Philosophy Papers: The Basic Ideas

This section is intended for students who are relatively new to philosophical writing.  I hope here to give you a sense of what philosophical writing consists in.

Generally speaking, there are two distinct kind of tasks I might ask you to carry out in a philosophy paper:

You might be asked to do just one of tasks, or both.  Let me explain each. 

Presenting and explaining an argument or position we have read or discussed

When you are asked to present/explain an argument or position, you are not being asked to do a "book report" in which you regurgitate or paraphrase what you have read or what we've discussed in class.  Think of your target audience as a smart fellow classmate—one who has been attending class discussions and doing the assignments, but who is confused about what is going on. That means that just repeating the argument as you have it in a text or in your notes will not help your reader. It also means that trying to write a book report or a Cliff's Notes version ("Thomson says ... . She then says ...") will not do the job. As you write, keep in mind this idea that you're taking a smart reader who has already struggled with the words on the page of the book and trying to help that person understand what's happening in the text. Try to present the essentials of the position in your own words—a crystal-clear reconstruction of the key ideas and how they interconnect. Don't leave anything important out, but try to sift through the material and fasten onto only the truly important elements.

For some material, the best way to carry out this project may be to use roughly the same general outline that the author used or that we discussed in class. But don't be afraid to rearrange the order of ideas if you think it makes the position or argument more intelligible. Remember that your goal should be to help your reader come to a better understanding of the core elements of the material, rather than merely rehashing and repeating what goes on there.

It can sometimes be helpful to try to present the argument in a series of explicitly numbered steps, like this:

Smith's argument against the existence of God runs as follows:
  1. There is unjustified evil in the world.
  2. If God existed, there would be no unjustified evil in the world.
  3. Therefore, God doesn't exist. (Smith, 25)

Remember that you have to provide citations and page-numbers not only for your direct quotations from the material, but also for the key ideas and claims that you present on the author's behalf.

But: A philosophy paper is not a standard research paper or "literature review" In some fields of study, you are assigned papers in which you are expected to locate, synthesize, and present materials that report what others have said about a topic. That is not what we're aiming for here.  For instance, a paper that traced the history of some philosophical movement would not be appropriate for this course.  Nor would it be appropriate merely to report on what other thinkers have had to say about the issues we've written about this term.  You may consult these other sources if you wish, but they are not a substitute for thinking about these issues on your own.

Critically Assessing an Argument or Position

A critical assessment or evaluation generally works better when it comes right after a really excellent presentation/explanation of an argument or position.  What you want to do in preparation for writing a section will depend in part upon the particular topic you're writing about, but generally you will want to brainstorm about the target argument/positions strengths and weaknesses, its assumptions and consequences, ways it might be attacked or defended.  Then, when you write your paper, you generally will want to choose one of the ideas that has occurred to you in your brainstorming and then probe and develop it as carefully as you can. 

Here are just a few common strategies for critical evaluation, along with some examples of some signpost sentences you might write to introduce your assessment clearly.

Strategy Sample Signpost Sentence
You could bring up an objection to one of the crucial claims in the argument: Jones's argument states that p. But as I will now show, p is not true.
 
Or you might argue that the argument depends upon a false or shaky assumption: I will show that Jones's argument only works if we assume that q. But I will also show that we have no reason to accept that q.
 
Or you could argue that the argument or position has certain shaky or false consequences:   I will show that if we accept this position, then it follows that q. But, as I shall argue, we should not accept that q.  
Or you might suggest a problem with a key definition or concept the thinker relies on: Jones contends that an action is evil if and only if it causes pain. But the following examples demonstrate that this is not an adequate account of evil.
 

 
Or you might point out a mistake in the reasoning that the thinker relies on in moving from step to step: Jones argues that all A's are B's, and that since x is a B, x must be an A. But this clearly doesn't follow.

 

But a "critical assessment" does not have to be negative.  (The "critical" in "critical assessment" is meant as in "critical thinking," not as in "You're always so critical of the way I dress.")  Your assessment might actually support the position or argument that you write about.  But it is not enough merely to report that you agree with the argument or to give it empty praise.  You want to do some work to try to help the position or argument along.

Again, some potential strategies you might use, along with some signpost sentences for clarity:

Strategy Sample Signpost Sentence
You might defend that position against a potential objection
  • Someone might object to Jones's argument by claiming that p. But I will demonstrate that p is false.
    OR
  • Someone might object to this  argument by claiming that p. But I shall argue that even if p is true, Jones's argument is still solid.
Or you might show that the thinker's view solves some other hard problem, or that it sheds special light on some related area

I will show that, unlike the other accounts we read, Jones's definition of an evil act helps us to understand why punishment is not evil.

Remember: A philosophy paper is not a "thought piece," a "reaction paper," or a "journal entry"

Some college writing assignments ask you to write out your own gut reactions or responses to something that you have read in class.  That is not what we're after here.  If you are asked to critically assess some argument or claim we have discussed, you should not merely record your immediate, personal impressions. Gut reactions and first impressions are okay for our classroom discussions, but even then we'll be using our discussions to get at the reasons that underwrite or justify those impressions. In your writing for a philosophy class, you cannot just be concerned with opinions and impressions that are particular to you. Here are some (extreme) examples of what to avoid:

You should try to present considered, reflective judgments about the material—assessments that are backed up with reasons that any reasonable person should be able to recognize as something that seems to count in favor of your position, no matter what their personal history, situation, or convictions. Provide your views with this sort of support. To follow through on the extreme cases just above, you'd want to answer the corresponding why? questions: Why should a reasonable reader agree with you that Smith's theory is cruel, that lying is morally permissible, that trees have a right to life, that humans have souls? This isn't to say that the reader can't have reservations about your view, or that there cannot be some powerful objections to it. It just means that the reader shouldn't be able to dismiss your defense of your position as merely peculiar to you.


Valid XHTML 1.0!