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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatGuyJosh)
    No worries. And do you think that we could get a question just on Gaunilo's criticisms?

    For example: Explain Gaunilo's objections to Anselm's ontological argument. (25)
    Hmmmm, I don't see why not but there isn't much to write about. So they'd probably ask a question like: Explain the ontological argument and Gaunilo's objections to it. A question like this wouldn't seem that bad.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TarotOfMagic)
    Hmmmm, I don't see why not but there isn't much to write about. So they'd probably ask a question like: Explain the ontological argument and Gaunilo's objections to it. A question like this wouldn't seem that bad.
    If it were just to explain Gaunilo's objections then you would have to expelling the ontological argument anyway. I checked a mark scheme for a question on explaining Hume's criticism of the cosmological argument, and within the mark scheme it showed that the answer must have included an explanation of the Aquinas' argument.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatGuyJosh)
    If it were just to explain Gaunilo's objections then you would have to expelling the ontological argument anyway. I checked a mark scheme for a question on explaining Hume's criticism of the cosmological argument, and within the mark scheme it showed that the answer must have included an explanation of the Aquinas' argument.
    Oh, perfect then
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    think that Plato's forms, anselm's ontological argument, Explaining hume's criticisms of the cosmological argument and potentially one of the theodicies might come up
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rtupiri)
    think that Plato's forms, anselm's ontological argument, Explaining hume's criticisms of the cosmological argument and potentially one of the theodicies might come up
    That would be a nice selection to choose from. However, isn't it unlikely to get two questions on the existence of God. Then again, wold you say that there is a big difference between explaining an argument for the existence of God; and explaining the criticism towards a specific argument.

    If there is a question on explaining the criticisms towards an argument, do you have to also explain the actual argument in depth?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatGuyJosh)
    That would be a nice selection to choose from. However, isn't it unlikely to get two questions on the existence of God. Then again, wold you say that there is a big difference between explaining an argument for the existence of God; and explaining the criticism towards a specific argument.

    If there is a question on explaining the criticisms towards an argument, do you have to also explain the actual argument in depth?
    (Original post by rtupiri)
    think that Plato's forms, anselm's ontological argument, Explaining hume's criticisms of the cosmological argument and potentially one of the theodicies might come up
    It would be amazing if these topics came up. The exam would be soooooo calm.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TarotOfMagic)
    It would be amazing if these topics came up. The exam would be soooooo calm.
    Haha, it would indeed.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TarotOfMagic)
    Ikr! I've done like 0 revision for ethics this entire year. What grade are you hoping to get in RS overall?
    I'd really like an A as I've even working at an A in philosophy all year but I've been getting C's in ethics so I'm not sure what about you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatGuyJosh)
    That would be a nice selection to choose from. However, isn't it unlikely to get two questions on the existence of God. Then again, wold you say that there is a big difference between explaining an argument for the existence of God; and explaining the criticism towards a specific argument.

    If there is a question on explaining the criticisms towards an argument, do you have to also explain the actual argument in depth?
    No you would just have to briefly explain what the argument is about and then go in to talking about the criticisms with the cosmological it would either be Hume or Mill
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatGuyJosh)
    Thank you, I know I never mentioned it but I understand this objection thoroughly. To be honest - i don't really understand how his objection about the 'fool' spreading gossip relates to the argument. Do you now how it applies to it?
    In Anselm's version of the Ontological Argument, he states that he agrees that "The fool in his heart says there is no God" (Psalms) and he comes up with an ontological argument as a way of proving this statement true. Therefore, Gaunilo's criticism is "on behalf of the fool" as he is defending the people who Anselm believe to be "fools" (even though Gaunilo did in fact believe in God, he just didn't agree with Anselm's logic).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rtupiri)
    No you would just have to briefly explain what the argument is about and then go in to talking about the criticisms with the cosmological it would either be Hume or Mill
    Okay, thank you. So we really need to be aware of the criticisms then.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meeya)
    In Anselm's version of the Ontological Argument, he states that he agrees that "The fool in his heart says there is no God" (Psalms) and he comes up with an ontological argument as a way of proving this statement true. Therefore, Gaunilo's criticism is "on behalf of the fool" as he is defending the people who Anselm believe to be "fools" (even though Gaunilo did in fact believe in God, he just didn't agree with Anselm's logic).
    Yes, I know about Gaunilo being a Benedictine monk and so that is a good evaluative point for a Part B. I also know that his argument is On behalf of the fool; I just struggle to understand how the fool discussing 'gossip' which is 'inaccurate' can be used as an objection to Anselm's argument.

    Haha, I'm sorry. It probably is really obvious but I just don't get it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatGuyJosh)
    Okay, thank you. So we really need to be aware of the criticisms then.
    yes basically
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by existential)
    I'd really like an A as I've even working at an A in philosophy all year but I've been getting C's in ethics so I'm not sure what about you?
    I'll be happy with a B as this is my fourth subject that I'll drop after this year. If this course didn't include ethics then I might of been able to get an A
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone explain to me how to write a 25 mark question on Augustine's theodicy pure struggling
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rtupiri)
    Can someone explain to me how to write a 25 mark question on Augustine's theodicy pure struggling
    So basically I would write the essay like this:
    Introduction: Give some context about Augustine eg he was a christian philosopher (354-430CE) ect then outline what Augustine said: "either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not: if he cannot then is is not omnipotent; if he will not then he is not omnibenevolent" (other wise known as the inconsistent triad) so this led to Augustine developing his soul deciding theodicy.
    Middle:-
    P1: Peoples response to evil decides their destiny.
    P2: God created everything
    P3: Evil is not a substance of God
    P4: Evil is a privation of Good
    P5: so evil is is not a product of God
    Therefore: there is no problem
    You can also talk about original sin and the fall from grace (genesis 2) and how it relates to Augustinian theodicy. Also don't forget to mention how Augustine believed we were "seminaly present in the loins of Adam" so evil= necessary goodness and an opportunity to absolve us of our sins
    Conclusion: summarise and address the question again
    Hope this helps. Good luck.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TeaAndTextbooks)
    So basically I would write the essay like this:
    Introduction: Give some context about Augustine eg he was a christian philosopher (354-430CE) ect then outline what Augustine said: "either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not: if he cannot then is is not omnipotent; if he will not then he is not omnibenevolent" (other wise known as the inconsistent triad) so this led to Augustine developing his soul deciding theodicy.
    Middle:-
    P1: Peoples response to evil decides their destiny.
    P2: God created everything
    P3: Evil is not a substance of God
    P4: Evil is a privation of Good
    P5: so evil is is not a product of God
    Therefore: there is no problem
    You can also talk about original sin and the fall from grace (genesis 2) and how it relates to Augustinian theodicy
    Conclusion: summarise and address the question again
    Hope this helps. Good luck

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The Fall is in Genesis 3 not Genesis 2
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Explain Kant's challenges to the ontological argument (25)
    -easiest thing ever - just the analytic and synthetic statements
    Also what's his other name - the one with the perfect Island - super easy too

    Explain Plato's theory of the forms (25)
    -basically you explain the cave and how it links to unchanging and eternal world of forms - easiest thing ever

    Explain Kant's moral argument (25)
    -simple , straightforward, basically it's half of his theory for ethics put into a philosophical argument


    If these came up
    ❤️😊😊😊😊😊




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nizmo786)
    The Fall is in Genesis 3 not Genesis 2
    Yep your right, thank you.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone explain Kants objections to the ontological argument please because I don't really understand them. Thanks

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.