i absolutely love these videos to confirm what I've learnt and if I have missed out on anything, hoping there was some videos on moral philosophy. thankyou for the runthroughs!
Hi, Thanks for the comprehensive video. I wanted to buy your book on Amazon. But it seems there is no kindle version available yet. Any plan to add kindle version? Thanks in advance )
Thank you, this video is perfect for my mock on monday. We are often told that our essay paragraphs should have 1) the argument we are making, 2) a reply to this, and then 3) our response to this reply, however I am concerned that the spec does not even give us enough responses. For instance, if I am arguing against direct realism and use perceptual variation for one of my arguments, I would then outline the reply from relational properties but then be left with no response to this. What should I do in this kind of situation as if I don't give a response, it would appear as though I am agreeing with the reply to my argument? Thank you.
@@philosophymania no problem! it's undeniably my most used philosophy resource. The textbook is wildly overcomplicated, and doesn't follow the spec on occasion, so your website is carrying my A level so far. I have an exam on Wednesday, and I just want to say your resources will make that a breeze (I hope) :))
Going to listen to this not because of an exam or a requirements. I am in love with Philosophy... I wanna question and know everything. I want to gain more knowledge. May I ask, is it worth to take a Philosophy course after graduating in bachelors of business administration? I am taking consideration into it.
That's great - I hope you like the videos! Re. doing a philosophy course: it depends what the course is and what you want to get out of it. If it's for the qualification, I probably wouldn't bother as I don't imagine it would help much in a career sense. If it's for the knowledge, then there are a lot of good free resources online but doing a course might provide some useful structure to your learning. It's probably worth working out what kind of philosophy you are interested in before starting a course, though, as there are lots of things that could be classified as 'philosophy' but are basically completely different subjects. For example, you might really like logic and analytic-style philosophy, but then you do a philosophy course and you're learning about postmodernism or stoicism or something that's totally unlike what you thought philosophy was. I personally like the style of philosophy I talk about in these videos (which is why I make them!) and have found learning this stuff worthwhile for all sorts of reasons. In a practical sense, knowing about the theories (e.g. direct realism) and who said what isn't particularly useful but I think the process of constructing and evaluating arguments for these theories teaches critical thinking that is useful and transferable to all sorts of scenarios, e.g. business.
This is brilliant! Thanks :) Could you do a video on Philosophy AQA A-level exam predictions based on previous exam questions? It would be super useful for my upcoming alevel exam!
Thanks :) Someone else asked a similar question about predictions for questions on my other video and this is what I said: I don't have any privileged information about 2024 questions except to go back and look at what questions came up in previous papers. Even then, there's no law that says the AQA can't ask the same question two years in a row. Perhaps indirect realism for the epistemology essay and behaviourism for metaphysics of mind essay? Your guess is as good as mine. I think the best approach for the 25 markers is to have a plan of what you're going to say for all topics - there's really not that many options that can come up. No idea about the shorter questions - there's just too many possibilities.
can you please explain how to structure 25 markers for the aqa spec including how to evaluate well and cope with time pressure . these videos are v helpful btw
That's definitely on my list of videos to make once I've gone through all the course content. For now, here are a couple of tips to help with your 25 mark essays: 1. Consistent argument: Your essay must argue consistently for a particular viewpoint. For example, if you get a question on Berkeley's idealism, you would argue either that it is the correct theory of perception or that it isn't, and your arguments must support this. Mention this in both introduction and conclusion. 2. A balanced argument: Even though you are arguing for one side, you can't ignore issues for your side - you must present objections (in their strongest form) and then respond to them. For example, if you are arguing against idealism, you could start with the solipsism objection, consider Berkeley's response that God is constantly perceiving everything, then respond to that by pointing out issues with the role of God in Berkeley's idealism. 3. Paragraph structure: Make one point per paragraph - don't mix multiple arguments into the same paragraph. For example, the veil of perception problem for indirect realism would be one paragraph, then Russell's response that the external world is the best hypothesis would be a separate paragraph. As a general rule, the PEEL structure (point, evidence, explanation, link) works quite well for paragraphs - always have an extra sentence at the end of each paragraph that explains what the argument shows and relates it to the question. 4. Time management: Plan out your essays in advance and memorise the structure (this is the single most effective revision technique IMO). This might sound like a lot of work, but there are only around 20 or so major topics that you can get asked 25 mark questions on. It is very difficult to remember all these arguments - let alone integrate them into a consistent and balanced essay within the 45 mins or so you'll have in the exam! By memorising the structure of your essay in advance, you can save time that would be spent planning your essay. Also, don't spend ages describing theories etc. because that is AO1/knowledge and only 5/25 marks are awarded for AO1. Instead, just quickly define any key terms then move on to the evaluation/arguments (AO2), because 20/25 marks are awarded for AO2. Bringing all the points above together, your overall essay structure might look something like this, where each line is its own paragraph: - Intro (quickly define key terms and say which side you are arguing for) - Argument in support of your position - Potential response - Counter-response defending your position - Another potential response (you can perhaps do some weighing up here like 'a stronger response is...') - Counter-response defending your position - Argument against your position - Response defending your position against this attack - Conclusion (my side is correct because of the arguments above)
Yeah pretty much, but you don't have to memorise them word-for-word exactly as they're written in books or whatever. As long as you can explain all the premises of the argument and show how they logically support the conclusion, you're good. The more detail you can include the better though.
@@philosophymania can you get an A without presenting anything with premise formats? It's just that I find it a lot easier to word it in normal sentences and find it harder to memorise all the premises
@@a.hassanhale3326 Yeah definitely, a lot of the arguments (e.g. most of the ones in ethics) don't really lend themselves to a numbered premises and conclusion format anyway. Just make sure your explanation is detailed and precise (don't miss any key points along the way) and make it clear what the argument shows and why.
@@philosophymania apologies for being persistent, I have an exam soon and I'm quite stressed. I have the A level Philosophy Hodder textbook and it is filled with obfuscated premises. Just to be make sure, it is not a requirement (in the AQA spec) to present arguments in premise format and you can word it normally without the format. Correct? Thanks a lot!
@@a.hassanhale3326 Don't stress about the exam, you will be fine 😎 No, it is not a requirement to write your answers as numbered premises and conclusion. If you look at the AQA example answers and commentaries here: www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/philosophy/a-level/philosophy-7172/assessment-resources?f.Resource+type%7C6=Answers+and+commentaries you will see they rarely if ever use this format.
this man is unironically about to save my paper 1
Good luck today! 😁
Love this. I'm 17 and working reeeeaaaally hard to learn so I can become a real philosopher and write books. This helped me a lot.
Good luck! Message me when your book is published 😄
@@philosophymania hahaha will do my friend!
The timing was perfect with this video for my test today! I love these topic overviews.
Thank you! I'm glad it helped 😎
Really appreciate this video.
i absolutely love these videos to confirm what I've learnt and if I have missed out on anything, hoping there was some videos on moral philosophy. thankyou for the runthroughs!
I have a couple more epistemology videos to come then I will move on to moral philosophy. Glad you find them useful! 😁
these videos are actally so useful, please keep making more🙏🙏
Could the idea of relational properties also work against the Müller-Lyer illusion?
Hi, Thanks for the comprehensive video. I wanted to buy your book on Amazon. But it seems there is no kindle version available yet. Any plan to add kindle version? Thanks in advance )
your 1000th subscriber! :)
😁
Thank you, this video is perfect for my mock on monday.
We are often told that our essay paragraphs should have 1) the argument we are making, 2) a reply to this, and then 3) our response to this reply, however I am concerned that the spec does not even give us enough responses. For instance, if I am arguing against direct realism and use perceptual variation for one of my arguments, I would then outline the reply from relational properties but then be left with no response to this. What should I do in this kind of situation as if I don't give a response, it would appear as though I am agreeing with the reply to my argument? Thank you.
your website is perfect btw
Thank you! 😁
@@philosophymania no problem! it's undeniably my most used philosophy resource. The textbook is wildly overcomplicated, and doesn't follow the spec on occasion, so your website is carrying my A level so far. I have an exam on Wednesday, and I just want to say your resources will make that a breeze (I hope) :))
@@Elkay26 What philosophy books did you find useful?
are there any notable criticisms to be made against the relational properties defence?
Going to listen to this not because of an exam or a requirements. I am in love with Philosophy... I wanna question and know everything. I want to gain more knowledge.
May I ask, is it worth to take a Philosophy course after graduating in bachelors of business administration? I am taking consideration into it.
That's great - I hope you like the videos!
Re. doing a philosophy course: it depends what the course is and what you want to get out of it. If it's for the qualification, I probably wouldn't bother as I don't imagine it would help much in a career sense. If it's for the knowledge, then there are a lot of good free resources online but doing a course might provide some useful structure to your learning.
It's probably worth working out what kind of philosophy you are interested in before starting a course, though, as there are lots of things that could be classified as 'philosophy' but are basically completely different subjects. For example, you might really like logic and analytic-style philosophy, but then you do a philosophy course and you're learning about postmodernism or stoicism or something that's totally unlike what you thought philosophy was.
I personally like the style of philosophy I talk about in these videos (which is why I make them!) and have found learning this stuff worthwhile for all sorts of reasons. In a practical sense, knowing about the theories (e.g. direct realism) and who said what isn't particularly useful but I think the process of constructing and evaluating arguments for these theories teaches critical thinking that is useful and transferable to all sorts of scenarios, e.g. business.
This is brilliant! Thanks :)
Could you do a video on Philosophy AQA A-level exam predictions based on previous exam questions? It would be super useful for my upcoming alevel exam!
Thanks :)
Someone else asked a similar question about predictions for questions on my other video and this is what I said: I don't have any privileged information about 2024 questions except to go back and look at what questions came up in previous papers. Even then, there's no law that says the AQA can't ask the same question two years in a row. Perhaps indirect realism for the epistemology essay and behaviourism for metaphysics of mind essay? Your guess is as good as mine. I think the best approach for the 25 markers is to have a plan of what you're going to say for all topics - there's really not that many options that can come up. No idea about the shorter questions - there's just too many possibilities.
can you please explain how to structure 25 markers for the aqa spec including how to evaluate well and cope with time pressure . these videos are v helpful btw
That's definitely on my list of videos to make once I've gone through all the course content. For now, here are a couple of tips to help with your 25 mark essays:
1. Consistent argument: Your essay must argue consistently for a particular viewpoint. For example, if you get a question on Berkeley's idealism, you would argue either that it is the correct theory of perception or that it isn't, and your arguments must support this. Mention this in both introduction and conclusion.
2. A balanced argument: Even though you are arguing for one side, you can't ignore issues for your side - you must present objections (in their strongest form) and then respond to them. For example, if you are arguing against idealism, you could start with the solipsism objection, consider Berkeley's response that God is constantly perceiving everything, then respond to that by pointing out issues with the role of God in Berkeley's idealism.
3. Paragraph structure: Make one point per paragraph - don't mix multiple arguments into the same paragraph. For example, the veil of perception problem for indirect realism would be one paragraph, then Russell's response that the external world is the best hypothesis would be a separate paragraph. As a general rule, the PEEL structure (point, evidence, explanation, link) works quite well for paragraphs - always have an extra sentence at the end of each paragraph that explains what the argument shows and relates it to the question.
4. Time management: Plan out your essays in advance and memorise the structure (this is the single most effective revision technique IMO). This might sound like a lot of work, but there are only around 20 or so major topics that you can get asked 25 mark questions on. It is very difficult to remember all these arguments - let alone integrate them into a consistent and balanced essay within the 45 mins or so you'll have in the exam! By memorising the structure of your essay in advance, you can save time that would be spent planning your essay. Also, don't spend ages describing theories etc. because that is AO1/knowledge and only 5/25 marks are awarded for AO1. Instead, just quickly define any key terms then move on to the evaluation/arguments (AO2), because 20/25 marks are awarded for AO2.
Bringing all the points above together, your overall essay structure might look something like this, where each line is its own paragraph:
- Intro (quickly define key terms and say which side you are arguing for)
- Argument in support of your position
- Potential response
- Counter-response defending your position
- Another potential response (you can perhaps do some weighing up here like 'a stronger response is...')
- Counter-response defending your position
- Argument against your position
- Response defending your position against this attack
- Conclusion (my side is correct because of the arguments above)
@@philosophymania thank youu
There's about 60 arguments in premise format for the entire course; do you have to memorise them all? Thanks a lot for the help
Yeah pretty much, but you don't have to memorise them word-for-word exactly as they're written in books or whatever. As long as you can explain all the premises of the argument and show how they logically support the conclusion, you're good. The more detail you can include the better though.
@@philosophymania can you get an A without presenting anything with premise formats? It's just that I find it a lot easier to word it in normal sentences and find it harder to memorise all the premises
@@a.hassanhale3326 Yeah definitely, a lot of the arguments (e.g. most of the ones in ethics) don't really lend themselves to a numbered premises and conclusion format anyway. Just make sure your explanation is detailed and precise (don't miss any key points along the way) and make it clear what the argument shows and why.
@@philosophymania apologies for being persistent, I have an exam soon and I'm quite stressed.
I have the A level Philosophy Hodder textbook and it is filled with obfuscated premises.
Just to be make sure, it is not a requirement (in the AQA spec) to present arguments in premise format and you can word it normally without the format. Correct? Thanks a lot!
@@a.hassanhale3326 Don't stress about the exam, you will be fine 😎
No, it is not a requirement to write your answers as numbered premises and conclusion. If you look at the AQA example answers and commentaries here: www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/philosophy/a-level/philosophy-7172/assessment-resources?f.Resource+type%7C6=Answers+and+commentaries you will see they rarely if ever use this format.
Thanks so much dude :)
Thank YOU for watching ❤