My Philosophy Paper One Revision Guide!

[TykeDragon]

*NOTE: while I am still completing this, I shall post it and then be 'editing' updates to it, to avoid losing it, and be able to pause!*

Hey everyone! Currently revising for my paper one philosophy mock, and figured I'd pull my revision together to make a huge thread attempting to help fellow philosophers. I'm not sure how the course differs between SL and HL therefore if this will be of much help to SL students. Additionally, it is worth noting that my optional themes are ethics and religion, so no epistemology/politics/art... Sorry!

I'm not arrogant enough to assume I have everything, so if you have anything to add, please do so! If you find this thread helpful, a reply or positive feedback or however things are done on here would always be appreciated. If we can get enough good revision material onto this thread perhaps it can become pinned, or be put into a new philosophy forum - I would love to see the creation of this forum as there are many people doing philosophy, and it needs revising for too!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First things first, the markscheme is definitely important to pay attention to. Going into the exam and writing your essay with what they are going to grade you on is, in my point of view, vital!

Criteria A (5 marks) - Expression.

To achieve full marks here, you want to make sure you are clear and precise, and answer the question coherently. Avoid contractions (e.g don't, won't.) Use impressive vocabulary and philosophical diction wherever possible. And also, keep a good structure! Taking some time at the start of your essay to plan how you are going to tackle the essay is not a waste of time, if otherwise you are just going to improvise and have a messy structure - it becomes apparent that you are just jotting down whatever comes into your head. Especially introducing and concluding your argument clearly to sustain it throughout!

Criteria B (5 marks) - Knowledge and Understanding.

This is where your philosophy revision comes in and helps you out. You are awarded marks here for knowing what you are talking about. Fully understanding the meanings and implications of different philosophical theories and being able to implement them appropriately. Show attention to detail, and that you have an in-depth knowledge of philosophical issues. This is not just limited to the ethical theories themselves - you also achieve marks by showing you understand the values and limitations of arguments and counter arguments by being able to discuss them.

As for philosophers, such as Hobbes and Rousseau - it is good to be able to use philosophers to support your arguments and it distinguishes you as someone who sat and paid attention to the course, from someone who can blag their way through the paper. However! Please do not base your essay on a philosopher - you'll lose marks from the later criteria for this. You just want to flaunt your knowledge of them and what they know by at the end of your paragraph, stating a philosopher that agrees with this view is x, and then give a concise summary of what he thinks, but make sure that you evaluate the philosopher in order to show WHY you agree/disagree, and thus strengthen your own personal argument.

Criteria C (10 marks) - Identification and analysis of relevant material.

Your marks for this criteria come from two things: firstly, giving RELEVANT examples to the point you are making. for example, if discussing that humans are naturally bad/greedy, a good example would be the London Riots - as soon as they thought they could escape the law, people were stealing, vandalising and assaulting. To use the same example, the second factor that gives you marks in this criteria is to analyse the relevant example you have just given. Remember that you are trying to justify your view. State why this example supports your thesis. Spot any implications or weaknesses of your example as well, but then be sure to argue how and why this does not weaken/alter your view. You basically need to be demonstrating your ability to have a thorough and critical discussion of EACH relevant example you pick out. And the more the merrier!

Criteria D (10 marks) - Development and Evaluation.

This is where you are rewarded for sustaining, developing and defending your thesis throughout your essay. If you are unconvincing, for example arguing for the existence of a soul but all you can give throughout your essay is reasons why it doesn't, your argument and viewpoint is not very good. The IB wants you to develop an argument from a 'consistently held and well-justified perspective.' Your evaluation must be balanced with its use of counter arguments - do not just give arguments why your view is correct. what will maximise your marks here is making your essay compelling and persuasive by giving these counter arguments, but then analysing them to death, rip them apart with how they do not prove you wrong. After all, if you could not deny these counter points, you wouldn't have an opposing viewpoint, right?

A personal response is vital. It's philosophy - the examiner wants to know what you think, not what the evidence is, or what this philosopher says - so make it personal! Don't be afraid to say 'I' or 'My view' like you probably wouldn't in another subject! A very brief list of other ways to say 'I think' so that you can sound articulate and varied while giving your personal response:

• 'It is my view that...'
  
• 'Having considered this argument, it is clear that...'
  
• 'From the evidence considered...'
  
• 'The conclusion this leads me to is...' / 'This leads me to conclude that..'
  
• 'I propose that...'
  
• 'The implications of this are...'
  
• 'I would argue that...'
  
• 'I support this claim because..'
  
• 'My position is...'
  
• 'I would hold that..'
  
• 'The perspective I can draw from this is...'
  
• I would claim that...'
  
• 'From my perspective...'
  

By no means an extensive or exhaustive list, but certainly a way to get away from endless sentences beginning with 'I think' or 'I believe'!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I'm going to attempt to give brief topic revision (some briefer than others) for those doing the same topics as I am, by outlining some relevant theories, philosopher views, and example arguments/counter arguments that can be implemented.

Core theme.

Difference between humans and animals?

• Do animals not share: reasoning, self-awareness, civilisation, invention/creativity, adaptability, spirituality/religion, morality, speech, personality factors (insecurity, empathy)
  
• Counters to some of these include: language between chimps, dolphins, etc. Self-awareness - elephants recognise themselves in water. Morality - monkeys demonstrate morality, for example an experiment where every time a monkey took some food, another monkey received an electric shock. Eventually, despite being hungry the monkey did not take food in order to spare the other monkey's pain - morality.
  
• For anything, such as morality or emotions, that is used as something that makes someone human, you can explore the argument about 'what about someone who does not have morality - are they no longer human?'
  

Souls

Are souls a coping mechanism, used to give our lives meaning? Did we invent souls to give humans superiority over animals?

There is no evidence for the soul, and it can only be described in negative terms, for example: we know what it isn't - it is not physical. But we cannot say what it is, as we know nothing about it. Yet you can say that despite being illogical now, in the future it may become logical, or proven - it would not be the first time something illogical has become logical (such as the solar system being heliocentric and not geocentric)

You can also discuss what you think about the soul. Obviously this thread cannot be used for answers as it has to be personal to you, I am just intending for this thread to be gathering ideas, or reminders of theories. For example, I would argue that the soul is just a word we use to refer to our minds and individual personalities, or make ourselves seem more important - I don't think it is a key to heaven or anything.

• Naturalist/materialist view - Humans are a natural phenomena, and are purely material/physical with no spiritual aspect. Generally referred to in 'Darwinistic' terms, that we naturally evolved from primates and are not the result of a celestial being. This extends to afterlife - consciousness is neural activity in the brain, and when we do so does our brain. Materialism also suggests morality to be a human creation, and our behaviour is determined. The main limitation to this view is explaining the existence of consciousness.
  

• Spiritual Position - Plato was the first to propose philosophically the existence of a soul unique to mankind, that gave us our intellectual nature. The Christian Church went along with it. This soul is non-physical and resides within the body, and attempts to control 'bad' desires such as greed and lust. It suggests we have a purpose extending into the afterlife, and motivation to lead a moral life. It is therefore more comforting than the bleak naturalist perspective. The main limitation to the view is to explain how/if the soul exists, and how (if it does) it connects to the physical world.
  

• Descartes - Mind/Body, or Dualism problem. It defies all physical laws that the mind can cause a physical thing to happen. We laugh off the suggestion of telekinesis (ability to move objects with mind) as ridiculous, yet we accept the notion that your non-physical mind can cause your physical body, ie hand, to move. (Dualism being the idea that the mind and body are separate.) Descartes didn't believe in anything outside of his own mind, saying that you can doubt your body, but you cannot doubt your mind - even pondering upon it proves you have a mind! (Hence the famous 'I think therefore I am.')
  

• Hume - challenges Descartes' view that we can be certain of the soul and mind if nothing else, stating that we cannot prove the existence of the soul, yet we can prove the existence of our bodies. He also argues that emotions and sensations disprove the existence of the soul, as the impression of the soul would have to be ever present, yet because emotions and sensations change and succeed each other, and never exist at the same time, it cannot be real.
  

[Sammie Backman]

This is awesome!

[TykeDragon]

Thanks haha, there is much much more to come, I'm just afraid it has to wait a little longer to be continued, I have a social occassion Thanks for the positive feedback though, spread the word!