Philosophy Paper
Writing Philosophy Papers
Overview:
Philosophy papers are argumentative papers: you will argue for the truth of some thesis that you state in your introduction. That thesis will be pretty narrow. That is, you won’t argue for the truth of a big claim like ‘God exists’ or ‘God doesn’t exist’; rather, you’ll argue for the truth of something smaller and more focused, like ‘the free will response to the problem of evil is untenable’. You will adopt one of the following three basic strategies:
• Criticize someone’s position. Where did the author go wrong? Is she relying on false premises or making unwarranted assumptions? Does she leap to conclusions that are not justified by the arguments she gives? Or do you think her whole method is somehow just missing the point? In any case, why or how? Are the problems reparable?
• Support someone’s position against objections that have been levied against it in class, or against new ones that you’ve come up with.
• Combine the two in some way. For example, you can mostly agree with an author’s general position, but think that it needs to be slightly modified. Or you can think that an author’s conclusion is right, but that she hasn’t argued for it very well—you might offer a different argument for the same conclusion, like taking a different road to the same place.
Prewriting:
Read over the list of paper topics the same day that you get them. Pick the one or two that seem most interesting to you, and take 15-30 minutes to bang out some very preliminary thoughts. Don’t worry about the structure or presentation yet; just get some ideas written down. You will turn this in, though we will not judge you on it or hold you to it (though you will be docked 1/3 letter grade on your finished paper if you do not do it.)
Rough Guide to Structure:
1) Introduction explaining what you will be doing in your paper. Believe it or not, introductions serve an actual purpose. Please, please do not give me a paragraph of useless blather about how philosophers have grappled with issue x since the dawn of time. The introduction is neither an introduction to philosophy as a whole, nor to whatever subdiscipline is in question (ethics, philosophy of mind, metaphysics, etc.) It is instead an introduction to your paper. It should contain three things:
a. A brief statement of the issue you are addressing.
b. A short road map of your paper.
c. A clear statement of the thesis that you will defend.
(a) Gilbert Ryle thinks that Descartes’ version of substance dualism is deeply misguided—indeed, he thinks that “it is not merely an assemblage of particular mistakes. It is one big mistake and a mistake of a special kind” (Chalmers, 34). (b) I will begin by explaining the mistake that Ryle has in mind. I will then argue that he is wrong to think that Descartes makes this mistake. Yet there is certainly something to Ryle’s worry, and I shall argue that a slightly reformulated version of his point does hit home. (c) Although substance dualism is not quite based upon a category mistake, it is indeed based on a serious misconception of the mental.
Now, b and c need not appear in this order; sometimes it makes more sense to present the thesis before the road map. Also, do note that because an introduction like this is so tight, and so tied to the details of your paper, that you may very well have to write it last.
2) Summary of the view, or aspects of the view, that you will be discussing. In a couple of paragraphs, explain the view and the author’s main arguments for it.
3) Critically evaluate the view and the arguments for it. Is the view correct? Do the arguments for it succeed? Why or why not? Present your own thoughts and arguments about why the author’s arguments succeed or fail.
4) Conclusion wrapping up your discussion.
More detailed pointers:
Provide arguments, not just opinions.
Give reasons for the claims you make; don’t just announce them, and don’t just say “I think x” without telling me why. The goal is not just to express your point of view; it’s to convince the reader that it’s the right point of view. Now, you don’t need to defend absolutely every assumption you make (most of us agree that the earth is round) but don’t assume anything very controversial without argument (don’t assume the existence of God, for example.) If you begin with undefended assumptions that your opponent would never accept, you’ve lost from the beginning.
Balance summary and original thought. Don’t just spit back the lectures.
Don’t write a book report or lecture summary. And don’t write a non-text-related spouting of your own opinions. You definitely should take a stand and argue for your own claims, but you must tie them closely to the details of the material we cover in class. Use the material from text and lecture as a springboard—and an anchor—for original thought. Where precisely do you agree and disagree? Why? How would the author respond to your criticisms and modifications?
Zoom in.
A narrow focus is almost always better than a broad one. Sticking to a narrow topic allows you to explore it carefully. Whole papers can be written in response to one paragraph, or about one objection to an argument. Just be clear in your introduction that you are focusing your attention that way.
Use the principle of charity.
You might disagree strongly with some of the people we read. That’s fine. But in arguing against them, don’t treat them like idiots or caricature their views. Instead, you should do something you might find counterintuitive: make your opponent as strong as possible. Your criticisms look better when they are directed at better arguments. After all, it’s neither interesting nor impressive to win an argument against a moron.
Make the structure clear.
Do you have two independent objections? Say “I have two objections,” or “there are two problems with this.” Or maybe you’ll say, “I will start by considering the objection that ---. Then I’ll argue that the best response to this objection gets my opponent into even worse trouble.” Whatever you’ll do in the paper, tell the reader!
Address possible objections.
This is basically a way of keeping a step ahead of the reader. What are some possible objections to your claim? Can you claim that those possible objections are unwarranted, misguided, or simply not problematic after all? It is much better to see an attack coming and block it than to pretend you don’t see it at all.
Keep your eye on the ball.
Suppose you are writing a paper on the design argument for the existence of God. That’s not a platform to say whatever occurs to you about God or religious belief. Make sure that every issue you raise is directly relevant to what you are saying about the design argument.
Use transition words carefully.
Philosophers take words and phrases like ‘therefore’, ‘it follows that’, and ‘because’ very seriously. Don’t say ‘it follows that’ and then make an unrelated claim.
Feel free to use ‘I’.
Phrases like “I claim that,” “in this paper I will show that,” and the like are perfectly acceptable—and often very helpful.
Use clear, straightforward language.
Don’t use big words in the hopes that doing so will make you look smart. Don’t arbitrarily change phrasing and use synonyms just to liven things up.
Revise, rethink, revisit your ideas.
Very, very few people do their best work by writing a single draft from start to finish. Be open to rearranging the structure, to deleting a whole train of thought, to respinning the presentation. Your professors do those things with their own writing, too, you know. It can be useful to write an outline after you’ve writing a draft—pulling out the skeletal structure of what you’ve written can help you see what the pieces are, and maybe that it would be clearer to move some of the pieces around.
When You Think You Are Done Writing:
Read over your paper from beginning to end. In fact, I recommend reading it out loud. Try to be objective—read it as if it were someone else’s paper. Here are some questions to keep in mind:
• Did you address the topic without wandering?
• Did you say everything you meant to say?
• Did you repeat yourself too much?
• Is your writing clear and concise at the sentence level? Or are you using big words and complicated sentence structure to make your ideas sound more impressive? (Don’t.)
• Would you find your arguments convincing if you didn’t already agree with yourself?
• Have you considered possible objections to your view?
• Is the overall structure explicit and easy to follow?
• Do your individual sentences make sense? (Reading your paper aloud will help a lot here. You can catch many awkwardly constructed sentences on your own.)
• Are your grammar, punctuation, and spelling correct?