2. Key Thinkers… What argument is Russell outlining here?
“To make our difficulties plain, let us concentrate attention on the table. To the eye it is oblong, brown and shiny, to the touch it is smooth and cool and hard; when I tap it, it gives out a wooded sound. But as soon as we try to be more precise our troubles begin. Although I believe that the table is ‘really’ of the same colour all over, the parts that reflect the light look much brighter than the other parts, and some parts look white because of reflected light. I know that, if I move, the parts that reflect the light will be different, so that the apparent distribution of colours on the table will change.”
What argument is Russell outlining here?
“If a church were cunningly camouflaged so that it looked like a barn, how could any serious question be raised about what we see when we look at it? We see, of course, a church that now looks like a barn. We do not see an immaterial barn, an immaterial church, or an immaterial anything else. And what in this case could seriously tempt us to say we do?”
What argument is J.L. Austin attempting to defend against here?

3. If you have any questions, ask people on your table or Mike!
Topic Summary / Recap
Key Terms
Arguments / Theories
Key Thinkers
Perception
Realist
External World
Ontology
Epistemology
What does it mean to be realist?
What does it mean to be a direct realist?
Argument from illusion
Argument from hallucination
Argument from perceptual variation
Argument from time-lag
And responses to these issues…
J.L Austin
Bertrand Russell
Ensure you understand the key terms listed above, add them to your glossary if need be.
Recap and read through the key ideas, arguments and responses we’ve covered from this topic. Test yourself by laying them out as a mind-map on a whiteboard before comparing your work to your notes. You should be able to explain the arguments and responses in your own words without much difficulty.
Ensure you know the contributions made by J.L. Austin (the barn example in defence of realism) and Russell (the perceptual variation problem) to the topic of realism.
Use any time you have left to revise your work so far and ensure you understand everything.
If you have any questions, ask people on your table or Mike!

4. Direct Realism – Quick Check – Whiteboards!
Direct Realism – Quick Check – Whiteboards!
1. What are objects according to DR?
2. What is it that we perceive according to DR?
3. What is the argument from perceptual variation?
4. What is happening in an illusion according to a direct realist?
5. If a tree falls in the woods with no-one around, does it make a noise?

5. On your whiteboard: Out of 10, how good are you at writing essays?
What kinds of essays or aspects of essay-writing are you good at?
Which aspects are you less good at?

6. Key Question:
What does a good Philosophy essay look like?

7. Philosophy Essays
Test both AO1 (your understanding of the arguments studied)…
…and AO2 (your evaluation of those arguments and your own argument construction)
Do not need to include lengthy explanation of what you’ve studied. You can mention points very briefly, as long as you use them well.
You don’t need to include everything you’ve learnt- you’ll need to be selective.
Definitely need QUALITY rather than quantity – 3-4 sides.
Need to avoid waffle. Every sentence should add something to your argument.
You will definitely, absolutely, positively need to plan your answer.

8. 25 Mark—Levels of response mark scheme
25 AO1—5
AO2—20
21-25
The student argues with clear intent throughout and the argument is sustained.
A complete and comprehensive response to the question. The content is correct and the student shows detailed understanding.
The conclusion is clear, with the arguments in support of the conclusion stated precisely, integrated coherently, and robustly defended.
The overall argument is sustained, and reasoned judgements are made, on an ongoing basis and overall, about the weight being given to each argument—so crucial arguments are identified against less crucial ones.
Technical philosophical language is used precisely, clearly and consistently throughout.
16-20
The student argues with intent throughout and the argument is largely sustained.
A complete response to the question, the content is correct and there is detail—though not necessarily consistently.
The conclusion is clear, with a range of appropriate arguments used to support that conclusion. Arguments are stated clearly and integrated coherently and defended.
There is a balancing of arguments, with weight being given to each—so crucial arguments are noted against less crucial ones.
There may be some trivial mistakes—as long as they do not detract from the argument.
Technical philosophical language is used clearly and consistently throughout.
11-15
A clear response to the question in the form of an argument, demonstrating intent. The content is correct, though not always detailed.
A conclusion and reasons are given and the reasons clearly support the conclusion. There may be a lack of clarity/precision about the logical form/content.
Counter-arguments are given, but there may be a lack of balance.
Stronger and weaker arguments may be noted, but not necessarily those which are crucial to the conclusion.
Technical philosophical language is used clearly throughout.
6-10
The response to the question is given as an argument, but it’s not particularly coherent.
Relevant points are recognised / identified and mentioned. Alternative positions may be outlined and played off against one another, rather than being used as counter- arguments.
The logic of the argument is unclear.
Attempts are made to use technical philosophical language.
1-5
Several reasonable points are made and some connections, but no clear answer to the question based on an argument.
There may be a lot of missing content, or it’s completely one sided.
There may be some use of philosophical language.
Nothing worthy of credit.
How it’s marked…

9. So, you’re aiming for…
One coherent argument – all the arguments should link together and to the conclusion. No extra points added just for the sake of it. You argument should flow so it is obvious how you have arrived at your conclusion.
Clear intent throughout – although you need to present opposing arguments, you have to argue against them and show why they are weak and why the responses to them are stronger.
Selection of appropriate material and detailed accurate knowledge of it – but don’t spend time explaining the arguments to the examiner without using them to argue FOR something.
Appropriate weight given to each argument – make it clear how strong each argument is. If particular arguments are crucial in your opinion, state why and distinguish them from less crucial ones.

10. How to plan…
Make sure you understand the question. Can you re-write the question in your own words?
Brainstorm the arguments you know and their criticisms.
Select the arguments you are going to use.
Use your selected arguments to plan your conclusion.
You may need to re-do steps 3 and 4 several times until you get a coherent argument with your points leading to your conclusion. DO NOT attempt to write the essay until you have got this right.
Check your plan carefully to make sure you have answered the question, your conclusion really does follow from your arguments and you haven’t overlooked anything (you have plenty of time to do this in the exam).

11. Do we directly perceive objects?
Use your topic summary / notes and essay planning sheet to put together a plan for this question.

12. Summary: