Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goofy-blues)
    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..
    O right. Okies. Phew.. thanks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ideal.)
    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?
    Meta ethics is about ethical language.
    You're not saying whether the metaethical theories are meaningful or not. You're saying whether ethical language is meaningful or not.
    So emotivism would say that ethical laguage is meaningless, we are merely expressing emotions like boo to racism or hurrey to charity. (But you are not saying that emotivism itself is meaningless)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone help me out please?! Currently revising religious experiences, and I still don't understand what a 'numinous' experience is, the definition provided by Rudolf Otto is confusing me. I'm guessing the concept is really easy and I'm just being simple…
    Just worried a question such as 'Only numinous experiences should be accepted as veridical. Discuss' comes up when I don't really know what the term means :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can some explain why does Maurice rejects that God does not act in the world in the topic of miracles? I don't understand it...

    Thank you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by umm123)
    Can someone help me out please?! Currently revising religious experiences, and I still don't understand what a 'numinous' experience is, the definition provided by Rudolf Otto is confusing me. I'm guessing the concept is really easy and I'm just being simple…
    Just worried a question such as 'Only numinous experiences should be accepted as veridical. Discuss' comes up when I don't really know what the term means :confused:
    Numinous is a term coined by Rudolph Otto which states that there is something greater that is outside of our materialistic world. He states that numinous refers to the 'apprehension of the wholly other' and by the 'wholly other', it means that it is outside our knowledge. In other words, it means that we are not able to understand it fully as the concept of a religious experience.

    (I think... Correct me if I'm wrong.)

    'Only numinous experiences should be accepted as veridical. Discuss'

    - Define what is meant by numinous experience
    - Define what veridical means.
    - The types of religious experiences (Swinburne) and what counts as a numinous experience
    - Swinburne's principle of credulity and principle of testimony
    -Criticise with Anthony Flew's ten leaky buckets
    - William Alston- not fair to reject religious experiences as illogical and irrational- 'double standard'- religious experiences are also sense-perceptions
    - Conclusion- yes/no?

    Hope it helps.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wanttobeasucess)
    Meta ethics is about ethical language.
    You're not saying whether the metaethical theories are meaningful or not. You're saying whether ethical language is meaningful or not.
    So emotivism would say that ethical laguage is meaningless, we are merely expressing emotions like boo to racism or hurrey to charity. (But you are not saying that emotivism itself is meaningless)
    But can the ethical language still be meaningful by expressing our emotions? E.g. Boo/hurrah would state "Murder is wrong" ="Boo to murder". Does the very concept of you saying Boo to murder not have meaning?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ideal.)
    But can the ethical language still be meaningful by expressing our emotions? E.g. Boo/hurrah would state "Murder is wrong" ="Boo to murder". Does the very concept of you saying Boo to murder not have meaning?
    I don't think it has meaning because it's classed as an individual's opinion and so cannot be verified as meaningful.

    if this isn't right I do apologise
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kar09)
    Numinous is a term coined by Rudolph Otto which states that there is something greater that is outside of our materialistic world. He states that numinous refers to the 'apprehension of the wholly other' and by the 'wholly other', it means that it is outside our knowledge. In other words, it means that we are not able to understand it fully as the concept of a religious experience.

    (I think... Correct me if I'm wrong.)

    'Only numinous experiences should be accepted as veridical. Discuss'

    - Define what is meant by numinous experience
    - Define what veridical means.
    - The types of religious experiences (Swinburne) and what counts as a numinous experience
    - Swinburne's principle of credulity and principle of testimony
    -Criticise with Anthony Flew's ten leaky buckets
    - William Alston- not fair to reject religious experiences as illogical and irrational- 'double standard'- religious experiences are also sense-perceptions
    - Conclusion- yes/no?

    Hope it helps.
    Thankyou

    I'm still a little unsure as to what counts as a numinous experience though.

    As the definition talks of a 'wholly other' then surely its any experience where God or a higher power presents himself directly?

    If this were the case then would religious experiences such as visions/voices count as a 'numinous' experience? Furthermore, if this were true then what makes a numinous experience vastly different from your bog standard religious experience? If that makes any sense at all
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Is anyone else not revising business and the environment for ethics on monday? I Havnt been taught it so was gonna risk not doing it in hope i can do 2 from the other 3.

    What do you reckon will be on the ethics paper?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by umm123)
    Thankyou

    I'm still a little unsure as to what counts as a numinous experience though.

    As the definition talks of a 'wholly other' then surely its any experience where God or a higher power presents himself directly?

    If this were the case then would religious experiences such as visions/voices count as a 'numinous' experience? Furthermore, if this were true then what makes a numinous experience vastly different from your bog standard religious experience? If that makes any sense at all
    Ermm.. yeah, I guess you could say that 'the wholly other' can be interpreted to be an experience where God or a higher power presents himself directly...

    Hahaha.. good evaluation skills. Ermm.. I suppose you could mention in the essay that visions/voices can be 'numinous' experiences as the mystic may interpret it to be God's revelation to him/her. However, you could question whether the voice weren't from anything else. For example, the voice may be telling the person to go and kill another person. This would not be the voice of God. Also, you could mention that J.L. Mackie states that the person may be under the influence of drugs. Hmm.. you could question in the essay whether there is a difference between a numinous experience and a religious experience, I guess.

    Sorry if it doesn't help.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaintyDoll)
    I don't think it has meaning because it's classed as an individual's opinion and so cannot be verified as meaningful.

    if this isn't right I do apologise
    Ok. Just looked up the mark scheme and it says this: "Candidates might consider what is meant by the word ‘meaningful’ according to the approaches of cognitivists and non-cognitivists in meta-ethics."

    Does anyone know what meaningful means to each of them?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Hi guys I am rather confused about Richard Swinburne and his criteria for knowing if a religious experience is genuine or not. What is the difference between the principle of testimony and the principle of credulity? They both seem the same to me :/

    Also, does anyone know Anthony Flew's idea of the ten leaky buckets? I have forgotten it and can't find it in my notes anywhere (they are a mess!)
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ideal.)
    Ok. Just looked up the mark scheme and it says this: "Candidates might consider what is meant by the word ‘meaningful’ according to the approaches of cognitivists and non-cognitivists in meta-ethics."

    Does anyone know what meaningful means to each of them?
    Cognitivists = ethical language is meaningful
    Naturalism - ethical language is meaningful as it is subject to true and false the same as non ethical language
    Non-naturalism - ethical language is not subject to true or false but is meaningful because we know intiutively what people mean by ethical words.

    Non-cognitivists - ethical language is not meaningful as it is not subject to true or false
    Emotivism - ethical language is not meaningful as it is simply a statement of emotion
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do you think theres any chance of a question like 'Everyone knows what good means. Discuss' coming up.
    How would you answer it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sloth1)
    Do you think theres any chance of a question like 'Everyone knows what good means. Discuss' coming up.
    How would you answer it?
    We're due a meta-ethics question, so I don't see why not. And that's the sort of 'look at me, I'm a stretch and challenge question' question that they like to ask these days.

    Seems to me to be a roundabout way of asking 'assess intuitionism'. So I'd probably do that - look at whether intuitionism holds water. That said, it could easily end up being an absolutism/relativism question, or even a conscience question. I'd probably try and mix in as much as possible (though not too much just to keep it coherent).
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sloth1)
    Do you think theres any chance of a question like 'Everyone knows what good means. Discuss' coming up.
    How would you answer it?
    Hmm, that would be a tough one because you could interpret that either as meta-ethics and if people can understand good in a meaningful way, or you could interpret is as conscience...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Aw yeah i didnt even think it could have been conscience but it could be now you've said it. I think there's definitely gonna be a meta question though, I really dont like that everyone knows what good is, I hope its something different :/
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zszs)
    Can anyone explain Maurice Wiles to me please? What is he going on about??
    Hello I'm going to use this a revision exercise Hope it helps!

    • Christian Theologian who disagreed that God performs miracles
    • In the NT Jesus turns water into wine to avoid a host’s embarrassment. As kind as this may be, it seems odd that God would intervene there and yet allow the holocaust take place. Wiles claims the God of the Bible is arbitrary and unfair, benevolence cannot exist if God performs miracles. A God who performs miracles is not worthy of worship.
    • The sole activity of God is creation and sustaining of the universe, this was his one and only miracle. All other miracle stories are true in only a symbolic sense.
    • As further evidence against miracles, Wiles notes that as “violations of nature” miracles are by definition rare, else the concept of laws would become meaningless.
    • Strengths of Wiles’ view- Allows a belief in God but also a firm knowledge of science. It could be seen to solve the problem of evil- God does not intervene against evil because he is bound by the laws of nature and because if he intervened for one, he’d have to intervene for all (or else he’d be showing favouritism).
    • Weaknesses of Wiles’ view- Does not meet traditional Christian view which shows God acting more directly and suggests many Biblical stories are not true. Wiles’ ideas rely on the view that we can rationalise God, but perhaps we can’t and should accept that we will never truly understand why God may appear arbitrary.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sloth1)
    Aw yeah i didnt even think it could have been conscience but it could be now you've said it. I think there's definitely gonna be a meta question though, I really dont like that everyone knows what good is, I hope its something different :/
    I reckon there is almost guaranteed to be a meta-ethics question as it hasn't come up since Jan 2010. If it were the everyone knows what good is question, it would basically just be asking you to compare cognitive and non-cognitive theories, so it probably wouldn't be that bad Don't worry yourself unnecessarily!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Your probably right, i think virtue will be on as well, no idea on what though. I need to get an A in this exam to pull my grade up and im just dreading it :/
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: May 23, 2012
The home of Results and Clearing

2,227

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year

University open days

  1. London Metropolitan University
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Sat, 18 Aug '18
  2. Edge Hill University
    All Faculties Undergraduate
    Sat, 18 Aug '18
  3. Bournemouth University
    Clearing Open Day Undergraduate
    Sat, 18 Aug '18
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?

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.