Turn on thread page Beta

Implications paper Religious Studies edexcel A2 which Philosopher?? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kaskade)
    Thanks, that was really useful Just to clarify, as i've heard a variety of different things - question a) 24 marks Question b) 16 marks? Right? Also, question a) 40 minutes, question b) 25 minutes? Thanks
    AO1 is 30 marks, AO2 is 20 marks (24/16 was the split for the pre-2008 syllabus but don't worry if that's what your teacher has been using, it deosn't matter, the level descriptors used by the examiners are the same, it's just a slightly different disposition of the marks: nthey are still looking for exactly the same thing as they were in the 24/16 days)
    Yes I'd say plan for 10-15 minutes and then write AO1 for about 35 minutes and AO2 for about 25 minutes.

    Good luck.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sendintheclowns)
    AO1 is 30 marks, AO2 is 20 marks (24/16 was the split for the pre-2008 syllabus but don't worry if that's what your teacher has been using, it deosn't matter, the level descriptors used by the examiners are the same, it's just a slightly different disposition of the marks: nthey are still looking for exactly the same thing as they were in the 24/16 days)
    Yes I'd say plan for 10-15 minutes and then write AO1 for about 35 minutes and AO2 for about 25 minutes.

    Good luck.
    Okay thanks. Also - thanks for the previous post too My teacher also predicts Ayer, as do many other pupils teachers I have found on here! However, what are the chances Westphal is to come up? For some reason my teacher thinks that it's such a high level that they are less inclined to use it now. I also find it really difficult, definitely my worst paper! thanks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My teacher also believes it will be Ayer, which I'm hoping to god is true. He said that The chief examiners do not really like to use Westphal because its university standard. But hey, whos betting that Westphal will come up. I know Ayer well, I am just re-writing these Donovan and Westphal model answers over and over again, weirdly there easily understandable after a while.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sendintheclowns)
    If I was a betting man I'd be placing a lot of money on Ayer.

    .......

    Hope that gives you and everybody else some useful food for thought. Good luck tomorrow.
    Thank you very much! I hope he does come up as it's so much easier to remember everything he says and to have a sound overview, I wish the other two were as short - just reading the articles (especially Donovan) takes up valuable revision time!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Okay, i'm going to make the biggest gamble of my life. I can't take in all of westphal in one day. I know donovan and ayer very well and have done answer well on both of them. Just gone over westphal, and i'm just going to focus from now until the exam, on ayer and donovan... good luck tomorrow everyone. DREAM of Ayer haha!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Please God, I'm praying! Let Ayer come up!
    What sort of things is everyone revising for Donavan?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by diamonddust)
    Please God, I'm praying! Let Ayer come up!
    What sort of things is everyone revising for Donavan?
    A) - Summarise passage, key terms etc.
    - Overall what Donovan says.
    - Inner conviction
    - 'Mediated Immediacy'
    - Feeling Certain/Being Right
    - Conflicting religious diversity
    - How can we test our intuition (Similar to Ayer)
    - Buber/I-Thou and I-It
    - Sum up/Conc

    That is my basic plan for Donovan. I have no idea whether its right but I'm gonns go with it. Working on Part B plan.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kaskade)
    Okay, i'm going to make the biggest gamble of my life. I can't take in all of westphal in one day. I know donovan and ayer very well and have done answer well on both of them. Just gone over westphal, and i'm just going to focus from now until the exam, on ayer and donovan... good luck tomorrow everyone. DREAM of Ayer haha!
    That's what I'm doing. I can't take Westphal in, it's bad enough trying to read Donavan! I don't think I've ever been so simultaneously over and underprepared for an exam! We've been neglecting Developments for this but I still can't do very well in this. I am very very very worried. It needs to be Ayer. It just HAS to be. The universe owes me!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by allyshone)
    A) - Summarise passage, key terms etc.
    - Overall what Donovan says.
    - Inner conviction
    - 'Mediated Immediacy'
    - Feeling Certain/Being Right
    - Conflicting religious diversity
    - How can we test our intuition (Similar to Ayer)
    - Buber/I-Thou and I-It
    - Sum up/Conc

    That is my basic plan for Donovan. I have no idea whether its right but I'm gonns go with it. Working on Part B plan.
    Thank you so frigging much! :jumphug:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kaskade)
    Okay thanks. Also - thanks for the previous post too My teacher also predicts Ayer, as do many other pupils teachers I have found on here! However, what are the chances Westphal is to come up? For some reason my teacher thinks that it's such a high level that they are less inclined to use it now. I also find it really difficult, definitely my worst paper! thanks.
    Westphal isn't too bad and it's all chronological so whatever paragraph you can always put it in context of why the problem emerged that people are talking too much about religion (philosophy of religion) instead of talking about God (philosophical theology) which is why Hegel was complaining. This is the focus of the essay.

    I've just written a quick summery which could help, I tried not to go into too much detail:
    Pre-Kant
    2 strands of religious philosophy
    - Scholasticism - aimed to talk about God through both faith and reason (i.e Ansalm's ontological argument or Paley's design argument, they already had faith in God but used reason to back up their faith in God))
    - Deism - they only wanted to talk about God through reason (i.e arguments for the existence of God) they thought faith/church authority etc. were irrational. Also religion of the Enlightenment - they wanted moral unity not Holy wars etc.
    - Hume and Kant - they disproved the classical arguments for the existence of God. This caused a shift to talking about religion (as there was a lack of rational basis, it also ruined the diestic strand), which is why Hegel was complaining!

    Post Kantian
    - Kant - the first post-kant to try to rescue the deistic project through Kants moral ethics and pure practical reason (sorry I'm a bit rusty here :P)
    - Schleiermacher- has an emphasis on feeling which is similar to panthiesm

    Hegel rejects both Kant's ethics (doesn't want religion to be reduced to moraliy) and Scleiermacher's feeling (Kant thinks he's confused).
    - He then separates religion (too connected with 'sensory images and historical narratives') and philosophy. He thinks that philosophy has 'the conceptual form adequate to true knowledge' - so Christianity should be more philosophical.

    Hume and the hermeneutics of suspicion
    this is concerned with what motives underlie religious belief i.e Hume says piety is grounded in selfishness i.e the hope of going to heaven/fear of hell
    Marx - Religion is a form of social manipulation an excuse to uphold hierarchy by saying it is God imposed (also justification because the bible says the poor will be rewarded in heaven)
    Nietzsche - slaves sought moral superiority over their rulers (as a form of revenge) through religion, also that God will punish the strong/rich
    - these criticisms aren't directed at the theology itself but because Christianity uses self interest to make religion serve as a justification for society i.e God wants only for me to be a respectable member of society.

    Ok maybe not such a quick summery! Hope I've got the right idea! But try not to get too bogged down by all the different names etc. its the ideas that are important and the focus of 'can we talk about god or should we stick to talking about religion?'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by diamonddust)
    That's what I'm doing. I can't take Westphal in, it's bad enough trying to read Donavan! I don't think I've ever been so simultaneously over and underprepared for an exam! We've been neglecting Developments for this but I still can't do very well in this. I am very very very worried. It needs to be Ayer. It just HAS to be. The universe owes me!
    Same. I simply don't understand what Westphal is on about. I've neglected looking at him to be honest which I sort of regret now. Although miss_boyes post really helps!

    Thinking as positive as I can!
    With all the people thinking it will be Ayer it gives me so much more hope.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I have this paper tomorrow on Edexcel but with Jamieson/Schneewind/Lafollette. Is anyone doing that one?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lizlaz350)
    I have this paper tomorrow on Edexcel but with Jamieson/Schneewind/Lafollette. Is anyone doing that one?
    I'm not but they have a thread here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=932383
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by monkeyonthelake)
    I'm not but they have a thread here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=932383
    Thank you
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by monkeyonthelake)
    I'm not but they have a thread here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=932383
    Very old thread D:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by diamonddust)
    That's what I'm doing. I can't take Westphal in, it's bad enough trying to read Donavan! I don't think I've ever been so simultaneously over and underprepared for an exam! We've been neglecting Developments for this but I still can't do very well in this. I am very very very worried. It needs to be Ayer. It just HAS to be. The universe owes me!
    Ahhh I know! I'm okay with Donovan, do you want me to write out the basic plan i've done for the essay? And it really does need to be Ayer... I literally know everything about Ayer haha. I NEED an A and I don't know how well i've done in developments so this exam really is quite essential! ahhhhh. AYERAYERAYERAYERAYER! It just HAS TO BE!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miss_boyes)
    Westphal isn't too bad and it's all chronological so whatever paragraph you can always put it in context of why the problem emerged that people are talking too much about religion (philosophy of religion) instead of talking about God (philosophical theology) which is why Hegel was complaining. This is the focus of the essay.

    I've just written a quick summery which could help, I tried not to go into too much detail:
    Pre-Kant
    2 strands of religious philosophy
    - Scholasticism - aimed to talk about God through both faith and reason (i.e Ansalm's ontological argument or Paley's design argument, they already had faith in God but used reason to back up their faith in God))
    - Deism - they only wanted to talk about God through reason (i.e arguments for the existence of God) they thought faith/church authority etc. were irrational. Also religion of the Enlightenment - they wanted moral unity not Holy wars etc.
    - Hume and Kant - they disproved the classical arguments for the existence of God. This caused a shift to talking about religion (as there was a lack of rational basis, it also ruined the diestic strand), which is why Hegel was complaining!

    Post Kantian
    - Kant - the first post-kant to try to rescue the deistic project through Kants moral ethics and pure practical reason (sorry I'm a bit rusty here :P)
    - Schleiermacher- has an emphasis on feeling which is similar to panthiesm

    Hegel rejects both Kant's ethics (doesn't want religion to be reduced to moraliy) and Scleiermacher's feeling (Kant thinks he's confused).
    - He then separates religion (too connected with 'sensory images and historical narratives') and philosophy. He thinks that philosophy has 'the conceptual form adequate to true knowledge' - so Christianity should be more philosophical.

    Hume and the hermeneutics of suspicion
    this is concerned with what motives underlie religious belief i.e Hume says piety is grounded in selfishness i.e the hope of going to heaven/fear of hell
    Marx - Religion is a form of social manipulation an excuse to uphold hierarchy by saying it is God imposed (also justification because the bible says the poor will be rewarded in heaven)
    Nietzsche - slaves sought moral superiority over their rulers (as a form of revenge) through religion, also that God will punish the strong/rich
    - these criticisms aren't directed at the theology itself but because Christianity uses self interest to make religion serve as a justification for society i.e God wants only for me to be a respectable member of society.

    Ok maybe not such a quick summery! Hope I've got the right idea! But try not to get too bogged down by all the different names etc. its the ideas that are important and the focus of 'can we talk about god or should we stick to talking about religion?'
    <3 thanks - that is amazing. I just think it's a bit late, although I do know the basic points you have put there...! i'm just praying for Ayer !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Apparently there definitely was a january exam this year - my teacher has just said this and that it was on Ayer - Im so damn confused why some people claim that there is no january exam and some say that there is, can someone please clarify
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sendintheclowns)
    If I was a betting man I'd be placing a lot of money on Ayer. He hasn't come up for 3 years; Teacher INSETs have been focussing on him quite a lot according to anecdotal evidence; the same guy sets the Philosophy of Religion Developments paper, in which we could have reasonably expected a standalone Verfication/Falsification question, it having not been there for three years either, he didn't set it there - dioes that mean he's trying to avoid the criticisms from three years ago when he set Ayer in Paper 4 AND had a Positivism question in paper 3? I think so.

    The key to doing the Ayer passage well, is to know the whole passage and to make sure that when explaining the bit that is set, you are able to say how that bit fits in to trhe rest of the extract (and if you know it, how it fits in to the rest of what Ayer says in language Truth &amp; Logic).
    Make sure that you write your essay by themed paragraphs where each paragraph only has one theme or key idea. Ensure that you locate the idea as EITHER being in the quoted extract OR implicit in / needed by what the quotation says.
    Once you've done that explain what it means in abstract philosophical terms. Then apply it prefereably by giving some (PLURAL) examples of how it applies to language. Use specific examples of things somebody might say and explain how they work / don't work / are meaningless etc according to Ayer.
    Remember to use religious exemplification (it is an RS exam) but go beyond religion to other areas too).
    One way of clarifying ideas is often to say what is NOT being said by Ayer to show the limits of what he is saying. Such clarification would constitute its own paragraph. For example:

    This is not to say that Ayer rejects the possibility of moral statements. For example he himself makes clear use of moral language to reject Mike Tyson's intimidating behaviour towards Naomi Campbell. However, in rejecting the cognitive meaningfulness of claims such as &quot;Men ought to talk rationally about their disagreements&quot; because they neither empirically verifiable nor self-authenticating, Ayer is not denying their centrality to social discourse, education or public behaviour.

    It's not an award-winning paragraph I grant you, but you get my idea I hope.

    Stay fairly brief in each paragraph and look to write a number of separate paragraphs (i.e. cover a good number of separate points) so that the examiner can see that you understand all the parts of the argument as well as how they fit together to make Ayer's main point. The rules I offer my students for clear and consise paragrpahs that are relevant: State it, contextualise it, explain it, exemplify it, move on.

    In the AO2 the same basic principle applies. The key questions tend to be:
    Do you agree with Ayer's view of the 'rules of the game'? If yes why, if not why not, or is it more complex than that (e.g Ayer's rules are accurate as a description of the rules of the factual language game under the stystem instituted by Wittgenstein)?
    What is the significance of this for
    a) Philosophy (Ayer begins LTL by saing that all the philsophy b4 him has been a wasted effort, and that his contribution now clarifies what Philosophy is really about i.e. language rather than ideas)
    b) Metaphysics (no soul, no afterlife, no free-will - only science has any authority because only it can be demonstrated)
    c) Religion (just food for the psychiatrist's chair - not even possibly true. Of course somebody like Dawkins is just as foolhardy for Ayer as he spends so much time talking about God - if I set up foundations to argue for the non-existence of round squares would I expect to be taken seriously? as one Positivist put it)
    d) Morality (if no morality is true, then is any morality acceptable? the ultimate victory for relativists?)

    Hope that gives you and everybody else some useful food for thought. Good luck tomorrow.
    Does this mean that for Ayer you have 2 put the criticisms of the verification principle in part A?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hingerw)
    Apparently there definitely was a january exam this year - my teacher has just said this and that it was on Ayer - Im so damn confused why some people claim that there is no january exam and some say that there is, can someone please clarify
    There was definitely a January exam on Ayer but that was in 2010 not this year.

    Some people were saying that Westphal was in a January paper this year but the general consensus is that there was no such paper.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: June 15, 2011
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?

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.