WhatDoesOneDoinaPhilosophyPaper?

1. Aphilosophypaperconsistsofthereasoneddefenseofsomeclaim
Yourpapermustofferanargument.Itcan'tconsistinthemerereport
ofyouropinions,norinamerereportoftheopinionsofthe
philosopherswediscuss.Youhavetodefendtheclaimsyoumake.
Youhavetoofferreasonstobelievethem.
Soyoucan'tjustsay:
MyviewisthatP.
Youmustsaysomethinglike:
MyviewisthatP.Ibelievethisbecause...
or:
Ifindthatthefollowing
considerations...provideaconvincingargument
forP.
Similarly,don'tjustsay:
DescartessaysthatQ.
Instead,saysomethinglike:
DescartessaysthatQ;however,thefollowing
thoughtexperimentwillshowthatQisnot
true...
or:
DescartessaysthatQ.Ifindthisclaim
plausible,forthefollowingreasons...
Thereareavarietyofthingsaphilosophypapercanaimto
accomplish.Itusuallybeginsbyputtingsomethesisorargumenton
thetableforconsideration.Thenitgoesontodooneortwoofthe
following:

o Criticizethatargument;orshowthatcertainargumentsforthe
thesisarenogood
o Defendtheargumentorthesisagainstsomeoneelse'scriticism
o Offerreasonstobelievethethesis
o Offercounterexamplestothethesis
o Contrastthestrengthsandweaknessesoftwoopposingviews
aboutthethesis
o Giveexampleswhichhelpexplainthethesis,orwhichhelpto
makethethesismoreplausible
o Arguethatcertainphilosophersarecommittedtothethesisby
theirotherviews,thoughtheydonotcomeoutandexplicitly
endorsethethesis
o Discusswhatconsequencesthethesiswouldhave,ifitwere
true
o Revisethethesis,inthelightofsomeobjection
Nomatterwhichoftheseaimsyousetforyourself,youhaveto
explicitlypresentreasonsfortheclaimsyoumake.Studentsoften
feelthatsinceit'scleartothemthatsomeclaimistrue,itdoesnot
needmuchargument.Butit'sveryeasytooverestimatethestrength
ofyourownposition.Afterall,youalreadyacceptit.Youshould
assumethatyouraudiencedoesnotalreadyacceptyourposition;and
youshouldtreatyourpaperasanattempttopersuadesuchan
audience.Hence,don'tstartwithassumptionswhichyouropponents
aresuretoreject.Ifyou'retohaveanychanceofpersuadingpeople,
youhavetostartfromcommonassumptionsyouallagreeto.
2. Agoodphilosophypaperismodestandmakesasmallpoint;butit
makesthatpointclearlyandstraightforwardly,anditoffersgood
reasonsinsupportofit
Peopleveryoftenattempttoaccomplishtoomuchinaphilosophy
paper.Theusualresultofthisisapaperthat'shardtoread,andwhich
isfullofinadequatelydefendedandpoorlyexplainedclaims.Sodon't
beoverambitious.Don'ttrytoestablishanyearthshattering

conclusionsinyour56pagepaper.Doneproperly,philosophy
movesataslowpace.
3. Originality
Theaimofthesepapersisforyoutoshowthatyouunderstandthe
materialandthatyou'reabletothinkcriticallyaboutit.Todothis,
yourpaperdoeshavetoshowsomeindependentthinking.
Thatdoesn'tmeanyouhavetocomeupwithyourowntheory,orthat
youhavetomakeacompletelyoriginalcontributiontohuman
thought.Therewillbeplentyoftimeforthatlateron.Anidealpaper
willbeclearandstraightforward(seebelow),willbeaccuratewhen
itattributesviewstootherphilosophers(seebelow),andwillcontain
thoughtfulcriticalresponsestothetextsweread.Itneednotalways
breakcompletelynewground.
Butyoushouldtrytocomeupwithyourownarguments,oryourown
wayofelaboratingorcriticizingordefendingsomeargumentwe
lookedatinclass.Merelysummarizingwhatothershavesaidwon't
beenough.

ThreeStagesofWriting
1.EarlyStages
Theearlystagesofwritingaphilosophypaperincludeeverythingyou
dobeforeyousitdownandwriteyourfirstdraft.Theseearlystageswill
involvewriting,butyouwon'tyetbetryingtowriteacompletepaper.You
shouldinsteadbetakingnotesonthereadings,sketchingoutyourideas,
tryingtoexplainthemainargumentyouwanttoadvance,andcomposingan
outline.
Discusstheissueswithothers
Makeanoutline
Ifindthatmakinganoutlineisatleast80%oftheworkofwritingagood
philosophypaper.Ifyouhaveagoodoutline,therestofthewritingprocess
willgomuchmoresmoothly.

Usesimpleprose
Don'tshootforliteraryelegance.Usesimple,straightforwardprose.Keep
yoursentencesandparagraphsshort.Usefamiliarwords.We'llmakefunof
youifyouusebigwordswheresimplewordswilldo.Theseissuesaredeep
anddifficultenoughwithoutyourhavingtomuddythemupwithpretentious
orverboselanguage.Don'twriteusingproseyouwouldn'tusein
conversation:ifyouwouldn'tsayit,don'twriteit.
YoumaythinkthatsinceyourTAandIalreadyknowalotaboutthis
subject,youcanleaveoutalotofbasicexplanationandwriteinasuper
sophisticatedmanner,likeoneexperttalkingtoanother.Iguaranteeyouthat
thiswillmakeyourpaperincomprehensible.
Ifyourpapersoundsasifitwerewrittenforathirdgradeaudience,then
you'veprobablyachievedtherightsortofclarity.
Inyourphilosophyclasses,youwillsometimesencounterphilosophers
whosewritingisobscureandcomplicated.Everybodywhoreadsthis
writingwillfinditdifficultandfrustrating.Theauthorsinquestionare
philosophicallyimportantdespitetheirpoorwriting,notbecauseofit.Sodo
nottrytoemulatetheirwritingstyles.
Makethestructureofyourpaperobvious
Youshouldmakethestructureofyourpaperobvioustothereader.Your
readershouldn'thavetoexertanyefforttofigureitout.Beathimoverthe
headwithit.
Thesesignpostsreallymakeabigdifference.Considerthefollowingtwo
paperfragments:
...We'vejustseenhowXsaysthatP.Iwillnowpresenttwo
argumentsthatnotP.Myfirstargumentis...
MysecondargumentthatnotPis...
Xmightrespondtomyargumentsinseveralways.Forinstance,he
couldsaythat...
Howeverthisresponsefails,because...
AnotherwaythatXmightrespondtomyargumentsisbyclaiming
that...
Thisresponsealsofails,because...
SowehaveseenthatnoneofX'srepliestomyargumentthatnotP
succeed.Hence,weshouldrejectX'sclaimthatP.
IwillarguefortheviewthatQ.
TherearethreereasonstobelieveQ.Firstly...
Secondly...
Thirdly...

ThestrongestobjectiontoQsays...
However,thisobjectiondoesnotsucceed,forthefollowingreason...

Isn'titeasytoseewhatthestructureofthesepapersis?Youwantittobe
justaseasyinyourownpapers.
Afinalthing:makeitexplicitwhenyou'rereportingyourownviewand
whenyou'rereportingtheviewsofsomephilosopheryou'rediscussing.The
readershouldneverbeindoubtaboutwhoseclaimsyou'representingina
givenparagraph.
Youcan'tmakethestructureofyourpaperobviousifyoudon'tknowwhat
thestructureofyourpaperis,orifyourpaperhasnostructure.That'swhy
makinganoutlineissoimportant.
Beconcise,butexplainyourselffully
Formulatethecentralproblemorquestionyouwishtoaddressatthe
beginningofyourpaper,andkeepitinmindatalltimes.Makeit
clearwhattheproblemis,andwhyitisaproblem.Besurethat
everythingyouwriteisrelevanttothatcentralproblem.Inaddition,
besuretosayinthepaperhowitisrelevant.Don'tmakeyourreader
guess.
Infact,youcanprofitablytakethisonestepfurtherandpretendthat
yourreaderislazy,stupid,andmean.He'slazyinthathedoesn'twantto
figureoutwhatyourconvolutedsentencesaresupposedtomean,andhe
doesn'twanttofigureoutwhatyourargumentis,ifit'snotalready
obvious.He'sstupid,soyouhavetoexplaineverythingyousaytohim
insimple,bitesizedpieces.Andhe'smean,sohe'snotgoingtoread
yourpapercharitably.(Forexample,ifsomethingyousayadmitsof
morethanoneinterpretation,he'sgoingtoassumeyoumeanttheless
plausiblething.)Ifyouunderstandthematerialyou'rewritingabout,and
ifyouaimyourpaperatsuchareader,you'llprobablygetanA.
Useplentyofexamplesanddefinitions
Asthey'reusedineverydaydiscourse,thosenotionsmaynothavea
sufficientlyclearorprecisemeaning.Forinstance,supposeyou'rewritinga
paperaboutabortion,andyouwanttoasserttheclaim"Afetusisaperson."
Whatdoyoumeanby"aperson"?Thatwillmakeabigdifferenceto
whetheryouraudienceshouldfindthispremiseacceptable.Itwillalsomake
abigdifferencetohowpersuasivetherestofyourargumentis.Byitself,the
followingargumentisprettyworthless:

Afetusisaperson.
It'swrongtokillaperson.
Therefore,it'swrongtokillafetus.

Forwedon'tknowwhattheauthormeansbycallingafetus"aperson."On
someinterpretationsof"person,"itmightbequiteobviousthatafetusisa
person;butquitecontroversialwhetherit'salwayswrongtokillpersons,in
thatsenseof"person."Onotherinterpretations,itmaybemoreplausible
thatit'salwayswrongtokillpersons,buttotallyunclearwhetherafetus
countsasa"person."Soeverythingturnshereonwhattheauthormeansby
"person."Theauthorshouldbeexplicitabouthowheisusingthisnotion.
Inaphilosophypaper,it'sokaytousewordsinwaysthataresomewhat
differentfromthewaysthey'reordinarilyused.Youjusthavetomakeit
clearthatyou'redoingthis.Forinstance,somephilosophersusetheword
"person"tomeananybeingwhichiscapableofrationalthoughtandself
awareness.Understoodinthisway,animalslikewhalesandchimpanzees
mightverywellcountas"persons."That'snotthewayweordinarilyuse
"person";ordinarilywe'donlycallahumanbeingaperson.Butit'sokayto
use"person"inthiswayifyouexplicitlysaywhatyoumeanbyit.And
likewiseforotherwords.
Don'tvaryyourvocabularyjustforthesakeofvariety
Ifyoucallsomething"X"atthestartofyourpaper,callit"X"allthe
waythrough.So,forinstance,don'tstarttalkingabout"Plato'sview
oftheself,"andthenswitchtotalkingabout"Plato'sviewof
thesoul,"andthenswitchtotalkingabout"Plato'sviewofthemind."
Ifyoumeantobetalkingaboutthesamethinginallthreecases,then
callitbythesamename.Inphilosophy,aslightchangeinvocabulary
usuallysignalsthatyouintendtobespeakingaboutsomethingnew.
Usingwordswithprecisephilosophicalmeanings
Philosophersgivemanyordinarysoundingwordsprecisetechnical
meanings.ConsultthehandoutsonPhilosophicalTermsand
Methodstomakesureyou'reusingthesewordscorrectly.Don'tuse
wordsthatyoudon'tfullyunderstand.
Usetechnicalphilosophicaltermsonlywhereyouneedthem.You
don'tneedtoexplaingeneralphilosophicalterms,like"valid
argument"and"necessarytruth."Butyoushouldexplainany
technicaltermsyouusewhichbearonthespecifictopicyou're
discussing.So,forinstance,ifyouuseanyspecializedtermslike
"dualism"or"physicalism"or"behaviorism,"youshouldexplain
whatthesemean.Likewiseifyouusetechnicaltermslike

"supervenience"andthelike.Evenprofessionalphilosopherswriting
forotherprofessionalphilosophersneedtoexplainthespecial
technicalvocabularythey'reusing.Differentpeoplesometimesuse
thisspecialvocabularyindifferentways,soit'simportanttomake
surethatyouandyourreadersareallgivingthesewordsthesame
meaning.Pretendthatyourreadershaveneverheardthembefore.
Youcanassumethatyourreaderisstupid(seeabove).Butdon'ttreatthe
philosopherortheviewsyou'rediscussingasstupid.Iftheywerestupid,we
wouldn'tbelookingatthem.Ifyoucan'tseeanythingtheviewhasgoingfor
it,maybethat'sbecauseyoudon'thavemuchexperiencethinkingand
arguingabouttheview,andsoyouhaven'tyetfullyunderstoodwhythe
view'sproponentsareattractedtoit.Tryhardertofigureoutwhat's
motivatingthem.
Philosopherssometimesdosayoutrageousthings,butiftheviewyou're
attributingtoaphilosopherseemstobeobviouslycrazy,thenyoushould
thinkhardaboutwhetherhereallydoessaywhatyouthinkhesays.Use
yourimagination.Trytofigureoutwhatreasonablepositionthephilosopher
couldhavehadinmind,anddirectyourargumentsagainstthat.
Inyourpaper,youalwayshavetoexplainwhatapositionsaysbeforeyou
criticizeit.Ifyoudon'texplainwhatyoutakePhilosopherX'sviewtobe,
yourreadercannotjudgewhetherthecriticismyouofferofXisagood
criticism,orwhetheritissimplybasedonamisunderstandingor
misinterpretationofX'sviews.SotellthereaderwhatitisyouthinkXis
saying.
Don'ttrytotellthereadereverythingyouknowaboutX'sviews,though.
Youhavetogoontoofferyourownphilosophicalcontribution,too.Only
summarizethosepartsofX'sviewsthataredirectlyrelevanttowhat
you'regoingtogoontodo.
Sometimesyou'llneedtoargueforyourinterpretationofX'sview,byciting
passageswhichsupportyourinterpretation.Itispermissibleforyouto
discussaviewyouthinkaphilosophermighthaveheld,orshouldhaveheld,
thoughyoucan'tfindanydirectevidenceofthatviewinthetext.Whenyou
dothis,though,youshouldexplicitlysayso.Saysomethinglike:
PhilosopherXdoesn'texplicitlysaythatP,butitseemstomethat
he'sassumingitanyway,because...

Quotations

Whenapassagefromatextisparticularlyusefulinsupportingyour
interpretationofsomephilosopher'sviews,itmaybehelpfultoquote
thepassagedirectly.(Besuretospecifywherethepassagecanbe
found.)However,directquotationsshouldbeusedsparingly.Itis
seldomnecessarytoquotemorethanafewsentences.Oftenitwillbe
moreappropriatetoparaphrasewhatXsays,ratherthantoquotehim
directly.Whenyouareparaphrasingwhatsomebodyelsesaid,be
suretosayso.(Andheretoo,citethepagesyou'rereferringto.)
Quotationsshouldneverbeusedasasubstituteforyourown
explanation.Andwhenyoudoquoteanauthor,youstillhaveto
explainwhatthequotationsaysinyourownwords.Ifthequoted
passagecontainsanargument,reconstructtheargumentinmore
explicit,straightforwardterms.Ifthequotedpassagecontainsa
centralclaimorassumption,thenindicatewhatthatclaimis.You
maywanttogivesomeexamplestoillustratetheauthor'spoint.If
necessary,youmaywanttodistinguishtheauthor'sclaimfromother
claimswithwhichitmightbeconfused.

Anticipateobjections
Trytoanticipateobjectionstoyourviewandrespondtothem.Forinstance,
ifyouobjecttosomephilosopher'sview,don'tassumehewould
immediatelyadmitdefeat.Imaginewhathiscomebackmightbe.How
wouldyouhandlethatcomeback?
Don'tbeafraidofmentioningobjectionstoyourownthesis.Itisbetterto
bringupanobjectionyourselfthantohopeyourreaderwon'tthinkofit.
Explainhowyouthinktheseobjectionscanbecounteredorovercome.Of
course,there'softennowaytodealwithalltheobjectionssomeonemight
raise;soconcentrateontheonesthatseemstrongestormostpressing.
Whathappensifyou'restuck?
Yourpaperdoesn'talwayshavetoprovideadefinitesolutiontoaproblem,
orastraightyesornoanswertoaquestion.Manyexcellentphilosophy
papersdon'tofferstraightyesornoanswers.Sometimestheyarguethatthe
questionneedstobeclarified,orthatcertainfurtherquestionsneedtobe
raised.Sometimestheyarguethatcertainassumptionsofthequestionneed
tobechallenged.Sometimestheyarguethatcertainanswerstothequestion
aretooeasy,thatis,theywon'twork.Hence,ifthesepapersareright,the

questionwillbehardertoanswerthanwemightpreviouslyhavethought.
Theseareallimportantandphilosophicallyvaluableresults.
Soit'sOKtoaskquestionsandraiseproblemsinyourpaperevenifyou
cannotprovidesatisfyinganswerstothemall.Youcanleavesomequestions
unansweredattheendofthepaper.Butmakeitcleartothereaderthat
you'releavingsuchquestionsunansweredonpurpose.Andyoushould
saysomethingabouthowthequestionmightbeanswered,andaboutwhat
makesthequestioninterestingandrelevanttotheissueathand.
Ifsomethinginaviewyou'reexaminingisuncleartoyou,don'tglossit
over.Callattentiontotheunclarity.Suggestseveraldifferentwaysof
understandingtheview.Explainwhyit'snotclearwhichofthese
interpretationsiscorrect.
Ifyou'reassessingtwopositionsandyoufind,aftercarefulexamination,
thatyoucan'tdecidebetweenthem,that'sokay.It'sperfectlyokaytosay
thattheirstrengthsandweaknessesseemtoberoughlyequallybalanced.
Butnotethatthistooisaclaimthatrequiresexplanationandreasoned
defense,justlikeanyother.Youshouldtrytoprovidereasonsforthisclaim
thatmightbefoundconvincingbysomeonewhodidn'talreadythinkthat
thetwoviewswereequallybalanced.
You'llbegradedonthreebasiccriteria:
1. Howwelldoyouunderstandtheissuesyou'rewritingabout?
2. Howgoodaretheargumentsyouoffer?
3. Isyourwritingclearandwellorganized?
Wedonotjudgeyourpaperbywhetherweagreewithitsconclusion.
Infact,wemaynotagreeamongstourselvesaboutwhatthecorrect
conclusionis.Butwewillhavenotroubleagreeingaboutwhether
youdoagoodjobarguingforyourconclusion.
Morespecifically,we'llbeaskingquestionslikethese:
1. Doyouclearlystatewhatyou'retryingtoaccomplishinyour
paper?Isitobvioustothereaderwhatyourmainthesisis?
2. Doyouoffersupportingargumentsfortheclaimsyoumake?
Isitobvioustothereaderwhattheseargumentsare?

3. Isthestructureofyourpaperclear?Forinstance,isitclear
whatpartsofyourpaperareexpository,andwhatpartsare
yourownpositivecontribution?
4. Isyourprosesimple,easytoread,andeasytounderstand?
5. Doyouillustrateyourclaimswithgoodexamples?Doyou
explainyourcentralnotions?Doyousayexactlywhatyou
mean?
6. Doyoupresentotherphilosophers'viewsaccuratelyand
charitably?
Your paper should do some philosophical work

A kind of complaint that is common in undergraduate

philosophy papers goes like this:
PhilosopherXassumesAandarguesfromthere
toB.Bseemsunattractivetome.Philosopher
XjustassumesAanddoesn'tgiveanyargument
forit.Idon'tthinkAistrue.SoIcanjust
rejectAandtherebyavoidB.
This line of thought may very well be correct. And the
student may very well be right that Philosopher X
should have given more argument for A. But the
student hasn't reallyphilosophically engaged
with Philosopher X's view in an interesting way. He
hasn't really done much philosophical work. It was clear
from the outset that Philosopher X was assuming A,
and that if you don't want to make that assumption,
you don't need to accept X's conclusion. If this is all
you do in your paper, it won't be a strong paper and it
will get a mediocre grade, even if it's well-written.
Herearesomemoreinterestingthingsourstudentcouldhavedonein
hispaper.HecouldhavearguedthatBdoesn'treallyfollowfromA,
afterall.OrhecouldhavepresentedreasonsforthinkingthatAis
false.OrhecouldhavearguedthatassumingAisanillegitimate
movetomakeinadebateaboutwhetherBistrue.Orsomethingelse
ofthatsort.Thesewouldbemoreinterestingandsatisfyingwaysof
engagingwithPhilosopherX'sview.
`