Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan37)
    Is anyone other than me doing Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil for unit 4? I feel like my college have given us the short straw with what is such a boring topic!

    (Original post by Fikri Gusrizal)
    Anyone doing Nietzsche?
    Thank god there are some fellow Ubermensch here. I don't get how anyone can find Nietzsche boring, but different strokes I guess. I do despise him as a subject though, because he's so vague and idiosyncratic in his thought that it's impossible to write an essay on him. Any predictions for the exams? Judging on the past years, I'd call a 15 marker on the scope of philosophy, and big essays on Morality and Religion.Also, how are you guys revising? I'm just blitzing through the Lacewing book.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tier)
    Thank god there are some fellow Ubermensch here. I don't get how anyone can find Nietzsche boring, but different strokes I guess. I do despise him as a subject though, because he's so vague and idiosyncratic in his thought that it's impossible to write an essay on him. Any predictions for the exams? Judging on the past years, I'd call a 15 marker on the scope of philosophy, and big essays on Morality and Religion.Also, how are you guys revising? I'm just blitzing through the Lacewing book.
    I had a feeling a 45 marker would be on slave morality but who knows, I don't think boring is the right word, its just filled with so many contradictions and I can't help but feel something like Plato would have been much easier!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tier)
    Thank god there are some fellow Ubermensch here. I don't get how anyone can find Nietzsche boring, but different strokes I guess. I do despise him as a subject though, because he's so vague and idiosyncratic in his thought that it's impossible to write an essay on him. Any predictions for the exams? Judging on the past years, I'd call a 15 marker on the scope of philosophy, and big essays on Morality and Religion.Also, how are you guys revising? I'm just blitzing through the Lacewing book.
    I couldn't agree more haha it's sooo hard to understand him let alone write an essay on him. I find Nietzsche pretty hard in general.
    The scope of philosophy could come up, but i think it will be on the will to power as there's never been a 15 marker on the will to power. For the big ones, i agree with you that it's pretty likely to be on Morality and Religion. I don't have Lacewing for Nietzsche so i just rely on all the handouts which my teacher has given me so far and the BGE book itself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan37)
    I had a feeling a 45 marker would be on slave morality but who knows, I don't think boring is the right word, its just filled with so many contradictions and I can't help but feel something like Plato would have been much easier!
    i was hoping to do Plato as well or Mill but my group decided to do Nietzsche for some reason oh well
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fikri Gusrizal)
    I couldn't agree more haha it's sooo hard to understand him let alone write an essay on him. I find Nietzsche pretty hard in general.
    The scope of philosophy could come up, but i think it will be on the will to power as there's never been a 15 marker on the will to power. For the big ones, i agree with you that it's pretty likely to be on Morality and Religion. I don't have Lacewing for Nietzsche so i just rely on all the handouts which my teacher has given me so far and the BGE book itself.
    Me too, I only have booklets and the BGE book to revise from, not quite sure how I am going to do it to be honest! Memorising quotes and basically remembering everything he has to say is going to be hard
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan37)
    Me too, I only have booklets and the BGE book to revise from, not quite sure how I am going to do it to be honest! Memorising quotes and basically remembering everything he has to say is going to be hard
    There's a lot to memorise in such a short period of time (3 days), i don't know how i can do it. I'm so stressed out right now. I need to find a better way to revise, reading the book over and over again doesn't really work. When i read the book the stuff that i've just read simply disappears from my brain as i'm moving onto another topic (from prejudices of past philosophers to different stages of morality for example), and in the end there is not much i remember. This exam is definitely going to be the hardest exam in my life
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hk17)
    Hey guys, I have plato on Thursday and I'm really struggling on a few key points I think I'm okay with the similies but I'm really struggling to get my head around
    - philosopher kings and education
    - the argument from opposites
    - the faculties argument
    - the third man argument


    Also my essay writing usually goes very bad has anyone got any tips on how to structure an essay? Thank you xx
    The argument from opposites/faculties has already been touched on previously.

    The third man argument is basically an argument proposed by Aristotle in another work by Plato called Parmenides. It demonstrates how the Forms can be contradictory, and in simple terms, the argument is as follows: consider a small group of things; A, B and C. All theses things share the property of 'largeness, so there must be a Form of Largeness, X. However, the Form of Largeness, X, is also large. Thus there is a new totality of large things, A, B, C and X. Again, these are so large there must be another Form, Z, and so on as infinatum.

    This reduction ad absurdum that by pushing Plato's Forms to it's logical conclusion, we are led to absurdity, which renders the premise logically fallacious - meaning Plato's argument fails the dialectic he so admires. (Dialectic, in Hegels terms, is if you think of an idea it's a thesis, then you come up with an antithesis which is a negation of the thesis and a synthesis which resolves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis. This synthesis becomes the new thesis which you then come up with an antithesis for etc etc).

    Hope that made sense! ****ting myself about Plato but it'll alllll be over soon.. Finally!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I know this is a pointless thing to ask as there's nothing I can do now, but I've had not very good teaching all year :confused:(comapred with unit 3) and so I am teaching myself from the book (im doing Plato) the AQA text book section and the Lacewing textbook section. Do you think this will give me sufficient material to do well in the exam? How much extra knowldge from the lessons are you all using (i.e. criticisms.)? Thanks!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abigaillouisa)
    I know this is a pointless thing to ask as there's nothing I can do now, but I've had not very good teaching all year :confused:(comapred with unit 3) and so I am teaching myself from the book (im doing Plato) the AQA text book section and the Lacewing textbook section. Do you think this will give me sufficient material to do well in the exam? How much extra knowldge from the lessons are you all using (i.e. criticisms.)? Thanks!
    I think it's enough, my teacher basically used this to teach us:
    http://www.routledge.com/cw/alevelphilosophy/s2/plato/
    I good think about this exam is you can basically guess what a philosophers opinion is going to be since you're completely focusing on him. If you're not sure of any info, pm me!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just wondering, does anyone know how you'd critcise the Ring of Gyges in Republic? The only criticism I seem to have is that we don't know for sure that it would happen since no such ring exists.

    Our teacher has a feeling that it's a possibility that it may come up as a 15 marker!

    Thaaankkk yooou.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cmargerison)
    Just wondering, does anyone know how you'd critcise the Ring of Gyges in Republic? The only criticism I seem to have is that we don't know for sure that it would happen since no such ring exists.

    Our teacher has a feeling that it's a possibility that it may come up as a 15 marker!

    Thaaankkk yooou.
    Do we need to know criticisms? ****! What kind of question did she say it might be like? I literally had no idea
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bobbieare)
    Do we need to know criticisms? ****! What kind of question did she say it might be like? I literally had no idea
    Only in sense of if you were applying it to a 45 marker --- sorry I didn't make myself clear! Completely forgot that we don't evaluate in 15 markers... oops!

    He's said that the criticism would really be Socrates' response throughout the whole of the Replublic and you'd evaluate how well he refutes Thrasymachus' claim throught the book... I think.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cmargerison)
    Just wondering, does anyone know how you'd critcise the Ring of Gyges in Republic? The only criticism I seem to have is that we don't know for sure that it would happen since no such ring exists.

    Our teacher has a feeling that it's a possibility that it may come up as a 15 marker!

    Thaaankkk yooou.
    I think the main criticism is that this views humans in a negative light, not proving that they would behave immorally should they have the opportunity, but merely assuming they'd do so.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaf)
    ^second that question.. Anyone?


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    (Original post by jonny_page)
    Descartes predictions anyone?
    hey guys! and this goes for anyone else too generally i guess...i have been self-teaching philosophy, and was wondering for criticisms can you bring in anything to answer for unit 4 .....for example, can you refer to any criticisms or does it have be specific ones in relation to the topic. for example, for mind body problem....can you refer to stuff from unit 3 like materialism? or is do you have to remain within the scope of the book and criticise what he said. cheers
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gillymander95)
    Yes, but not in great detail for Polemarchus or Cephalus.

    You also need to throw Adimantus (shows religion to be corrupt and justice is not a value in itself but a means of gaining an admirable reputation) and Glaucon ('Ring of Gynes', the outcomes for the just and unjust man, the origins of justice, his contribution to the 'Three Classes of Good' and his brief point on how religion is corrupt in matters of justice) in there too.

    Erm, Thrasymachus is pretty important in the "might is right" argument, the "sheperd analogy" and generall showing, (alike Glaucon through the 'ring of gynes'), that injustice is a virtue.
    Thanks !!!

    Also, can anyone explain to me the argument from opposites?! I know it's supposed to be simple but I really don't get it
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Has anyone studying Mill's 'On Liberty' got a decent essay plan for democracy? The one on AQA's website only got 13/45 marks and I can't find any more :/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kkkassikassi)
    mm i agree, that's my biggest worry! i don't have any more exams apart for unit 4, which is on thursday, and i feel like i don't actually need to do that much revision for it but at the same time, i feel bad if i'm not doing something in case i miss something really important!
    Yeah exactly the same as me. We had a Mill mock a few weeks ago and I simply looked at the mark schemes to remind myself of his arguments, and then made an A4 sheet of the points on the Harm Principle I liked best - after 2 hours of that the preceding night I got 88%, so I'm not feeling very worried about it, but in some respects thinking I should feel more worried! I had Law and Philosophy on Thurs and Fri last week which made me really burnt our to get it all remembered so that led to me taking the weekend off. Concerned that they might catch me out with a 15m that I don't quite get because it's too specific. Guess I'll just go over the mark schemes again and all my notes. What are you planning to do?

    (Original post by jool)
    For anyone doing Mill, if you haven't seen this yet, it may come of use to you: http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/onliberty/

    Also, this might seem like a bit of a silly question but have people actually read On Liberty? I personally have, but my teacher said it's surprising how many centres don't actually read the essay itself, simply provide resources on it, just wondering if he's right.
    Our teacher did strongly encourage us all to read the book - think I was one of the few that read it all through :P I don't particularly feel that advantaged by reading it though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Descartes predictions anyone?
    my guess is that the 15 marker will be on mind/body, and the 45 markers will be on God and on doubt/certainty
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For anyone who's studying Mill's 'On Liberty', I think this podcast by Nigel Warburton does a nice job of summing up the harm principle and some of the issues with it in under twenty minutes!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by millie-rose)
    Thanks !!!

    Also, can anyone explain to me the argument from opposites?! I know it's supposed to be simple but I really don't get it
    No problem!

    Argument from opposites (What you NEED to know):


    • Socrates seeks to find the the proper object of opinion. He questions "What could it possibly be for something to lie in between 'being' and non-being'?"
    • He argues that sensible objects (objects in the physical world perceived with our senses, otherwise known as 'particulars') lie in between 'being' and 'non-being', thus are the proper object of opinion.
    • Socrates then goes onto argue that as all particulars lie in between 'being' and 'non being', they must all have 'opposite epithets', which means that a pretty flower may participate in the Form of Beauty, but also in the Form of Ugliness.
    • This is because the pretty flower is is not beautiful in itself, so may have some aspects that deviate from beauty, which mean it is partly ugly also - the opposite of beauty.
    • "Particulars" have opposites as they are not intelligible and exist in the physical realm thus are subject to the subjective tastes, interests and opinions or the individual. This means, through use of opinion, and individual can declare a particular object to not be beautiful. They are relative and qualified bearers of predicates. They are mutable, in motion and transitory. For these reasons, they can never be an object of knowledge.
    • This stands in stark contrast with the Forms. For instance, the Form of Beauty has no opposite, as this is beauty in itself, not dependent on opinion because it is transcendent, static and eternal. Unlike the particulars, they are not changeable and ambiguous. They are of universal and timeless character. They are unqualified bearers of predicates. As the Form of Beauty is concerned with 'what is', then it follows it cannot have opposite epithets - it is of true, justified knowledge.


    So long story short, Millie, particulars have opposites because they lie between "what is and what is not", and the Forms don't have opposites, because they are only "what is". :cool:

    Possible criticisms (Sorry it has to be brief, I need to go to bed since my eyes are so bloodshot! I can help you with this more tomorrow if you don't quite understand it)

    1. Are we obliged to accept the Theory of Forms that underpin this argument? For instance, although we may accept that a pretty flower may never be truly beautiful, and may also be the opposite of beautiful (ugly), this doesn't mean that there is something that exists that is truly beautiful.
    2. What about particulars that have no opposites? Plato deploys terms to suit his theory. For instance, "beauty" has an opposite, which is "ugly". However, what about terms such as "red" and "fish"? These do not have distinct opposites. Plato's exclusion of such terms makes his argument appear much less plausible.
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?

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

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.