This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 7172/1 - 19 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- aqa philosophy alevel 2022/2023
- A-LEVEL AQA English Lit NEA 'Dorian Gray' with Beauty Value HELP PLS LMAO!!!!!!
- Edexcel A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (9RS0 01) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- OCR Religious Studies A Level Predictions
- English language speaking exam. Topic: 'video games are not violent'
- Morality is subjective in character with an objective compulsion.
- Ulster University Allied Health Professional interview
- Non-Cognitive statements
- 15/42 for LNAT. Do I have a chance for KCL?
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 + 2 (7172/1+2) 18th and 26th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Could someone mark my Macbeth essay on guilt?
- oxford classics offer holders 2024
- Macbeth study guide!
- 3rd Year Dissertation Ideas (ODP)
- Lang Paper 1 Q2 Nov 2018 (Practice Question)
- MML at Cambridge
- your opinions?
- my last duchess poem gcse
- Analysis of the Macbeth movie
Is moral language meaninful?
Question:
How fair is the claim that moral language is meaningful, even if religious language is not?
How fair is the claim that moral language is meaningful, even if religious language is not?
Because your posts are hardly motivating. I think people are much more inclined to answer a post if you show some demonstration you have a thought on the topic, not just post the question. And if you post specific questions rather than general. If you want to start a discussion general questions are good but you need more clarity. If you want to find help you need to be more specific than that. Where is this question coming from? What sort of material is it supposed to be relevant to. Moral language- that's a pretty broad topic. Religous language, I'm not even sure what that means. I don't speak for anybody else but I can't help you with a question like that.
Thanks for the post Calvin. Sorry - perhaps i should have been more specific. It is for my philosophy class - one of the past paper essay questions. I was just wondering what people thought.
Religious language can mean a lot of things - Language could, for example, be used by a religious believer in order to show that he/she is committed to a religion. Further, language could be used to promote different types of behaviour or be used to worship a deity. In addition, there are a number of words that are specific to religion, such as "Holy"...etc etc... religious language is used to make assertions i.e to try to say something about how things are. someone could, for example, make the claim that we will be reincarnated after death... It is this idea of assertions that philosophers of religion are often interested in and it is with assertions that many philosophers feel that there are problems. For example, the claim that "God is good" - The problem with this is, it might not be clear what this actually means. Most people know what the words "God" and "Good" mean but there is a problem: the word "good" is used to refer to human activites. Can this be applied to God? Would it mean the same?
The heart of the problem seems to be that religious assertions atttempt to refer to things beyond anyone's experience. They describe the 'infinite', the 'mysterious' and other metaphysical ideas. These are not dealt with by our everyday language and it is thus difficult to see whether these religious terms have meaning...
Many philosophers have felt that in order to discuss whether religious language is meaningless (or meaningful) it is important to determine some criterion of meaning i.e. some rule by which words can be judged either "meaningful" or "meaningless" (For example, The Verification Principle) - If i dont stop now i could ramble on for hours...
Moving on...
By moral (or ethical) language i mean things like- ethical naturalism and intuitionism, emotivism and prescriptivism etc. (to many ism's)!
Brief summary:
*Ethical naturalism/ethical cognitivism - The ethical theory that moral values can be derived from empirical sense experience. Naturalists believe that statements of fact ('is') can imply statements of moral obligation ('ought').
*Intuitionism - A meta-ethical theory that states that moral truths are known by intuition, a special kind of perception
*Emotivism - A theory of descriptive ethics that holds that all moral judgements are simply expressions of positive or negative feelings and that, as such, all moral statements are meaningless as they can't be verified - Made prominent by logical positivists and the Vienna Circle (link back to religious language)...
*Prescriptivism - An ethical theory that contends that moral statments are not simply describing an opinion but have an intrinsic sense such that others ought to agree and follow that moral view. (contrasts with descriptive ethics and emotivism)
- Both Intuitionism and emotivism are examples of ethical non-naturalism/ethical non-cognitivism - the view that ethical statements cannot be derived from empirical sense experience.
SO bearing this and other ideas in mind- Do you think that the claim that moral language is meaningful is fair - IF religious language is considered meaningless? Can arguments that cancel out religious language (and there are quite a few) cancel out the significance of moral language?
Calvin - Sorry to go on. I hope my post grabs someones attention...
Religious language can mean a lot of things - Language could, for example, be used by a religious believer in order to show that he/she is committed to a religion. Further, language could be used to promote different types of behaviour or be used to worship a deity. In addition, there are a number of words that are specific to religion, such as "Holy"...etc etc... religious language is used to make assertions i.e to try to say something about how things are. someone could, for example, make the claim that we will be reincarnated after death... It is this idea of assertions that philosophers of religion are often interested in and it is with assertions that many philosophers feel that there are problems. For example, the claim that "God is good" - The problem with this is, it might not be clear what this actually means. Most people know what the words "God" and "Good" mean but there is a problem: the word "good" is used to refer to human activites. Can this be applied to God? Would it mean the same?
The heart of the problem seems to be that religious assertions atttempt to refer to things beyond anyone's experience. They describe the 'infinite', the 'mysterious' and other metaphysical ideas. These are not dealt with by our everyday language and it is thus difficult to see whether these religious terms have meaning...
Many philosophers have felt that in order to discuss whether religious language is meaningless (or meaningful) it is important to determine some criterion of meaning i.e. some rule by which words can be judged either "meaningful" or "meaningless" (For example, The Verification Principle) - If i dont stop now i could ramble on for hours...
Moving on...
By moral (or ethical) language i mean things like- ethical naturalism and intuitionism, emotivism and prescriptivism etc. (to many ism's)!
Brief summary:
*Ethical naturalism/ethical cognitivism - The ethical theory that moral values can be derived from empirical sense experience. Naturalists believe that statements of fact ('is') can imply statements of moral obligation ('ought').
*Intuitionism - A meta-ethical theory that states that moral truths are known by intuition, a special kind of perception
*Emotivism - A theory of descriptive ethics that holds that all moral judgements are simply expressions of positive or negative feelings and that, as such, all moral statements are meaningless as they can't be verified - Made prominent by logical positivists and the Vienna Circle (link back to religious language)...
*Prescriptivism - An ethical theory that contends that moral statments are not simply describing an opinion but have an intrinsic sense such that others ought to agree and follow that moral view. (contrasts with descriptive ethics and emotivism)
- Both Intuitionism and emotivism are examples of ethical non-naturalism/ethical non-cognitivism - the view that ethical statements cannot be derived from empirical sense experience.
SO bearing this and other ideas in mind- Do you think that the claim that moral language is meaningful is fair - IF religious language is considered meaningless? Can arguments that cancel out religious language (and there are quite a few) cancel out the significance of moral language?
Calvin - Sorry to go on. I hope my post grabs someones attention...
Ok... meaningful language. The ways I can think of to ground language as meaningful are probably:
1. Experience, for instance "ostensive definition" i.e.:
"That is called a 'lamp'",
"This is a table"
"Yes I'm talking about those birds over there",
"No those are green, these are more of a turquoise"
"That was a nice thing to do" (?)
2. Description
"A moose? It's like a reindeer but bigger and hairier and brings you fewer Christmas presents" "It's like a square but longer in one direction"
3. Definition
"'Shabby'? It means kind of messed up, a bit dirty and ripped and generally not in good condition"
"Triangle? It's a two dimensional shape made up of three straight lines which completely enclose an area and has internal angles adding up to 180 degrees."
Now it would seem to me that in moral language all of these are available. I can point to a person, or an action and say 'that was just', 'that was a very responsible thing to do' cruel, nasty, kind, sweet etc. To some extent this is available in religious language too. Just think of words like devout, holy, 'he has a great deal of faith', 'she's going to hell' etc. But it seems obvious to me, I don't know about you that these are the sort of areas of Religion that cross over quite heavily with morality. 'Devout', 'holy' are really more like moral terms.
So what about terms like 'perfect', 'infinite', 'omnipotent', 'omniscient'. Well in cases like this it's not clear to what extent you can point ground these in experience as you've said. To get somebody to understand 'perfect' I can't really point to anything, I need to give a definition of the word. Could I get by with a description instead of a definition? How much of a difference is there between the two? I'm not sure.
Perhaps the difference is the objects we are dealing with. In maths for instance we can make sense of 'perfection' 'infinite' but in religious we struggle more. Why?
In the case of a circle, a perfect circle is pretty easy. The perfect circle is the most circular circle. Obviously in maths, if something is a circle then it must be a perfect circle, but in the read world something can be a circle even if it isn't perfectly circular, the more circular something is the more closely it approximates the perfect circle.
With the perfect being, is that the most being like being? What are the attributes of a being? Do we even have a definition of a being? I don't think we do- is that the problem? Maybe to have a perfect form of something you first need a definition, you need to know what it is that you are supposed to imagine as perfect. What is a being?
[Extremely contentious rambling warning]- I'd personally say the difference between the being and the circle is something like the role the thing plays in your psychology- the simpler the role the more simple it is and so the easier it is to conceive of its perfection. Circles are very simple ideas. Beings are not. Thus it's much harder to make sense of a perfect being. I can make sense of infinite in something like, an infinitely long line, I struggle when it's an infinite omnipotent perfect person.
So... I guess I'd say, with moral language, we can ground it in experience, we can point to things and say, 'that's good', 'that's bad', 'evil', 'just', 'virtuous', even 'holy'. When it comes to things like 'perfect' 'infinite' etc, we can do okay with simple things because the simple idea means we don't stray too far from experience. "Oh a thing like that but a bit more round?" "Oh you mean like that but going on and on and on?"
But point to complex things and abstract, "like that, but infinitely more intelligent", "all the good in the world time infinity!" and you struggle because of the complexity of ideas like 'intelligence or 'beings'. Religious language becomes only very loosely grounded in experience because so much abstraction is required because the ideas we are dealing with (beings, the universe etc) are so much more complicated than maths where we use many of the same attributes but on less complicated subjects. The reason we can deal with it in maths, geometry etc, is because the ideas are much simpler, so the abstraction is better grounded.
So. Morality is grounded because we can use ostensive definition. "That’s moral". We can't say "that's perfect" (at least not literally). We need to describe the thing. We can describe things which have the sort of attributes we demand in religious language "perfect" "infinite" etc, but only in cases where the subject material is relatively simple or one dimensional, lines, circles, triangles, etc. As soon as you start having things with lots of facets, or more levels of complexity, knowledge, intelligence, morality we struggle and you often lose the grounding in experience because we don't quite have a tight enough grip on these more complicated ideas to be able to deal with the added difficulty of abstracting them.
That's my general thinking I think. I haven't I'm afriad thought about it in comparison to different metaethical views, I've kind of assumed an ethical naturalism because that's my stance (or at least a kind of ethical natural-sociology) but I'd be happy to talk about that if you find it even the least bit interesting It's been a long day, I aplologize for lack of clarity or downright boringness.
1. Experience, for instance "ostensive definition" i.e.:
"That is called a 'lamp'",
"This is a table"
"Yes I'm talking about those birds over there",
"No those are green, these are more of a turquoise"
"That was a nice thing to do" (?)
2. Description
"A moose? It's like a reindeer but bigger and hairier and brings you fewer Christmas presents" "It's like a square but longer in one direction"
3. Definition
"'Shabby'? It means kind of messed up, a bit dirty and ripped and generally not in good condition"
"Triangle? It's a two dimensional shape made up of three straight lines which completely enclose an area and has internal angles adding up to 180 degrees."
Now it would seem to me that in moral language all of these are available. I can point to a person, or an action and say 'that was just', 'that was a very responsible thing to do' cruel, nasty, kind, sweet etc. To some extent this is available in religious language too. Just think of words like devout, holy, 'he has a great deal of faith', 'she's going to hell' etc. But it seems obvious to me, I don't know about you that these are the sort of areas of Religion that cross over quite heavily with morality. 'Devout', 'holy' are really more like moral terms.
So what about terms like 'perfect', 'infinite', 'omnipotent', 'omniscient'. Well in cases like this it's not clear to what extent you can point ground these in experience as you've said. To get somebody to understand 'perfect' I can't really point to anything, I need to give a definition of the word. Could I get by with a description instead of a definition? How much of a difference is there between the two? I'm not sure.
Perhaps the difference is the objects we are dealing with. In maths for instance we can make sense of 'perfection' 'infinite' but in religious we struggle more. Why?
In the case of a circle, a perfect circle is pretty easy. The perfect circle is the most circular circle. Obviously in maths, if something is a circle then it must be a perfect circle, but in the read world something can be a circle even if it isn't perfectly circular, the more circular something is the more closely it approximates the perfect circle.
With the perfect being, is that the most being like being? What are the attributes of a being? Do we even have a definition of a being? I don't think we do- is that the problem? Maybe to have a perfect form of something you first need a definition, you need to know what it is that you are supposed to imagine as perfect. What is a being?
[Extremely contentious rambling warning]- I'd personally say the difference between the being and the circle is something like the role the thing plays in your psychology- the simpler the role the more simple it is and so the easier it is to conceive of its perfection. Circles are very simple ideas. Beings are not. Thus it's much harder to make sense of a perfect being. I can make sense of infinite in something like, an infinitely long line, I struggle when it's an infinite omnipotent perfect person.
So... I guess I'd say, with moral language, we can ground it in experience, we can point to things and say, 'that's good', 'that's bad', 'evil', 'just', 'virtuous', even 'holy'. When it comes to things like 'perfect' 'infinite' etc, we can do okay with simple things because the simple idea means we don't stray too far from experience. "Oh a thing like that but a bit more round?" "Oh you mean like that but going on and on and on?"
But point to complex things and abstract, "like that, but infinitely more intelligent", "all the good in the world time infinity!" and you struggle because of the complexity of ideas like 'intelligence or 'beings'. Religious language becomes only very loosely grounded in experience because so much abstraction is required because the ideas we are dealing with (beings, the universe etc) are so much more complicated than maths where we use many of the same attributes but on less complicated subjects. The reason we can deal with it in maths, geometry etc, is because the ideas are much simpler, so the abstraction is better grounded.
So. Morality is grounded because we can use ostensive definition. "That’s moral". We can't say "that's perfect" (at least not literally). We need to describe the thing. We can describe things which have the sort of attributes we demand in religious language "perfect" "infinite" etc, but only in cases where the subject material is relatively simple or one dimensional, lines, circles, triangles, etc. As soon as you start having things with lots of facets, or more levels of complexity, knowledge, intelligence, morality we struggle and you often lose the grounding in experience because we don't quite have a tight enough grip on these more complicated ideas to be able to deal with the added difficulty of abstracting them.
That's my general thinking I think. I haven't I'm afriad thought about it in comparison to different metaethical views, I've kind of assumed an ethical naturalism because that's my stance (or at least a kind of ethical natural-sociology) but I'd be happy to talk about that if you find it even the least bit interesting
It's been a long day, I aplologize for lack of clarity or downright boringness.Wow! Thank you so much - I can’t believe you took your time out to reply to me in such detail!
Everything you mentioned makes some sort of sense. Your ideas are most certainly NOT boring! In fact – I don’t think I’ve come across a post quite so thought provoking.
I will have to read your post again tomorrow – must get some shuteye before I attempt to take it ALL in.
Thanks again
your time and effort is very much appreciated - As a token of my gratitude id like to present you with a bag of chocolate chip cookies
I hope you have a good evening. Speak soon
Everything you mentioned makes some sort of sense. Your ideas are most certainly NOT boring! In fact – I don’t think I’ve come across a post quite so thought provoking.
I will have to read your post again tomorrow – must get some shuteye before I attempt to take it ALL in.
Thanks again
your time and effort is very much appreciated - As a token of my gratitude id like to present you with a bag of chocolate chip cookies I hope you have a good evening. Speak soon
Calvin – I will go back to the religious/moral language discussion shortly but for now could I please ask for your advice on something completely different! You see, im in a bit of a pickle. I would love to apply for either Cambridge or Oxford university but im not sure whether I have what it takes.
You see – at GCSE level I achieved fairly average grades (Cs, Bs and 1 A
) I am currently re-taking a few I didn’t do so well in. the thing is – I wasn’t very motivated during year 11 and I know I could (and should) have done better.
I have improved intellectually since then – its like i’ve had a mini-mind brake through… I think it has something to do with studying philosophy. Im a lot more open-minded now and I strive to be (or do) the best I can. Although there is MUCH room for improvement...I know very little in fact. I long to LEARN. There is almost a FREEDOM in learning new things...a sort of sense of Fulfilment - the more i know about certain issues, the more i feel i can help people. Which is my ambition - to help others in any and every way i can.
You are capable of helping someone without an education… perhaps they are totally separate… I really don’t know. To be a psychologist, for example, you need to know your psychology! – am I making any sense? I guess i just want the 'best' from the 'best'...the chance to do well!!!
ANYWAY - I must stop rambling. Sorry calvin...poor fella.
I have finished my first year of sixth form and I have an AS in Religion and Philosophy (A grade – 287/300) and an A in AVCE health and social care (which counts as 1 A level in the first year). By the end of year 13 I will have 3 A levels and a compulsory Alevel in GS (if I take the exam).
I was doing film studies but didn’t find it all that interesting (I prefer to watch films rather than analyse them).
Because I haven’t figured out what I want to do yet (what uni’s to apply for, whether to take a gap year etc.) and because I want to study other subjects – I am staying on another year. If I stayed on and did another 2 subjects (say psychology, history, English Lit - or anything else that grabbed my attention) and improved any grades that weren’t up to scratch, would I be in with a chance?
I no Oxbridge isn’t for everyone but I would love the opportunity (as would a lot of people) to go there...It would be a dream come true! What university you go to doesn’t necessarily set you up in life… but I have a *feeling* this will be right for me – if you get my gist? Making this decision is so important to me…and I want to make the right one. okies - I'll stop rambling now
I don’t want you to patronise me (im sure you wont) id just like your honest opinion. Any advise, tips etc. would be very much appreciated.
Over the next year or so I am going to wrack my brains until I finally figure out what I want to do with my life. I’m sure things will work out in the end…I just need a little help with getting there.
Id probably be happy going to a good university that did the course I want to do…I just want to learn, love and enjoy the whole university experience.
If you can help me out – great! And thank you… if not, no worries. Thank you anyway for reading my post.
Take care xx
P.s *takes cookie* y thanku - dont mind if i do
You see – at GCSE level I achieved fairly average grades (Cs, Bs and 1 A
) I am currently re-taking a few I didn’t do so well in. the thing is – I wasn’t very motivated during year 11 and I know I could (and should) have done better. I have improved intellectually since then – its like i’ve had a mini-mind brake through… I think it has something to do with studying philosophy. Im a lot more open-minded now and I strive to be (or do) the best I can. Although there is MUCH room for improvement...I know very little in fact. I long to LEARN. There is almost a FREEDOM in learning new things...a sort of sense of Fulfilment - the more i know about certain issues, the more i feel i can help people. Which is my ambition - to help others in any and every way i can.
You are capable of helping someone without an education… perhaps they are totally separate… I really don’t know. To be a psychologist, for example, you need to know your psychology! – am I making any sense? I guess i just want the 'best' from the 'best'...the chance to do well!!!
ANYWAY - I must stop rambling. Sorry calvin...poor fella.
I have finished my first year of sixth form and I have an AS in Religion and Philosophy (A grade – 287/300) and an A in AVCE health and social care (which counts as 1 A level in the first year). By the end of year 13 I will have 3 A levels and a compulsory Alevel in GS (if I take the exam).
I was doing film studies but didn’t find it all that interesting (I prefer to watch films rather than analyse them).
Because I haven’t figured out what I want to do yet (what uni’s to apply for, whether to take a gap year etc.) and because I want to study other subjects – I am staying on another year. If I stayed on and did another 2 subjects (say psychology, history, English Lit - or anything else that grabbed my attention) and improved any grades that weren’t up to scratch, would I be in with a chance?
I no Oxbridge isn’t for everyone but I would love the opportunity (as would a lot of people) to go there...It would be a dream come true! What university you go to doesn’t necessarily set you up in life… but I have a *feeling* this will be right for me – if you get my gist? Making this decision is so important to me…and I want to make the right one. okies - I'll stop rambling now
I don’t want you to patronise me (im sure you wont) id just like your honest opinion. Any advise, tips etc. would be very much appreciated.
Over the next year or so I am going to wrack my brains until I finally figure out what I want to do with my life. I’m sure things will work out in the end…I just need a little help with getting there.
Id probably be happy going to a good university that did the course I want to do…I just want to learn, love and enjoy the whole university experience.
If you can help me out – great! And thank you… if not, no worries. Thank you anyway for reading my post.
Take care xx
P.s *takes cookie* y thanku - dont mind if i do
Calvin – I will go back to the religious/moral language discussion shortly but for now could I please ask for your advice on something completely different! You see, im in a bit of a pickle. I would love to apply for either Cambridge or Oxford university but im not sure whether I have what it takes.
You see – at GCSE level I achieved fairly average grades (Cs, Bs and 1 A ) I am currently re-taking a few I didn’t do so well in. the thing is – I wasn’t very motivated during year 11 and I know I could (and should) have done better.
I have improved intellectually since then – its like i’ve had a mini-mind brake through… I think it has something to do with studying philosophy. Im a lot more open-minded now and I strive to be (or do) the best I can. Although there is MUCH room for improvement...I know very little in fact. I long to LEARN. There is almost a FREEDOM in learning new things...a sort of sense of Fulfilment - the more i know about certain issues, the more i feel i can help people. Which is my ambition - to help others in any and every way i can.
You are capable of helping someone without an education… perhaps they are totally separate… I really don’t know. To be a psychologist, for example, you need to know your psychology! – am I making any sense? I guess i just want the 'best' from the 'best'...the chance to do well!!!
ANYWAY - I must stop rambling. Sorry calvin...poor fella.
I have finished my first year of sixth form and I have an AS in Religion and Philosophy (A grade – 287/300) and an A in AVCE health and social care (which counts as 1 A level in the first year). By the end of year 13 I will have 3 A levels and a compulsory Alevel in GS (if I take the exam).
I was doing film studies but didn’t find it all that interesting (I prefer to watch films rather than analyse them).
Because I haven’t figured out what I want to do yet (what uni’s to apply for, whether to take a gap year etc.) and because I want to study other subjects – I am staying on another year. If I stayed on and did another 2 subjects (say psychology, history, English Lit - or anything else that grabbed my attention) and improved any grades that weren’t up to scratch, would I be in with a chance?
I no Oxbridge isn’t for everyone but I would love the opportunity (as would a lot of people) to go there...It would be a dream come true! What university you go to doesn’t necessarily set you up in life… but I have a *feeling* this will be right for me – if you get my gist? Making this decision is so important to me…and I want to make the right one. okies - I'll stop rambling now
I don’t want you to patronise me (im sure you wont) id just like your honest opinion. Any advise, tips etc. would be very much appreciated.
Over the next year or so I am going to wrack my brains until I finally figure out what I want to do with my life. I’m sure things will work out in the end…I just need a little help with getting there.
Id probably be happy going to a good university that did the course I want to do…I just want to learn, love and enjoy the whole university experience.
If you can help me out – great! And thank you… if not, no worries. Thank you anyway for reading my post.
Take care xx
P.s *takes cookie* y thanku - dont mind if i do
You see – at GCSE level I achieved fairly average grades (Cs, Bs and 1 A
) I am currently re-taking a few I didn’t do so well in. the thing is – I wasn’t very motivated during year 11 and I know I could (and should) have done better. I have improved intellectually since then – its like i’ve had a mini-mind brake through… I think it has something to do with studying philosophy. Im a lot more open-minded now and I strive to be (or do) the best I can. Although there is MUCH room for improvement...I know very little in fact. I long to LEARN. There is almost a FREEDOM in learning new things...a sort of sense of Fulfilment - the more i know about certain issues, the more i feel i can help people. Which is my ambition - to help others in any and every way i can.
You are capable of helping someone without an education… perhaps they are totally separate… I really don’t know. To be a psychologist, for example, you need to know your psychology! – am I making any sense? I guess i just want the 'best' from the 'best'...the chance to do well!!!
ANYWAY - I must stop rambling. Sorry calvin...poor fella.
I have finished my first year of sixth form and I have an AS in Religion and Philosophy (A grade – 287/300) and an A in AVCE health and social care (which counts as 1 A level in the first year). By the end of year 13 I will have 3 A levels and a compulsory Alevel in GS (if I take the exam).
I was doing film studies but didn’t find it all that interesting (I prefer to watch films rather than analyse them).
Because I haven’t figured out what I want to do yet (what uni’s to apply for, whether to take a gap year etc.) and because I want to study other subjects – I am staying on another year. If I stayed on and did another 2 subjects (say psychology, history, English Lit - or anything else that grabbed my attention) and improved any grades that weren’t up to scratch, would I be in with a chance?
I no Oxbridge isn’t for everyone but I would love the opportunity (as would a lot of people) to go there...It would be a dream come true! What university you go to doesn’t necessarily set you up in life… but I have a *feeling* this will be right for me – if you get my gist? Making this decision is so important to me…and I want to make the right one. okies - I'll stop rambling now
I don’t want you to patronise me (im sure you wont) id just like your honest opinion. Any advise, tips etc. would be very much appreciated.
Over the next year or so I am going to wrack my brains until I finally figure out what I want to do with my life. I’m sure things will work out in the end…I just need a little help with getting there.
Id probably be happy going to a good university that did the course I want to do…I just want to learn, love and enjoy the whole university experience.
If you can help me out – great! And thank you… if not, no worries. Thank you anyway for reading my post.
Take care xx
P.s *takes cookie* y thanku - dont mind if i do
Just so you know, Calvin and I carried on this conversation (regarding uni) elsewhere... Please feel free to talk about the orginal post 'How fair is the claim that moral language is meaningful, even if religious language is not' - i'm still up for ideas. I must reply to Calvin's post (twas very good)! I just need to set aside some time to do so! to much work! garh!
--------------
o and i'm Laura btw... formerly known as Loopylaus - my other account messed up. ops
--------------
o and i'm Laura btw... formerly known as Loopylaus - my other account messed up. ops
Related discussions
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 7172/1 - 19 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- aqa philosophy alevel 2022/2023
- A-LEVEL AQA English Lit NEA 'Dorian Gray' with Beauty Value HELP PLS LMAO!!!!!!
- Edexcel A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (9RS0 01) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- OCR Religious Studies A Level Predictions
- English language speaking exam. Topic: 'video games are not violent'
- Morality is subjective in character with an objective compulsion.
- Ulster University Allied Health Professional interview
- Non-Cognitive statements
- 15/42 for LNAT. Do I have a chance for KCL?
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 + 2 (7172/1+2) 18th and 26th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Could someone mark my Macbeth essay on guilt?
- oxford classics offer holders 2024
- Macbeth study guide!
- 3rd Year Dissertation Ideas (ODP)
- Lang Paper 1 Q2 Nov 2018 (Practice Question)
- MML at Cambridge
- your opinions?
- my last duchess poem gcse
- Analysis of the Macbeth movie
Latest
Trending
Last reply 53 minutes ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (H573/01) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 hours ago
any updates on what the guest password is for philosphy cat ?Last reply 8 hours ago
GCSE Religious Studies Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 1 day ago
AQA GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 (8062/ 11-17) - 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 days ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 3 (Christianity) - 20th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
How to get A* in a level ocr religous studiesLast reply 2 weeks ago
A-level Philosophy Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 2 weeks ago
AQA A GCSE Religious Studies Paper 2 (8062/ 2A and 2B) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
WJEC GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 | 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Aqa a level philosophy and ethics (rs) paper 2 christianity and dialogues 2023Last reply 3 weeks ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) - 17th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Religious studies a level EduqasLast reply 4 weeks ago
Can someone please mark my GCSE AQA Religious studies 12 marker :)Last reply 2 months ago
Edexcel GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 | 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
Eduqas religious studies a level 2023Trending
Last reply 53 minutes ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (H573/01) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 hours ago
any updates on what the guest password is for philosphy cat ?Last reply 8 hours ago
GCSE Religious Studies Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 1 day ago
AQA GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 (8062/ 11-17) - 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 days ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 3 (Christianity) - 20th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
How to get A* in a level ocr religous studiesLast reply 2 weeks ago
A-level Philosophy Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 2 weeks ago
AQA A GCSE Religious Studies Paper 2 (8062/ 2A and 2B) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
WJEC GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 | 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Aqa a level philosophy and ethics (rs) paper 2 christianity and dialogues 2023Last reply 3 weeks ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) - 17th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Religious studies a level EduqasLast reply 4 weeks ago
Can someone please mark my GCSE AQA Religious studies 12 marker :)Last reply 2 months ago
Edexcel GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 | 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
Eduqas religious studies a level 2023
