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

    6
    ReputationRep:
    the real question is WHERE WAS PLATO?????? I was so ready

    i did ontological and the theodicy question where i just waffled for 3 pages
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hayjayk89)
    What did you guys write for irenaeus
    I first spoke about theodicies (theos and dikaios, justifying God in face of evil), then outlined what natural and moral evil definitions are and also the inconsistent triad (Hume/Epicurus developed this). Then spoke about Genesis 1.26 'made in image of God then likeness', that is to endure such 'evil' helps development. Added how it is a thory of soul-making bringing close relationship to God, also how Adam and Eve seen as being immature to Irenaeus in Eden. Swinburne, imperfect world allows moral growth (virtue) and theory of recapitulation bringing back closer relationship to God. Hick's modern Irenaean theodicy being focused on soul-making; epistemic distance so humans have free-will to make choices, Swinburne evil comes about from misuse of free-will. (damn forgot to include 'eschatological aspect') but he believed in Universal salvation. Linked back to Irenaeus and then the question to reference the types of evil. I was pretty much spelling Irenaeus throughout the question as 'Iraneus' the whole way through which I've done all year and lost marks so had to quickly go back and correct the spelling lol, did anyone else do that?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jooosmooon)
    What about question 3.b anyone ? The ireneaus discuss one
    i talked about kant a lot and descartes reply

    i said kant believed existence is not a predicate, its an analytical statement and philosophers should aim to make the analytical synthetic, i also said we could have definitions of fairies and goblins doesn't mean the exist in reality and the thing about santa lmao, then i said descartes would respond with saying they're contingent to god who's the only necessary being,

    I'm probably wrong but i always just crash in exams
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    pretty sure you would gain marks as long as you said about the free will defence?

    (Original post by nihil_nimis)
    Alright good I think I did that, thank you
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charrose4x)
    i talked about kant a lot and descartes reply

    i said kant believed existence is not a predicate, its an analytical statement and philosophers should aim to make the analytical synthetic, i also said we could have definitions of fairies and goblins doesn't mean the exist in reality and the thing about santa lmao, then i said descartes would respond with saying they're contingent to god who's the only necessary being,

    I'm probably wrong but i always just crash in exams
    * Did you mean 1.b) (ontological argument)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i don't think you should have mentioned anyone else but anselm or gaunilo as the others are a different argument
    i think i realised i spelt gaunilo wrong the whole was through though


    (Original post by Oliviawicks23)
    Loved that exam was so good! Dont think i wrote enough for anselm's argument though- i wrote about him and gaunilo, i didnt even mention descartes or kant:/
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maz A)
    * Did you mean 1.b) (ontological argument)
    ohh yeah haha didn't read that properly, sums up me reading exam questions really
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charrose4x)
    ohh yeah haha didn't read that properly, sums up me reading exam questions really
    lol no worries XD
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    did anyone else talk about hume in 3b because i did and not sure if its right now lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Who's ready for ethics then im going by the predicitions again proberly😂
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oliviawicks23)
    Who's ready for ethics then im going by the predicitions again proberly😂
    im not going by predictions this time, was very risky and selectivefor philosophy revision and now need to make sure I'm prepared for ethics but i have 5 exams before ethics
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 123x)
    pretty sure you would gain marks as long as you said about the free will defence?
    I kind of forgot about it but then remembered so only wrote like a sentence on it and talked about it in my conclusion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charrose4x)
    im not going by predictions this time, was very risky and selectivefor philosophy revision and now need to make sure I'm prepared for ethics but i have 5 exams before ethics
    I completely agree, i only have 2 exams until ethics so going to try and cram in as much as i can!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    what have you and your teachers predicted for ethics ?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nihil_nimis)
    what have you and your teachers predicted for ethics ?
    natural law, mill and singers utilitarianism, kant applied to war and a question on absolutism
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helzbay)
    For part b, you talk about Gaunilo and other criticisms am i wrong thats what i did
    no thats right! the examiner can actually mark you down for putting other philosophers in part a if you evaluate them and criticise them against one another. And if people said that Gaunilo inspired Anselm's second argument then thats wrong too because Anselm wrote before Gaunilo, even his second argument.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Nope, you're more likely to gain marks for talking about hick!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bethrosina)
    no thats right! the examiner can actually mark you down for putting other philosophers in part a if you evaluate them and criticise them against one another. And if people said that Gaunilo inspired Anselm's second argument then thats wrong too because Anselm wrote before Gaunilo, even his second argument.
    No anselms second argument was actually in response to gaunilos analogy of the island.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Just realised I wrote st thomas anselm in my answer when thats not even his name.. Will i get marked down for this if it happend once?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charrose4x)
    did anyone else talk about hume in 3b because i did and not sure if its right now lol
    I did
 
 
 
  • 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.