Philosophical writing diverges significantly from the writing conventions of other disciplines. While many strategies outlined here enhance writing across various subjects, it’s crucial to recognize that not all are universally applicable. Moreover, established writing guidelines from other instructors might not always hold relevance when crafting a philosophy paper. In fact, certain guidelines are often disregarded in exemplary philosophical prose (as exemplified by the section on grammar).
What Does One Do in a Philosophy Paper?
A philosophy paper presents a reasoned defense of a specific claim. Your paper must advance an argument; it should not merely present your opinions or a summary of philosophers’ views. Instead, you must defend the claims you make by providing reasons and evidence to support them.
Avoid simply stating:
My view is that P.
Instead, offer a justification:
My view is that P. I believe this because…
or:
I find that the following considerations…provide a convincing argument for P.
Similarly, refrain from merely stating:
Descartes says that Q.
Instead, engage with the claim:
Descartes says that Q; however, the following thought-experiment will show that Q is not true…
or:
Descartes says that Q. I find this claim plausible, for the following reasons…
A philosophy paper can accomplish several objectives. Typically, it begins by introducing a thesis or argument for consideration, followed by one or more of the following:
- Criticizing the argument or demonstrating the inadequacy of certain arguments supporting the thesis.
- Defending the argument or thesis against external critiques.
- Presenting reasons to support the thesis.
- Offering counterexamples to challenge the thesis.
- Comparing the strengths and weaknesses of opposing perspectives on the thesis.
- Providing illustrative examples to clarify or enhance the plausibility of the thesis.
- Arguing that specific philosophers implicitly support the thesis through their other views, even without explicitly endorsing it.
- Exploring the potential consequences of the thesis if it were true.
- Revising the thesis to address objections.
Regardless of your chosen objective, it’s essential to explicitly provide reasons for your claims. Students often assume that if a claim seems obvious to them, it requires minimal justification. However, it’s easy to overestimate the strength of one’s own position, particularly when one already accepts it. It’s best to assume your audience doesn’t already agree with you. Treat your paper as a persuasive endeavor. Therefore, avoid starting with assumptions that your opponents would likely reject. To persuade effectively, begin with common ground and shared assumptions.
A strong philosophy paper is modest and focuses on a narrow point, presenting it with clarity and directness while providing solid supporting reasons. Attempts to cover too much ground often result in papers that are difficult to read, filled with inadequately defended claims. Avoid being overly ambitious. Refrain from attempting to establish groundbreaking conclusions within a 5-6 page paper. Philosophy, when done well, progresses deliberately.
Originality is important. The primary goal of these papers is to demonstrate your comprehension of the material and your capacity for critical thinking. To achieve this, your paper needs to showcase independent thought.
This doesn’t necessitate developing your own entirely novel theory or making unprecedented contributions to human thought. An ideal paper will be clear and straightforward, accurately attribute views to other philosophers, and offer thoughtful critical responses to the texts you’ve read. It doesn’t always need to break new ground.
However, you should strive to formulate your own arguments or develop your own unique way of elaborating on, criticizing, or defending arguments discussed in class. Simply summarizing existing perspectives is insufficient.
Three Stages of Writing
The writing process can be broken down into three distinct stages:
1. Early Stages
The early stages of writing a philosophy paper encompass all activities before drafting the first version. This includes taking notes on readings, brainstorming ideas, outlining the central argument, and creating a detailed outline.
Discussing issues with others is crucial. As mentioned earlier, your papers should demonstrate your ability to understand and critically analyze course material. Explaining the material to someone unfamiliar with it is an excellent way to assess your own understanding. It’s common to realize that a seemingly simple argument is more complex than initially perceived. Discussing these issues with classmates and friends will deepen your understanding and highlight areas requiring further clarification.
Talking through your arguments with others is also invaluable. When you can clearly articulate your ideas verbally, you’re ready to begin creating a detailed outline.
Making an outline is essential. Before writing any drafts, consider the optimal order for explaining terms and positions. Determine when to introduce opposing viewpoints and how to structure your criticisms. Consider whether any points depend on prior discussion of other concepts. The clarity of your paper depends heavily on its structure. Thoughtful planning before writing is therefore crucial.
Creating a detailed outline of your paper and its arguments is highly recommended. This allows you to organize your points and visualize their connections. It ensures you can articulate your main argument or criticism before drafting the full paper. Students often struggle because they haven’t clearly defined their central argument.
Give your outline significant attention. It should be reasonably detailed (for a 5-page paper, a suitable outline might span a full page or more).
Outlining constitutes at least 80% of writing a strong philosophy paper. A well-structured outline streamlines the remaining writing process.
Starting work early is critical. Philosophical problems and writing demand careful, extended reflection. Avoid waiting until the last few nights before the deadline. This is ill-advised. Writing a good philosophy paper requires substantial preparation. You need ample time to contemplate the topic and create a detailed outline. Only then should you draft a complete paper. After completing the first draft, set it aside for a day or two, then return to it for revisions. Multiple revisions are essential – at least 3 or 4. If possible, share it with friends to gather feedback. Do they grasp your central point? Are any sections unclear or confusing?
All of this requires time. Therefore, begin working on your papers as soon as the topics are assigned.
2. Write a Draft
Once you’ve thoroughly considered your argument and developed a detailed outline, you’re ready to compose a complete draft of your paper.
Use simple prose. Avoid striving for literary elegance. Opt for simple, straightforward prose. Use short sentences and paragraphs, and choose familiar words. Using complex vocabulary when simpler words suffice will be frowned upon. The subject matter is already sufficiently deep and complex without the added burden of pretentious language. Don’t write using prose you wouldn’t use in conversation: if you wouldn’t say it, don’t write it. Avoid assuming that the instructor’s expertise allows you to omit basic explanations and adopt a sophisticated tone, as if writing for a peer. This will render your paper incomprehensible.
If your paper reads as if written for a third-grade audience, you’ve likely achieved the appropriate level of clarity.
In philosophy courses, you’ll encounter philosophers with obscure and complicated writing styles. Readers typically find this writing difficult and frustrating. These authors are philosophically significant despite their poor writing, not because of it. Avoid emulating their writing styles.
Make the structure of your paper obvious. The structure of your paper should be readily apparent to the reader, requiring minimal effort to decipher. Make it explicitly clear. How can you achieve this?
First, use connective words, such as:
- because, since, given this argument
- thus, therefore, hence, it follows that, consequently
- nevertheless, however, but
- in the first case, on the other hand
These words help guide the reader through your discussion. Ensure you use them correctly! Stating “P. Thus Q.” implies that P is a valid reason to accept Q. This connection must be accurate; otherwise, it will be challenged. Avoid using “thus” or “therefore” to artificially enhance the perceived strength of your argument.
Another way to clarify your paper’s structure is by explicitly stating what you’ve accomplished and what you intend to do next. For example:
- I will begin by…
- Before I say what is wrong with this argument, I want to…
- These passages suggest that…
- I will now defend this claim…
- Further support for this claim comes from…
- For example…
These signposts significantly enhance clarity. Consider these two paper excerpts:
…We’ve just seen how X says that P. I will now present two arguments that not-P. My first argument is… My second argument that not-P is… X might respond to my arguments in several ways. For instance, he could say that… However this response fails, because… Another way that X might respond to my arguments is by claiming that… This response also fails, because… So we have seen that none of X’s replies to my argument that not-P succeed. Hence, we should reject X’s claim that P.
I will argue for the view that Q. There are three reasons to believe Q. Firstly… Secondly… Thirdly… The strongest objection to Q says… However, this objection does not succeed, for the following reason…
The structure of these papers is immediately apparent. Aim for similar clarity in your own writing. Also, make it explicit when you’re presenting your own views versus those of a philosopher you’re discussing. The reader should always be clear about whose claims are being presented in each paragraph.
Clarity of structure is impossible if you lack a clear structure yourself. That’s why outlining is so vital.
Be concise, but explain yourself fully. Effective philosophy papers balance conciseness with thorough explanation. These demands may seem contradictory (“Don’t talk too much” vs. “Talk a lot”). However, with proper understanding, they can be reconciled.
| In fact, you can profitably take this one step further and pretend that your reader is lazy, stupid, and mean. He’s lazy in that he doesn’t want to figure out what your convoluted sentences are supposed to mean, and he doesn’t want to figure out what your argument is, if it’s not already obvious. He’s stupid, so you have to explain everything you say to him in simple, bite-sized pieces. And he’s mean, so he’s not going to read your paper charitably. (For example, if something you say admits of more than one interpretation, he’s going to assume you meant the less plausible thing.) If you understand the material you’re writing about, and if you aim your paper at such a reader, you’ll probably get an A. |
|---|
Use plenty of examples and definitions. Examples are crucial in philosophy papers. Philosophical claims are often abstract and difficult to understand, making examples the best way to clarify them.
Examples also help explain key concepts in your argument. Always clarify your understanding of these concepts, even if they are familiar from everyday language. Their everyday meanings may lack sufficient clarity or precision. For instance, in a paper about abortion, if you assert “A fetus is a person,” what do you mean by “a person”? This definition significantly affects the acceptability of the premise and the persuasiveness of your argument. The following argument is weak without a clear definition:
A fetus is a person. It’s wrong to kill a person. Therefore, it’s wrong to kill a fetus.
The argument lacks meaning because the author’s definition of “person” is unknown. Depending on the interpretation, it might be obvious that a fetus is a person, but controversial whether killing a person is always wrong. Alternatively, it may be plausible that killing a person is always wrong, but unclear whether a fetus qualifies as a “person.” Therefore, everything hinges on the author’s definition, which must be explicit. In philosophy, using words in unconventional ways is acceptable, provided you clearly indicate your intended meaning. Some philosophers define “person” as any being capable of rational thought and self-awareness, potentially including whales and chimpanzees. This differs from the ordinary usage, which typically limits “person” to human beings. Using “person” in this way is acceptable with explicit clarification. The same applies to other words.
Don’t vary your vocabulary merely for variety. If you refer to something as “X” initially, continue using “X” throughout the paper. For instance, avoid switching from “Plato’s view of the self,” to “Plato’s view of the soul,” and then “Plato’s view of the mind.” If you intend to discuss the same concept, use the same term consistently. In philosophy, vocabulary shifts typically indicate a change in subject matter.
Using words with precise philosophical meanings is important. Philosophers assign precise technical meanings to many ordinary-sounding words. Consult resources on Philosophical Terms and Methods to ensure correct usage. Avoid using words you don’t fully understand. Use technical philosophical terms only when necessary. General philosophical terms like “valid argument” and “necessary truth” don’t require explanation, but you should define any technical terms specific to your topic, such as “dualism,” “physicalism,” or “behaviorism.” Similarly, explain terms like “supervenience.” Even professional philosophers writing for each other define specialized vocabulary to ensure shared understanding. Pretend your readers have never encountered these terms before.
Presenting and assessing the views of others requires careful consideration. If you plan to discuss Philosopher X’s views, begin by identifying their arguments and core assumptions. Refer to tips on How To Read a Philosophy Paper for assistance. Then, assess the quality of X’s arguments. Are they well-supported? Are the assumptions clearly stated, plausible, and reasonable? Should X have provided independent support for these assumptions?
Ensure you fully understand the position you’re critiquing. Students often waste time arguing against positions that resemble but differ from the intended target. Philosophy demands precision; it’s insufficient to grasp only the general idea of someone’s position. You must understand it exactly. (In this respect, philosophy is more like a science than the other humanities.) A significant portion of philosophical work involves accurately understanding your opponent’s position.
Assume your reader is not stupid (see above). But don’t treat the philosopher or their views as foolish. If they were, their ideas wouldn’t warrant examination. If you can’t discern any merit in a view, it might indicate insufficient experience with the topic, preventing you from fully understanding its appeal to proponents. Try to understand their motivations.
Philosophers sometimes make controversial claims, but if a view seems obviously crazy, reassess whether the philosopher actually holds that position. Use your imagination. Identify a reasonable interpretation and direct your arguments against that.
Always explain a position before criticizing it. Without explaining your understanding of Philosopher X’s view, readers cannot judge whether your criticism is valid or based on misunderstanding. Therefore, explain your interpretation of X’s position.
Avoid providing an exhaustive summary of X’s views. Focus on offering your own philosophical contribution. Only summarize aspects of X’s views that directly relate to your subsequent analysis.
Sometimes, supporting your interpretation of X’s view requires citing relevant passages. Include direct quotations sparingly, typically limited to a few sentences. Paraphrasing what X says is often more appropriate. Always indicate when you’re paraphrasing and cite the relevant pages. Quotations should not replace your own explanations. When quoting, explain the quotation in your own words. If the passage contains an argument, reconstruct it in clear terms. If it presents a key claim, identify that claim and illustrate it with examples. If necessary, distinguish the claim from potentially confusing alternatives.
Paraphrases should be carefully constructed. When explaining a philosopher’s view, avoid simply providing close paraphrases of their words. Change some words, omit others, but generally stay very close to the original text. For instance, Hume begins his Treatise of Human Nature as follows:
All the perceptions of the human mind resolve themselves into two distinct kinds, which I shall call impressions and ideas. The difference betwixt these consists in the degrees of force and liveliness, with which they strike upon the mind, and make their way into our thought or consciousness. Those perceptions, which enter with most force and violence, we may name impressions; and under this name I comprehend all our sensations, passions, and emotions, as they make their first appearance in the soul. By ideas I mean the faint images of these in thinking and reasoning.
Here’s an example of how you don’t want to paraphrase:
Hume says all perceptions of the mind are resolved into two kinds, impressions and ideas. The difference is in how much force and liveliness they have in our thoughts and consciousness. The perceptions with the most force and violence are impressions. These are sensations, passions, and emotions. Ideas are the faint images of our thinking and reasoning.
This type of paraphrase is problematic because it’s mechanical, failing to demonstrate understanding. Because the author hasn’t truly grasped the meaning, the paraphrase may inadvertently alter it. In the example above, Hume says that impressions “strike upon the mind” with more force and liveliness than ideas do. The paraphrase says that impressions have more force and liveliness “in our thoughts.” It’s unclear whether these are the same thing. In addition, Hume says that ideas are faint images of impressions; whereas the paraphrase says that ideas are faint images of our thinking. These are not the same. So the author of the paraphrase appears not to have understood what Hume was saying in the original passage.
A much better way of explaining what Hume says here would be the following:
Hume says that there are two kinds of ‘perceptions,’ or mental states. He calls these impressions and ideas. An impression is a very ‘forceful’ mental state, like the sensory impression one has when looking at a red apple. An idea is a less ‘forceful’ mental state, like the idea one has of an apple while just thinking about it, rather than looking at it. It is not so clear what Hume means here by ‘forceful.’ He might mean…
Anticipate objections to strengthen your arguments. Try to predict objections to your view and address them. If you object to a philosopher’s view, consider their potential responses and how you would counter them. Don’t shy away from mentioning objections to your own thesis. It’s better to raise objections yourself than to hope your reader won’t think of them. Explain how you believe these objections can be countered. While it’s impossible to address every potential objection, focus on the strongest and most pressing ones.
What happens if you’re stuck? Your paper doesn’t always need to provide a definitive solution or a straightforward answer. Many excellent philosophy papers explore questions and problems without offering simple answers. They may clarify the question, raise further questions, challenge underlying assumptions, or demonstrate that certain answers are too simplistic. These are valuable philosophical contributions. It’s acceptable to raise questions even if you can’t provide complete answers. Leave some questions unanswered at the end of the paper, but make it clear that this is intentional. Briefly discuss how the question might be answered and why it’s relevant to the topic.
If something in a view is unclear, don’t ignore it. Highlight the ambiguity, suggest possible interpretations, and explain why determining the correct interpretation is difficult.
If you’re assessing two positions and can’t definitively choose between them, acknowledge this. It’s perfectly acceptable to conclude that their strengths and weaknesses are roughly equal. However, this claim requires explanation and reasoned defense. Provide reasons that might persuade someone who doesn’t already agree with your assessment.
Sometimes, your arguments may not be as strong as initially believed. You might encounter an objection you can’t adequately address. Don’t panic. If you can’t resolve a problem, try to understand why. It’s acceptable to modify your thesis to one you can defend. For example, instead of providing a solid defense of view P, you could write a paper that proceeds as follows:
One philosophical view says that P. This is a plausible view, for the following reasons… However, there are some reasons to be doubtful whether P. One of these reasons is X. X poses a problem for the view that P because… It is not clear how the defender of P can overcome this objection.
Or you can write a paper which goes: > One argument for P is the ‘Conjunction Argument,’ which goes as follows… At first glance, this is a very appealing argument. However, this argument is faulty, for the following reasons… One might try to repair the argument, by… But these repairs will not work, because… I conclude that the Conjunction Argument does not in fact succeed in establishing P.
These papers don’t concede defeat. Neither commits you to the view that not-P. They honestly portray the difficulty of finding conclusive support for P. P might still be true.
3. Rewrite, and Keep Rewriting
After completing a draft, set it aside for a day or two. Then, reread it critically, asking yourself questions like:
“Does this really make sense?” “That’s totally unclear!” “That sounds pretentious.” “What does that mean?” “What’s the connection between these two sentences?” “Am I just repeating myself here?” and so on.
Ensure every sentence serves a purpose. Eliminate any that don’t. If you can’t determine a sentence’s contribution to the central discussion, remove it, even if it sounds good. Avoid introducing points unless they’re crucial to your argument and you have space to adequately explain them. If a sentence bothers you, identify why. It could indicate that you don’t fully understand or believe what you’re trying to say.
Ensure your sentences convey your intended meaning precisely. For example, “Abortion is the same thing as murder.” Is that your precise intention? Is Oswald’s murder of Kennedy equivalent to aborting Kennedy? If not, clarify your meaning. Perhaps you mean that abortion is a form of murder. While people might infer your meaning in conversation, writing requires greater precision. Even if the reader understands your intent, it’s still poor writing. In philosophical prose, be sure to state exactly what you mean.
Pay attention to the structure of your draft. When revising, prioritize the overall structure and clarity over minor word choices. Ensure your reader understands your main claim and its supporting arguments. Make the point of each paragraph obvious, even to a lazy, stupid, and mean reader.
If possible, share your draft with friends or classmates for feedback. Do they understand your main point? Are any sections unclear or confusing? If your friends struggle to understand your writing, so will the grader. Your paragraphs and arguments might be clear to you but incomprehensible to others.
Another effective technique is to read your draft aloud. This helps identify inconsistencies, digressions, and unclear prose. You might know what you want to say, but that might not be what you’ve really written.
Plan on writing multiple drafts. At least 3 or 4!! The following website demonstrates the revision process for a short philosophy paper through several drafts, illustrating the significant improvements achieved with each revision:
Minor Points
Beginning your paper effectively is important. Avoid opening with generic statements like “Down through the ages, mankind has pondered the problem of…” Get straight to the point in the first sentence. Also, avoid starting with dictionary definitions like “Webster’s Dictionary defines a soul as…” Dictionaries are not reliable philosophical authorities. They record everyday usage, which may differ from specialized philosophical meanings.
Grammar should be carefully considered.
- It’s acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition. Splitting infinitives is also permissible if it clarifies your meaning (e.g., “They sought to better equip job candidates”). Attempts to avoid these constructions often result in confusing prose.
- Avoid other grammatical errors like dangling participles (e.g., “Hurt by her fall, the tree fell right on Mary‘s leg before she could get out of the way”).
- Use the word “I” freely, especially to guide the reader (e.g., “I’ve just explained why… Now I’m going to consider an argument that…”).
- Don’t avoid the verb “is” or “to be” excessively. It’s acceptable to use it as needed in a philosophy paper.
Secondary readings are optional. For some classes, additional readings may be provided for independent study. These are not required for your papers. The purpose of the papers is to teach you how to analyze arguments and present your own, either for or against a conclusion. The arguments discussed in class are already sufficiently challenging and deserve your full attention.
Can you write your paper as a dialogue or story? No. While these forms can be effective when done well, they are extremely difficult to execute effectively. They encourage imprecision and unclear metaphors. Master ordinary philosophical writing before attempting these more challenging forms.
Mechanics matter.
Aim to stay within the assigned word limit. Longer papers are often overly ambitious, repetitive, or digressive, which will negatively impact your grade. Prioritize the most important points and eliminate anything unnecessary. However, avoid making your papers too short. Don’t abruptly end an argument. If the topic asks specific questions, be sure to answer them all.
Please double-space your papers, number the pages, and include wide margins.
How You’ll Be Graded
Grading is based on three core criteria:
- Understanding of the issues.
- Quality of arguments.
- Clarity and organization of writing.
Papers aren’t judged on agreement with the conclusion. In fact, graders might disagree amongst themselves about the correct conclusion. However, they will agree on the quality of your argumentation. More specifically, the graders will consider questions like these:
- Does the paper clearly state its goals? Is the main thesis obvious?
- Does the paper provide supporting arguments? Are these arguments clear?
- Is the paper’s structure clear? Are expository and argumentative sections distinct?
- Is the prose simple, readable, and understandable?
- Does the paper use good examples and explain key concepts? Does it say exactly what it means?
- Does the paper present other philosophers’ views accurately and fairly?
| The comments I find myself making on students’ philosophy papers most often are these: – “Explain this claim” or “What do you mean by this?” or “I don’t understand what you’re saying here” – “This passage is unclear (or awkward, or otherwise hard to read)” “Too complicated” “Too hard to follow” “Simplify” – “Why do you think this?” “This needs more support” “Why should we believe this?” “Explain why this is a reason to believe P” “Explain why this follows from what you said before” – “Not really relevant” – “Give an example?” Try to anticipate these comments and avoid the need for them! |
|---|
Your paper should do some philosophical work. A common complaint in undergraduate philosophy papers is:
Philosopher X assumes A and argues from there to B. B seems unattractive to me. Philosopher X just assumes A and doesn’t give any argument for it. I don’t think A is true. So I can just reject A and thereby avoid B.
This reasoning may be correct, and the student may be right that Philosopher X should have provided more support for A. However, the student hasn’t philosophically engaged with Philosopher X’s view in an interesting way. She hasn’t really done much philosophical work. It was clear from the outset that Philosopher X was assuming A, and that rejecting this assumption avoids B. This won’t be a strong paper and will receive a mediocre grade, even if well-written.
More interesting approaches would include arguing that B doesn’t really follow from A, presenting reasons for thinking that A is false, or arguing that assuming A is an illegitimate move in a debate about whether B is true. These would represent more engaging and satisfying ways of interacting with Philosopher X’s view.
Responding to comments from the instructor is crucial. When rewriting a graded paper, consider the following: Rewrites should address underlying issues beyond specific errors. If you received below an A-, the draft likely suffered from readability issues, unclear argumentation, or structural problems. Addressing these requires a complete rewrite. (Start with a blank document.) Use your draft and the feedback to create a new outline and write from that.
Remember that when a rewrite is graded, weaknesses missed initially might be noticed. Or perhaps those weaknesses affected the overall impression without receiving specific feedback. Therefore, strive to improve the entire paper, not just the areas with comments.
Improving a paper may not always raise it to the next grade level. Sometimes this happens. But aim for more significant improvement.
Often, there won’t be opportunities to rewrite papers. So, learn to draft, scrutinize, and revise your paper before submission.
Acknowledgements
I don’t want to claim undue credit for this work. A lot of the suggestions here derive from writing handouts that friends and colleagues lent me. (Alison Simmons and Justin Broackes deserve special thanks.) Also, I’ve browsed some other writing guidelines on the web, and occasionally incorporated advice I thought my students would find useful. Peter Horban’s site deserves special mention. Thanks to Professor Horban for allowing me to incorporate some of his suggestions here. Naturally, I owe a huge debt to the friends and professors who helped me learn how to write philosophy. I’m sure they had a hard time of it.
If you’re a teacher and you think your own students would find this web site useful, you are free to point them here (or to distribute printed copies). It’s all in the public good.
Full licensing details are here.
Created and maintained by [email protected] This work licensed under a Creative Commons License URL: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html Updated: 6-Sep-12 11:35 AM
