Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

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

Scroll to see replies

It's, someone's arm moving involuntary is an arguement of an action that isn't caused as libertarians and hard determinism argue that the opposite of a free action is a caused action. The arm moving involuntary is an uncaused action and therefore supposedly free, but it isn't free because you have no control over it. Probability and concidence if proven right can be used as arguements against hard determinism rather than a strength of libertarianism. In january doing PHIL 1 I got 86 UMS and it's okay I have to take a while to get my head around things!

When you say hard determinism, what do you mean?

So basically coincidence, ignorance and probability prove we have free will. However the weakness is if your arm move without you wanting to move it then you do not have free will as you did not want it to move therefore there must be a cause to it. Therefore coincidence, ignorance and probability do not mean there is no cause. And this can be illustrated as:

Coincidence - Someone may go to the shop and bump into a friend however although they choose to go to the shop, something initially caused them to do so meaning they bumped into their friend.
Probability - Winning the lottery may seem like probability but there are causes to why some balls are selected.
Ignorance - It may seem like there is no cause but really there is, we are ignorant to realise what the cause is.

So they are weaknesses of hard determinism? I thought coincidence, probability and ignorance were for hard determinism as they show that we do not have free will.

I am making the assumption here that hard determinism is determinism...?

Reply 61

>Username<

Original post by jool

Sorry if it comes across as I don't know anything about Philosophy. :frown:

I've read your notes on Kant's view on freewill and determinism and read through my notes. But I don't understand it.

I understand that Kant believes we cannot prove we are free therefore he assumes we are free. But after that I'm so confused. :s-smilie:

Reply 62

the A* guy

Anyone up for a Reason and Experience Q & A ?

:biggrin:

Reply 63

NiallD

Does anyone know any good resources for revising the reason and experience topic? :smile:

Reply 64

the A* guy

Original post by NiallD

Does anyone know any good resources for revising the reason and experience topic? :smile:

There are some good resources on get revising.

Do you want to do some Q and A on reason and experience? :smile:

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 65

PaulyRivs

Original post by the A* guy

There are some good resources on get revising.

Do you want to do some Q and A on reason and experience? :smile:

I do!

Reply 66

the A* guy

Original post by PaulyRivs

I do!

ok, you start. :smile:

Reply 67

PaulyRivs

Original post by the A* guy

ok, you start. :smile:

Name the Rationalist philosophers!

Reply 68

the A* guy

Original post by PaulyRivs

Name the Rationalist philosophers!

Plato
Descartes
Caruthers
Kant
Socrates

how did I do?

Reply 69

PaulyRivs

Original post by the A* guy

Plato
Descartes
Caruthers
Kant
Socrates

how did I do?

You did well, although I have never heard of Caruthers as we haven't done anything on him in R+E. Also, Kant is a Conceptual Schemist, not a Rationalist. You also could have mentioned Leibniz, but a good list nonetheless! :biggrin:

Reply 70

the A* guy

Original post by PaulyRivs

Ok thanks.

Explain (in detail) Kant's theory on conceptual schemes?

Reply 71

PaulyRivs

Original post by the A* guy

Ok thanks.

Explain (in detail) Kant's theory on conceptual schemes?

Oh God, Kant. I hated him. XD

Well, from what I can recall; Kant's Conceptual Schemes theory is an innate theory in which we need to have a conceptual scheme embedded into our minds a priori so that when we gain knowledge a posteriori we can have an understanding of the things we learn and a conceptual scheme of it. Our conceptual schemes are innate and are basically a blank shelf in which ideas can be built upon. The language we speak also effects the concepts we have on the world and can effect our full understanding of the concept of the world.

Any good?

Reply 72

the A* guy

Original post by PaulyRivs

what you wrote is good as it shows you have an understanding.

Sorry about this but I have to go now for up to an hour, (Probs Less), and if you still want to, we can continue this Q and A then.

Reply 73

PaulyRivs

Original post by the A* guy

what you wrote is good as it shows you have an understanding.

Sorry about this but I have to go now for up to an hour, (Probs Less), and if you still want to, we can continue this Q and A then.

Aww, oh well. I'll leave you with this question; Explain, in detail, Hume's fork. Talk soon!

Reply 74

the A* guy

Original post by PaulyRivs

Aww, oh well. I'll leave you with this question; Explain, in detail, Hume's fork. Talk soon!

Hume's form: Hume argues that we have to two types of knowledge, relations between ideas: which covers all a priori knowledge and hume goes on to say that all these A priori idea are analytic; and Matters of fact: This is all knowledge of synthetic propositions and is a posteriori knowledge that we have, in simpler words anything that is not true by definition is a matter of fact. All matters of fact rely on induction, which is never certain and is based on probability. Since relations between ideas are a priori they rely on deduction and so are always true.

How's This? :smile:

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 75

PaulyRivs

Original post by the A* guy

Hume's form: Hume argues that we have to two types of knowledge, relations of ideas: which covers all a priori knowledge and hume goes on to say that all these A priori idea are analytic; and Matters of fact: This is all knowledge of synthetic propositions and is a posteriori knowledge that we have, in simpler words anything that is not true by definition is a matter of fact.

How's This? :smile:

You couldn't have worded it any better! Good job! :biggrin:

Reply 76

the A* guy

Original post by PaulyRivs

You couldn't have worded it any better! Good job! :biggrin:

Explain Plato's theory of the forms, (and if you know it, use the cave analogy to help explain your answer).

Reply 77

PaulyRivs

Original post by the A* guy

Explain Plato's theory of the forms, (and if you know it, use the cave analogy to help explain your answer).

Sorry, I know nothing about "Plato's forms" and I have never heard of the "Cave Analogy". :s-smilie:

That isn't something we have studied in R+E. When it comes to Plato, we've only studied Plato's Meno in regards to Socrates and the Slave Boy... D:

Reply 78

the A* guy

Original post by PaulyRivs

Sorry, I know nothing about "Plato's forms" and I have never heard of the "Cave Analogy". :s-smilie:

That isn't something we have studied in R+E. When it comes to Plato, we've only studied Plato's Meno in regards to Socrates and the Slave Boy... D:

Ok explain that aspect of Plato instead.

P.S. Which Philosophy textbook do you use?

Reply 79

PaulyRivs

Original post by the A* guy

Ok explain that aspect of Plato instead.

P.S. Which Philosophy textbook do you use?

We don't use textbooks normally. We use different coloured folder things. The R+E one is a light blue one with Immanuel Kant on the front of it with Conceptual Schemes in his brain.

As for Plato's Meno; Socrates questions an uneducated slave boy with questions relating to geometry. He questions the boy about the size of a square and the amount of feet in a square and the equal sides of a square, etc. The argument is supposed to support the idea that the boy has innate knowledge of this geometry and knows this without having had any experience of geometry or having no education of it. I personally believe the boy needs no knowledge of geometry, because Socrates basically answers the questions prior to asking the slave boy. The slave boy is basically just reiterating what Socrates has already told him.