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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If anyone has any revision notes for Philosophy of the Mind I would be immensely grateful if I could see them!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can anyone who does philosophy of mind please explain to me Wittgenstein's private language argument, and its relation to the problem of other minds? thanks


    (Original post by Bruno)
    If anyone has any revision notes for Philosophy of the Mind I would be immensely grateful if I could see them!
    i would but looking back at them now they are beyond useless. i can't even use them myself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Doing Political and Moral philosophy! But studying only the normative ethics side of the latter to cut down revision.


    Anyone have any ideas as to what might come up?
    Or any example high grade essays? Need to get that essay writing back into practise!
    - Resitting in my gap year to get my C last year up to a B to get into the uni I want.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronak134)
    Can anyone who does philosophy of mind please explain to me Wittgenstein's private language argument,
    1. Language is analogous to the rules of a game
    2. The rules of a game, by definition, must be able to be broken
    3. In a 'private language' - one where you are the only participant (and everyone else is a robot for example - solipsism), the rules cannot be broken, as you are the one setting the rules and so whatever you say must be true
    4. ∴ A private language is impossible
    5. ∴ ∃ other minds

    Criticism: only shows that at the conception/formation of our language there must have existed other minds. Could be the case that lots of people existed and language evolved etc. etc. but then you were plucked out of that and your brain was placed in a vat. I.e. no way of showing that RIGHT NOW there are other minds.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Camilla321)
    Doing Political and Moral philosophy! But studying only the normative ethics side of the latter to cut down revision.


    Anyone have any ideas as to what might come up?
    Or any example high grade essays? Need to get that essay writing back into practise!
    - Resitting in my gap year to get my C last year up to a B to get into the uni I want.
    I'm doing the exact same thing but so worried a normative question might not come up cos they could do that!! I think rights might come up for political its only come up once and was in 2010 but you never know with aqa
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Any objective knowledge essays for epistemology and metaphysics?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    can anyone give me a summary of how liberty rights justice and the law interrelate, i found the textbook notes really brief and confusing

    thanks
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Camilla321)
    Doing Political and Moral philosophy! But studying only the normative ethics side of the latter to cut down revision.


    Anyone have any ideas as to what might come up?
    Or any example high grade essays? Need to get that essay writing back into practise!
    - Resitting in my gap year to get my C last year up to a B to get into the uni I want.

    Hmmm, quite risky to only revise Normative Ethics. Purely because, "Moral Truth" and "Denial of Moral Truth" are two distinct parts of the syllabus, so it is possible that "Moral Decisions" (Normative Ethics) doesn't come up at all...I mean, so far, that hasn't happened, but you'd technically have no grounds for complaint if it did.

    You should be fine though...

    I have a feeling that "Weakness of the Will" might come up for Moral Truth/Denial of Moral Truth, or perhaps something to do with "Reasons for Action". Hopefully something will come up on "Transcendent Moral Truth" or "Moral Truth Based On Natural Fact"

    For normative, I have a strong feeling about Utilitarianism since Virtue Theory came up last year...

    Anyway, I wrote a really lengthy essay that goes over all the Normative Theories you need to know including advantages and criticisms. It got 48/50. You wouldn't be able to write all this in the actual exam since we only get an hour for Moral Philosophy, but nonetheless, you should follow this kind of structure if you're aiming for an A.

    Anyway, hope this helps and best of luck to you in getting your B!
    Attached Files
  1. File Type: docx Normative Approaches Essay (2).docx (38.5 KB, 165 views)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gillymander95)
    Hmmm, quite risky to only revise Normative Ethics. Purely because, "Moral Truth" and "Denial of Moral Truth" are two distinct parts of the syllabus, so it is possible that "Moral Decisions" (Normative Ethics) doesn't come up at all...I mean, so far, that hasn't happened, but you'd technically have no grounds for complaint if it did.

    You should be fine though...

    I have a feeling that "Weakness of the Will" might come up for Moral Truth/Denial of Moral Truth, or perhaps something to do with "Reasons for Action". Hopefully something will come up on "Transcendent Moral Truth" or "Moral Truth Based On Natural Fact"

    For normative, I have a strong feeling about Utilitarianism since Virtue Theory came up last year...

    Anyway, I wrote a really lengthy essay that goes over all the Normative Theories you need to know including advantages and criticisms. It got 48/50. You wouldn't be able to write all this in the actual exam since we only get an hour for Moral Philosophy, but nonetheless, you should follow this kind of structure if you're aiming for an A.

    Anyway, hope this helps and best of luck to you in getting your B!
    The file requires a password to open! :eek: What is it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hollyblyth)
    can anyone give me a summary of how liberty rights justice and the law interrelate, i found the textbook notes really brief and confusing

    thanks

    Basically, there's not a lot you need to know for this I think, but briefly:

    1) If liberty is based on Natural Rights, then this means our liberty is independent of laws and legislation as Natural Rights existed prior to the state. John Locke contests this view through his thesis on both the "State of Nature" and "Law of Nature". You can also refer to Kant's Deontological Ethics.

    2) If our liberty is based on Positive Rights, then this means our liberty is dependent on laws and legislation as rights are created through laws and legislation, thus only exist through the state. If our liberty is dependent on laws, then our liberty can be increased (in a Democracy for example, refer to John Stuart Mill, Locke, and Nozick) OR it can be decreased (In a resolute state for example, refer to Plato, and some extent Edmund Burke's Conservatism)

    3) If our liberty is based on Utility, then no automatic connection can be made between the liberty and the law. If we use the "utility principle" in order to create laws to safeguard our rights, it can either increase or decrease our liberty. For example, if utility (the greatest happiness for the greatest number) is brought about by people being able to freely go for a run in the park, then our liberty is increased. However, if the greatest amount of happiness was brought about by torturing young children, then the liberty of young children is decreased, as the utility principle would be able to pass a law that gives people the right to torture young children.

    I'm not entirely sure how to fit Justice in there tbh with you...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jool)
    The file requires a password to open! :eek: What is it?

    Hahaha, that emoticon really got me!

    Erm, I didn't even know it had a password on it! Try each of the following:

    zxsh4x?!
    zxsh4x
    ri8AXO
    ri8AXO?!
    ri8AXO10
    ri8AXO95


    Obviously replace the asterisks with their appropriate (Or inappropriate even haha) letters, for that last one...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by p44v9n)
    1. Language is analogous to the rules of a game
    2. The rules of a game, by definition, must be able to be broken
    3. In a 'private language' - one where you are the only participant (and everyone else is a robot for example - solipsism), the rules cannot be broken, as you are the one setting the rules and so whatever you say must be true
    4. ∴ A private language is impossible
    5. ∴ ∃ other minds

    Criticism: only shows that at the conception/formation of our language there must have existed other minds. Could be the case that lots of people existed and language evolved etc. etc. but then you were plucked out of that and your brain was placed in a vat. I.e. no way of showing that RIGHT NOW there are other minds.
    thanks, but why does he say language is like a game? does he have any reason or basis to?or is that just an assumption he holds? it seems rather baseless.

    (Original post by hollyblyth)
    can anyone give me a summary of how liberty rights justice and the law interrelate, i found the textbook notes really brief and confusing
    very briefly: arguably the point of rights (and the duties they come with) is to give justice, or what we feel people deserve (either inherently or based on contractarian/utilitarian terms or anything else) and the purpose of the law is to uphold rights (again either for utility, contractarian terms, deontological reasons or whatever based on various views).

    Different schools of thought have thought have different views on to what extent liberty (along with other values such as equality and opportunity) is important based on their theories of justice and the human state. They may well also disagree on what these values actually mean (e.g. marxists see liberty as freedom from the bourgeoisie, liberals see it as freedom from custom).

    i hope that helps
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    thanks, but why does he say language is like a game? does he have any reason or basis to?or is that just an assumption he holds? it seems rather baseless.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#Pri
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gillymander95)
    Basically, there's not a lot you need to know for this I think, but briefly:

    1) If liberty is based on Natural Rights, then this means our liberty is independent of laws and legislation as Natural Rights existed prior to the state. John Locke contests this view through his thesis on both the "State of Nature" and "Law of Nature". You can also refer to Kant's Deontological Ethics.

    2) If our liberty is based on Positive Rights, then this means our liberty is dependent on laws and legislation as rights are created through laws and legislation, thus only exist through the state. If our liberty is dependent on laws, then our liberty can be increased (in a Democracy for example, refer to John Stuart Mill, Locke, and Nozick) OR it can be decreased (In a resolute state for example, refer to Plato, and some extent Edmund Burke's Conservatism)

    3) If our liberty is based on Utility, then no automatic connection can be made between the liberty and the law. If we use the "utility principle" in order to create laws to safeguard our rights, it can either increase or decrease our liberty. For example, if utility (the greatest happiness for the greatest number) is brought about by people being able to freely go for a run in the park, then our liberty is increased. However, if the greatest amount of happiness was brought about by torturing young children, then the liberty of young children is decreased, as the utility principle would be able to pass a law that gives people the right to torture young children.

    I'm not entirely sure how to fit Justice in there tbh with you...
    thanks a lot !
    what about finis he has a bit on human rights where could i put him and marx ?

    Also what about justice and nation states
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone have any guesses for what's going to come up from second order morality? I know normative ethics well but I'm worried they might be nasty and not include one of those questions.

    Also, do people think that nation states will come up in the politics section? I'm hoping not because I haven't really touched it in my revision and it came up last year
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone have any exemplar answers pertaining to Moral Truth and/or Denial of Moral Truth?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Looking for strengths/weaknesses of cognitivism (both transcendent and naturalism) please, I have a few but not enough. Focusing more on normative and applied ethics but I'm making sure I also know meta-ethics just in case they decide to be evil and not include the former!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhilosopherKing)
    thanks a lot !
    what about finis he has a bit on human rights where could i put him and marx ?

    Also what about justice and nation states
    No problem!
    Erm, Marx would slide in there with Positive Rights - However, he doesn't agree with them, he rejects all types of rights, especially positive rights. He regards positive rights as being based on socio-economic conditions, serving and protecting the interests of the ruling class. Therefore, rights aren't universal and absolute (like Natural Right theorists claim), but are ideological. The working class have no rights - for example, due to economic oppression caused by the capitalist class, they are denied the right to justice as they cannot afford court fees. In terms of Justice, Marx would claim that justice cannot be served by positive rights in the capitalist state - even a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor wouldn't give the working class any sufficient rights, as the class division still remains intact.

    He also rejects rights based on utility too, but I wouldn't bother talk about this in the exam, because it's too brief, he doesn't really give any reasons why, and it's not in any kind of textbook

    I don't know about Finis - never even heard of him! I do know that human rights often have an overlap between natural rights and positive rights though, so perhaps he'd fit into both?

    I have no idea about Nation States. We decided not to learn it because our teacher f*cked off in the middle of the year and our other teacher tried to teach us it, but we just didn't have enough time. Even if I did know it, I'd probably answer the other question in the exam anyway.

    Hope that helps!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jool)
    Looking for strengths/weaknesses of cognitivism (both transcendent and naturalism) please, I have a few but not enough. Focusing more on normative and applied ethics but I'm making sure I also know meta-ethics just in case they decide to be evil and not include the former!
    Strengths of Cognitivism are very hard to find, since we haven't actually found any universal moral truth...The best kinds of advantages lie in the grounds of religion such as the 10 Commandments providing moral truth to some extent, or how many different cultures adopt the same ethical principles, etc...

    Erm, as for criticisms:

    1. (Transcendent)
    - Mackie's Error Theory (criticism of Plato's Theory of Forms)
    - Elitism & the corresponding issue of "Charlatan Leadership" (criticism of Plato's theory of Forms)

    2. (Natural)
    - Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy (Criticism of Bentham and Mill's "ethical naturalism")
    - The Open Question Argument (Criticism of Bentham and Mill's "ethical naturalism" - however, this criticism cannot be used unless you refer to the Naturalistic Fallacy first)

    Erm, thing is, they're really big specific criticisms that often have reference to a philosopher, rather than little insignificant criticisms that are too general and vague. So, if you know all of those ^ then you don't need any little ones, they'll be enough for you to do well - it's on the syllabus!

    If you want me to explain any of the criticisms I've mentioned, I will
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gillymander95)
    Strengths of Cognitivism are very hard to find, since we haven't actually found any universal moral truth...The best kinds of advantages lie in the grounds of religion such as the 10 Commandments providing moral truth to some extent, or how many different cultures adopt the same ethical principles, etc...

    Erm, as for criticisms:

    1. (Transcendent)
    - Mackie's Error Theory (criticism of Plato's Theory of Forms)
    - Elitism & the corresponding issue of "Charlatan Leadership" (criticism of Plato's theory of Forms)

    2. (Natural)
    - Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy (Criticism of Bentham and Mill's "ethical naturalism")
    - The Open Question Argument (Criticism of Bentham and Mill's "ethical naturalism" - however, this criticism cannot be used unless you refer to the Naturalistic Fallacy first)

    Erm, thing is, they're really big specific criticisms that often have reference to a philosopher, rather than little insignificant criticisms that are too general and vague. So, if you know all of those ^ then you don't need any little ones, they'll be enough for you to do well - it's on the syllabus!

    If you want me to explain any of the criticisms I've mentioned, I will
    I am familiar with all of those criticisms, I'm sure I'll be able to come up with some of my own also to throw in. Was hoping for some strengths more than anything, but I guess it's evaluation in itself that the theory doesn't really have any strengths, thank you!

    EDIT: In fact, do you have any resources on Mackie and Charlatan Leadership? I am aware of the criticisms relating to Plato but not that specific philosopher/idea, have a feeling Charlatan Leadership may be very similar to something I already have i.e. Plato's Philosopher Kings/Guardians.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

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.