Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katie1404)
    Hey I sat the A2 ethics paper in January, determinism and conscience came up which was what I was hoping for so I don't think I'm gonna be so lucky next Monday with the philosophy!
    I don't know how you guys have sat both on the same day in AS and A2, it would kill me! I don't think my brain can retain all that information at once, I'm finding it hard to just fit the A2 philosophy in there... and I'm leaving some out. You are all superhuman!
    ubermench... Nietzsche link :geek:

    It is perfectly doable... I did both like that last year where I had philosophy and then ethics back to back and go 200/200... once you're in the exam zone, it is all over so quickly... its only when you stop to think afterwards you realise your wrist could fall off Hoping for As this year too, though I doubt I'll hit the A*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Gunna sound quite stupid here, but anyway-

    In relation to business ethics, there is a theory that suggests the more money people have, the more environmentally aware they become. Its the '?????? Curve' but I can't remember what its called- help?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Torrresss)
    Gunna sound quite stupid here, but anyway-

    In relation to business ethics, there is a theory that suggests the more money people have, the more environmentally aware they become. Its the '?????? Curve' but I can't remember what its called- help?
    Afraid I don't know, but let me know when you do? Sounds very similar to Adam Smith however, who argued that capitalism made people more virtuous, to be a synoptic with virtue ethics
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by purplefrog)
    ubermench... Nietzsche link :geek:

    It is perfectly doable... I did both like that last year where I had philosophy and then ethics back to back and go 200/200... once you're in the exam zone, it is all over so quickly... its only when you stop to think afterwards you realise your wrist could fall off Hoping for As this year too, though I doubt I'll hit the A*
    Wow, that's brilliant! I'm bang on 90 ums for ethics so maybe I'll match it in philosophy for the A* but I'm not that bothered if I don't, I only need a B so I've been focusing on other subjects. If miracles and religious experience come up though I might pull it off. Philosophies been so hard to revise for this year though... the textbook never puts things simply!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Am I the only one who's just noticed that all the religious language questions have been on either symbol, myth, or analogy? o.O Do you reckon any of the other topics will come up this year?

    one week to go guys :eek:
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by xbabycakes)
    Am I the only one who's just noticed that all the religious language questions have been on either symbol, myth, or analogy? o.O Do you reckon any of the other topics will come up this year?

    one week to go guys :eek:
    Symbol twice in a row! My bets are on cognitive approaches to language (if language comes up at all) happening.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Torrresss)
    Gunna sound quite stupid here, but anyway-

    In relation to business ethics, there is a theory that suggests the more money people have, the more environmentally aware they become. Its the '?????? Curve' but I can't remember what its called- help?
    Do you mean the Kuznet curve? My teacher has mentioned it in Economics
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    Symbol twice in a row! My bets are on cognitive approaches to language (if language comes up at all) happening.
    Yeah. I really have no interest in language (that's the topic I didn't really.. get, if you know what I mean) but if it does come up I'd rather it be a cognitive approach.

    I just seriously don't get how a symbol 'participates' in something. Like, I understand it, it's just the most pointless thing I've ever heard! (imo, haha, no disrespect to Tillich)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I dont know anything about omnibenevolence in regard to the nature of god. Help?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No.1 Loner)
    I dont know anything about omnibenevolence in regard to the nature of god. Help?
    From what I've gathered, when talking about God's benevolence, we're supposed to link it in with the idea of Heaven and Hell and rewarding the good and punishing the bad.

    There's a bit on Aquinas that it'll be good to know regarding God's benevolence and goodness. He argued that God is good in every way, shape and form. He lacks no excellence, and with his goodness/benevolence comes many other positive traits such as omniscience, omnipotence and so on. He is the only entity who will ever excel in every field - no other being will possess all of these qualities. If God was not like this, then he would not be worthy of worship, because someone else would be better than God himself - pretty much like the Ontological argument.

    Maybe talk about the Euthyphro Dilemma, and whether goodness is an external measure beyond God's control or whether he dictates what is good and bad.

    However, although this is all well and good, this raises several questions about God's benevolence, because if God is all-loving, then surely concepts such as hell and the like could not exist. However, Hell does exist so we have to wonder whether or not God does care about his creation etc.

    Then you could mention whether God is in a position to reward and punish us; link this back to his benevolence, and his other traits such as his omnipotence etc.

    Some of the main points you might want to address would be:

    - If God loves us, then why would he want to punish us in such a harsh way? Hell is described as a place of eternal torment, and surely a good God would not want his creation to suffer. To counter-argue this you could use Augustine's theodicy and state that it is our fault that places like Hell exist, because we are descendants of Adam and Eve and have to pay the price for their Fall. However, you could still argue that it is silly making us suffer for something which happened so long ago - surely this just reveals a harsh God with no mercy.

    - You could argue that evil is in this world for a reason - as a way of 'soul-making' - mention Irenaeus

    - Hick believed in Universalism - Hell does not exist, we are all saved in the end, so surely God is good/benevolent. However, this removes the incentive for us to be good in the beginning. If we are not going to be punished or rewarded, then why bother living moral lives.

    - Swinburne - God is like a loving parent who cares about our well-being, and can choose to relax rules when he pleases, as well as punish us when he wants to. This does not reduce his benevolence as he still cares about us enough to ensure that we are on the correct path in life.


    I hope that helped a bit
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    Symbol twice in a row! My bets are on cognitive approaches to language (if language comes up at all) happening.



    what are the cognitive approaches to language?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by chigzy29)
    what are the cognitive approaches to language?
    Verification, falsification and via negativa
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chigzy29)
    what are the cognitive approaches to language?
    univocal language
    and the application of verification and falsification to statements to determine if they are cognitive

    analogy, myth, symbol and language games are all non-cognitive
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp)
    From what I've gathered, when talking about God's benevolence, we're supposed to link it in with the idea of Heaven and Hell and rewarding the good and punishing the bad.

    There's a bit on Aquinas that it'll be good to know regarding God's benevolence and goodness. He argued that God is good in every way, shape and form. He lacks no excellence, and with his goodness/benevolence comes many other positive traits such as omniscience, omnipotence and so on. He is the only entity who will ever excel in every field - no other being will possess all of these qualities. If God was not like this, then he would not be worthy of worship, because someone else would be better than God himself - pretty much like the Ontological argument.

    Maybe talk about the Euthyphro Dilemma, and whether goodness is an external measure beyond God's control or whether he dictates what is good and bad.

    However, although this is all well and good, this raises several questions about God's benevolence, because if God is all-loving, then surely concepts such as hell and the like could not exist. However, Hell does exist so we have to wonder whether or not God does care about his creation etc.

    Then you could mention whether God is in a position to reward and punish us; link this back to his benevolence, and his other traits such as his omnipotence etc.

    Some of the main points you might want to address would be:

    - If God loves us, then why would he want to punish us in such a harsh way? Hell is described as a place of eternal torment, and surely a good God would not want his creation to suffer. To counter-argue this you could use Augustine's theodicy and state that it is our fault that places like Hell exist, because we are descendants of Adam and Eve and have to pay the price for their Fall. However, you could still argue that it is silly making us suffer for something which happened so long ago - surely this just reveals a harsh God with no mercy.

    - You could argue that evil is in this world for a reason - as a way of 'soul-making' - mention Irenaeus

    - Hick believed in Universalism - Hell does not exist, we are all saved in the end, so surely God is good/benevolent. However, this removes the incentive for us to be good in the beginning. If we are not going to be punished or rewarded, then why bother living moral lives.

    - Swinburne - God is like a loving parent who cares about our well-being, and can choose to relax rules when he pleases, as well as punish us when he wants to. This does not reduce his benevolence as he still cares about us enough to ensure that we are on the correct path in life.


    I hope that helped a bit
    Cheers! this is golden, couldnt find any notes about this so was gettin abit worried.

    repped
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    These exams will not end well for me.

    I'm trying to reduce each person's theory as explained in my textbook in each topic onto a post-it, then the criticism (if noted) onto another.
    Tomorrow I'll aim to plan and possibly do a couple of essay plans and maybe the essays, then my notes onto revision cards, then reduce the revision cards down, then more timed essays...

    Life after death is a stupid topic, I hate stupid replica theory.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    Verification, falsification and via negativa
    Sorry if I'm being dumb...
    But wouldn't verification and falsification be non cognitive approaches to religious language as they say we that we don't know what we mean, and discussion of it is meaningless... Religious statements aren't open to validity or falsity...
    Symbol, analogy and myth on the other hand might see religious language as cognitive as we can discuss them and know what we mean...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charrrlotte.ox)
    cba to see if anyone else has already answered this but yes, i think so. but, tbh, miracles came up in jan so probs won't come up in june
    I know a philosophy examiner who is absolutely dead set convinced that Hume and miracles will be up in June
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    Cognitive theories
    Logical positivists/Vienna circle
    Verification principle - Ayer said religious language is meaningless as it can't be verified (remember emotivism?) distinguished between strong and weak verification - however, Hick said that through eschtalogical verification we can verify if God exists
    Falsification principle - influenced by Karl Popper. Statements only have meaning if they can be falsified. Flew said that religious don't allow anything to be said against God and therefore their statements are meaningless 'God dies a death of a thousand qualifications'. Hare said that people have bliks, and as only beliefs can't be verified or falsified - they are meaningless to the outside world, but to that individual it has a lot of meaning. Mitchell said that religious do allow falsifications, but they put faith first and use qualifiers
    Via negativia - it is very hard to talk about God univocally or equivocally without bringing him down to human level or getting something wrong. Instead we must say what he is not e.g. he is not evil. So if religious langauge is said correctly in this way it is meaningful, anything propositional is not
    Non-cognitive theories
    Wittgenstein - proposed theory of language game - words only have meaning in context and in certain groups. Saying God is good is meaningful until I tell it to an atheist and then we're talking about two different versions of 'good' and 'God'
    Analogy, symbol and myth - wouldn't talk about them as much as the others but say they do have non-cognitive meaning but need to be understood in certain ways, not as univocal propositions
    If you have time you could chuck in some meta-ethics to be synoptic
    Sorry to re-quote you, but yeah I'm pretty sure you're confusing cognitive and non cognitive theories... Ayers emotivism is non cognitivist, so surely his view on religious language is the same.

    If I'm wrong, sorry Feel free to correct me, but boy am I now confused haha
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilylikeeee)
    Sorry to re-quote you, but yeah I'm pretty sure you're confusing cognitive and non cognitive theories... Ayers emotivism is non cognitivist, so surely his view on religious language is the same.

    If I'm wrong, sorry Feel free to correct me, but boy am I now confused haha
    Yes Ayer has non-cognitivist views on religious language and ethics
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone else feel that it is hard to write a whole essay on some of the nature of God issues e.g. omnibenevolence? Other topics areas like religious experience seem to be too big to write an essay on!
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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.