What Your Professors Are Looking For
SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS
ON HOW TO WRITE A PHILOSOPHY PAPER
Philosophers seek wisdom through a dialectical (conversational or written back and forth) process of constructing and critiquing rational arguments. They believe that the truth on many issues can be discovered only if people are willing to publicly give reasons (or "arguments") for or against in a particular belief and then are willing to engage in a process in which their arguments are subjected to critical evaluation (by themselves and others). Philosophy papers model this process. Therefore, by engaging in the process of offering rational arguments for critical evaluation, you will be joining the "conversation of philosophy."
Consequently, when you write a philosophy paper, you should understand that, at the most general level, your paper will attempt to establish a claim or thesis (a "conclusion") by giving reasons ("premises") that, if true, would demonstrate that the conclusion is true or likely to be true. Thus, your paper will have the overall form of an argument that moves from premises to a conclusion. Within the overall argument of your paper, there will be subsidiary arguments that take the same form.
Although all arguments logically begin with premises and end in a conclusion, it is usually best if you state the conclusion of your overall argument first so that your reader has a clear sense of where you are headed in the paper. Thus, your very first sentence should state the thesis or point of the paper, and will typically have the form: "In this paper, I will argue for the position that...." or "I will establish that...." or "I will attempt to prove...." or some variant of these. There is no need to begin your paper with scene setting, reflections on life or academia, or the like. There is no need to establish a tone or mood. Get straight to the point. In general, avoid storytelling, autobiography, anecdote, and history. State your conclusion and then precede directly to your argument: remember philosophers are only interested in rational dialectic.
Once you know what claim you are going to establish and have stated what you are going to show or establish, the rest of your paper should be carefully structured with an eye to its conclusion. Tailor each of the arguments you make to the end you are trying to achieve and avoid extraneous matters. In particular, remember that you need not discuss every facet of a subject, only those that lead logically to your conclusion.
Each of your arguments will be based on premises. The premises you use to support your conclusion can be factual, conceptual, or moral, but they must be uncontroversial; that is, they must be such that they will be thought initially plausible (if not true) by your intended audience. If you think that they will be controversial, you will need to supply an argument for them. Always begin with premises that you think are broadly accepted by your audience.
Typically, your paper will be critical, that is, you will defend or attack someone else's view (actual or hypothetical). This suggests a two part structure for your paper: (1) a descriptive, discursive, or expository part, and (2) an argumentative or evaluative part.
In Part One, you will map out the position and argument of the author you are going to discuss. You will be graded, in part, on whether you accurately understand and explain what an author's position and arguments are. Do not simply catalogue or list claims the author makes, rather present them as an argument moving, again, from the author's premises to the author's conclusion. Always be fair! Do not overemphasize the seemingly most extreme elements of an author's position, especially if you play down or overlook arguments that the author gives for them. Do not, that is to say, turn the author into a "straw man" by attributing to the author odd or obviously false positions that he or she does not actually adopt. At all times you should try to give the author as sympathetic a reading as possible, given the statements that he or she has made in the text you are analyzing. In this part your goal should be to try to state the author's argument as clearly and convincingly as possible. Avoid quoting the author at length; mere quotation will not show that you understand what the author is doing. Also remember that I have read the texts, and am familiar with them, so your exposition may be brief. Use quotations only to establish the correctness of your interpretation of the author's argument.
In Part Two, you will critically evaluate the author's position. Whether you support the author's conclusion or not, your evaluation of it will take the same form; namely, you will try to present as good an argument as possible that shows that the author's argument is unsound or in some other way flawed. In order to develop this counter-argument it is helpful to ask the following questions: Are his premises true? Does his conclusion logically follow from his premises? These are the most important questions to ask. In addition, you might ask: Does the author contradict him or herself? Does the author equivocate on terms, using ambiguous words or phrases as though they had only one, clear sense? Does the author's argument have hidden or suppressed premises that are implausible or that contradict other stated premises? Does the author's argument commit him or her to additional consequences beyond those explicitly claimed, consequences that are implausible or even absurd? Does the author deal with all the relevant aspects of a problem? What are the practical consequences of the author's position?
Once you have stated the counter-argument, it is necessary to evaluate it. Be brief. Can you state reasonable objections to your counter-argument? If so, you can conclude that the author's position has been vindicated. If you cannot state any objections to your counter-argument, you may conclude that the author's argument has been refuted. These claims will seem reasonable only if you have been fair to the author and developed the best possible arguments for or against him that you can.
Do not simply repeat positions stated in class or in the texts discussed. State the ideas you use in your paper (whether they are your arguments or those of another) in your own words in a way that seems most logical to you:
Do not simply state your opinion on the question. I am interested only in the arguments you make; I am not interested in what you 'really think in your heart of hearts;' unless, that is, you can justify it with an argument.
Devote time to matters in proportion to their significance. Avoid padding! When using examples for the sake of exposition or clarification, keep them short and to the point. They should by no means make up the bulk of your paper.
Express yourself as clearly as possible. Aim for coherence of the whole, and simplicity in the parts. Use simple diction and grammar. Avoid convoluted sentences and overly complex or obscure expression. Overly long sentences generally signal mental confusion. When you are famous, you may write like Gibbon; until then, simplicity is the word. Avoid repeating yourself. Try reading your paper out loud -- you will be amazed at what flaws and awkwardness of thought and style this will sometimes reveal.
Finally, "When in doubt, leave it out."
--Written by Dr. Roger Paden