Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

OCR A-Level religious studies - Philosophy (4th June 2019) predictions?

Scroll to see replies

How would you structure an essay thats asking about whether the concept of ‘soul’ is best understood metaphorically or as a reality??

The metaphorical view is dawkins' view, You could then assess materialism by extension and bring in Plato and/or Descartes and maybe ryle.

Reply 181

hira.naz

reality = dualits - plato, descartes also arisotle
metaphorically = technically you could argue the materalists give a metaphorical view like dawkins because he believes that we will eventually be able to find out about the soul but it isnt seperate from the body (does this mean its a metaphorical concept?), but other arguments for this would state that this is a better approach because there are disputes about where the soul is and where it goes after death. If we look at the soul in a metaphorical sense it technically doesn't exist so theres no argument about where it is.
So now that you know what both the arguments are you would just pick which one you find more convincing, personally I would say that its better understood as a reality just because I find it easier to argue that way and then you have the regular dualist critiques and make sure you keep referring to why this is better than a metaphor - because understanding as a metaphor can be subjective, it's easier to have a concrete approach that the soul is a reality, I would also gives arguments of why a materialist approach for saying its a metaphor is wrong - first of all dawkins idea of what a soul is sounds more religious anyway, and it is argued to be the great mystery of science, there is no evidence for it not being a reality so maybe it is (or something like that, thats just my opinion)
thats how I would approach the question, hope that helped a little bit

Original post by emmaclark12

How would you structure an essay thats asking about whether the concept of ‘soul’ is best understood metaphorically or as a reality??

Reply 182

Aliciabh

im doing OCR philosophy tomorrow and im so scared, i feel like i know the topics but then i go in and just seeing a sheet of 4 quetions is going to make me feel sick

Reply 183

ghakney12

Aristotle is a property dualist - he believes in one kind of substance that is made up of different parts

Reply 184

Joe312

Original post by ghakney12

Aristotle is a property dualist - he believes in one kind of substance that is made up of different parts

Where did you hear that? I think its more right to describe Aristotle as a materialist who has a pretty ancient conception of the material as containing form and purpose. The soul is the 'form' of the body.

Reply 185

Izzy3253

Literally same ://

Original post by Aliciabh

im doing OCR philosophy tomorrow and im so scared, i feel like i know the topics but then i go in and just seeing a sheet of 4 quetions is going to make me feel sick

Reply 186

Zoe_H

Original post by Izzy3253

Literally same ://

same, i feel like i know it but im so scared the questions are going to be horrible

Reply 187

dx31

whats everyone doing for revision?

Reply 188

gabicgai

Original post by dx31

whats everyone doing for revision?

at this point, just flashcards. better to do more chill studying now because what you know you know

Reply 189

ghakney12

Original post by Joe312

My teacher did a revision session on it today - I think they are pretty much the same thing to be honest so either one would be fine. Property dualism is talking about one substance being matter, which links to materalism. Property dualism just goes on to say that there is two properties of this matter - physical and mental. Aristotle claims this as he believes that the essence or 'soul' of the body doesn't carry on after death, hence it being a material concept, and the two are linked and inseparable (like having different parts of one thing). Does this make sense?

Reply 190

crazydog65

I think non-cognitive religious language is going to come ip

Reply 191

shezza4000

Anyone else think arguments based on reason will come up? like ontological and stuff?? Wasn't on last year A2 or this year AS

Reply 192

dx31

Yeahh i think it will

Original post by shezza4000

Anyone else think arguments based on reason will come up? like ontological and stuff?? Wasn't on last year A2 or this year AS

Reply 193

dx31

so thats falsification / verification

Original post by crazydog65

I think non-cognitive religious language is going to come ip

Reply 194

dx31

Logical positivism is just verification right?

Reply 195

itslibby

No, Ayer and Flew take a cognitive approach to religious language

Original post by dx31

so thats falsification / verification

Reply 196

dx31

oh shi yeah sorry,

how would you structure a cognitive vs non cognitive

Original post by itslibby

No, Ayer and Flew take a cognitive approach to religious language

Reply 197

HectorHemingway

Original post by dx31

oh shi yeah sorry,

how would you structure a cognitive vs non cognitive

I'd do COGNITIVE (AYER/FLEW)

VS

NON COGNITIVE (Blicks/Language games).

You could bring in symbols/via negativa/positiva as reference but wouldn't focus on it too much. Much more to be said if you focus on the 20th Century Debate.

Reply 198

gabicgai

Original post by HectorHemingway

aren't ayer and flew of the opinion that religious language is non cognitive??? cognitive = factual and makes an assertion. they do not believe RL does this.