Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Group for those who do OCR A2 Philosophy & Ethics [Post Exam Discussion] watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ideal.)
    Ok, I understand now on the applied ethics, it seems to be the pattern OCR are taking, but there is nowhere they have explicitly stated this to be the case.

    On another topic, does anyone have thae Jan 11 mark scheme?
    pretty much and no sorry !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anna Louise)
    i thought there's only been one applied question on every paper :/ i was going to miss out environment and just do business !

    also, you couldn't help with philosophy could you.. ? how likely would you say it is that life after death and religious experience, and possibly religious language are going to come up on monday ? i know it's risky but i'm completely leaving out revelation of scripture and attributes of god, even though i think those two topics will definitely be up, i just can't answer on them !

    so i'm going to be limited to at the very worst 2 questions, which i'm hoping will be one of the three topics i've just mentioned. just wondering what you think about this ? i guessed last year and it paid off, but i really want to keep my a* soo i don't want to take too many risks ! i think it could just be an act of insane risk taking to not even look at the miracles topic, just to cover my bases, but any insight on this would be appreciated i'm soo scared i'm going to fail ! parents are really counting on me keeping my a*, especially seen as they got me a tutor for added insurance !
    There are 5 philosophy topics and 4 of them will be on the exam (judging by past experience) so it is guaranteed that at least 2 out of Experience, Language and Death will come up. In quite a few years all 3 have come up - here's the table:
    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...GE2NDkzODExNmE
    Revelation is actually part of experience, but since it came up quite recently it's less likely to be there this time round, though you never know.

    If there's one topic you're not going to answer a question on then I'd say revise the other bits - but I'm not sure about two. Potentially committing yourself to answering questions you haven't seen yet is risky. Attributes and Miracles are two quite straightforward units if you have the time... attributes you will have covered a lot of from AS (problem of evil, Judeo-Christian influences etc.) so it might be worth trying that if any. And don't forget about the synoptic aspect - they're looking for a broad knowledge of the whole subject, so by leaving out modules you're limiting this.

    Still if you learn those 3 like crazy and know them inside out, then I don't see any reason why you shouldn't get an A*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ideal.)
    Ok, I understand now on the applied ethics, it seems to be the pattern OCR are taking, but there is nowhere they have explicitly stated this to be the case.

    On another topic, does anyone have thae Jan 11 mark scheme?
    Miracles is partially about the problems of using inductive reasoning... perhaps the Ethics board are testing us as part of the synopticity lol.

    I don't think OCR have released the Jan 11 mark scheme... but there is the examiners report which has some mark scheme elements. Here's the link if you don't have it:
    http://www.ocr.org.uk/download/rep_1...11_gce_jan.pdf
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oxmatt)
    The term 'meaningful' is used in the sense of the 'meaning' of a sentence. For the Logical Positivists (who are behind many of the attacks upon ethical language) the meaning of a statement is intimately related to what would make it true. So for them if something cannot be shown to be true or false then it is meaningless. Cognitive ethical theories, theories that believe ethical facts to be objective, have language with meaning in this sense.

    To get to your question, non-cognitive theories are theories that explicitly deny any direct factual meaning to their theories. So going by the definition of what the meaning of a sentence requires from the Positivists, non-cognitive theories cannot be meaningful.

    Two points to note. The first is cautionary - this isn't meaning as in "the meaning of life" or "Love is a meaningful feeling", but as in "what does that word mean?" So I've made the mistake before, and you might have, of calling ethical language meaningful because of its use to people, but the Positivists aren't talking about this at all. The second is that the Positivist definition of meaningful is controversial - so you could argue that any ethical language is meaningful because of it being its own language game (Wittgenstein) etc.

    Sorry for the essay, hope it helped!
    Thankyou!! thats cleared it up a bit!! I'll go back over it but I don't think id choose a question like this unless I have to!!
    but thanks, definitely makes more sense
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Could a question come up exclusively on God as Omnibenevolent.

    EG. "Discuss the problems concerning an Omnibenevolent God"

    If so what would you include in your answer? I am struggling to fill out a question in this topic...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anna Louise)
    thanks ! and snapp :P i worked out that was probably highly likely to come up because all the other arguments: cosmological, teleological and the moral argument, which came under the existence of god part of the syllabus and already previously been on, so it was quite likely they were working there way, paper by paper, through this section. was very happy it came up

    i only remember revising the ontological argument, aristotle and the problem of evil in detail :P so lucky both the ontological and aristotle came up ! but aristotle was in relation to the god topic, which kind of threw me :P

    me too ! absolutely hate boethius ! my philosophy teacher is awful, she's so boring, i'm afraid to say i've slept through most of her lessons :P hahaa ! and omg sammee ! there exactly the new topic i'm laying my cards on ! those and religious experience. it seems to be that it's either a question on miracles OR religious experience. And from looking at the 'prediction' table thing it's been miracles, religious experience, and miracles... so i'm thinking this year it'll be religious experience ? what do think ? i don't know whether i should look over miracles just to be on the safe side but there's so much i need to cover already !
    Yeah thats the question I did as well . Argh I know I wasn't really in class for that topic so I'm just not bothering with it, I know people say you should revise it a little bit anyway, but I'm definitely not going to do it so I may as well spend my time revising the other ones better!
    Hopefully it is religious experience! Might be a bit predictable though... The good thing about the philosophy section this year is that theres only.. five topics? (not ethics) and four questions (even though they are more detailed...) So SOMETHING on religious language is bound to come up, and then religious experience/miracles, one on Life after death and then attributes of God. Yeah i know so much to cover I'm meant to be working sunday but have decided to call in sick instead haha, forgot to book it off!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oxmatt)
    There are 5 philosophy topics and 4 of them will be on the exam (judging by past experience) so it is guaranteed that at least 2 out of Experience, Language and Death will come up. In quite a few years all 3 have come up - here's the table:
    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...GE2NDkzODExNmE
    Revelation is actually part of experience, but since it came up quite recently it's less likely to be there this time round, though you never know.

    If there's one topic you're not going to answer a question on then I'd say revise the other bits - but I'm not sure about two. Potentially committing yourself to answering questions you haven't seen yet is risky. Attributes and Miracles are two quite straightforward units if you have the time... attributes you will have covered a lot of from AS (problem of evil, Judeo-Christian influences etc.) so it might be worth trying that if any. And don't forget about the synoptic aspect - they're looking for a broad knowledge of the whole subject, so by leaving out modules you're limiting this.

    Still if you learn those 3 like crazy and know them inside out, then I don't see any reason why you shouldn't get an A*
    isn't there 6 ? life after death, attributes of God, revelation of scripture, miracles, religious experience, and religious language.. sorry if i'm sounding argumentative :P ohh right, in my textbook revelation has it's own chapter thanks though, i understand what you're saying now !

    i know that's true ! but i really wouldn't want to answer on revelation or attributes of god and i don't mind if that leaves me committed to just 2 questions.. i'm going to make sure i cover all the other topic in detail, albeit maybe not miracles in as much.

    yeahh the synoptic bit isn't that just built into the question, i don't think there's a synoptic paper ok then, thank you i'm guessing your going to revise everything then ? or are you missing a topic out ?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ineluctable)
    I see what you are saying, it will be ultimately destroyed so there is almost no point conserving it now. But surely St Paul wouldn't think it was human responsibility to destroy the environment?
    He's not advocating to destroy the environment, but saying it is not worth the effort to actively go and preserve. A subtle difference, but an important one.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely ****ting myself right now... I'm awful at revising and always leave it way too late I get so nervous during exam time that I just distract myself with food and end up constantly eating

    I don't really like the way you have to answer questions this year, I preferred the AS exam which had a/b questions, rather than just the one big question.

    I don't even know what score I need to get a specific grade, because I re-sat my Ethics AS in Jan and I don't find out until August...

    Kill me now :cry2:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone please explain Dawkin's view on the body and the soul? I know parts of his theory but I don't feel like I've covered all of his theory.

    Also, is he a materialist or both a materialist and a monist? Some people say he's a materialist but some say he is both a materialist and a monist. So.. it's a bit confusing. :/

    Thank you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anna Louise)
    isn't there 6 ? life after death, attributes of God, revelation of scripture, miracles, religious experience, and religious language.. sorry if i'm sounding argumentative :P ohh right, in my textbook revelation has it's own chapter thanks though, i understand what you're saying now !

    i know that's true ! but i really wouldn't want to answer on revelation or attributes of god and i don't mind if that leaves me committed to just 2 questions.. i'm going to make sure i cover all the other topic in detail, albeit maybe not miracles in as much.

    yeahh the synoptic bit isn't that just built into the question, i don't think there's a synoptic paper ok then, thank you i'm guessing your going to revise everything then ? or are you missing a topic out ?
    I think I have the same book as you... yeah there used to be 6 but I think they compressed it to 5 or something. Frickin' OCR.

    I'm trying to revise everything just in case... but really not planning to do practical ethics, only if the other questions are horrible.

    Being argumentative isn't bad in the context of this exam! Just argue and you'll be all right
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kar09)
    Can someone please explain Dawkin's view on the body and the soul? I know parts of his theory but I don't feel like I've covered all of his theory.

    Also, is he a materialist or both a materialist and a monist? Some people say he's a materialist but some say he is both a materialist and a monist. So.. it's a bit confusing. :/

    Thank you.
    Dawkin's view of the soul is that there isn't one, the afterlife is just the product of human imagination, constructed as a means to combat our fear of death and the unknown. He's fairly easy to write about as he generally just disagrees with all things religious.

    For Dawkins, the only concept of life after death that exists is through genetics, we do not live on in a spiritual sense, but our DNA does continue after death in our children. The human body is simply a vessel for our genes. Once we die, brain functionality ceases and our organs deteriorate, there is no mystical energy with which we can continue our lives, death is simply a biological occurrence, not a spiritual one.

    I think he's a materialist :confused: So he thinks that only matter and physical substance exists and is therefore all we can experience... Things we interpret as 'spiritual' can be reduced to the physical (such as products of our brain functionality) :dontknow:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oxmatt)
    I think I have the same book as you... yeah there used to be 6 but I think they compressed it to 5 or something. Frickin' OCR.

    I'm trying to revise everything just in case... but really not planning to do practical ethics, only if the other questions are horrible.

    Being argumentative isn't bad in the context of this exam! Just argue and you'll be all right
    the orangey turquoise one ? i know, they are annoying ! and the fact we have to sit them on the same day, i mean what is that really about ? honestly !

    yeahh ! i'm definitely not touching the environment, such a boring topic, i know that's pretty ignorant of me in light of todays environmental problems but mehh :P

    and hahaa yeahh true :P well i hope you do alright
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can anyone explain Maurice Wiles to me please? What is he going on about??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liam_G)
    Absolutely ****ting myself right now... I'm awful at revising and always leave it way too late I get so nervous during exam time that I just distract myself with food and end up constantly eating

    I don't really like the way you have to answer questions this year, I preferred the AS exam which had a/b questions, rather than just the one big question.

    I don't even know what score I need to get a specific grade, because I re-sat my Ethics AS in Jan and I don't find out until August...

    Kill me now :cry2:
    Same and I have got a history exam today so I will only have two full days of revision.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thought I was alright on Virtue Ethics, until I flicked through my notes and noticed there's loads of views from modern philosophers (e.g. MacIntyre, Foot). Has anyone learnt any of them? I thought I was ontop of most of the philosophers, but now there's a whole other list to learn!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ineluctable)
    For religious experience just go over the specification and make sure you have information covering the main points. If the below information about symbols isn't clear just say

    Tillich:
    1. Sign points to something, symbol participates in that to which it points i.e. without a symbol the reality to what it is pointing at would be something less-the symbol becomes part of the reality

    2. Don't forget symbols can die/lose their meaning

    3. Ground of being just means that God is the basis of everything and the meaning behind everything-it can only be known through symbols, cannot be conveyed in any other way

    4. Religious language-saying something about God participates in the reality of God. Tillich can confuse people here with the idea that a term is "affirmed and negated" by the reality of God. If I were to say God is love, it is affirmed because this is what God is, but the term is utterly inadequate-it is an admission of the inadequacy of religious language

    Then you have to consider the strengths and weaknesses.
    1. Obviously it is very vague, so don't worry if that is what you thought-this can be a criticism
    2. Hick questioned the notion of participating in that to which it points
    3. Which part of a proposition participates? Can language be used as a symbol? Do symbols even have to involve words?
    3. Can symbols participate in the reality of God as much as they do when they apply to human entities?
    4. Human symbols can become obsolete and lose their reality. If really only has a reality in time for certain people, does it represent any reality about God?
    5. An advantage is that it avoids anthropomorphism like analogy does

    Thank you! Would you mind reading the following and saying if its correct? Sign and Symbol is most definately my downfall, along with pretty much everything else :confused:

    1) Signs are easy to decode, symbols are more complex and require decoding
    2) Symbols usually communicate something better than it could be put into words
    TILLICH
    1)Symbols go above and beyond the external world
    2)They express something and invite participation in something
    3)They open up new levels of reality and reveal "being itself" which is God (or ultimate existence)
    4)As symbols participate, they bring a deeper understanding. Use the example that the crucifix participated in Jesus' death, and this brings the symbol a deeper level of understanding
    5)They act upon the individual to bring about experience and a response towards the symbol
    6) This unlocks the elements of the soul which were otherwise hidden


    Is that level of understanding okay do you think?? Also, if you could explain the strenghts and weaknesses in more detail i would really appreciate it, my teacher only gave us the AO1 for this topic! xx
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone please help me on the question: "To what extent is ethical language meaningful?". I've gone through the theories and all of them seem to state it is. - How can these state that it isn't meaningful?

    Ethical Natrualism - obsiouly it is meaningful as it's just like other statements

    Intuitionism - We know good (ought for pritchard) when we see it, therefore ethical language can be meaningful as we have an intuitionist knowledge of what good is. I.e. saying "Murder is wrong" is meaningful as we instinctively know murder is wrong.

    Emotivism - ethical language expresses emotions and arouse feelings. Ethical language is descriptive and emotive. Ayer stated that "Adding an ethical term to the proposition adds nothing to it's factual content." This may seem that they are meaningless, but to me, even if they only express our emotions they still have a meaning. (Or do our emotions not have meaning?), just not in the same factual sense.

    Prescriptivism - The role of ethical language is to say what ough to be done in certain situations. They express our wills and desires. I'd argue that even if they only express' our desires they are still meaningful - as our desires are still a thing!

    That's where I've got to thus far. Is it jsut me being confused over what meaningful is? (Would some argue that intuitionism, prescriptivism and emoticism are meaningless as they don't directly tell us facts?)

    Basically can someone tell me how they can me meaningless?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liam_G)
    Dawkin's view of the soul is that there isn't one, the afterlife is just the product of human imagination, constructed as a means to combat our fear of death and the unknown. He's fairly easy to write about as he generally just disagrees with all things religious.

    For Dawkins, the only concept of life after death that exists is through genetics, we do not live on in a spiritual sense, but our DNA does continue after death in our children. The human body is simply a vessel for our genes. Once we die, brain functionality ceases and our organs deteriorate, there is no mystical energy with which we can continue our lives, death is simply a biological occurrence, not a spiritual one.

    I think he's a materialist :confused: So he thinks that only matter and physical substance exists and is therefore all we can experience... Things we interpret as 'spiritual' can be reduced to the physical (such as products of our brain functionality) :dontknow:
    Thanks. It was really useful.

    Also, do we need to know the views of Descartes on the body and the soul?
    All I know is that he is a dualist and that he states that the pineal gland is 'the seat of the soul'. HELP!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kar09)
    Thanks. It was really useful.

    Also, do we need to know the views of Descartes on the body and the soul?
    All I know is that he is a dualist and that he states that the pineal gland is 'the seat of the soul'. HELP!!
    on the syllabus it just says the views of plato aristotle hick and dawkins. it probably wouldn't hurt to know a few more though...
    but i haven't heard anything about the seat of the soul!? i don't think we need to talk about that..
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: May 23, 2012
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

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.