The exam, the 'a priori' & a bit of a rant!

I thought the questions were on the toughish side of my expectations, although the 'sense experience' one was ok.

You probably don't care, but I am very annoyed that they used a command term 'critically discuss' that was not in the list of command terms they published: I will be having words!

Also the first question 'Explain two ways in which it is possible to have a priori knowledge' is, to be blunt, cobblers! It suggests what I feared, that the kind of people setting the questions were taught philosophy by people who learned their philosophy in about 1930 from people who learned theirs in about 1880!

The notion of 'a priori knowledge' is regarded as highly contentious: an awful lot of the best philosophers think it's a nonsense. After Wittgenstein and the so called 'linguistic turn' any kind of knowledge is seen as depending on the language that 'forms' that 'knowledge', therefore even 'analytic' truths depend on 'experience' of the language that expresses the concepts, unless we think we can 'know' that the angles of a triangle add up to 180º before we have language.

So to write a question that suggests its existence is a fact is pathetic. And makes me angry! GrrrHHH!! Wait 'til I'm in charge!!