Essay

Writing Philosophy Papers: some Do’s and Don’t’s

DO: Make an outline for your paper. This will enable you to step back and consider the structure of your paper, which will help you to ensure that the structure makes sense: everything in the paper supports your thesis.

DO: Make the structure of your paper clear by explicitly stating your thesis and providing guideposts to the reader. E.g.:

· I will argue that Clifford provides good reason to think that …

· Clifford’s conclusion is … . He supports this conclusion in two main ways. The first way is …

· Someone could object to Clifford’s argument by pointing out that …

· … However, this objection does not succeed. After all, …

You can’t make the structure of your paper obvious if you don't know what the structure of your paper is, or if your paper has no structure. That's why making an outline is so important.

DON’T: Structure your paper as a narrative (starring the authors, or yourself)

1) Euthyphro says x; then he says y. Socrates responds that p; Euthyphro responds by saying that z; but then Socrates goes on to explain that q.

2) At first I thought Clifford seemed right …. But then I realized that James makes a good point. …. Overall, I guess James’ view seems better.

DO: Structure your paper as an argument or an analysis of an argument. In your introduction, state your thesis (or specify the task you’ll accomplish), and give the reader some idea of how you’ll establish that thesis (or accomplish that task).

1) I will explicate Socrates’ conception of human wisdom and analyze his argument for the conclusion that human wisdom is preferable to craftsmen’s wisdom.

2) I will explicate Socrates’ conception of human wisdom and argue that, in the face of this conception, his claim that human wisdom is preferable to craftsmen’s wisdom is unsupportable.

3) I will show that the disagreement between Clifford and James rests on their different views about …., and explain why I favor Clifford’s position.

DO: Use paragraphs to structure your argument. Each paragraph should accomplish a single, clear task (one that contributes to establishing your thesis).

DON’T: Simply report or describe your opinions.

· E.g.: “I disagree with Socrates. I would rather have craftsmen’s wisdom than human wisdom.”

DO: Support your positions through argument. “Craftsmen’s wisdom is more valuable because … .”

DON’T: Summarize. Summary is passive. (regurgitation)

DO: Analyze the argument. Analysis is active. (And requires active reading.) Carefully focusing on what is crucial to the argument will allow you to avoid discussing extraneous issues.

DON’T: Attribute a lousy argument (one that’s obviously invalid, or that rests on wildly implausible assumptions) to your opponent. If you think the author’s argument is lousy, you’ve probably misunderstood it.

E.g.: if it seems obvious to you that James is right, and you think that Clifford’s arguments have no merit whatsoever, then you’re probably missing Clifford’s point.

Coda: If it’s obvious to you that p is true and that the arguments for not-p have no merit whatsoever, the debate between p and not-p probably isn’t a good topic for you.

DO: Give your opponent (and/or the position you oppose) the strongest argument you can. This will strengthen your own argument, and will clarify your understanding of the underlying issues.

DON’T: Address every objection to your own position (or the position you’re rejecting).

DO: Focus on the single strongest objection to the view you’re defending (or the argument you’re making). Evaluate the objection by giving the best response to it. By keeping your topic narrow, you can delve deeply into it; by broadening the topic, you risk a more superficial discussion.

DON’T: Begin by writing the introduction.

DO: Write the introduction last. The introduction should state your thesis (or the task you’ll accomplish in the paper) and give the reader some idea of how you’ll establish the thesis (or accomplish that task).

DON’T: Uncritically accept objections to the argument you’re targeting. Recognize that these are allegations, rather than neutral descriptions of flaws in the argument.

· E.g.: “James points out that Clifford is unreasonable.”

DO: Carefully evaluate every argument (and substantive claim), even those you endorse.

DO: When considering two competing views, identify the underlying point at issue. This does not mean the conclusion; instead, it means the difference in commitments (basic assumptions or outlook) that explains the difference in conclusions.

· E.g., the underlying point at issue between Clifford and James is not whether it’s always wrong to believe without sufficient evidence. (That’s the difference in their conclusions.) The underlying point at issue is the more basic disagreement(s) that lead(s) to their disagreement on that issue.

Specific suggestions

Make it explicitly clear whether you are asserting that p or attributing this to someone.

Make it explicitly clear whether you are endorsing an argument or just describing it.

Express yourself in a simple, direct way. Philosophical ideas and arguments are complex, so clarity of expression is crucial. Don’t reach for a fancy word when a simple word suits your purpose.

Use ‘it’, ‘this’, etc. only when the antecedent is absolutely clear.

Avoid generic statements that don’t advance your argument.

· “The nature of morality has been questioned since time immemorial.”

· “since the dawn of time, philosophers have pondered ...".

Statements separated by a semi-colon should be complete; that is, they should be statements that could stand alone as sentences.