Philosophy GA 3: Written examination

GENERAL COMMENTS
The 2002 examination saw a marked improvement compared to the 2001 results. This was due to:

2002 being the first examination where students who completed VCE Philosophy Units 1 and 2 were examined at
the 3 and 4 level
improved teacher confidence with the material
teachers being more successful in covering all components of the course
good attendances at support sessions offered by the VCAA, LaTrobe and Melbourne Universities.

Generally, responses to Section A and B questions were accurate, detailed and very well expressed. Fewer students
felt the need to give large tracts of irrelevant material (usually biographical). Compared with 2001, fewer students left
sections of the paper unanswered, or responded with we did not study him. The responses in the evaluation and
analyses parts of Section B were a substantial improvement on 2001. Students need to have thought about and be
engaged with the arguments and ideas studied and not just offer a neutral assessment or the phrase is justified in his
arguments because he believes he is.
Teachers were generally successful in getting students to give brief answers in Section A and develop more detailed
responses in Section B; however, the main difficulty were the essays in Section C. It was evident that many students
either did not know how to write a philosophy essay, or had spent too much time on Sections A and B, and as a
consequence, had little time to develop their essays in Section C.
Some students still answered all five questions in Section B where the clear instruction is to do any three out of five.
Students are not awarded extra marks for answering more questions.

Section A
The questions in this section were short answer. In some instances a single sentence answer was sufficient for full
marks. Section A is concerned with the details of the texts. It does not ask for any analysis, evaluation etc. of the
arguments or claims made in the texts. Section A is also the only section where every question is compulsory.
Apart from incorrect responses, some answers were so brief or poorly expressed, that it was difficult to assess what
students actually knew. Answers are supposed to be brief, so long as they are clear and unambiguous.
Question
Marks
%
Response
What does Sartre mean by his claim that existence precedes essence?
Question 1
a
25
0/3
man turns up, man exists
12
1/3
afterwards he defines himself
18
2/3
man is nothing else but what he makes of himself
46
3/3
Quite well answered. Most students had a basic understanding of Sartres reversal of
(Average
Aristotles claim that essence precedes. Often, the first point was given as an
mark
answer. Though rewarded, it is insufficient.
1.85)
What reasons does he give for this claim?
b
0/2
40
there is no human nature since there is no God to conceive it
19
1/2
therefore there is no fixed or given human nature
2/2
41
Students often responded to this question with there is no God. The second part of
(Average
there being no fixed human nature is an important (and essential) part of the answer.
mark 1.0)
Why does Callicles think philosophy is suitable for a young person, but not an
Question 2
a
20
0/3
older one?
27
1/3
in the young, it opens the mind and neglect of philosophy condemns one to a
33
2/3
low estimation of oneself
21
3/3
in the old, any two of:
(Average
- out of touch with human nature
mark
- incapable of undertaking practical activities
1.54)
- little participation in public life (limits development)
- unable to defend themselves in court
Usually answered well, but for 3 marks, students needed to mention three points.

b
0/2
1/2
2/2
(Average
mark
1.02)
Question 3

a
0/3
1/3
2/3
3/3
(Average
mark
2.42)

b
0/2
1/2
2/2
(Average
mark
1.22)

31
37
33

2
7
39
52

26
25
48

How does Socrates defend philosophy?

By posing important moral and practical questions:
What sort of person should one be?
What should we do when we are young and when we are old?
How thoroughly should I devote myself to my occupation?
Disharmony, or conflict within the self, can be resolved by philosophy?
Students often floundered with this question. Many answered with the phrase that
it was good for you, without any specifics. Vagueness was not rewarded.
Which three of the following does Aristotle include in his conception of
eudemonia?
(i)
friendship
(ii)
activity of the soul
(iii)
great wealth
(iv)
virtue
(v)
beauty
Answer: (i), (ii), and (iv)
Students who did not achieve full marks often gave beauty as an answer. Aristotle
says that, though desirable, beauty is neither essential nor necessary for eudemonia.
Outline one of the kind of lives Aristotle rejects. Give one of his reasons for
rejecting it.
One mark for a way of life, 1mark for his reason for rejecting it:

Question 4

Question 5

a
0/2
1/2
2/2
(Average
mark
1.42)
b
0/3
1/3
2/3
3/3
(Average
mark
1.27)
a
0/1
1/1
(Average
mark
0.68)

honour is too superficial as it depends on those who bestow it rather than the
honour of those who receive it
possession of excellence could be compatible with inactivity or misfortune in
which case it could not be associated with happiness
wealth is merely useful and for the sake of something else
slaves cannot perform virtuous acts as they are under the control of a master
rejects amusement as valuable to a good man as it is a strange end
rejects pleasure as its less than human (bovine).

Many answered this question quite well. The range of options made it relatively
easy to find some examples.
In The Phaedo what does Socrates say happens to the soul after death?
10
38
52

soul is immortal and lives on unharmed and is imperishable, or

soul makes a journey to the next world (transmigration)
Generally, few problems or misunderstandings were evident in this question.

According to Socrates, why is it important to have a pure soul?

31
28
24
17

as the soul is immortal it carries with it the misdeeds of one life into the next
hence, death is no escape from evil
only being good is
Some students confused this question with Socrates defence of philosophy, and
thus responded by saying that it is important to have a pure soul to do philosophy.

32
68

What does the Turing Test mean?

an agent which passes the test can be thought of as a thinking thing, or
fooling a human being into thinking the machine is a human being

Most students answered this question correctly. A common mistake was that the
test signified that men are machines.

b
0/4
1/4
2/4
3/4
4/4
(Average
mark
1.85)

33
12
15
14
25

Outline two potential objections to the Turing Test that Turing raises. For
each of these objections state one response made by Turing.
Any two of the following objection/response pairs:

theological objection: thinking is a function of mans God given soul. Machines

have no souls
Heads In the Sand: the thought of machines with minds is too awful to
contemplate. An emotive rather than rational position
Goedels Theorem: that large logical systems cannot prove some statements that
are formulated by that system, therefore some questions may fail to get a
response from the machine, or elicit an incorrect answer. But humans also
exhibit these qualities
consciousness lacking: a machine must be self aware. Conscious of having
written something, not just of having written. It also demands that the machine
have feelings. But this is a solipsists view. We use behaviourist principles in
looking for other minds in people, why not machines
disabilities: machines cant enjoy strawberries, tell right from wrong. But some
human activities are not important for a machine. Machines can be subject to
their own thinking in that they can help to make their own programs
Lady Lovelace Objection: machines cannot do anything innovative or original.
This collapses into a solipsist argument
continuity of the Nervous System: a discrete state machine cant imitate the
behaviour of the nervous system. But both machines could give the correct
answer, so they cant be distinguished
informality of Behaviour: If men had rules to live their life by, they would be
machines. There are no such rules, so men are not machines. But this is the error
of the undistributed middle. If we substitute laws of behaviour for rules to
live your life by, then these laws would also be difficult to determine
ESP: cant logically ignore this objection, but we can make the test ESP proof
other, e.g. chess playing (is Deep Blue more than the sum of its programmers?)

Most students gave at least one objection and response of Turings. Apart from not
knowing two objections and responses, the common mistake was to give their (or
someone elses) objection, not Turings.

Section B
The questions in this section require students to display more detail and depth of understanding than in Section A. The
most common area of concern was answering part c) of each question. In most cases, these parts are either i) a
comparison with another philosopher, or ii) an evaluation of the philosophers position. When offering an opinion as to
the value of an idea or argument, one suggestion is for students to frame their responses by I think Xs view on the
good life is valuable because Even if the reasons are not clear or good ones, the fact that students have given some
thought to the views of a philosopher will be rewarded with some marks.
In most part b) and c) questions, a mark was given for the expression and/or persuasiveness of the response.
What nature approves and sanctions is this: the only authentic way of life is to do nothing to hinder
Question 1
or restrain the expansion of ones desires, until they can grow no longer.
Plato, Gorgias, 491e492a
What desires does Callicles identify as virtues?
a
7
0/3
luxury, excess (pleasures) and licence (freedom) are virtues and happiness; a
27
1/3
sensual hedonism. Everything else is mere convention.
35
2/3
The main difficulty was that the virtues listed were often examples of pleasure at the
30
3/3
expense of mentioning freedom or luxury.
(Average
mark
1.88)

b
0/6
1/6
2/6
3/6
4/6
5/6
6/6
(Average
mark
3.32)

c
0/6
1/6
2/6
3/6
4/6
5/6
6/6
(Average
mark
3.25)
Question 2

13
13
12
13
12
16
21

13
10
15
15
14
15
18

Outline an argument that Socrates uses to counter Callicles claim made in the
quote above.
i) the argument of qualified pleasures (the catamite) or,
ii) argument of appetite and thirst, or
iii) the leaky jar simile the general argument is: want and desire are painful; the
sating of desire brings pleasure; hence pain and pleasure are together therefore good
not identical with pleasure, or evil with pain, or
iv) coward feels more pleasure than the brave at the retreat of the enemy. If pleasure
is the good, then this makes the coward very good. This seems a perverse thing to
say.
Most students responded with a satisfactory description of a relevant argument, but
the problem was that the details of this argument were often lacking. Vague, general
answers attracted fewer marks.
Compare and evaluate Callicles view of the good life to Nietzsches view.

similar in both Nietzsche and Callicles in that both thought that excesses and
pleasure (material or sensual) should be indulged, but Callicles argues for a
strict Hedonism and social Darwinism
with hedonism, pleasures may have morally reprehensible consequences
no valuing of social responsibilities
no privileging of any moral framework by Nietzsche.

Most students answered that both would hold very similar views. Whilst correct,
there was little in those answers that would indicate clear knowledge or some prior
thinking on the students part. Some details on the position of each in the students
comparison were essential.
Our states of consciousness differ And if quality of consciousness matters, then anything which
alters consciousness in the direction of unselfishness, objectivity and realism is to be connected with
virtue.
Iris Murdoch The Sovereignty of Good, p. 84.
What argument does Murdoch use to justify the role of art as a means to virtue?
a
9
0/5
art is connected with beauty
16
1/5
the necessary role of authority and hierarchy
11
2/5
it is through beauty that one experiences a selflessness, an ability to conceive
19
3/5
transcendent values because one experiences transcendence
20
4/5
selflessness is the path to virtue
25
5/5
Students who attempted the Murdoch question often had a good understanding of
(Average
her argument. It was the level of detail, and the logical order, in describing her
mark 3.0)
argument that often determined whether a student was awarded high marks.
What similarities, if any, can you make between Sartre and Murdoch in their
biiii
15
0/6
positions on:
7
1/6
a) the origin of moral values
14
2/6
b) responsibility to others
17
3/6
c) the role of emotions in moral decisions
18
4/6
both see man as the origin of moral value
12
5/6
neither believe in a God or teleological system
16
6/6
both have social responsibility/element as part of their ethical systems (man
(Average
chooses for all men: Sartre). Murdoch is more explicit
mark
both insist that emotions are essential in making moral decisions (Sartres
3.18)
example of the student and his conflicting duties)
Most students gave an answer to some of the above, but not with sufficient detail to
warrant full marks, e.g. direct examples from the text would be useful in a question
such as this. Phrases like emotions are important were common (correct, but too
vague to be of any value).

c
0/4
1/4
2/4
3/4
4/4
(Average
mark
2.33)

14
16
21
22
27

Who do you think has the better guide for a moral life, Sartre or Murdoch?
Why?

Question 3

Murdoch outlines a means to a transcendent set of values. Sartre makes no such

formulation
Sartres description for a good life is less prescriptive than Murdochs and so is
realistic
Murdoch gives beauty a transcendent nature. How can this be reconciled with
aesthetic theories and personal experience that lends weight to the argument that
beauty is an inherently subjective concept/experience?
Murdoch can also be seen as realistic, i.e. our experience seems to confirm
that morality is from a/some external source/s. She also assumes that we are
selfish
is recognition of authority and hierarchy essential for an experience of beauty?

The emphasis in this question was on what the student thought and why. It was
common for the second part of the question to be completely ignored. An answer to
a question such as this that lacks reasons is practically worthless. Whether a student
prefers Murdochs or Sartres guide is of secondary importance. It is their reasons
for doing so which is the important issue.
The European disguises himself in morality because he has become a sick, sickly, crippled animal, who
has good reasons for being tame, because he is almost an abortion, an imperfect, weak and clumsy
thing
Nietzsche, The Joyful Wisdom, p. 352
According to Nietzsche, what is responsible for man becoming a sick, sickly,
a
14
0/3
crippled animal.?
19
1/3
the taming of the beast of prey is responsible; only social man has a need for
29
2/3
morality because it experiences anxiety and ennui
38
3/3
it creates modes of life that have unattainable ideals and man punishes himself
(Average
for not meeting them
mark
European morality suppresses the will to life or power, and extols humility,
1.89)
selflessness and compassion. Nietzsche views these values as weakness.

b
0/8
1/8
2/8
3/8
4/8
5/8
6/8
7/8
8/8
(Average
mark
4.19)

4
8
12
18
14
14
13
9
8

A lack of detail marred some students responses. By giving examples of the type of
morality, or the impossible ideals that man lives under, rather than just say the
suppression of the will to power, then students would demonstrate clearly to
examiners that Nietzsches claim is understood.
Why is Nietzsche excited by the claim that God is dead and what does he say
about the role of religion in moral systems?

with God dead, then Man is free from the burden of having to believe in a
version of morality based on Christianity
exciting possibilities: the re-evaluation of all morals
Religions (Christianity) have been the major influence on European morality.
They (religious leaders/prophets) recognise that Man needs a system of belief;
one that rejects all other systems and holds them as bad or evil.
Religions have made the following contributions to the practice of morality:

they have used routine to dull the mind and natural instincts and reflexes
religion (the desire to belief) is a manifestation; a weakness of will
the role of the priest as a protector and wounder of the herd, ie. that religions
have created an ideal man, one far removed from the real man that is on earth
the creation of guilt in and for man is also one of the consequences of modern
religions. We distrust man
religions also foster the belief that truth is divine; so divine that we recognise
the great lie we have told ourselves for 2 millennia: that there is a God
morality is now about self denial, selflessness, modesty and chasteness.
A question which required a substantial degree of detail and accuracy to be awarded
full marks. The question has two parts, and often students would feel that in
answering the first, they had somehow answered the second, i.e. because of the
liberation from the constraints of morality based on religion (death of God), then
religion can offer nothing to man. This is clearly a misreading of the question.

c
0/4
1/4
2/4
3/4
4/4
(Average
mark
2.13)

Question 4

18
17
21
22
22

From your description in part b), what conclusions can you make about
Nietzsches attitude toward social responsibility?

Nietzsche argues for a re-evaluation of values such as compassion, pity etc. To

prescribe a guide to social responsibility would be an anathema to Nietzsche
this suggests that a type of social Darwinism might prevail; in fact it could be
argued that, for Nietzsche, this form of social organisation or set of values are
the only moral values that could be permitted.
A few students suggested that Nietzsche has a high regard for social responsibility,
i.e. I am my brothers keeper. This is clearly incorrect based on the text for study.
Most who did not achieve full marks fell into the trap of a too brief response, e.g.
He did not value it. An extra sentence or two explaining why (from the material
mentioned in part b) would have improved their answers.
We know that man is made for the stars, created for the everlasting, born for eternity. We know that
man is crowned with glory and honour, and so long as he lives on the low level he will be frustrated,
disillusioned and bewildered.
Martin Luther King, What is a Man?, p. 26
Platos view of human nature is that we all have a material body and an
a
10
0/3
immaterial mind. Does King agree or disagree with this view? Give reasons for
12
1/3
your answer.
25
2/3
King agrees because man is a physical, rational, and spiritual being who sins.
53
3/3
He is a dualist, and though concepts of mind and body may vary between he and
(Average
Plato, they both hold a similar position on Man
mark 2.2)
King claims the current valuing of mind over body is wrong as it denies our

b
0/6
1/6
2/6
3/6
4/6
5/6
6/6
(Average
mark
3.25)

c
0/6
1/6
2/6
3/6
4/6
5/6
6/6
(Average
mark
2.68)

8
12
17
18
18
12
16

14
17
19
15
14
11
10

nature as physical beings.

Quite well answered. The difference between partial and full marks was the fact that
King did not over-emphasise the importance of the mind at the expense of the body
(unlike Plato).
Outline Martin Luther Kings description of Man. What does Martin Luther
King mean when he states that Man lives on the low level ?

the dualism of King is supplemented by his belief that mans moral state is a
consequence of his relationship with God
man is a sinner and until he recognises this, his frustration will continue
for King, man has misused his freedom. Modern man seeks everyone to blame
but himself ie. biological/social factors
man is a rational agent and is free to choose his actions, therefore he is
responsible for his actions
King also recognises the dichotomy in Mans personality: Augustines plea to
be good, but not just yet, or Platos simile of the charioteer
he also makes the point that Man is not meant for evil ALL his life; the parable
of the prodigal son shows that if Man comes home (to God) then he will be
forgiven.
Most students correctly outlined Kings description of Man, but had real problems in
explaining his phrase that Man lives on the low level For a number of students,
Kings What Is Man? is a text studied with a brief acknowledgment of the
philosophical assumptions of his description of man, and why Man is a sinner.
Do you think that Martin Luther King is justified in using religion as a source
of moral values? Why?
Yes as a psychological comfort to explain suffering even if God does not exist,
belief in transcendent values is important for social cohesion, justice and fairness.
No without a scientific/material basis; why would a loving God allow the innocent
to suffer?
Any other reasoned response; use of Murdoch, Sartre or Nietzsche to justify or
amplify their response.
Answers that were exclusively religious, e.g. Gods law is the one true law. were
not accepted. Reasons, not dogma, are essential in answers to philosophy questions.
Many students said that King was justified in using religion as a source of moral
values purely because he was a Christian, and therefore if he believed it, he was
justified. This retreat into a simplistic moral relativism must be avoided.

Question 5

Pleasure is our first and kindred good. It is the starting point of every choice and aversion, and to it we
come back, inasmuch as we make feeling the rule to judge every good thing. Epicurus, Letter To
Menoeceus
What does Epicurus mean by pleasure?
a
18
0/3
pleasure is the absence of pain and trouble in the soul.
16
1/3
It was essential to the answer that the trouble in the soul component be mentioned.
31
2/3
This part was often omitted.
35
3/3
(Average
mark
1.83)
Outline at least three important pieces of advice given by Epicurus to
b
10
0/7
Menoeceus on leading the good life.
Three of the following (with some detail in explanation) are necessary:
7
1/7
12
2/7
seek wisdom because it is good for the soul (reflection)
12
3/7
always direct yourself toward happiness
11
4/7
God is an immortal and blessed being; what must be worshipped is his
13
5/7
immortality and blessedness
13
6/7
death is not to be feared by the wise
21
7/7
no terror in life for those who feel no terror in ending life
(Average
healthy body and security of mind lead to a blessed life
mark
sober reasoning and moderation in pleasures is necessary for a happy life
4.06)
DO NOT accept friendship: not in the advice given to Menoeceus by Epicurus,

c
0/5
1/5
2/5
3/5
4/5
5/5
(Average
mark
3.06)

10
11
14
17
21
26

but is in the Alain de Botton video.

The last point was the most common error in this question. Overall, this question
was answered quite well. There was a reasonably good understanding and recalling
of Epicurus advice to Menoeceus.
Does Epicurus advice provide a good guide to leading a good moral life in
todays society? Give reasons for your answer.
the criteria of pleasure seems relevant in the current value of moral subjectivism
the critique of excess is relevant to modern capitalism
Students were also rewarded for using relevant examples from their own experiences
to justify their argument/opinion.
In part c) the emphasis is not on the persona; but the reasoned response of the
student. Their experiences and ideas are important, but as material or reasons in the
service of their position (a considered opinion) as to the value of Epicurus ideas.

Section C
(Average mark 4.0/Available marks 10)
The answers are suggested ones only as the questions are deliberately left open and general; students may focus on one
particular argument and may not have covered all of the criticisms mentioned.
This was the section where most students had trouble. The main reasons were:
a) students ran out of time
b) students wrote a summary of ideas without examining the question.
A solution to the first problem can be to attempt the essay question first, then Section B, then Section A. If a student
has difficulties with managing their time, then it might be better to sacrifice some marks in Section A than up to 20
marks in Section C. As for the second issue, planning and addressing the question are essential elements in a philosophy
essay.
Question 1
The view known as dualism holds that the mind (or soul) and the body are two different things, though they may
be somehow related. Outline and critically evaluate one or two arguments for dualism.
Possibilities include the following:
Descartes argument from doubt and certainty
clear and distinct ideas of mind/body means there must be distinct mind/body
Descartes argument from divisibility and indivisibility.

Arguments for the non-physicality of mental states:

e.g. their essential privacy, and their intentionality (they can be about things)
the argument from psychic phenomena
Platonic concept of soul (tripartite nature, immortal and imperishable)
the Turing Test; can machines think/possess a mind?
Questions/Criticisms:

Solipsism of the cogito

Materialism/empiricism as basis for mind (Armstrong)
reductionism of science
distinction between animals, men, machines
interactionism: the problems of substance dualism
example of computers in confirming materialist/reductionist view of mind.
In this question, the main problem was the lack of evaluation on the part of students. Sometimes, dualism was
referred to as if there were only one type, and not as varieties of the basic idea of mind/body. A lack of subtle
understanding indicates a lack of critical reading and thinking on this issue. It makes it difficult for a student to make
sophisticated and intelligent evaluations of arguments if their understanding is elementary and limited.
Question 2
Outline and evaluate (a) Armstrongs particular version of materialism, and (b) his arguments in support of
materialism.
Answers should cover the following:

scientists favour materialism

science is more credible than philosophy and religion because it yields consensus
science converges on the truth as an explanation of consensus.
Questions/Criticisms:

explanatory gap between possession of brain (and its physical states) and the experience of these states subjectively
ie. why should I experience melancholia if synapse A is activated?
support for Armstrongs materialism
example of computers in confirming materialist/reductionist view of mind
Kuhns alternative explanation of consensus in Science (guided by community).
This was not a particularly popular question, but those who answered it did quite well because the question had clear
requirements, and most students found it easy to write a relevant response; one that addressed the two parts of this
question. They understood Armstrongs case for materialism (i.e. why we should treat this argument seriously) and
then, his version of materialism. This distinction is important. One critical mistake by some students was that they said
that Armstrong accepts materialism without reservation.
Question 3
To what extent does science give us knowledge? Answer with reference to the views of at least two of the
following: Plato, Newton, Popper, and Kuhn.
Answers should include the following as relevant points:
Plato True knowledge concerns the permanent and unchanging realm of reality, accessible only to the intellect, rather
than the world of the senses. (Refer to one or more of the images of the Sun, the Line and the Cave.). Knowledge as
justified true belief.
Critical questions: Can the existence of this realm be established? What does it contain? How are we to be sure that we
understand it correctly?
Newton the science of mechanics is not necessarily inexact and imperfect, but potentially as accurate and rationally
demonstrable as geometry.
Critical question: Do observations of the world (of gravity, levity, elastic force, etc.) really allow the same degree of
objectivity and certainty as the abstractions of geometry?
Popper a theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable, i.e. there are conceivable observations which would show it to be
false. Einsteins theory of gravitation passes this test; astrology and the psychoanalytic theories of Freud and Adler do
not, for whatever happens is claimed to fit the theory. Unfalsifiability is not a strength in a theory, but a weakness.
Confirming evidence should count only if it results from risky predictions, i.e. ones which are improbable apart from
the theory.
Critical questions: Does Poppers account allow the establishment of positive scientific knowledge, as opposed to the
negative knowledge that a given theory is false? What is confirmation, and is it the same as proof? Is the qualifying rule
for confirming evidence too restrictive?

Kuhn the emergence of a new scientific theory is often due to a crisis the persistent failure of puzzles to be solved
in the terms of the old theory. New theories involve the replacement of previously standard beliefs or procedures a
paradigm shift. Examples include Copernican astronomy, Lavoisiers oxygen theory of combustion, and Einsteins
theory of relativity. When puzzles under the new paradigm become intolerable, a new shift may be required. Scientific
progress is a matter of evolution, but not toward a fixed truth.
Critical questions: Arent some scientific theories true, or at least truer than others? Does Kuhns view really allow for
scientific progress, as distinct from mere change?
This was the most popular essay question. There was enough material in this question for students to concentrate on just
two different philosophers. A common problem was that students tried to cover too much ground and ended up giving a
summary of Platos, Poppers, Turings, and Kuhns ideas. These essays were little more than four long paragraphs
that were not tied together with an argument or considered opinion. The question asks if science gives us knowledge. A
good place to start is if indeed this is true. The next part is to show (demonstrate) why this is so (or not). The material
used is only as good as the argument it is supporting.
More successful essays usually contained a good comparison between the empiricism of science, and its subsequent
characteristic that truth is not permanent, and Platos concept of knowledge as infallible and timeless.