1. HOW DID IT GO LOL Watch

lookinglass
Badges: 0
#1
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#1
Reason and experience questions were great, but, I panicked because I thought 'I know this' (like an idiot). So my part two for R+E was naff.
Did 'Why should I be governed?' for second part, thought that went much better.
Think a B tops. But need an A...
Argh existence..
Also thought it was ironic that the time constraints in the exam mean you barely have to time to think. Come on AQA, it's Philosophy, I NEED to think.
Vented nicely :p:
Anyone else?
0
reply
tristan1000
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report 8 years ago
#2
I quite liked the reason and experience questions. The govt questions were good as well as the only bit i had really revised was consent so that came up. I resat from last time and feel its gone a lot better. Hopefully a good B or A.
0
reply
Fated
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 8 years ago
#3
I did Reason and Experience and Why Should I Be Governed, and whilst I didn't like the first question for the first section, overall I think I did pretty well and am hoping for an A. Fingers crossed.
0
reply
Chapter One
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#4
Report 8 years ago
#4
What topics came up in R+E?
0
reply
lookinglass
Badges: 0
#5
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#5
Necessary and contingent truths, and then Kant and conceptual schemes v. empiricism
0
reply
Fated
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 8 years ago
#6
Differences between Necessary and Contingent truths, Predetermined Conceptual Schemes and the implications for empiricism.
0
reply
Rabid Howler
Badges: 0
#7
Report 8 years ago
#7
I did reason and experience and why should I be governed. The part B question for R+E was kind of evil, but the rest was okay. Fingers crossed
0
reply
jennyrenhaigh
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 8 years ago
#8
I did R+E and Persons, the latter which was v. good I thought, the former I genuinely have NO idea what I got.
What did people say for the B R+E, just a summary?!?!
0
reply
lookinglass
Badges: 0
#9
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#9
Said that Kant could criticise empiricism on the grounds that they argue against a priori concepts which give synthetic knowledge, but essentially presuppose these concepts in their explanation of concept acquisition i.e. colour yellow, many different shades, needs concepts of similarity and differences. Fail on Locke's part. Also took it further and said that, really, Kant can argue we can't have intelligible experience at all without categories. Concluded by saying that Kant did value experience however, but interestingly both his and Hume's version lead to not much certain knowledge, or knowledge of the objective world. Hume with his mitigated scepticism- no certainty beyond the now and memory. And Kant can only know of our experiences of the world (as otherwise we would have no experience) and not the objective world at all.
Don't know if it's right/any good. and I certainly didn't express it eloquently at all. Bummer.
0
reply
Alim1312
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report 8 years ago
#10
Also think they like you to present a range on answers so also mentioned abit about language being a conceptual scheme. the grade boundries are normally very low for philosophy so there isnt much to worry about if you did well on every other question and do well on tuesday .
0
reply
Signe_x
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 8 years ago
#11
I did not even mention Kant's name in Question 2 of reason and exp. I am well and truly screwed -__- I barely understood the Q. Eugh.
0
reply
Stabilopink
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 8 years ago
#12
EEEEP!=[ Wtf is contingent truth, I just acted if it was synthetic and annalytic. Bloody Kant, I was preped for some empiricism bashing from rationalism, not Kant -.- Talked about temporal order and causuality and sense date, ug...high B, maybe an a.


Governed was pips, looooved it...I mean seriously what easy questions, still messed up my timing...
(a)Rousseu and benefits of society
Hobbes and security

(b)Intro
-Taccit concent
-Weekness of taccit from Hume

-Democracy from rousseu
-Weakness of democracy

-conditional consent from hobbes
-changing desires by mill

Think essays should be 40mins to allow for some decent depth and planning.
0
reply
Alim1312
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 8 years ago
#13
Yea i was really hoping for rationalism V empiricism shame we hd to be the first people to face a question not like that! part a was basically about analytic and synthetic statement; contingent trusths are those that could be toherwise so basically synthetic..Im sure that anyone who found this hard will pick up marks on the papaer on tuesday. Good luck to all.
0
reply
ghast
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 8 years ago
#14
Did the ontological argument come up?
0
reply
Stabilopink
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 8 years ago
#15
(Original post by Alim1312)
Yea i was really hoping for rationalism V empiricism shame we hd to be the first people to face a question not like that! part a was basically about analytic and synthetic statement; contingent trusths are those that could be toherwise so basically synthetic..Im sure that anyone who found this hard will pick up marks on the papaer on tuesday. Good luck to all.
Why, is there a difference in style between the 2 units? I'm doing external world and freewill+determinism
0
reply
tristan1000
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#16
Report 8 years ago
#16
I didn't do purely empiricism vs Kant on schemes. I spoke about locke and Hume's schemes which fall short because they need similarity. Then gave a rationalist point of view but argued how that then fell short. Before coming onto Kant.
0
reply
peasandqueues
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#17
Report 8 years ago
#17
aah I totally forgot to write about the fact that conceptual schemes can differ socially/culturally and through language (Von Humbolt, Davidson) was that ABSOLUTELY necessary?! I just really did kant vs empiricism, and the proof that we do have synthetic a priori knowledge - rendering locke's 'tabula rasa' incorrect (he doesn't account for the faculty to 'thread' experience)... then evaluation by ockham's razor. How many marks am I likely to lose for not mentioning other conceptual schemes?
0
reply
lookinglass
Badges: 0
#18
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#18
I'm hoping it wasn't necessary..
What was the actual question word for word?
I can't even remember now!
0
reply
Alim1312
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 8 years ago
#19
(Original post by ghast)
Did the ontological argument come up?
Yes it did, it came up as a part b questoin roughyl the question was oes the ontological argument proves God's exisetnce... it was quite a good question to be honest. And to other people i dont really think you HAD to mention language as long as you got a decent variety in iee Kant and one other conceptual scheme e.g the empiricst method. Also it just seems that the paper we sit on thursday is abit easier than this one...
0
reply
Alim1312
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 8 years ago
#20
(Original post by Stabilopink)
Why, is there a difference in style between the 2 units? I'm doing external world and freewill+determinism
There is no difference in style as such, its just in the past people have seeemed to get higher UMS on the second paper. Good luck !
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

University open days

  • University of East Anglia
    All Departments Open 13:00-17:00. Find out more about our diverse range of subject areas and career progression in the Arts & Humanities, Social Sciences, Medicine & Health Sciences, and the Sciences. Postgraduate
    Wed, 30 Jan '19
  • Aston University
    Postgraduate Open Day Postgraduate
    Wed, 30 Jan '19
  • Solent University
    Careers in maritime Undergraduate
    Sat, 2 Feb '19

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (953)
79.88%
Leave (240)
20.12%

Watched Threads

View All