Main menu:
Philosophy > Papers
Writing a Philosophical Paper
I. The Goals of Philosophical Writing
Writing a paper in philosophy is an exciting and rigorous intellectual adventure. The following guidelines are intended to supplement your previous training by introducing you to a few writing tasks specifically, though not only, of interest and importance in the study of philosophy. Training in philosophical writing is an ideal way to improve your expository, critical, analytic, and evaluative skills.
One who evaluates a philosophical paper is confronted with following types of questions: (1) Is the content of the commented text reconstructed or restated accurately? Is this exposition supported with appropriate quotes? (2) Is the critical evaluation of the original text coherent, reasonable, and sound? Is it supported by evidence from our experience? (3) Are student’s views, interpretations, and arguments expressed with clarity and cogence? (4) Is there something original in the paper?
Evaluating an argument in the reading is a good task to undertake before you try to construct your arguments. It is easier to criticize than to defend a philosophical position. Unfortunately, it is impossible to set out in an exhaustive list all tactics and strategies, because philosophical thinking at its best is creative and unpredictable. However, most philosophical thinking of beginners calls less for creative or truly original thinking than for critical reflection on arguments. For this purpose some basic concepts and strategies need to be learned.
II. Basic Terms
Philosophers are probably more likely than others to insist that you define your terms before getting into a discussion of your subject. You will almost certainly be asked to write a definition of some important terms that appear in the reading.
There are several ways of defining something. First, we can define a term by pointing to an example (the term “planet” can be defined by pointing to Mars or Venus). This is not a plausible way of defining abstract terms (like “atheist”). Second, you can state what something is in its essence (“An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God.”). This is called “material mode” of definition, where the essential properties of the thing or person are specified. Third, you can state what a word means in the “formal mode” of definition (“Atheist” describes a person who believes…). Fourth, you can state the necessity and sufficient conditions for something to be what it is (“A person is an atheist if and only if he or she believes that God does not exists.”). This fourth form of definition is more preferable to the other, because this style discourages you from thinking that only nouns can be defined. For example, you can define a causal relation: “Something (call it X) is causally dependent upon something else (call it Y) if…” Furthermore, thinking in terms of sufficient and necessary conditions helps you to keep in mind that your definition must be neither too broad nor too narrow.
If you wish to leave it open whether you agree or disagree with the definition given by somebody else, you can say, for example, “A person is an atheist, according to St. Augustine, if…”
Sometimes the student is required to explain a definition of some key concept. The task is to show that he or she understands it. One way to do that is to brake the definition apart, phrase by phrase, to see what is being excluded by each phrase. By unpacking a definition, piece by piece, looking for what it includes and what it excludes, one develops a good grasp of the concept being defined. Notice that this exercise is not the same as criticizing or endorsing some definition; that is a separate task. All we are trying to do in explanation is to make that definition (or idea) clear.
Central to the work of philosophy is argument. Argument as used by philosophers is a technique or method of inquiry. By pressing for reasons, they probe the plausibility, the probability, or the necessity of a belief or thesis. They shape their thinking about a belief or thesis as the reasons for it emerge as the product of their critical thinking.
Argumentation should not be confused with opinionated disputations. Contentiousness for the sake of contentiousness has no useful role in philosophy. What alone matters is the argument aimed at the truth by using rational means that all can understand.
By contrast with argument, persuasion aims at achieving agreement whether or not rational methods are used. Philosophers strive to persuade by the sheer weight – cogency, precision, detail, scope – of their rational argument.
Each formal argument has a thesis (conclusion) supported by reasons expressed in declarative sentences (premises). Expressions like “therefore,” “thus,” or “accordingly” indicate that the author believes that the conclusion is acceptable based on the reasons provided. Writing out the steps (premises) of an argument is hard work. It is much easier to present the argument in less exact and detailed manner. However, only by writing out the steps can one actually see each element of the argument clearly and distinctly.
An (deductive) argument is valid if and only if granting the premises requires one to accept the conclusion. In an invalid argument, it is possible without contradiction to grant the premises and yet deny the conclusion. An argument is sound (and accepted) if it is valid and its premises are true. Sometimes, the premises only support the conclusion (inductive argument).
Philosophical arguments frequently make use of analogy. Analogies involve comparisons between two admittedly different things in the belief that the similarities are more important than the differences. Often the greater the differences, the more dubious the analogy. In evaluating an analogy, it is important to consider possible counter-examples, which may weaken the analogy.
III. Structure of the Paper
The following outline can be used as model to enhance your philosophical writing. Some suggestions can be omitted for a particular reason related to the specificity of the argument or of the text.
A. Introduction
Introduce a specific topic. (Why is it important, interesting, or attractive?)
If necessary, provide more general information about the topic; viz. define the key
words. (Avoid universal statements.)
Ask a provocative question.
By the end of the introduction focus on the thesis statement (what you what to
prove or disprove or clarify) and give some idea how you will proceed.
Do not write a full summary of your ideas and procedure. Otherwise, there is no
need to read the entire paper.
Write the introduction after you have first written the body of the paper.
B. Main Part (Body)
Begin each paragraph with a topic sentence related to your thesis statement.
Explain what the philosopher is saying and provide your own explanation and conclusions about it. Back up the former with textual evidence and the latter with your experience.
Distinguish clearly:
1. Explanation of the text (synthesis of the argument and analysis):
What are the author’s key concepts?
What is presupposed in the text?
What is the most (least) important?
(Do not make a mechanistic division.)
What is argued for, what is the thesis defended by the author?
(Do not just paraphrase the text.)
2. Comment (evaluation)
Comment is a dialogue with the author and comparison with your
experiences and opinions.
Is the author right? Is what he says correct? Why or why not? In what
respect is he right?
How might the author answer your questions (critique)?
(Do not change the topic!)
C. Conclusion
Recall the main idea (thesis statement or question) from the introduction.
Summarize the development of your arguments and conclusions.
What is new or original in your paper?
(Do not introduce any new ideas and quotes.)
IV. Revision Checklist
A. Thesis
Does the title of the paper reflect the thesis? (A title like “Friendship” is too
general.)
Is my essay well organized?
Are my sentences and paragraphs clear and logically well arranged?
B. Format
Font: 12 Times New Roman (Front page 14)
Line spacing: Double
Border: 1 inch
First page and Page numbers: see this handout.
Staple the paper in the upper left-hand corner.
C. Grammar and Style
Use standard English grammar. Do not use contractions – e.g. “don’t,”
“can’t,” etc. – unless they appear in a quotation.
Watch for pronoun agreement. (“Each person believes that they are...” is incorrect.)
Do not use personal style (“I,” “I feel,” “I believe”).
Avoid using the word “you.” (Your paper is not about me!)
Avoid statements like: “Everyone knows that…” “It is obvious that…” “No one
would deny…” and universal statements: “Throughout human history…”
Do not write what you think the author believes or feels, but what he said.
Do not use informal and useless expressions. (e.g. “Needless to say, Socrates
screwed it up completely.”)
D. Further Suggestions:
Write short sentences.
Write half page introduction and conclusion for a 5-page essay.
At least half of the paper should be a textual analyses (explanations) and
your comments.
Prefer active to passive voice, concrete to abstract language, and specific to
vague language.
V. Examples of Quoting
(CM – University of Chicago Press, note system)
The Chicago Manual of style gives complete bibliographic information within a footnote (or endnote) the first time a source is cited. If the source is cited again, the note gives less information. If only one work by each author is used, author’s name and page number are usually sufficient.
A. Direct quotation
1. If the words introducing a quotation form an independent clause, use colon after it.
Descartes illustrates that it is better to have a few rules for conducting reason: “A state is much better ruled […] when it has but very few laws and when these are very strictly observed.”
2. If the words introducing a quotation do not form an independent clause, use a comma.
“I believed,” Descartes continues, “that the following four rules would be sufficient for me.”
3. If the quote is longer than three lines use a block quotation. The block quotation starts with the capital letter and the block is indented.
Descartes made a firm resolution to observe the following rules:
The first was never to accept anything as true that I did not plainly know to be as such […].
The second, to divide each of the difficulties I would examine into as many parts as possible and as was required in order better to resolve them.
B. Indirect quotation
Korsgaard explains that it is the third principle that is described as “moral law.”
Descartes noticed that “good sense is the best distributed thing in the world.”
C. Suggestions
Use brackets to enclose your explanation in quoted material, and […] for omitted words.
Direct and indirect quotations require double quotation marks. A block quotation does
not have quotation marks.
If the numbers of the original pages or paragraphs appear alongside the text, these
original numbers are quoted in addition to the pagination in our text. In our class
we write both paginations, in order to facilitate our communication. See examples
from Nicomachean Ethics and Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
D. Additional examples
Friedrich Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols: Or, How to Philosophize with the Hammer,” Classics of Western Philosphy, 5 ed., ed. Steven M. Cahn (Cambridge: Hacket Publishing Company, 1999), 994.
George F. Sefler, “Nietzsche and Dostoevsky on the Meaning of Suffering,” Religious Humanism, vol. IV, no.1 (1970): 145.
Richard Findler, “Memory and Forgetfulness in Aristotle’s Ethics: A Nietzschean Reading,” New Nietzsche Studies, vol. II, no. 3-4 (1998): 29.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, ed. Peter Kreeft (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993), Iq2a3, p. 53.
VI. Evaluation of the Paper
Each student usually gets three numbers for his or her paper: ‘x – y / z;’ for instance 7-2/9. The first number (x) reflects the philosophical quality of the written text. Criteria are explained in section I and II. The second number (y) is the number of points one loses because of errors in the format and/or basic English grammar rules explained in section IV and V. The third number (z) is the maximum score, which the student would have been awarded, if the argument were worked out perfectly.
Suggestions for Improving a Paper
If the number for y is too high, pay more attention to the Revision Checklist. If the difference between x and z is too big, you need to spend more time with the text when you read it. You need to think about the text, asking questions like “What is the author writing about?” “Is what the author said true?” and “Do I agree with it? Why/why not?” In addition, read the instructions for writing several times. If you have very low or no number for z, you did not present a good argument. You need to pay more attention in class and try to understand the logic of the presented arguments. Then, make an effort to read the text in the same manner. Intelligent and critical listening and reading are crucial.
Abbreviations in the Comment of the Paper
E? - Corresponding text is not written in standard English.
(See English Grammar Book.)
FE? - Corresponding text is not written in formal English.
NC - The ideas in the corresponding sentences are not clear
(or intelligible).
[ ] - Text in the brackets can be dropped; it is not important.
? - The point you are trying to make should be written more clearly.