Sunday, 29 April 2012

A222 Exploring Philosophy : Essay Plan TMA06

The OU has now posted  the updated question for TMA 06 as the first question caused some confusion regarding terms and actual meaning. 

The last TMA actually looks like about 6 separate sections,
1. Introduction, 
2. Definition of Terms, 
3. Discussion of Premise 1, 
4. Discussion of Premise 2, 
5. Discussion of Conclusion, 
6. Essay Conclusion

Premise 1: Citizens only have obligations towards their state if that state is broadly just.
Basically carve out the arguments from Chapters 1 & 2 to present this as Premise as TRUE.

Premise 2: States that exhibit large economic inequalities between citizens are not broadly just
Find arguments from Chapters 3 & 4 to refute this Premise and show it to be FALSE.

Conclusion : So citizens can have no obligations to such states.
The argument is VALID but it is not sound because PREMISE 2 is FALSE

It is going to be difficult keeping this below 2,000 words

Wednesday, 25 April 2012

A222 - Exploring Philosophy : TMA05 Marked and Returned

This has been a long and frustrating wait, it has been 3 weeks since it was submitted. I put a lot of effort in to this TMA and was pretty sure it was pretty good, so I was pleased with a Pass 1, but not really as high a mark as I had hoped for.

I am now in the odd position that if I pass the last TMA with 40% I will achivev an overall Pass 2, and if I managed a 100% on the last TMA the overall score would still be a Pass 2, so it will be interestign to see where the motivation to put a huge amount of effort in to the next TMA comes from.

However, now that I finally have this mark I can concerntrate better on Book 6. I have read the 4 chapters and am now going back over the chapters making more notes to help answer the incredibly long question.

I guess we are now on the home straight, just one TMA and the Exam to go.

Wednesday, 18 April 2012

A222 - Exploring Philosophy : Exam Choices

Far too tired after long flight to study, so decided to try and work out what to concentrate on when studying for the exam. Going by what has been said regarding the suggestion that no TMA related subjects / questions will be coming up in the exam, just now I am leaning towards.....

1. Book 6 Politics,
as we have to read all chapters for the TMA so it should be fresh and the reading completed.

2. Book 1 Self, 
Locke has been done so it is just Hume and Parfit to revise, and that was fairly straight forward, I think.

3. Book 5 Mind,
Dualism, Functionalism, Identity Theory,  Types & Tokens and Consciousness, another recent Book and I think Nagel will come up. The paper on the external mind is just too weak to be examined on.

As emergency back-ups...

A. Book 2 Religion, 
I'm all over the argument for design - would have been perfect for me for the exam - this only really leaves "The Problem of Evil" and "Acts of God". Both smallish subjects, and a good standby, and if the religious question strays towards evolution in any way I'll probably jump at it.

B. Book 3 Ethics,
Bentham and Mills were straightforward for the TMA. Kant and abortion have to come up....... worth a read and revise.
So at present, I'm definitely planning on completely ignoring Book 4 Knowledge, so at least I've narrowed the revision down a bit. I'll wait and see what my tutor says at the next tutorial.

AND NO.... I STILL DON'T HAVE TMA05 BACK - tomorrow is day 14, so fingers crossed, otherwise I'll have to email and see what is going on :-(

Tuesday, 17 April 2012

A222 - Exploring Philosophy : TMA05 STILL NOT MARKED !!!!!

This is just painful, 12 days now and still no mark - hopefully soon.

On a brighter note the last book is really interesting and it brings in quite a lot of what we have already studied from previous books, so I think Politics is a definite one to revise for the exam.

The TMA seems pretty straight forward really,   well.... more so than some others. Just more reading to do, and then set out a firm plan on how to deconstruct the argument and critique it. Hope to at least make a rough start on it this week, and will decide on much effort to put in to finishing it once I have the mark for TMA05.

Saturday, 14 April 2012

A222 - Exploring Philosophy : Week 29

14 April

Book 6: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Chapter 1, Plato and the variety of arguments for political obligations

A222 - Exploring Philosophy : TMA05 still not marked

This was submitted before the 5th April deadline and I have not had the mark back yet - this is driving me crazy, I can't begin to count the number of times that I have checked the email and OU website hoping for it to have been returned.

Hoping that this post will somehow prompt it along :-)

Monday, 9 April 2012

A222 - Exploring Philosophy : TMA06 and Exam

The TMA following the next book, Politics, covers aspects of all 4 chapters of the book, so unlike the previous 5 TMA's it should not be possible to skip or skim bits of this book if a good mark on the TMA is to be achieved.

This is not such a bad thing as it takes part of the decision regarding which books to study for the exam away.

The exam gives you 2 questions from each of the 6 books, you have to answer 3 questions, all from different books. I think I will study 4 books and drop 2, not sure which yet. but at present it looks like Self, Politics will certainly be part of the four.

Sunday, 1 April 2012

A222 - Exploring Philosophy : TMA05 finished

Well that's that finished, spent about 2 hrs on Friday explaining Clark and Chalmers thesis, and then about 4 hrs on Saturday setting out the case against their ideas. Today spent an hour editing and  getting the word count below 2,000.

I'll leave it for a couple of days and give it a final read before submitting.

Wonder, if I can get a head start on he final chapter, Politics, had a quick look at the next TMA question and it looks a ridiculously long question,

‘Citizens only have obligations towards their state if that state is broadly just. States that exhibit large economic inequalities between citizens are not broadly just. So citizens can have no obligations to such states.’ Is this a sound argument?