AQA Philosophy examWatch
Define the three types of knowledge 3 marks - I just put knowing that, knowing of and knowing how with examples for each.
Master argument 5 marks - the tree example with the three main premises, I tried to fully explain it as much as possible so that I could actually fill a decent amount of the lines they gave us lol
Cogito 5 marks - again only 3 premises so I also went on about what a priori reason is and why Descartes comes to this conclusion. Someone in my class said they mentioned intuition and deduction which I didn’t think to do
Argument that Indirect realism leads to scepticism and the reply from the involuntary nature of our senses 12 marks - I just explained these as best as I could because I understand them but didn’t revise them word perfectly. Not convinced I wrote enough for 12 marks though?
Do we have innate knowledge 25 marks - I know I fucked up on this a little bit because I didn’t revise innatism and empiricism well enough.
I just outlined innatism with the marble block thing and argued for it with Plato’s slave boy, then used Leibniz’s children and idiots argument to attack it, then replied by saying they do have innate knowledge just can’t express it. Then I literally couldn’t remember anything else so I just said that while innatism seems strong it is outdated and not really in line with modern neuroscientific understanding (big stretch I know), so a theory with more explanatory power may be sought. I used this to go onto empiricism, outlined tabula rasa, criticised it by saying it implies we can’t know anything that we haven’t literally seen, then replied with simple and complex ideas, and finally concluded that empiricism wins. Definitely not my best essay at all, I’m hoping it could scrape half marks lol.
Then for the other side- moral anti realism 3 marker, just said it thinks moral properties do not correspond to anything real, gave example of emotivism
Kant acting out of duty v. In accordance with duty - I illustrated with shopkeeper example
Hume ethical judgements are not beliefs - I’m so smug about this one because I looked at it in the revision guide yesterday lol and our teacher hadn’t actually taught us it. It’s that the humean theory of motivation says that beliefs/facts don’t motivate us because they’re either relations of ideas or matter of fact and those can’t provide motivation for action. Morals do motivate, eg killing is wrong motivates us to not kill(internalism ). Therefore morals can’t be beliefs so realism is wrong.
Aristotle simulated killing 12 marks - this was a bit difficult because Aristotle is the hardest one to apply and simulated killing is the hardest one to be applied to imo, but I just used habituation - it won’t contribute to the development of a virtuous character, doctrine of the mean - it is often addictive so is a vice of excess, function argument - we should be guided by reason not play pointless games etc, not sure where I was going with that - and then I said all of this means the individual won’t reach eudaimonia which is the final end and flourishing into a good life so therefore simulated killing is wrong.
Utilitarianism essay - I was legit so happy when I turned the page and saw this. My class were convinced it was going to be Kant but utilitarianism is even better.
I outlined act and its key claims and worded them as advantages, criticised saying it’s difficult to calculate, replied with hedonistic calculus, evaluated saying the statement is correct. Then said wait what about individual liberty and rights/tyranny of majority - child killer example, then replied saying we should move to rule because this solves it. Evaluated saying the statement is right but for rule utilitarianism. Then brought in experience machine, saying principle of utility is actually wrong so hedonistic utilitarianism is wrong - preference is right. So concluded that the statement was wrong.
All in all I’m really happy considering I didn’t revise nearly as much as I could have done. It could have gone a lot lot worse if aqa had decided to be twats but luckily they didn’t. Bit worried about my epistemology essay and the strength of some of my answers on that side, but all in all it went great and for once I had no timing issues 😂😂
Interested to see if anyone put anything wildly different to me or if anyone wants to point out something I got wrong 😂