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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I did the 4th question, its really bugging me!
    Do you know if the question was
    1) visions are not caused by God but are caused by science

    Or

    2) Vision are caused by god but can be casued by science
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I did question 1 and 2 on the Philosophy paper (absolutely fantastic questions, even if I did spend waayy too much time on the soul, and not nearly enough on religious language)

    The Ethics paper was a beast. As soon as we turned the paper over about half of us lifted our heads and looked around, displaying our :zomg: faces and shrugging in disbelief... Once I worked out what I wanted to do it wasn't too bad though. At least one of the exams was decent. Only problem was that I refused to revise Environment/Business and Meta–ethics, as I hate them to the very core of my being, and I didn't think both of them would be on

    Extramarital sex :shakecane: Why were you not homosexual? :nooo:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I thought both were okay, I only revised religious language and life and death in the most depth for philosophy so was sooo happy

    I answered the meta-ethics and free will/determinism questions in ethics.. which I think weren't too bad
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by appleschnapps)
    I'm pretty sure in the OCR book it said that provided you don't mix up what the two philosophers said (in this instance, talking about Irenaeous' theodicy while using Augustine's name and then saying he believed in predestination), they understand that it happens, so I'd doubt the penalty would be too strict if it was just a one-off.

    Thanks for your reply.

    I wrote about Augustine's theodicy, and the whole idea that evil is a privation of good and so does not exist as a substance. I just said that it was Irenaeus and not Augustine, so I didn't get the theories mixed up it was just the name.

    What kind of penalty do you think it would be? A couple of marks, or more severe than that?

    Thanks again
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nara-star)
    Thanks for your reply.

    I wrote about Augustine's theodicy, and the whole idea that evil is a privation of good and so does not exist as a substance. I just said that it was Irenaeus and not Augustine, so I didn't get the theories mixed up it was just the name.

    What kind of penalty do you think it would be? A couple of marks, or more severe than that?

    Thanks again
    Examiners only mark positively so they won't deduct marks, you just won't get one for the use of the appropriate name I would think....
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Only I could know the entire syllabus, get a beauty of a paper, and manage to **** it up that bad :/
    I just jumbled on and on and on...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheRustaman)

    Hicks' Replica Theory is true! :eek:
    Question 1 and 2 of Philosophy as well + Only need a low C for the A.... weird... but an awsome paper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi can some pit up the actual Ethics question please
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liam_G)
    Extramarital sex :shakecane: Why were you not homosexual? :nooo:
    This was literally my thought process in the exam.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilylikeeee)
    Only I could know the entire syllabus, get a beauty of a paper, and manage to **** it up that bad :/
    I just jumbled on and on and on...
    I know people exactly like you, despite the fact that they know the syllabus inside and out they always come out of exams saying that they've only done enough for a B, despite the fact that they've never got anything less than 90%

    You'll have done fine, I'm also a complete rambler
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    wooo! just came home from philosophy paper and ethics paper
    I thought the philosophy paper was brilliant and the ethics wasn't bad by any means

    I did the following questions with the following points - feel free to discuss and give feedback:

    Philosophy Q1) Rel lang is meaningless
    Spoiler:
    Show
    • Challenge of describing God
    • Logical Positivists -> Ayer -> Verification principle (strong/weak)
    • Verification principle (direct / indirect)
    • Renders art, poetry, love etc meaningless
    • Eschatalogical Verifaction (Hick)
    • Eschatalogical verification can only give a positive result
    • Swinburne + Toys analogy
    • Kirkegaard + leap of faith
    • Hare and bliks
    • Flew/Wisdom parable of gardener and falsification
    • Mitchell and evaluation of evidence
    • Wittgenstein and language games
    • Tillich and Symbols (was running out of time so couldn't write a detailed account of analogy )


    Q2) Body/Soul are distinct
    Spoiler:
    Show
    • Plato + argument of opposites and memory
    • Descartes and cartesian duality
    • Locke - Prince and Cobbler
    • Hume and souls not being able to exist out of environments
    • Aristotle
    • Ryle - Ghost/machine (criticism to descartes)
    • Dawkins - memes, biomaterialism and no soul


    Ethics: Q1) Ethical language:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    • Emotivism - Ayer
    • Emotivism - Stevenson
    • Ethical Naturalists
    • Hume Is/Ought distinction, Moore Naturalistic Fallacy and open question criticisms of naturalism
    • Intuitionism (Moore and Prichard)
    • Prescriptivism
    • Wittgenstein Language games


    Q2) responsibility over actions
    Spoiler:
    Show
    • Hard determinism - scientific and honderich
    • Criticisms - Heinsberg uncertainty principle, quantum physics
    • Darrow
    • Other factors that determine us
    • Satre - libertarianism
    • Kant - CI and moral argument
    • St. Augustine - inherit original sin
    • I FORGOT TO MENTION LOCKE!!!! Was also going to mention whether there is such a thing as an evil action (cheeky meta ethics plug) but ran out of time


    got 200/200 last year so only need to get a C on the dot to get an A. However, i really hope I could be in the running for an A* this time. either way, hopefully, that's a grade A guaranteed.

    How did everybody else find it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I thought that both papers were pretty good!

    For philosophy, I done the religious language question and the omniscience one. The only problem is that I spent too long going on about the Falsification Principle with Poppers and Flew that I only had time to talk about the Via Negativa I wish I had more time to discuss analogy/verification principle.

    I hope I don't get penalised for it, since I did evaluate all my points thoroughly.

    Ethics was ok as well. I done the free will/determinism one, and I spoke about Soft Determinism, Hard Determinism and Kant, and for the Meta-Ethics question I spoke about Emotivism, Prescriptivism, Naturalism and a bit of Intuitionism.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liam_G)
    I know people exactly like you, despite the fact that they know the syllabus inside and out they always come out of exams saying that they've only done enough for a B, despite the fact that they've never got anything less than 90%

    You'll have done fine, I'm also a complete rambler
    Got 62% in ethics in January, was predicted an A*, thought it had gone really well... So yeah, had January not happened, I would have believed you

    Not trying to scare anyone though
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jimbo9292)
    Hi can some pit up the actual Ethics question please
    Ethics 2011 Summer:
    Ethical Statements are just an expression of emotion
    We are not responsible for our evil actions
    how useful Virtue ethics with regards to sexual ethics (or might have specified pre or extra marital sex)?
    the secular ethical theories are more useful than religious theories when discussing the environment.

    Philosophy 2011 Summer:
    assess the claim that religious language is meaningless
    critically analyse that the body and soul are distinct
    problems relating to god's omniscience
    vision and voices are more to do with science than religion (or something like that)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by purplefrog)
    How did everybody else find it?
    You certainly included more than i did for religious language
    but why didn't you mention Hicks replica theory in body/soul, i thought that was one of the main points??
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheRustaman)
    You certainly included more than i did for religious language
    but why didn't you mention Hicks replica theory in body/soul, i thought that was one of the main points??
    I was under the impression that the Hick's replica theory doesn't advocate for a soul at all, but instead just posits that resurrection is a logical idea (it can occur with or without a soul)?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by purplefrog)
    .
    I did body and soul... Said at the beginning I was aiming to disprove the distinction so that was my theme kinda thing
    - Plato, strengths then annihilation
    - Descartes, criticism by Ryle
    - Said that the dualism thing wasn't working for me, I preferred materialism
    - Identity theory, strengths
    - Dawkins view, strengths
    - Then a last minute rush about Ghosts being evidence for a soul and falling in love being more than a bodily thing, but then criticised again...
    ^So you brought in disembodied existence? I was going too, but then I didn't think it was entirely relevant, related, but not necessary?

    Ethical Language, boy I mucked this up, not a bad essay but FAR too general, needed to do more about emotion, I just did a general meta essay :/

    Responsibility over actions, we did so differently :/ I did
    - Determinism and strengths, brought in Darrow and Mary Bell the murderer
    - The Fall and so a bit of Augustine and how they say we're not responsible
    - Predestination and how we're not responsible
    - A ramble about how the conscience could be to blame if its corrupt
    - Then I did two pages arguing the opposite, so saying we are responsible, so Libertarianism, Theological determinism, taking the Bible symbolically, Using other sources of authority to the conscience
    ^Think my structure was too odd for this

    And I also did omniscience- again was aiming to show it's not a problem
    - Problem with senses
    - Free will (lol this paragraph was 2.5 pages) so predestination, and then counter arguments of Boethius (Brought in Middle knowledge) and Swinburne


    :/ :/ :/
    Yours look better
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheRustaman)
    You certainly included more than i did for religious language
    but why didn't you mention Hicks replica theory in body/soul, i thought that was one of the main points??
    I only used him very briefly for my intro, in my textbook he says some stuff about SOS (save our souls) so I used him for a snazzy opener, but he's not entirely related is he?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilylikeeee)
    I did body and soul... Said at the beginning I was aiming to disprove the distinction so that was my theme kinda thing
    - Plato, strengths then annihilation
    - Descartes, criticism by Ryle
    - Said that the dualism thing wasn't working for me, I preferred materialism
    - Identity theory, strengths
    - Dawkins view, strengths
    - Then a last minute rush about Ghosts being evidence for a soul and falling in love being more than a bodily thing, but then criticised again...
    ^So you brought in disembodied existence? I was going too, but then I didn't think it was entirely relevant, related, but not necessary?

    Ethical Language, boy I mucked this up, not a bad essay but FAR too general, needed to do more about emotion, I just did a general meta essay :/

    Responsibility over actions, we did so differently :/ I did
    - Determinism and strengths, brought in Darrow and Mary Bell the murderer
    - The Fall and so a bit of Augustine and how they say we're not responsible
    - Predestination and how we're not responsible
    - A ramble about how the conscience could be to blame if its corrupt
    - Then I did two pages arguing the opposite, so saying we are responsible, so Libertarianism, Theological determinism, taking the Bible symbolically, Using other sources of authority to the conscience
    ^Think my structure was too odd for this

    And I also did omniscience- again was aiming to show it's not a problem
    - Problem with senses
    - Free will (lol this paragraph was 2.5 pages) so predestination, and then counter arguments of Boethius (Brought in Middle knowledge) and Swinburne


    :/ :/ :/
    Yours look better
    That's fantastic! I really love your approach to question 2 in ethics. So robust and synopsises (is that a word) the entire unit! I'm sure you laced it together well. I was going to bring in the conscience, but i fell short of time because i spent 50 minutes on ethics Q1 and so only have 35 mins for the other question, so i tried to keep it under one topic though really wanted to do more on theological determinism and conscience. Your answer is like my dream one
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by purplefrog)
    That's fantastic! I really love your approach to question 2 in ethics. So robust and synopsises (is that a word) the entire unit! I'm sure you laced it together well. I was going to bring in the conscience, but i fell short of time because i spent 50 minutes on ethics Q1 and so only have 35 mins for the other question, so i tried to keep it under one topic though really wanted to do more on theological determinism and conscience. Your answer is like my dream one
    Wow thank you That's what I both love and hate about RE, you can do entirely different things and still be open to good marks! Haha yeah but I didn't use the conscience properly knew there was something I should say but it wasn't coming to me so it was just blah blah blah

    I've got that post exam 'either did realllllly well or realllllly pants' feeling
 
 
 
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.