The OFFICIAL AQA AS Philosophy May 2013 Exams Thread. (Units 1&2)

OP

Assess the view that tolerance requires individuals to do or say nothing that may offend

others.

This view refers to the conception of a tolerant individual, this view is one that believes a truly tolerant individual will always say nothing that could offend others. This view cam be corrected by say that a tolerant individual will always TRY to avoid offence, that has to be corrected because there is as Forst put it, a rejection component to tolerance , indicating there are limits to what an individual can tolerant. It can be said that normally a person will offend someone in response to previous offence, so it seems counter intuitive to not say something in return and be tolerant given tolerance requires a objection component. Mill would apply his harm principle here my saying that as long as this offence does not cause harm, it is fine for a tolerant individual to cause offence. However this creates a problem, who decides the point where offence becomes harm?

Reply 361

India French

Is anyone else doing Value of Art and God and The World have any idea what was on the Jan 2013 paper or have any predictions? I am really hoping that the 'religious hypothesis' doesn't come up as I have barley revised it :s-smilie:

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 362

dlaiden

11

Original post by India French

Is anyone else doing Value of Art and God and The World have any idea what was on the Jan 2013 paper or have any predictions? I am really hoping that the 'religious hypothesis' doesn't come up as I have barley revised it :s-smilie:

For God and the World, the 15 mark was two responses to the problem of evil and the 30 mark was 'assess whether belief in God should be regarded as a hypothesis.' The last two exams before that were on the Problem of Evil, so tomorrow's question is likely on either religious belief or the design argument.

Reply 363

GregMc

have they ever asked a 30 mark question on religious point of view?

Reply 364

libbyjonesxx

knowledge of the external world notes - hope they're helpful :smile:

(edited 10 years ago)

Knowledge of the external world.pdf190.4KB

Reply 365

the A* guy

OP

2

Original post by GregMc

have they ever asked a 30 mark question on religious point of view?

Yes, but only once, in Jan 2013, meaning that it is very unlikely we get a question on it.
The question was:

Assess whether belief in God should be regarded as a hypothesis.

Reply 366

the A* guy

OP

2

I have just noticed in the unit 'God And The World' The problem with evil has come up in every past exam paper.

Reply 367

PaulyRivs

1

Original post by >Username<

Sorry I meant to back up your work what artworks do you use? So example of artwork you use to get your point across... Or do you not use any?

Ohhh, I see... I use Shawshank Redemption (life in the US in the 1940s) Titanic (shows what the disaster was like) Guernica (artists depiction of bombing on Spanish village during Civil War) as a way of talking about how art informs us.

For expressiveness, I would use a sad movie/story/painting which catches the emotions of somebody.

For form, Mona Lisa, instrumental music, etc. for how art is seen as simply ways of being beautiful. I can come up with criticisms for why all three of these may not represent art, so I feel prepared! :biggrin:

Reply 368

PaulyRivs

1

Original post by the A* guy

This view refers to the conception of a tolerant individual, this view is one that believes a truly tolerant individual will always say nothing that could offend others. This view cam be corrected by say that a tolerant individual will always TRY to avoid offence, that has to be corrected because there is as Forst put it, a rejection component to tolerance , indicating there are limits to what an individual can tolerant. It can be said that normally a person will offend someone in response to previous offence, so it seems counter intuitive to not say something in return and be tolerant given tolerance requires a objection component. Mill would apply his harm principle here my saying that as long as this offence does not cause harm, it is fine for a tolerant individual to cause offence. However this creates a problem, who decides the point where offence becomes harm?

Offence causes harm when people start to physically fight each other over it and this leads to people hurting each other based on the offence that has been caused to them. A Conservative would not tolerate somebody causing extreme offence (i.e. racist groups, etc.) and would thus ban them from doing what they are doing, which means they are not being tolerated. I believe it was John Harris who argued that rather than simply banning these people, we should question why they do what they do, defeat them in an argument and thus stop them on the grounds that they cannot justify what they are doing.

Reply 369

bellablythe

1

Hey guys im taking Freewill and determinism and God and the world.

question Predictions??? xx :biggrin:

Reply 370

India French

Original post by dlaiden

For God and the World, the 15 mark was two responses to the problem of evil and the 30 mark was 'assess whether belief in God should be regarded as a hypothesis.' The last two exams before that were on the Problem of Evil, so tomorrow's question is likely on either religious belief or the design argument.

Thanks so much for the help! Balls! I really like the Problem of Evil but hopefully we will get it for a 15 marker or something... And thank God! I really hate those hypothesis questions.

Reply 371

mohamed68

1

Design argument for 30 marker:

Aqunias's argument
criticisms

Paleys argument
criticisms

Tennets best explanation
Hume - chance
Criticise both for being invalid

Conclude

is that right?

Reply 372

GregMc

assess whether belief in God should be regarded as a hypothesis - what does that even mean....

Reply 373

jaxscho

Original post by GregMc

assess whether belief in God should be regarded as a hypothesis - what does that even mean....

Well a hypothesis is a proposal that needs to be tested (confirmed or rejected) by experience. However its truth or falsity can not be experienced directly, therefore has to be inferred by means of testing e.g. The Big Bang is a hypothesis, Darwin's theory of evolution and so on...

So assessing that would basically mean weighing up the reasons why he should or shouldn't be.......

It may be a hypothesis because it proposes that God's existence is the best explanation for certain observed features of the world thus making it in competition with scientific hypothesises about the world. The design argument for God would be an example of an religious hypothesis in action.

We could also reject the claim that 'God exist' as a hypothesis as it is impossible to imagine conditions that would make believers give up the claim that god exists, therefore making the claim untestable and as you know now a hypotheses must be tested