100% de satisfacción garantizada Inmediatamente disponible después del pago Tanto en línea como en PDF No estas atado a nada
logo-home
Buscado previamente por ti
Buscado previamente por ti
logo
A*/A level fully written 25 markers for AQA Year 1 Philosophy A-level (epistemology + Moral philosophy) PLUS 3/5/12 marker A*/A Model answers 40,16 €
Añadir al carrito
Navegar rápidamente a
Vista previa
  2.  
  3. AQA
  4.  
  5. Philosophy
  6.  
  7. Year 1 AQA Philosophy Content

Otro

A*/A level fully written 25 markers for AQA Year 1 Philosophy A-level (epistemology + Moral philosophy) PLUS 3/5/12 marker A*/A Model answers
 2 veces vendidas
  • Grado
  • Year 1 AQA Philosophy Content
  • Institución
  • AQA
  • Book
  • My Revision Notes: AQA A-level Philosophy Paper 1 Epistemology and Moral Philosophy

A*/A level fully written 25 markers for Year 1 Philosophy AQA A-level (epistemology + Moral philosophy) PLUS 3/5/12 marker A*/A Model answers in 52 pages, broken down into clear and concise explanations that avoid redundancy. This is a whole package deal with all year 1 essays and content for poten...

[Mostrar más]

Vista previa 4 fuera de 52  páginas

Información del documento

  • 12 de junio de 2023
  • 52
  • 2022/2023
  • Otro
  • Desconocido

Temas

  • philosophy
  • aqa
  • aqa
  • a level
  • philosophy a level
  • epistemology
  • moral philosophy
  • scepticism
  • indirect realism
  • direct realism
  • philosophy year 1 content
  • virtue ethics
  • utilitarianism
  • jtb
  • idealism
  • innatism
  • mora

Libro relacionado

book image

Título del libro:

Autor(es):

  • Edición:
  • ISBN:
  • Edición:

Escuela, estudio y materia

  • A/AS Level
  • AQA
  • Philosophy
  • Year 1 AQA Philosophy Content
Todos documentos para esta materia (2)

Vendedor

avatar-seller
snb1

Comentarios recibidos

Vista previa del contenido

SECTION A EPISTEMOLOGY

What is philosophical scepticism? (3)
The view that knowledge is impossible within a certain domain (local scepticism) or that all
knowledge is impossible (universal/global scepticism). The former does not raise doubts
about our belief system as a whole, but the latter does.
(5)
Descartes uses his method of doubt which involves suspending judgement about all
knowledge, but only accepting beliefs that are indubitable (cannot be doubted). In this way
scepticism can achieve certainty. [His strongest wave out of the three waves of doubt is the
evil demon argument, which supports scepticism in that it explores the possibility that all
knowledge is false/impossible because it may be conceived in a world in which an evil
demon deceives us about the very existence of said physical world].

What is a priori knowledge vs a posteriori?
A priori knowledge is justified independently of any experience and can be sought through
reason alone, whereas a posteriori is dependent on experience, making it empirical.

What is the tripartite view of propositional knowledge?
The view that to value knowledge, it must be conceived from a justified, true belief. The
justified and true condition means that knowledge becomes more steadfast than the mere
belief from which it originates.

What is solipsism?
The theory that one cannot know of the existence of any reality beyond that of their own
mind, because it is only the self that can be known to exist.

What is an analytic truth vs a synthetic truth? (3)
An analytic truth is necessarily true in virtue of the meaning of the words, e.g. “A bachelor is
an unmarried man.” whereas a synthetic truth is true in virtue of how the world is, e.g. “grass
is green”.
(5)
Analytic truths cannot be denied without resulting in a logical contradiction. E.g.“not all
bachelors are unmarried” misunderstands the word bachelor – the concept of a married
bachelor does not make sense. Denial of a synthetic truth does not lead to a logical
contradiction. For example, we can coherently imagine red grass in denial of the synthetic
truth “grass is green”. Though experience tells us grass is not, in fact, red, there is no logical
contradiction in this idea.


What is empiricism?
The view that there is no such thing as innate knowledge because all knowledge is
empirical; it is acquired after we are born, through our experience. ‘A posteriori’ knowledge is
empiricist.

What is Hume’s Fork? (3)
Hume makes an important distinction between the only two ways in which we can properly
reason and find truths about the world:
1. Relations of ideas, which are analytic claims known a priori.
2. Matters of fact, which are synthetic claims known a posteriori.

,(5)
1. Relations of ideas. These are analytic claims known a priori (independent of
experience, conceived through reason alone and necessarily true in virtue of their
definition), e.g. ‘A bachelor is an unmarried man’.
2. Matters of fact. These are synthetic claims known a posteriori (through experience,
and true in virtue of how the world is), e.g. ‘grass is green’.
These are the two fork ‘prongs’ of the argument, and become the basis of deciding whether
certain knowledge is true as long as it fits into either category.
What is acquaintance/ability/propositional knowledge?
Acquaintance knowledge is ‘knowing of’ something, ability knowledge is ‘knowing how’ to do
something and propositional knowledge is ‘knowing that’ something.

What is the no false lemmas definition of knowledge?
For knowledge to have value it must be conceived from a justified, true belief that also has
not been justified using a false belief (a lemma is a premise accepted as true in an
argument, hence ‘no false lemmas’ means there should be no falsely-conceived ‘true’
premises).
(5)
In most cases, when we justify a belief using a false lemma, then the belief will turn out to be
false. However, if one happened to be true by coincidence, then we still know through the ‘no
false lemmas’ condition to not count it as knowledge as true knowledge is not based on false
beliefs.

What is virtue epistemology? (3)
Virtue epistemology seeks to justify knowledge in terms of the intellectual virtues and vices
of the knower; an act of knowledge occurs if the belief is successful (true) and where its
success stems from a virtuous intellectual disposition (so is not luckily true).
(5)
Sosa compares cases of knowing something with archery, so in accurately knowing
something (or shooting an arrow) three elements are involved:
1. Accuracy - whether it hits the target. A belief is accurate if it is true.
2. Adroitness - how skillful the shot was. An adroit belief is one formed by an intellectual
virtue.
3. Aptness - an apt shot is accurate because it was adroit. An apt belief is true because
it was formed with intellectual virtue.
In this, Sosa suggests that all valuable knowledge is apt belief.

What is reliabilism?
For knowledge to have value it must be conceived from a true belief that has been formed
through reliable cognitive processes; processes that are highly likely to result in true belief,
such as seeing things up close or reading from a trustworthy source.
(5)
Alvin Goldman suggests we should only count a process as reliable if it can distinguish from
the truth and other relevant alternatives or possibilities. If not, then the process is not reliable
and the knowledge conceived from it is not valuable.

What is direct realism? (3)
The view that mind-independent objects exist, and that there are two elements in perception:
the perceiver and the object perceived, in which there is no third mediator because we
immediately perceive physical objects.

,(5)
This implies objects still exist when we do not perceive them. Russel uses the example of a
cat to illustrate that when we turn away from the cat, it is able to move from the corner of the
room to the sofa, and perceptually appears in a different place when we turn towards it
again. This means that the cat exists independently outside of our minds, supporting direct
realism.

What is indirect realism? (3)
The view that mind-independent objects exist, (5 but that there is a distinction between the
reality of these objects and the way they appear). There are three elements in perception:
the perceiver, the object perceived and the appearance of these objects to the perceiver
which is determined through inference on the basis of sense data (data from experience in
terms of the acts of sensory awareness).
(5)
Indirect realism accounts for issues that direct realism cannot, such as perceptual variation
(that the appearance of physical objects can vary depending on the conditions under which
they are perceived) because it follows the notion of sense data

What is idealism? (3)
The view that all that exists are minds and their ideas, so there are no mind-independent
physical objects, as they are simply just collections of ideas or sense data (which are caused
by God’s perception of them) appearing in our minds.
(5)
Berkeley doesn’t believe that objects exist when only perceived by finite human minds, but
argues that the universe is sustained in existence through being perceived by the infinite
mind of God. Hence, God directly causes our ideas or sense data.

What is innatism? (3)
The a priori (5 independent of experience) claim that we are born with all knowledge, which
can ultimately be revealed through reason when prompted by the senses. Plato claimed that
in a prior existence, we apprehended perfect concepts/forms like ‘beauty’ in their pure state,
and so in this existence, the idea of such forms lie in us innately and must be apprehended
again through reason.
(5)
Plato’s account contains classic features of innatism that innate ideas are ‘in’ us, although
we might not be aware of them (like a forgotten memory). When revealed through reason,
innate ideas provide timeless truths about the world. In this way, there is no need for
experience (empiricism) as a source of knowledge because innatism is rationalist (reason
alone can be a source of knowledge).

Outline the argument from illusion against direct realism (5)
The argument from illusion attacks direct realism by asserting that there must be a third
mediator between physical objects and the perceiver; that mediator being ‘sense data’ or
data from experience in terms of the acts of sensory awareness.
P1 When subject to an illusion, to a perceiver an object appears to have a particular property
(e.g a straw appears to be bent when submerged in water).
P2 The perceiver is directly aware of this apparent property (can notice a bent-looking
straw).
P3 But the object does not have this property in reality (the real straw is not bent).
C1 So what the perceiver is directly aware of (the bent straw) and what is real (the straight
straw) are distinct.

, C2 Hence direct realism is false: we do not perceive physical objects directly.
Response (12)
The second premise may misinterpret the situation. A direct realist would say there is no
thing - the appearance of the straw - of which they are immediately aware and which they
should contrast with the real straw. Rather, they are directly aware of the real straw, but that
it appears bent because of the circumstances (being submerged in water). This appearing
bent is not another thing mediating between them and the straw, it is just the manner of the
straw’s appearance. So, direct realists don’t necessarily maintain that objects have to appear
exactly as they are, and can accept that they appear differently because of the way they
relate to the perceiver which means they do not have to posit ‘sense data’ to explain illusory
circumstances.

Explain how perceptual variation is a problem for direct realism (5)
The perceptual variation argument begins with the observation that the appearance of
physical objects can vary depending on the conditions under which they are perceived.
Direct realism claims that the immediate objects of perception are material objects and their
properties, like colour. But Russell argues that a table can appear white when the light is
reflected off of it, and brown otherwise, and that there is no basis for privileging one colour
over the other, which means the table cannot be said to have a particular colour. Russell
then concludes that the real table is not immediately/directly known to us at all, but must be
an inference from what is immediately known (sense data of the colour we see). Hence,
direct realism is false because the apparent properties are not the same as the real
properties of physical objects so DR’s assumption that we perceive the properties of objects
as they really are is incorrect.
Response (12)
But the direct realist can give up this naive assumption without giving up direct realism;
objects may appear differently to perceivers but they are nonetheless directly perceived
because it is a property of the table to appear white in certain lighting and brown otherwise.
We have agreed methods for determining the true colour of the table, and if in doubt we can
ensure the lighting conditions are normal and move the table to avoid any glare. We are also
capable of explaining why the colour appears as it does from different angles in terms of the
way the light reflects off of the table’s surface. In this way, perceptual variation is not a
significant issue for direct realism because an object/ table appearing different under certain
conditions does not necessarily entail that it is not brown, or not being directly perceived.

Explain the time lag argument against direct realism (5)
The time lag argument from Russell asserts that what we directly see are appearances not
physical objects. It begins by pointing out that the light from the Sun takes a certain amount
of time to travel to Earth, around 8 minutes:
P1 The light from distant objects (such as the Sun) takes time to reach our eyes.
C1 So what we are seeing may no longer exist (we see the Sun from 8 minutes ago, not the
Sun now which may have ceased to exist).
C2 So what we are seeing and what is there are different.
P2 This is no less true for physical objects at any distance, only that the time lag is longer or
shorter.
C3 Thus, direct realism is false because we only perceive appearances of physical objects
(light as sense data mediating perception), not the object directly as it is.
Response (12)
Although undeniably true that light is mediating between us and the Sun, the direct realist
may argue that C1 does not imply C2. The time-lag means that what we are seeing is in the
past and so it may have ceased to exist by the time we perceive it, but there is nothing in DR
that commits it to the claim that the moment at which we perceive an object must be
simultaneous with the object perceived. The time-lag argument does not present an issue for

Los beneficios de comprar resúmenes en Stuvia estan en línea:

Garantiza la calidad de los comentarios

Garantiza la calidad de los comentarios

Compradores de Stuvia evaluaron más de 700.000 resúmenes. Así estas seguro que compras los mejores documentos!

Compra fácil y rápido

Compra fácil y rápido

Puedes pagar rápidamente y en una vez con iDeal, tarjeta de crédito o con tu crédito de Stuvia. Sin tener que hacerte miembro.

Enfócate en lo más importante

Enfócate en lo más importante

Tus compañeros escriben los resúmenes. Por eso tienes la seguridad que tienes un resumen actual y confiable. Así llegas a la conclusión rapidamente!

Preguntas frecuentes

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

100% de satisfacción garantizada: ¿Cómo funciona?

Nuestra garantía de satisfacción le asegura que siempre encontrará un documento de estudio a tu medida. Tu rellenas un formulario y nuestro equipo de atención al cliente se encarga del resto.

Who am I buying this summary from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller snb1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy this summary for 40,16 €. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

45,681 summaries were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 15 years now

Empieza a vender
40,16 €  2x  vendido
  • (0)
Añadir al carrito
Añadido