Philosophy Exam Discussion 2016Exam Date: Wednesday 2 November, 3:00PM - 5:00PM
Hi guys,
I know we're a bit scarce around here (and across Victoria in general) but hopefully with this thread we might see some students flock here to discuss any pre or post-exam concerns. The exam is in just under 2 weeks so feel free to post any questions, concerns, or anticipations regarding the Philosophy exam.
Here are some questions to get started:
Aiming for a particular score?
What topics are you hoping to see in Section C?
Favourite philosopher?
Most dreaded philosopher?
Good luck, everyone! :)
Tomorrow marks 1 week until the exam! How is everyone feeling? Prepared, I hope ;D
Also, to answer my own questions: ::)
Aiming for a particular score? Hoping for a 40+, 45+ would be amazing.
What topics are you hoping to see in Section C? Technology, ha! Anyone noticed that in past exams there has been at least one technology-related question? Might be a topic worth practising and making sure you have some external/real-life sources to draw on. ;)
Favourite philosopher? Nietzsche is fascinating but I enjoyed all of them really.
Most dreaded philosopher? Hume, I think! Had a question on him about passion, imagination, and thought, and I'm struggling to get my head around it, haha.
Interesting to see Locke is a bit of a 'dreaded' philosopher. What don't you guys like about him?
Forgot to ask earlier but how are you guys preparing for the exam? Obviously writing practise essays for Section C is helpful but what about A and B? I've already completed the questions from previous exams and most of the ones my teacher gave us so I'm just going over notes and flashcards at the moment :P I feel like I should be do something else though...
Forgot to ask earlier but how are you guys preparing for the exam? Obviously writing practise essays for Section C is helpful but what about A and B? I've already completed the questions from previous exams and most of the ones my teacher gave us so I'm just going over notes and flashcards at the moment :P I feel like I should be do something else though...
Yeah I'm basically going through my notes and evaluations. Making up my own questions because they can be pretty predictable.
and
Aiming for a particular score? Plsss 40+ but I really want a 45+
What topics are you hoping to see in Section C? Technology
Favourite philosopher? my boiii HUME
Most dreaded philosopher? none of them tbh maybe Nietzsche, plato
Yeah I'm basically going through my notes and evaluations. Making up my own questions because they can be pretty predictable.
and
Aiming for a particular score? Plsss 40+ but I really want a 45+
What topics are you hoping to see in Section C? Technology
Favourite philosopher? my boiii HUME
Most dreaded philosopher? none of them tbh maybe Nietzsche, plato
Have you guys already compared each philosopher with each other in each AOS?
Also, just wondering, what do you not like about Nietzsche?
Also! For Plato's Phaedo, according to the text list, the only arguments we have to know are the affinity argument (and the attunement objection, with Socrates response) and the Form of Life argument. Am I correct? I feel like we learn so much extra info, like the argument from opposites, and the recollection argument.
Yeah. Our SACs usually required us to compare philosophers. What about you? :)
I've attempted to compare them, but I'm a bit worried for the exam because I'm scared they're going to ask, "Hey whats (so and so's) stance on some random argument by someone else". Do you feel me?Totally! So long as you've got a good idea of what the philosopher's and their texts are about, I'm sure you'll be fine. Make a mental note of the philosopher's that are quite similar or oppose each other quite strongly- these are the one's you'll likely be asked to compare I think.
Does anyone know how to go about answering this question?This is a hard one! Had to do a bit of research.
Hume urges us to differentiate between thought, imagination, and passion in regards to personal identity. Briefly outline what he means by this. Do you think he is right to suggest this? Justify your response.
Does this tie in with the three relations of ideas, or is it something else? I think imagination refers to his idea that we predict the future based on our past experiences, and thus we are imagining the world, but I'm not sure. And I can't figure out what he said about thought and passion.
Now that I've reread this, I think this is wrong. Rather, passions aid in causality, because we are care about our past and future feelings (ie. passions).
passions = aids in our idea causality in time, as we feel for our past and present events
This is a hard one! Had to do a bit of research.
I assume the question is referring to this part of the text:
"What then gives us so great a propension to ascribe an identity to these successive perceptions, and to suppose ourselves possessed of an invariable and uninterrupted existence through the whole course of our lives? In order to answer this question, we must distinguish betwixt personal identity, as it regards our thought or imagination, and as it regards our passions or the concern we take in ourselves."
Ok so following this, he talks about how thought and imagination confounds identity with diversity. Upon the act of the imagination, we view them in the same way, and "The passage of the thought from the object before the change to the object after it, is so smooth and easy, that we scarce perceive the transition, and are apt to imagine, that it is nothing but a continued survey of the same object." So thoughts are similar and occur in a smooth succession (contiguity), further giving us this false view of identity.
The only further mention of passion I found was way later, when he states;
"Whatever changes he endures, his several parts are still connected by the relation of causation. And in this view our identity with regard to the passions serves to corroborate that with regard to the imagination, by the making our distant perceptions influence each other, and by giving us a present concern for our past or future pains or pleasures."
So passions aid in our idea of identity as linked by causality, as we have "concern for our past or future pains or pleasures."
What I took from it:
Thoughts = contiguity
imagination= (falsely) attributes sameness to diversity
passions = aids in our idea causality in time, as we feel for our past and present events
Haven't really thought about how to evaluate though. Any thoughts? Have I misinterpreted some parts of the text?
Guys do we still have to know about Socrates' distinction between a knack and expertise?Yes! Anything in the sections that VCAA specifies are for study can be examined :)
Just asking coffee; where did you happen to see that exam question? I've only got the vcaa exams, and the exams my teacher has written.My teacher put together an exam preparation booklet with old VCAA questions and some of her own; my guess is it was her own question :)
Thanks, plants! That's pretty much what I had except for the passions- I'll make sure to put that in my notes :)
Yes! Anything in the sections that VCAA specifies are for study can be examined :)
Wait.. where's the bit about knacks and what not????? I've only seen this in past questions and assumed it was part of the old study design?
Also, I'll be splitting 30,30,an hour and in order
Wait.. where's the bit about knacks and what not????? I've only seen this in past questions and assumed it was part of the old study design?Pretty sure it's from section 499D-500C. Socrates argues that pleasures are those whose long-term effects are good. Since the good life then becomes a matter of foresight and not immediate feeling response, it requires expertise. Breakdown of the differences:
Also, I'll be splitting 30,30,an hour and in order
Pretty sure it's from section 499D-500C. Socrates argues that pleasures are those whose long-term effects are good. Since the good life then becomes a matter of foresight and not immediate feeling response, it requires expertise. Breakdown of the differences:
Knack (i.e. cookery)
- Aims for pleasure
- Irrational process - It does not consider the nature of pleasure it is pursuing or why it occurs
- Relies on a remembered routine which has become ingrained by habituation and past experience.
Expertise (i.e. medicine)
- Aims for the good
- Considers the nature of the object it looks after as well as the reason for its action, therefore being able to explain its results.
This illustrates Socrates' view about how we should live.
P1 - Rhetoric is a simple knack for language without the backing of truth, virtue or justice.
P2 - Practising this sort of rhetoric will lead to an unjust society.
Therefore,
Discipline is better for the mind than indulgence, and we should devote all our energies to ensuring the presence of justice and discipline, thereby guaranteeing happiness.
I'm pretty sure this isn't on the set text list....
Set text area is 480e-499b, 505c-509c
Nope- that's for 2015. This year its 480a–509c.
Here's a link to the text list:
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/vce/philosophy/VCE_Philos_Text_List16.pdf
How did you guys go?
I smashed that essay! I'm so happy! I think that's the best philosophy essay I've ever written ;DCongratulations! Sounds like you put in your all.
Section A wasn't what I was expecting. Less questions than last year and I was expecting different content as well. Definitely stumped me a bit and really made me think but I think I've done well. There are a couple of questions I'm concerned about; one was a 6 mark question and I feel like I didn't write enough, and the other was on Locke- question 2b, I think? Overall though, I'm happy!
How did everyone else go?
Congratulations! Sounds like you put in your all.Glad your pleased and sorry to hear you were a little disappointed with your essay. I'm sure you did just fine though- we are often our own worst critique. :)
I thought the essay I had written for the 2015 exam was marginally better than the one I wrote on the day. I'm a bit disappointed to tell the truth.
Opening the exam, I was so pleased with the content and just went through realising I knew what each one wanted. I thought I'd smash it, but the more I wrote the more unfocused my responses became (I think) and I really don't know if my contemporary debate and thought experiment were accurate at all.
But overall, I'm not too displeased! Hope you all saw a silver lining too :))
Was possibly the first year in which section A was the hardest, The question which asked to discuss callicles and Aristotle in regards to self disciple was interestingMy thoughts exactly. Definitely that question threw me off a bit.
Was the second extended response the Comparison between Hume and Nagasena? If so, could have drawn on either the analogy of the republic or the chariot analogy. Obviously their are more but these were ones i found easy to relate.I was really confused because I included both then - the chariot for Nagasena and the bundle theory/theatre analogy for Hume, but I thought these were 'analogies' and not really 'thought experiments'.
I was really confused because I included both then - the chariot for Nagasena and the bundle theory/theatre analogy for Hume, but I thought these were 'analogies' and not really 'thought experiments'.I did the same thing as you for Hume and Nagasena so I think we're in the clear :) Just remember that if the assessors did mean something else by 'thought experiment' and the majority of the state has written something similar to us, the assessors will open up the scope of their marking to accommodate the varying interpretations of the question.
I did something stupid that I **thought** Hume did about stripping down everything we can imagine to be 'self' and being left with nothing (lol no idea literally in the final five minutes I tacked it on the end). But yeah I'm really confused. If it meant analogies, I should be fine hopefully, but I thought thought experiments were different.
What'd everyone do for the contemporary debate in the question previous about brain and mind?
I think I did cloning which turned out really badly because I realised it was more suited to personal identity rather than dualism/physicalism. :(