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.
What topics came up in R+E?
Necessary and contingent truths, and then Kant and conceptual schemes v. empiricism
Differences between Necessary and Contingent truths, Predetermined Conceptual Schemes and the implications for empiricism.
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?!?!
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.
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 .
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.
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.
Did the ontological argument come up?
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.
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?
I'm hoping it wasn't necessary..
What was the actual question word for word?
I can't even remember now!