It would appear that there is a bit of a gulf between Level 1 and Level 2 courses, or maybe between Social Science and Philosophy, or maybe I just had a very lenient tutor for my first course, but for whatever reason I just managed to scrape a Pass 2 on this TMA.
Some very encouraging feedback and valid points from my tutor, so some positives and suggestions to think about. So, need to crack on with the next one and improve my critical thinking.
Update:
I asked my tutor for a bit more feedback on where I lost marks, and they looked at my TMA and decided that they had possibly marked harshly and agreed to remark, which I hadn't asked for but seems very a very reasonable and fair thing for them to do. So, as well as getting some additional info about where I had lost marks (my essay wandered off of the question asked at one point), my essay was re-marked as mid-70s, which feels a bit better.
Showing posts with label 5.1 TMA01. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 5.1 TMA01. Show all posts
Tuesday, 15 November 2011
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
A222 - Exploring Philosophy : TMA01 Submitted
Just under 1900 words, and even that took a bit of pruning, but it has gone in now.
It seemed easy to head off on tangents on this essay, and at one point I had written paragraphs on Hume and Parfit that had nothing at all to do with criticizing Locke's views, although I obviously did not notice this at the time of writing.
I spent some time setting out Locke's stall, person, man, soul, and mentioned several of his thought experiments, then focused on criticism or expansion of his ideas by Reid, Hume, Parfit, Butler, and even managed a passing mention of Kant.
The last part was drawing on aspects of personal identity not catered for in Locke's writing and then brought it all together with the conclusion.
Writing for a Philosophy course is probably very different to writing for the Social Sciences. I thought with Social Science that putting in enough effort would result in an appropriate mark, and that approach seemed to work, but I'm not sure sheer effort on its own will be enough this time round so I just hope I have been able to add enough of my ideas in and that they were of value..... Just have to wait for the mark now.
As with the last course, for some reason when I start writing in draft, it is always the second paragraph that ends up being the core of the Introduction and the first paragraph disappears in the editing process.
On to Book 2 in which we study the Philosophy of Superstition, the next part of this course could be a struggle, god help me !!!
It seemed easy to head off on tangents on this essay, and at one point I had written paragraphs on Hume and Parfit that had nothing at all to do with criticizing Locke's views, although I obviously did not notice this at the time of writing.
I spent some time setting out Locke's stall, person, man, soul, and mentioned several of his thought experiments, then focused on criticism or expansion of his ideas by Reid, Hume, Parfit, Butler, and even managed a passing mention of Kant.
The last part was drawing on aspects of personal identity not catered for in Locke's writing and then brought it all together with the conclusion.
Writing for a Philosophy course is probably very different to writing for the Social Sciences. I thought with Social Science that putting in enough effort would result in an appropriate mark, and that approach seemed to work, but I'm not sure sheer effort on its own will be enough this time round so I just hope I have been able to add enough of my ideas in and that they were of value..... Just have to wait for the mark now.
As with the last course, for some reason when I start writing in draft, it is always the second paragraph that ends up being the core of the Introduction and the first paragraph disappears in the editing process.
On to Book 2 in which we study the Philosophy of Superstition, the next part of this course could be a struggle, god help me !!!
Sunday, 6 November 2011
A222 - Exploring Philosophy : Writing TMA01
Good weekend's works so far and well into finishing the first draft of this TMA.
It has been quite an 'easy ride' in so far as there is great material and supporting text for this part of the course, so it has not been too difficult to find content. I suppose the difficult part is presenting it clearly and properly answering the question.
I've enjoyed this part of the course more than I thought I would, and David Hume has certainly struck a chord with me, especially his implied critique of the 'woolly thinking' behind the blind acceptance of religion.
Hume wrote
"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask,
Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?
No.
Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?
No.
Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
This was pretty brave of him at the time he wrote this, as religion does not willingly tolerate intellectual scrutiny, especially in the 18th Century.
Had be been alive today I can't help feeling that David Hume would have been a fan of modern 'philosopher' and song writer Greg Graffin who among his writings wrote,
"Now we all see, religion is just synthetic frippery,
unnecessary, in our expanding global culture of efficiency"
Enjoy the clip below.....
It has been quite an 'easy ride' in so far as there is great material and supporting text for this part of the course, so it has not been too difficult to find content. I suppose the difficult part is presenting it clearly and properly answering the question.
I've enjoyed this part of the course more than I thought I would, and David Hume has certainly struck a chord with me, especially his implied critique of the 'woolly thinking' behind the blind acceptance of religion.
Hume wrote
"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask,
Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?
No.
Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?
No.
Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
This was pretty brave of him at the time he wrote this, as religion does not willingly tolerate intellectual scrutiny, especially in the 18th Century.
Had be been alive today I can't help feeling that David Hume would have been a fan of modern 'philosopher' and song writer Greg Graffin who among his writings wrote,
"Now we all see, religion is just synthetic frippery,
unnecessary, in our expanding global culture of efficiency"
Enjoy the clip below.....
Graffin, G. (2009) "God Song", in Bad Religion's Against the Grain, Epitaph Records, Los Angeles,
See more Bad Religion at www.badreligion.com/
Saturday, 5 November 2011
A222 - Exploring Philosophy : Week 6
5 November •
Assignment week
Events
- Assignment: TMA 01 (cut-off date 10 November)
Friday, 4 November 2011
A222 - Exploring Philosophy : End of Week 5
This weeks reading was about the writing of the modern philosopher Parfit.
I have to say that I was far more interested in David Hume's writing and ideas than Parfit's. I think Parfit's 'thought experiments' are too far fetched and require that certain assumptions are accepted in order for them to work - for example that we have a soul.
The Open University audio even describes Parfit's experiments as 'crazy though experiments', which doesn't fill me with confidence. I think I am a bit grounded in logic, fact and science to be able to fully immerse myself in what is nonsense experiments.
Obviously, I won't be writing that in the TMA, I will have to spin a more thoughtful narrative full of critique and referencing.......
........... which reminds me, I'd better get writing this TMA.
I have to say that I was far more interested in David Hume's writing and ideas than Parfit's. I think Parfit's 'thought experiments' are too far fetched and require that certain assumptions are accepted in order for them to work - for example that we have a soul.
The Open University audio even describes Parfit's experiments as 'crazy though experiments', which doesn't fill me with confidence. I think I am a bit grounded in logic, fact and science to be able to fully immerse myself in what is nonsense experiments.
Obviously, I won't be writing that in the TMA, I will have to spin a more thoughtful narrative full of critique and referencing.......
........... which reminds me, I'd better get writing this TMA.
Saturday, 29 October 2011
Book 1, Chapter 4: The self and the future
Parfit: an overviewFriday, 28 October 2011
A222 - Exploring Philosophy : End of Week 4
It has been a bit of a struggle time-wise this week, although I prefer reading Hume to reading Locke both from how they write and their ideas.
The TMA seems to be looming over the horizon, and although I think I have a good idea of the issues raised putting it in writing will be a challenge.
Must try and get ahead this weekend........
The TMA seems to be looming over the horizon, and although I think I have a good idea of the issues raised putting it in writing will be a challenge.
Must try and get ahead this weekend........
Saturday, 22 October 2011
Friday, 21 October 2011
A222 - Exploring Philosophy : End of Week 3
As interesting as this week has been, the reading the original writing of Locke was pretty hard-core as the language was next to impenetrable.
Luckily, there are plenty of companion readings that make his ideas easier to understand and some good pieces on YouTube. I never thought YouTube would be so useful, but there are even videos of lectures on philosophy from Oxford University on YouTube, so maybe a useful resource, although I'll avoid referencing them.
Not sure I agree entirely with Locke, so looking forwards to reading Hume next week and reading other criticisms of Lockes ideas.
The On-Line tutorial has picked up speed (slightly) so hoping for some interesting insights there.
Luckily, there are plenty of companion readings that make his ideas easier to understand and some good pieces on YouTube. I never thought YouTube would be so useful, but there are even videos of lectures on philosophy from Oxford University on YouTube, so maybe a useful resource, although I'll avoid referencing them.
Not sure I agree entirely with Locke, so looking forwards to reading Hume next week and reading other criticisms of Lockes ideas.
The On-Line tutorial has picked up speed (slightly) so hoping for some interesting insights there.
Thursday, 20 October 2011
A222 - Exploring Philosophy : First OnLine Tutorial
The OnLine Tutorial has started the tutor has posed a question about Locke's ideas and given an example of a Nazi war criminal with memory loss to discuss.
The forum is no longer a national forum and probably because of this the discussion has been, so far, pretty disappointing. I was looking forward to some debate and testing of ideas, but so far next to nobody is joining in :-(
The forum is no longer a national forum and probably because of this the discussion has been, so far, pretty disappointing. I was looking forward to some debate and testing of ideas, but so far next to nobody is joining in :-(
Sunday, 16 October 2011
A222 - Exploring Philosophy : First Tutorial
I attended the first tutorial yesterday, it was sort of enjoyable, but not earth shattering.
There seemed to be a coupe of people who had previously studied philosophy and made some interesting points, and others, like me, who had no experience of philosophy. So, a fairly mixed group in many ways.
The first on-line tutorial starts next week, so I need to do some more reading in order to be able to contribute to that.
There seemed to be a coupe of people who had previously studied philosophy and made some interesting points, and others, like me, who had no experience of philosophy. So, a fairly mixed group in many ways.
The first on-line tutorial starts next week, so I need to do some more reading in order to be able to contribute to that.
Saturday, 15 October 2011
Friday, 14 October 2011
A222 - Exploring Philosophy : End of Week 2
The introduction to the ‘Ship of Theseus’ in Chapter 1 and the first two activities are interesting.This is the questions that if Theseus’ ship is constantly repaired and over time everything is renewed, is it still his ship ?
Having just done DD101, looking at the ‘Ship of Theseus’ thought experiment from an identity point of view, I’d say that the planks that were replaced, and the planks that were used to replace the old planks, were to all intents and purposes lacking in individual identity. So, when the planks were taken from the ship they lost the identity of the being part of the ship and this identity was taken by the new parts. This would have been the same for the rusty nails, torn sails etc. So the overall identity of the ship was maintained, as there was always far more of the established ship existing than the new parts being added. Much the same as when your car has its oil, brake pads, windscreen wipers, tyres, spark plugs changed throughout its life – if this was no longer your car then the DVLA and your insurance company may have some philosophical problems of their own !!!
So back to the ship, the next question posed was had somebody gathered all the discarded pieces and reassembled it which ship was then the true ship of Theseus – the ship of discarded parts may seem identical to the Ship of Theseus, but could not be the Ship of Theseus, as that identity is still carried forward by the maintained ship.
There would also be some questions about whether the ‘ship’ constructed of discarded parts is actually a ship –it may look like a ship, but would YOU go to sea in it – rotten planks, rusty nails and torn sails – No of course not - so if it looks the same, and may even be constructed of the same materials, but fails to carry out the function it was originally was built for, how can it claim to be the ‘same’ ship.
There would also be some questions about whether the ‘ship’ constructed of discarded parts is actually a ship –it may look like a ship, but would YOU go to sea in it – rotten planks, rusty nails and torn sails – No of course not - so if it looks the same, and may even be constructed of the same materials, but fails to carry out the function it was originally was built for, how can it claim to be the ‘same’ ship.
This would be the same if your car was involved in an accident and had the chassis replaced, your CAM belt then broke and you needed a new engine, you also needed various panels replaced due to minor bumps – if somebody gathered your old parts from previous services etc. and re-assembled an object that looked like your car, would it be your car - would it even move, and if it did move would it be safe – of course not, so this could not be your car….
I think this is different for ‘objects’ in which the individual parts are unique and have personality. There are several bands that now that have maybe only one original member left performing, but have still carried the band's name forward. Status Quo for example have two original members, if they were to leave the rest of the band may well continue on as Status Quo, but if the original 5 members then got back together again they would surely be the ‘real’ Status Quo as they are unarguably 5 unique parts of the original. Although they would have changed physically over the years, if the purpose of the band is to make music, and these were the original writers and performers, they must be the ‘real’ Staus Quo.
The next part of the chapter asks is it is right to hold people responsible for their actions of long ago – is the concentration camp guard still the same person he was 75 years ago, and should he be held to account for these crimes if he can’t remember them. This is only tackled from a philosophical point of view (obviously), as the only practical answer, I think, can be yes – or else anarchy rules and the need for the wronged to get revenge is not met.
However the following thought experiments on ‘The Prince and the Cobbler’, the 'Night and Day Man’ and the drunk, are all interesting discussion points.
I have to admit that I was not sure I would enjoy or understand philosophy, but is has been a good and interesting start.
The main things from Chapter 1 are I think,
- The question of ‘self’ is an important philosophical concept with implications regarding ethics, morality and law.
- One stance on ‘self’ from John Locke said that what makes someone the same person over time was memory continuity not necessarily bodily continuity.
First tutorial tomorrow, so that should be interesting……….
Saturday, 8 October 2011
Friday, 7 October 2011
A222 - Exploring Philosophy : End of Week 1
That was a nice gentle start to the course. The Module introduction was straightforward and interesting and a good scene-setter for the coming course. I even managed to catch BBC4's 'In out time' talking about 'Hume' which was interesting and possibly very useful - I already have many questions forming.
So time to crack on with Book 1 Chapter 1 - What am I ?
So time to crack on with Book 1 Chapter 1 - What am I ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)