Tag: Sample Answer

Posted on

Ayer paragraph 5

b) Do you agree? Justify…

I do agree with Ayer that God must be an ‘object of faith [rather than] one of reason’; it stands to reason that if we knew God existed for definite then our choices whether to believe in him or not would be rather limited, in fact would be no choice at all. However I do not agree that every sentence about God must be robbed of significance because it is about a transcendent being.

 

Throughout man’s history he has struggled to express the inexpressible through art, literature, music, poetry, rituals and ceremonies. Since man first started to worship gods with burnt offerings, sacrifices, prayers and chanting through to the more illustrious works of Michelangelo and his painting of the Sistine Chapel, or da Vinci’s painting of the Last Supper or Handel’s The Messiah or even John Donne’s poetry, it has been clear that some people have seen more than just this realm. And although it is admittedly difficult to express in words the ‘mystical’ inspiration which has come to these various artists it would be ridiculous to dismiss their contributions to human culture as ‘nonsense’ or ‘[in]significant.’ It seems obvious that they have ‘intuited’ something, some ‘mystery’ which may be difficult to describe but the communication of which strikes a chord in many others.

 

Ayer is trying to limit the validity of human experience to the realm of the phenomenon and dismiss anything which cannot be objectively verified as ‘nonsense’, however it is clear that to a great many people throughout human history the experience of another realm the realm of the numenon is just as real. It may not be fully ‘intelligible to the reason’, it may be difficult or even impossible to verify objectively but to some people it is fully real. He is dismissing ‘intuition’ as irrelevant but probably the vast majority of humans would claim to have had some sort of ‘intuitive’ experiences in their lives. He goes on in his next paragraph to state that ‘the state of mystical intuition is not a genuinely cognitive state and that these ‘experiences’ rather give an indication of the ‘condition of …mind’ of the experients. But to reject everything which in his view does not ‘constitute science’ is short sighted and insufficient in light of the possible evidence.

 

It seems to me that discussion and investigation of the source of these ‘mystical intuitions’ is a relevant, worthwhile and meaningful occupation for a philosopher! While it may be true that the existence of a God may not be demonstratively proved, Swinburne says:

 

‘I suggest that the overwhelming testimony of so many millions of people to occasional experiences of God… be taken as tipping the balance in favour of the existence of god.’

 

On the other hand as Sam Harris observed:

 

‘We have names for people who have beliefs for which there is no rational justification… [Sometimes] they are called ‘religious’ but they are [more] likely to be called ‘mad’, ‘psychotic’ or ‘delusional.’

 

Perhaps the final word should go to Richard Dawkins!

 

‘The argument for personal experience is the one that is most convincing to those who claim one. But it is the least convincing to anyone else.’

 

From your essays

  1. Mel (b) essentially what (b) wants you to do is to speculate on how different human experience would be / have been if there was no God. This is not to say there necessarily is a God but so many people have been convinced over the millennia that they have affected human history and culture.
    In addition although we may agree with Ayer in principle it is impossible even for an atheist like Dawkins to deny the significance of ‘mystical intuition’ to some people… we may not like the effect it has sometimes had but it is hard to argue that nothing has happened to convince people of a realm beyond this one.
  2. Lizzie – Ayer says theists claim about ‘mystical’ experiences says more about their state of mind than anything else!! (I.e. delusional!!?)
  3. Lizzie – there is no God so anyone who claims to have knowledge of God is talking nonsense (I suppose it’s a bit like the number of Americans who claim to have been abducted by aliens!! We are very sceptical!!) and there is no point discussing something which to him patently obviously doesn’t exist! See 2
  4. Lizzie – when Ayer uses the word ‘transcendent’ firstly he is quoting others secondly he is mocking those people since he doesn’t believe in a transcendental being.
  5. Leah – even though believers might not be able to adequately explain why they still believe in the face of evil and suffering – most of them would claim that they have to believe otherwise there is no reason and they might as well shoot themselves – exaggerating here!!
  6. Nyika – ‘though there may be no direct evidence of God there is plenty of indirect evidence. Much of human history and culture has been influenced by people who have had ‘mystical’ intuitive experiences e.g. St Paul, St Teresa of Avila….. So if God does not exist and mystical experiences are only in the mind how can we account for the masses of people whose lives have been transformed by their belief…
  7. Nyika – it seems only a tautology (logical/obvious) that if something cannot be described then you cannot describe it and to try will only succeed in saying something which is not true.
  8. Harvey – if the claim ‘God exists’ cannot be verified or falsified then it has no meaning. It is as meaningless as to assert that aliens on Jupiter must have metal skin because that is the only way they could survive under the extreme gravity!!
  9. Emma – he is dismissive of mystic and intuition – neither are verifiable, neither are cognitive and the first is a product of a [sick] mind!!
  10. Emma – believers use myth and symbol and metaphor to attempt to define the indefinable – everyone knows they do not mean it literally but to not even try is to deny potentially a whole realm of human experience. And it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t even try. Ooh just had a good idea – Lear’s daughter in king Lear, Cordelia, she is asked by her father how much she loves him. Rather than doing as her sisters did and waxing lyrical she simply says as much as salt. He is offended at her seeming lack of enthusiasm. But she was expressing something so deep words didn’t do it justice in a simple yet obvious way. Not meant to be taken literally! (Get it? Good eh?)
  11. Mel – it’s a bit like saying ‘I know what it seems like but it isn’t what you think but you wouldn’t understand so I shan’t say anything.’ (see Emma 10)
  12. Mel – Ayer means the discussion is pointless – it’s like arguing that aliens living on Jupiter would have to be…but they couldn’t be because they don’t exist so the point is pointless!
  13. Mel – my example is my husband once took my favourite mug into the garage. I said please don’t, he said nothing will happen to it, I said just don’t just in case. He said stop worrying then put it on the freezer lid and lifted the lid. Mug fell off, broke. His argument would be there is no point to this discussion. But there was!!         [6 hours out of my life!!]    Hope these help!

 

 

  1. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/05/space-euphoria.html
  2. https://www.cbn.org/media/player/index.aspx?s=/vod/MIA44v4_WS&search=700club&p=10&parent=1&subnav=false
  3. http://www.actsweb.org/articles/article.php?i=17&d=1&c=1&p=1
Posted on

Compare how the two television programmes you have studied offer comic representations of gender

Jan 2003 exemplar answer

 

The TV sit-coms ‘Man About the House‘ and ‘Men Behaving Badly‘ offer two very different views of gender representations as much because of the time they were made as because of the content of the programmes themselves.

 

Both programmes discuss gender as a central issue. In MATH Robin transgresses the patriarchal male role model by being domesticated and liking to cook – (in fact he’s a cookery student but Chrissie would rather he didn’t mention this in front of more sophisticated men like the accountant or architect at the dance.) this concept is enhanced by his being dressed in a flamboyant woman’s dressing gown. His actions are also quite camp. In this programme domestication and transvestism are benchmarks of what it means to be gay.

 

In MBB Gary discusses what it means to be gay and cites ‘Antique Shop’ and ‘hairstyle’ as factors indicating Tony’s gayness. In addition to this he believes what he wears, where he holidays and what he does for a living also mark Tony out as homosexual. Gary’s old fashioned bigotry are similar to George’s in MATH.

 

George will not even touch Robin when he thinks he may be gay, as though it may be some sort of transmissible disease, though his wife Mildred obviously doesn’t think much of his manhood, constantly emasculating him through her dialogue, ‘I think I recognise a man from memory’ and ‘you can hardly keep the pot boiling down here.’

 

Dorothy, in MBB, also castrates Gary by attacking his sexual prowess, ‘the man with the live animal down his trousers’ sarcastically. This turning of traditional roles on their heads is known as Carnival theory and here Dorothy and Mildred both retain the upper hand in their humiliation of their men.

.

Both men too are represented as bigoted and homophobic while Tony by contrast is shown as having pictures of naked women on his wall a stereotypical male characteristic. He also assumes all women can sew and his current love Debbie conforms to that stereotype. In addition to this Tony confidently lies to get women to sleep with him assuming they wouldn’t if he didn’t!

 

By complete contrast Jo and Chrissy in MATH transgress their ideological gender patterns by being undomesticated, ‘if you get the urge, and can remember how, feel free to do the washing up,’ says Robin; by being brazenly sexual beings, they talk openly about their latest lusts and conquests (quite radical in the 70s), and quite slobbish in that they expect Robin to do the tidying up. He has become a mother hen to them even while openly admitting to fancying Chrissy and constantly asking her out. They in turn take advantage of him in the way that children do of their mothers.

 

Jo however does conform to another stereotype
that of the dumb blonde; she can do nothing for herself not even boil an egg and her only apparent topics of conversation are shopping, clothes and men! Chrissy too is quite undomesticated but cleverer than Jo; this was a stereotype of the female student of the 1970s. Whereas Deb and Dorothy from MBB are unashamedly domesticated but also hold down well respected jobs. In fact there isn’t anything they cannot do and in that programme both men are represented as failures as is George in MATH. Gary though he has a job and would like to believe he has some power, at heart realises it isn’t real power and smarts a bit from Dorothy’s stinging attacks on his abilities in all realms. She is good at undermining his masculinity and he and Tony usually take refuge in the ubiquitous cans of beer or in singing ‘Lady in Red’ (badly). Tony of course is often unemployed or if he is, it is doing something a trained monkey could probably do better. Mildred, Dorothy and Deb are predominantly the males in their relationships, in control, strong and overtly superior to the men.

 

Our understanding and acceptance of gender roles comes from the ideological views and values of society. In the 1970s the male is the character who can get away with sleeping around, be the bread winner and act the dominant patriarchal figure in society and relationships. The representation of Robin in MATH challenges this ideological view and makes his persona comic. He is clearly a sensitive man; he is interested in cooking, drinks cherry brandy miniatures and wears an outrageous apron! George by contrast likes to believe he is the dominant figure, master in his own house but is quite clearly not at all. He is emasculated by his wife, his authority and intelligence constantly undermined and therefore his portrayal subverts the traditional male representation.

 

His wife too, who should be the traditional weaker domesticated female, housewife figure, is not that either! Her role challenges the accepted ideology but this is acceptable by situation comedy standards since it is almost the sole genre in which women are allowed to reign supreme, where males are allowed to fail and be laughed at for doing so. In all other areas of life and television males reign just as they do in our patriarchal society.

 

Both texts disrupt the equilibrium in terms of the way gender is portrayed and can be interpreted as radical. Unfortunately in Men Behaving Badly life has imitated art. Society empathised with these men who meant to represent arrogant and sexist, unreconstructed males suddenly became role models. These two men were archetypes in a time of political correctness but the eighties gave rise to a new era of ‘laddishness’ in which with post-modern irony it became alright to go out with the lads, get drunk, have one night stands and be proud of it. Hence Gary and Tony never learn better, never become reformed characters but remain quite happy with their juvenile behaviour, to the eternal disgust of their women!

 

Both texts transgress and overturn traditional gender roles. But both texts restore the equilibrium at the end of the episode by conforming to social ideologies and stereotypical views of their time e.g Robin is disgusted at the idea of homosexuality and Gary and Tony conform to lad culture stereotype which the programme encourages the viewers to condemn (though as observed earlier this wasn’t entirely successful!)