Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amalick1029)
    http://philosophicalthoughts4all.blo...xperience.html

    This person basically wrote the essay.
    cheers
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by law123abc)
    Yeah cos its asking to assess you could bring up kants arguments and say how its better than ganilos also
    You're best bet is to just explore what other philosophers said:
    Alvin Plantinga argued that Anselm can respond to Gaunilo by saying their is no intrinsic maximum to wealth and beautiful scenery, God on the other hand is maximally great, nothing greater is possible. Therefore the greatest possible being and the greatest possible island are not compatible.

    Also Anselm argued that you cannot compare God to an island because you are not comparing like with like. He argues than an island is contingent, it has a beginning and an end. An island does not have an eternal existence, unlike God, who Anselm believed to be unique and eternal, a necessary being.

    You could also appeal to Kant, Hume, Russell and Aquinas to support Gaunilo.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Allow it i'm praying for Plato and Onto man
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amalick1029)
    Sorry we need quotes? I've never used a quote like that apart from "evil is the absence of good", "in genesis, 'God saw that it was good'", or "In chapter 2 of proslogion, Anselm says....."

    I think as long as you have a general idea instead you'd be good.
    okay thank you made me feel better now
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amberrl27)
    Allow it i'm praying for Plato and Onto man
    Yeahhhh these or Cosmological/Problem of Evil theodicies.

    Rel + Sci, Teleological, Moral arg and i'm focked.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vexated)
    Yeah, I am riskily basing all my revision off of predictions.

    Assess Gaunilo's response to Anselm [10]

    Successful:

    Unsuccessful:

    Would this be how you'd answer this sort of question, literally just splitting up your points and arguing that it was to an extent successful and unsuccessful?I can really see Gaunilo coming up tbh.
    so am i!!

    im not sure what everyone else is taught, but my teacher told us it's good to like debate part b, like say:

    success, unsuccess, success, unsuccess

    i could be wrong but yaaa
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I'm praying it doesn't, but if cosmo does come up does anyone have any idea as to what kind of question it is likely to be?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charrose4x)
    I'm praying it doesn't, but if cosmo does come up does anyone have any idea as to what kind of question it is likely to be?
    I've seen a prediction for Russell's challenges for the cosmological argument.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charrose4x)
    I'm praying it doesn't, but if cosmo does come up does anyone have any idea as to what kind of question it is likely to be?
    I expect:

    1. a) Explain Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument.
    2. b) To what extent was Hume successful in his critique of the cosmological argument?
    The Cosmological Argument was asked in 2014, but Hume’s challenges were not asked since 2011.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amalick1029)
    How peak would it be if everyone walks in like "Imma bang out Plato and onto" then we get 2 questions on science, Singer's criticisms of the teleo and Explain Aquinas' 3rd way.

    let's not even think about that i don't even wanna look at that stuff
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charrose4x)
    so am i!!

    im not sure what everyone else is taught, but my teacher told us it's good to like debate part b, like say:

    success, unsuccess, success, unsuccess

    i could be wrong but yaaa
    I've always done For/success in one half, then against/unsuccesss in another bit, and if I got time I mention some sideman philosopher in about 3-4 lines, and then conclusion (I agree/disagree because......)

    My teacher said it's not a good idea to give a conclusion with "In my opinion" or "I think that" because the examiner doesn't give 2 shites about what you think. Instead you gotta evaluate your whole part B then tbh just picking which side of argument you like the best
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amalick1029)
    I've never actually done a Part B but in this part A i got 22/25 and looking back at it i don't know how because it was my first essay and reading back it was absolute shite:

    The analogy of the cave is what Plato used to portray his idea of the World of Forms more clearly.

    In it, he tells us to imagine that there are a group of prisoners who have been held in a cave all their lives, and have never left it or had any experience of the outside world. They are all chained facing a wall, so that they can never see the cave’s entrance. At the entrance of the cave, there is a fire, and whenever someone or something passes that fire, it casts a shadow onto the wall the prisoners are facing. The prisoners think that the shadows are reality.

    But one day, a prisoner breaks free and rushes outside the cave. He sees the fire,and people, animals and other things. Here, he has discovered the real world and for the first time realizes that it is so much more than the cave, the shadows and everything else seen previously.

    This man is so overwhelmed by this new reality that he has found that he goes back into the cave, to tell the other prisoners what they are missing out on.However, the rest of the prisoners do not believe him, and in fact become angry at the man, because they believe that the shadows are reality.

    The outside world is a depiction of Plato’s world of forms. He believed that the World of Forms was the true reality that we will never accept until we see it for ourselves. The cave represents the physical world in which we live. This“cave” that we live in makes us somewhat ignorant to change, and until we become more accepting of the world of forms, we are not fully able to reason.

    The shadows represent objects in the physical world we live in. These objects are a mere illusion of reality, because they are ever-changing, unlike the constant world of forms. Society, i.e.- the prisoners, try to understand these objects,the shadows, as the true reality, because we have not even tried to find the truth, and refuse to reason and even think that there is a reality past the physical world we are in.

    The freed man illustrates a philosopher, who is the only one willing to look past this so-called reality and realize that there is a world of forms, which is the only real truth there is. Plato is basically trying to say that the ones with true knowledge are the only ones who see past the mundane “shadows”.

    Plato believed that our world was only based on a world of forms, and most people were reluctant to believe that because they refused to reason and consider that there was something higher than what they saw every day. Those who were exposed to the World of Forms, i.e. - the prisoners after they were told by the free man what was out there, would become very angry and rather than accept it, they would conform to the physical world. The shadows in the cave are the things that disillusion us, and so we would much rather stay imprisoned than to have something change our lifelong beliefs.


    Okay I'm confused my teacher gave us this question in our mock and I wrote all about the cave and it was wrong. She said to breifly mention it, but mainly talk about the contrast of reality and the spiritual world, hierarchy of forms, qualities of ideals and copies etc. If you write this it will be irrelevant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Reeaaaaaaaally hoping for some easy topics, I might cry if the Ontological Argument and The Problem of Evil come up.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by louez)
    Reeaaaaaaaally hoping for some easy topics, I might cry if the Ontological Argument and The Problem of Evil come up.
    ah no i hope they come up
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    so what do you all think is coming up in the exam tomorrow morning because right now i am so lost on what to revise
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vexated)
    Yeah, I am riskily basing all my revision off of predictions.

    Assess Gaunilo's response to Anselm [10]

    Successful:

    Unsuccessful:

    Would this be how you'd answer this sort of question, literally just splitting up your points and arguing that it was to an extent successful and unsuccessful?I can really see Gaunilo coming up tbh.
    I'd set it out like this and just remember to keep referring to the question and not make it go on too much of a tangent.

    Begin with a breif bit on Anslem.
    Gaulino's criticism.
    Point out the flaws in Gaunilos criticism.
    Pose Anslems reply, does it deal with Gaunilo?
    Criticise Anslem using Kant, Hume, Schopenhauer etc.
    Say why their criticisms are better or worse than Gaunilo's.
    Maybe do a bit on Malcom who tried to get around Kants criticisms.
    Then conclude that Gaulino was good or bad based on what you've said.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    anybody doing new testament and philosophy??
    both exams tomorrow and I'm dying
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Do we need to know about the soul for plato?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by law123abc)
    Do we need to know about the soul for plato?
    we weren't taught it because apparently is not on the spec, hope I'm right haha
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do we need to know about John Hick's irenaean theodicy, or is it just about him and the epistemic distance?
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.

  • 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.