rs philosophy Watch

fdom5
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
does anyone have the judaeo christian essays
0
reply
redms
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
is this for AS or A2, and do you mean completed essays or past papers? If its for AS, I personallly think its one to avoid, out of all the topics on the spec, Plato and Judeo-Christian are probably the most harshly marked.
0
reply
locket0511
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
I find it really difficult this revise and find an effective way to take in all the information in order to apply it to exam questions to gain marks. This is especially the case in philosophy more than ethics. I am studying OCR AS.
Does anybody have any tips on how to revise or can share how they do it themselves any advice would be much appreciated.
Thanks
0
reply
redms
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by locket0511)
I find it really difficult this revise and find an effective way to take in all the information in order to apply it to exam questions to gain marks. This is especially the case in philosophy more than ethics. I am studying OCR AS.
Does anybody have any tips on how to revise or can share how they do it themselves any advice would be much appreciated.
Thanks
I'm A2 RS, so I did both philosophy and ethics last year. For my exams I just learnt the material off by heart. I made notes on the AO1 for each approach/theory and then made notes on the AO2 for each, and then when it came to the essay, I didnt waste time planning, I knew what needed to go into the essay, so I just went straight in with it. However, this does depend on the person themselves. if you don't feel like your essay structure is up to scratch then you need to practise some past papers, which are all available online. I think with me, my teachers set us essays regularly, so we got into the swing of things pretty fast, but i know some other classes didn't, so just make sure your essay style is acceptable, learn the material off by heart, and you'll be absolutely fine (this works for me, as i ended up doing alright last year, but it might be subjective, as most revision usually is, but give it a shot!)
1
reply
locket0511
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by redms)
I'm A2 RS, so I did both philosophy and ethics last year. For my exams I just learnt the material off by heart. I made notes on the AO1 for each approach/theory and then made notes on the AO2 for each, and then when it came to the essay, I didnt waste time planning, I knew what needed to go into the essay, so I just went straight in with it. However, this does depend on the person themselves. if you don't feel like your essay structure is up to scratch then you need to practise some past papers, which are all available online. I think with me, my teachers set us essays regularly, so we got into the swing of things pretty fast, but i know some other classes didn't, so just make sure your essay style is acceptable, learn the material off by heart, and you'll be absolutely fine (this works for me, as i ended up doing alright last year, but it might be subjective, as most revision usually is, but give it a shot!)
Thank you so much!! I'm interested in what other people do in order to take it all in because there is a lot to learn! and I have started learning it, i'm just not an essay person I guess.
0
reply
redms
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by locket0511)
Thank you so much!! I'm interested in what other people do in order to take it all in because there is a lot to learn! and I have started learning it, i'm just not an essay person I guess.
You'll be fine honest! Like I am not an essay person at all, my other two subjects are biology and chemistry, which obviously are nothing like RS. and I hate essays so much, they take so long, but all I did was learn the stuff off by heart and I ended up with 93 in philosophy and 98 in ethics so dont worry, you'll be okay
0
reply
locket0511
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by redms)
You'll be fine honest! Like I am not an essay person at all, my other two subjects are biology and chemistry, which obviously are nothing like RS. and I hate essays so much, they take so long, but all I did was learn the stuff off by heart and I ended up with 93 in philosophy and 98 in ethics so dont worry, you'll be okay
I'm struggling a little bit with the concept of analytic deductive statements.... Within the Ontological Argument does Anselm make a analytic deductive with his argument:-God is the greatest thing that can be thought of.-God may exist in the mind or reality as well.-Something which exists in reality and in the mind is greater than something which exists in the mind alone.-So if there is no one greater than God, God must exist in reality as well as in thoughtOr is this a synthetic or inductive argument? I'm confused about what type this is^ or why..... could you help me out? Thank you!
0
reply
redms
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by locket0511)
I'm struggling a little bit with the concept of analytic deductive statements.... Within the Ontological Argument does Anselm make a analytic deductive with his argument:-God is the greatest thing that can be thought of.-God may exist in the mind or reality as well.-Something which exists in reality and in the mind is greater than something which exists in the mind alone.-So if there is no one greater than God, God must exist in reality as well as in thoughtOr is this a synthetic or inductive argument? I'm confused about what type this is^ or why..... could you help me out? Thank you!
right, so, the argument is an analytic, deductive, apriori argument.

his first argument is as follows:
• God is called that than which nothing greater can be conceived
• when we hear this description, we comparehend what is meant by it
• thus, this being can be said to exist within our minds (in intellectu)
• if this being exists only in our minds as an idea and not in the real world (in re) then it is not God as a greater being than that which can be conceived
• a being which exists in the mind and in reality is greater than one which exists in our minds alone
• this, by definition, this being must exist in the real world also
• therefore, God exists


anselm basically treats existence as a predicate (a characteristic which something possesses)

anslem is saying that the word "God" is an analytic word - it contains within its own meaning which cannot be denied - that God exists

he uses "reductio ad absurdium" to show that God exists - r.a.a. Aims to show the truth of something by reducing to absurdity the opposite of what is being proven, so basically he uses r.a.a to prove that God cannot NOT exist (double negative)

so the argument is deductive not inductive, but an AO2 point for this is that the argument is only feasible if you accept the premis (reasoning)

it is also apriori, based on logic, not aposteriori (based on experience of reality)

hope this answers your question
feel free to ask for more help
0
reply
locket0511
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by redms)
right, so, the argument is an analytic, deductive, apriori argument.

his first argument is as follows:
• God is called that than which nothing greater can be conceived
• when we hear this description, we comparehend what is meant by it
• thus, this being can be said to exist within our minds (in intellectu)
• if this being exists only in our minds as an idea and not in the real world (in re) then it is not God as a greater being than that which can be conceived
• a being which exists in the mind and in reality is greater than one which exists in our minds alone
• this, by definition, this being must exist in the real world also
• therefore, God exists


anselm basically treats existence as a predicate (a characteristic which something possesses)

anslem is saying that the word "God" is an analytic word - it contains within its own meaning which cannot be denied - that God exists

he uses "reductio ad absurdium" to show that God exists - r.a.a. Aims to show the truth of something by reducing to absurdity the opposite of what is being proven, so basically he uses r.a.a to prove that God cannot NOT exist (double negative)

so the argument is deductive not inductive, but an AO2 point for this is that the argument is only feasible if you accept the premis (reasoning)

it is also apriori, based on logic, not aposteriori (based on experience of reality)

hope this answers your question
feel free to ask for more help
this has been helpful thank you within the ontological argument deductive and analytic go together.... is there ever a case where synthetic and inductive go together?
0
reply
redms
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by locket0511)
this has been helpful thank you within the ontological argument deductive and analytic go together.... is there ever a case where synthetic and inductive go together?
Yeah, because its apriori, so it must be based on logic, therefore analytic and deductive.

As for the synthetic and inductive question, I can't think of any that come to mind straight away, I'll have to go back and check my notes from last year, but I imagine there will be, because synthetic statements are based on experience, and not on logic, so basically, you cannot reason the definition of synthetic statements without any experience.

For example,

Harry is tall - you cannot know this by the statement in itself, it doesn't define itself, you have to have experience it (see that Harry is tall) to know it is true.


Also, obviously inductive statements are ones which can't be derived from logic, they must be experienced, so they match pretty well with synthetic statements.
Just think about it this way, if the statement is synthetic (based on experience), the argument cannot be deductive (based on logic), because you cannot logically conclude something from an "experience" statement
0
reply
redms
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by locket0511)
this has been helpful thank you within the ontological argument deductive and analytic go together.... is there ever a case where synthetic and inductive go together?
Just thought of an example - the cosmological argument

Everything in the universe has a cause.
The universe itself must have a cause.
To avoid infinite regress of causes there must be an uncaused cause.
This uncaused cause is God.

This is inductive and synthetic, because, the conclusion does not follow logically from the premis, but it supports them.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • University of Birmingham
    Postgraduate Open Day Postgraduate
    Wed, 20 Mar '19
  • King's College London
    Postgraduate Taught Courses - Arts & Sciences - Strand Campus Postgraduate
    Wed, 20 Mar '19
  • University of East Anglia
    All Departments Open 13:00-17:00. Find out more about our diverse range of subject areas and career progression in the Arts & Humanities, Social Sciences, Medicine & Health Sciences, and the Sciences. Postgraduate
    Wed, 20 Mar '19

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (23)
11.86%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (16)
8.25%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (43)
22.16%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (28)
14.43%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (25)
12.89%
How can I be the best version of myself? (59)
30.41%

Watched Threads

View All