Download How to Write a Philosophy Paper

How to Write a Philosophy
Paper
The Reader
In reality, likely only one person will read your paper: me.
However, writing papers in class is supposed to be training you to write
papers for a general audience.
Therefore you should write your paper as if people who don’t know
you, have never been to this class, and do not know who I am are going
to read it.
The Reader
Do not:
• Cite the professor
• Cite the powerpoints
• Mention examples from class as if the reader knows about them
P.S.
This doesn’t mean you can’t use the information from class or that’s in
the slides.
Cite the book if the material is from the book. If it’s something I said
then it’s yours if you want it.
The Reader
I think it would be best for you to assume that the reader is one of your
peers– for example, a second-year philosophy major who has not taken
a philosophy of logic class.
Thesis
The point of a philosophy paper is to convince the reader that a thesis
is true.
The thesis is the main claim in the paper. It is why you wrote the paper:
to get people to believe the thesis.
Structure of a Philosophy Paper
General guidelines (not always true):
1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction containing the thesis and a roadmap
Exposition of key concepts in thesis and arguments
Arguments in support of the thesis
Charitable consideration of objections to your arguments or your
thesis
5. Conclusion, summarizing what you have accomplished
Thesis Statement
What Is a Thesis?
Philosophy papers are an example of persuasive writing.
You are trying to convince your reader of something: a claim, a thesis.
Your thesis is the main claim you are trying to convince your reader of.
You should only have one thesis.
The rest of your paper is devoted to arguing for your thesis.
P.S.
This doesn’t mean that there’s only one claim that you’ll be making in
your paper. You’ll make lots of claims, and maybe spend lots of the
paper arguing for them.
BUT, all your other claims and arguments should be made in service of
arguing for your thesis. Argue for claims that support your thesis.
N.B.
The fact that a philosophy paper consists of arguments for a thesis
means that a summary of what someone else thinks is not a philosophy
paper.
That doesn’t mean you won’t summarize what other people think. It
means that that can’t be all that you do.
Thesis
The thesis should appear toward the beginning of the paper.
It should be stated in a clear, straightforward way. You are allowed to
end the paper by endorsing a more complicated thesis than you started
with
The reader should be able to spot the thesis easily. You can but do not
have to precede it with “In this paper I will argue that…”
P.S.
The thesis should appear at the beginning of the paper, but it’s often
good to put it at the end also (not instead).
Sometimes if you think the argument is getting complicated, you can
remind your readers what the claims you’re arguing for have to do with
your thesis.
As a grad student, I TA-ed for Judith Jarvis Thomson several times.
When she handed out to the undergrads the questions to be answered
in papers, she would say,
“When people ask you what time it is, do you respond by saying ‘for all
of human history, people have been asking what time it is’?”
--Jason Stanley
Cut the Crap
Get to the point, be clear, and skip the flowery language. Philosophy
papers aim to persuade, and thus philosophers place emphasis on
clarity over beauty.
Motivation
Most ‘hack’ writing has its roots in something reasonable. You do want
to “motivate your thesis”– that is, motivating your audience to care
about whether your thesis is true.
But you don’t do this by talking about ‘since the dawn of time…’
A good motivation can be an argument against your thesis. “People
think p is wrong for this reason _____. But I will argue that p is true.”
Thesis Recommendations
A thesis should be a claim that not everyone already believes. There’s
no point in convincing people of what they already believe.
A thesis should make a small claim. You cannot solve the deep
mysteries of philosophy in a 5-7 page double-spaced paper written in a
few weeks. You can, however, write a clear, well-reasoned paper that
adds to the debates and discussions we’ve encountered in class.
Thesis Types
1.
2.
3.
4.
Modify a view to overcome an objection.
Demonstrate what the view is committed to.
Defend a view against an objection.
Argue that a certain view can (or cannot) overcome an objection.
(There are more, this is just a sample.)
Thesis Sample
1. Perhaps mathematics is analytic according to Frege’s theory of
analyticity– that to be analytic is to follow from logic + definitions– but in
the sense of ‘analyticity’ we should be concerned about, mathematics is
not analytic.
2. Benacerraf is wrong to think that numbers are structures whereas sets
are things. (I will argue that) the only stable position is one where either
sets and numbers are both structures or they are both things.
3. By abandoning the naïve comprehension principle, axiomatic set theory
builds in more than the intuition ‘if there are some things, then there’s a
set of those things.’ (I will argue that) set theory has no intuitive
grounding.
Theses Samples
1. The idea theory can avoid the problem posed by theoretical
entities, if it replaces its notion of resemblance with a broader
notion of structural similarity.
2. If verificationism is true, then we can never represent the mental
lives of other people.
3. The circularity objection to the generalized definition theory is
misguided. Just because you cannot learn a language from a circular
dictionary does not mean that meanings aren’t always definitions.
4. There is no way of modifying the causal-historical theory of
meaning to solve the problem of meaning change.
Coming up with a Thesis
Remember that you have to convince your reader of your thesis, so it’s
good to have a thesis that you believe and that you have good
arguments for.
Usually, paper topics come to me when I read something that strikes
me as wrong or unconvincing. Then I try to identify why I think it’s
wrong– I develop a thesis and the arguments for it simultaneously. I
further refine the thesis/ arguments by reading more about the issue
and talking with other philosophers.
Titling Your Paper
Papers should have titles!
The title should indicate to the reader the topic of the paper and (when
possible) the position you intend to take on it.
Don’t have a question for a title. The answer is always ‘no’.
Great Titles from Philosophy Papers
http://www.philosophersannual.org/
Introduction
Anatomy of an Introduction
First: motivate your thesis.
Then: clearly state your thesis.
Finally (optional): provide a roadmap of the paper.
Roadmap
Some people (not everybody) like
to provide a “roadmap” at the end
of the introduction that describes
how the paper will proceed.
Roadmap
“In the first part of this paper I shall examine the account of structurally
valid inference which Davidson’s writings suggest and try to indicate
why I think that we have not there reached a finally satisfactory
account of the matter. In the second part of the paper I shall sketch
another approach to the idea with which I began. Finally from the
vantage point provided by the sketch I shall look briefly at some recent
and not so recent proposals concerning semantic structure.”
--Evans, “Semantic Structure and Logical Form”
Exposition
Exposition
After stating your thesis, you will probably need to explain the key
concepts that you used in your thesis or will use in your arguments.
Explain the things that (a) your reader doesn’t already know and (b) are
needed to understand your thesis and your arguments.
Exposition
Do not cram too much in and then underexplain it! It’s better to say
less clearly than lots un-clearly.
Philosophical Terms
Philosophers go to great lengths to be clear. To this end they often use
special vocabulary with clearly defined meanings.
Sometimes this vocabulary involves more precise versions of ordinary
words (like “idea” in the Idea Theory).
Make sure you know when you’re dealing with philosophical
vocabulary and that you know what the clearly defined meanings are.
Charitable Interpretations
Charity is when you freely help others.
In philosophy, “charity” means that you interpret the views you are
arguing against in a way that makes them most likely to be true.
Charitable Interpretations
If your opponent makes a claim and it could be interpreted as either A
or B– where A is easy to argue against– assume your opponent meant
B. You won’t convince anyone by arguing against uncharitable
interpretations of your opponents.
Charity
Charity is the highest virtue BY FAR in persuasive writing.
If you do not convince your reader that you are being charitable to your
opponents, you will not convince your reader. And convincing your
reader is the entire point of writing a paper.
Quotes
In philosophy, we try to quote sparingly. You are supposed to explain
the views you are arguing for or against, you do not use a large quoted
piece of text to do so.
Use quotes to illustrate what others believe, and to provide evidence of
their views, but don’t use them as a substitute for your own voice.
Always contextualize and don’t let a quote stand on its own.
Keeping Your Voice While Quoting
“Martí (2004), for example, points out certain adjectives that Kripke
took to be rigid, such as ‘hot’ and ‘yellow,’ are not rigid appliers: “a
yellow dress could be dyed and a yellow house could be repainted” (p.
132). The form of the argument is that dresses and houses are objects
to which ‘yellow’ sometimes applies; yet they persist through changes
in color; and thus they would persist through such changes in color,
that is, they could exist in worlds where they were not yellow.”
--me, my dissertation
Keeping Your Voice While Quoting
“Martí suggests taking this tack: ‘given the wide variety of terms [that
Kripke gives as examples of rigid expressions], it would not be
surprising if some of them were not to be in the final cut’ (p. 132). The
idea then is that someone who endorses Rigid Application can simply
bite the bullets of ‘hot’ and ‘yellow’, while hoping that there aren’t
many more bullets. But I will argue that no general term is a rigid
applier (save again for special cases involving logical or mathematical
terms).”
--me, dissertation again
Arguments
Arguments
The bulk of your paper should consist of a reasoned defense of your
thesis a.k.a. your arguments.
Anatomy of an Argument
When you want to persuade someone of a claim they do not yet
believe (which is the point of a philosophy paper), you provide reasons
to believe the claim.
Sometimes in philosophy we call the claim we are trying to argue for
our “conclusion” and the reasons we give for it our “premises”.
Good Reasons
The claim you are arguing for should be contentious– if everyone
already believes it, there’s no sense in providing reasons for it.
The opposite is true with premises. The gold standard for premises is
that all or most of your readers would agree that the premise is true.
Support
Your premises also have to support your conclusion. This does not
mean that your conclusion has to be a valid consequence of your
premises. It just means that accepting the truth of the premises is a
reason to believe the conclusion. This can be because:
• The conclusion is a valid consequence of the premises.
• The conclusion is the best explanation for the truth of the premises.
• If the premises are true, then the conclusion is probably true.
Trade-Off
There’s a trade-off between giving reasons that support a contentious
conclusion, and giving uncontentious reasons. After all, the strongest
argument for proposition P is:
Premise: P. Conclusion: Therefore, P
Circular reasoning isn’t bad because the premises don’t provide
support to the conclusion. It’s bad because on the assumption that
your reader doesn’t believe the conclusion, she doesn’t believe the
premises either!
Eyes on the Audience
“This doesn't persuade me.” is not an argument, even if you can say
why it doesn’t persuade you.
Your goal is to persuade the reader, not yourself.
Say why the claim shouldn't persuade your reader.
How to Come up with Arguments
First, ask yourself why you believe your thesis.
Sometimes this can be difficult. Something may seem clear to you
without you knowing why.
Considering Objections
The best way to write a persuasive paper is to spend lots of time trying
to argue that you are wrong.
Come up with the very best objections you can think of to your own
view. Ideally, you want to identify the sorts of objections your reader is
likely to have– talking about your paper with others is a good way to
discover these.
If you present a very strong objection (or two) to your view and show
why you’re still right, that’s very convincing.
Considering Objections
A good paper always considers objections to the arguments it contains,
and responds to them.
NB. A summary of someone else considering an objection and replying
is not the same thing as you considering an objection and replying. If
your view has already been adequately defended elsewhere, you aren’t
contributing.
More Virtues: Humility
You're not in a position to dismiss (most) theories as absurd or nonsensical or whatever. Have some humility.
• Humility also related to charitably considering your opponents
• Insulting your professor (by saying the stuff (s)he teaches you is
absurd is not a good idea!
Clear Writing: Examples &
Signposting
The Importance of Examples
Often you will know very well what you are talking about, but your
reader will be confused.
A good way to get your ideas across is to go concrete: give some
examples. Then it is very hard for the reader to have no idea what
you’re talking about.
The Importance of Examples
“Natural language syntax is recursive. This means that phrases of one
syntactic type can be embedded in larger phrases of that same type.
For example, ‘dog’ is an English noun phrase, and it is a proper part of
‘old dog,’ which is also an English noun phrase. In turn ‘old dog’ is a
proper part of the noun phrase ‘smelly old dog,’ which itself is a proper
part of the noun phrase ‘big brown smelly old dog.’ This process can be
repeated: any time we have a noun phrase, we can add an adjective to
the front of it and get a new noun phrase.”
--me, “Compositionality”
The Importance of Examples
“Natural language syntax is recursive. This means that phrases of one
syntactic type can be embedded in larger phrases of that same type.
For example, ‘dog’ is an English noun phrase, and it is a proper part of
‘old dog,’ which is also an English noun phrase. In turn ‘old dog’ is a
proper part of the noun phrase ‘smelly old dog,’ which itself is a proper
part of the noun phrase ‘big brown smelly old dog.’ This process can be
repeated: any time we have a noun phrase, we can add an adjective to
the front of it and get a new noun phrase.”
--me, “Compositionality”
From Austin, How to Do Things with Words
Are we then to say things like this:
‘To marry is to say a few words’, or
‘Betting is simply saying something’?
…A sound initial objection to them may be this… In very many cases it
is possible to perform an act of exactly the same kind not by uttering
words, whether written or spoken, but in some other way.
For example, I may in some places effect marriage by cohabiting, or I
may bet with a totalizator machine by putting a coin in a slot.
From Austin, How to Do Things with Words
Are we then to say things like this:
‘To marry is to say a few words’, or
‘Betting is simply saying something’?
…A sound initial objection to them may be this… In very many cases it
is possible to perform an act of exactly the same kind not by uttering
words, whether written or spoken, but in some other way.
For example, I may in some places effect marriage by cohabiting, or I
may bet with a totalizator machine by putting a coin in a slot.
Signposting
Just as we can give a “roadmap”
at the beginning of the paper,
philosophers are fond of
“signposts” that tell us where we
are.
Signposting
• “A second reason why…”
• “As we saw in the first section…”
• “Now I will consider an
argument that…”
Be clear about what you’re doing!
Signposting
You can also signpost by indicating
the relationship between your
sentences:
Addition: “also,” “furthermore,”
“in addition”
Opposition: “however,” “instead,”
“nonetheless”
Inference: “thus,” “so,”
“therefore,” “as a result”
Signposting
“The empirical conception of compositionality need not be thought of
as a competitor to the alternative conceptions considered above.
Instead, it provides a methodological backdrop against which we can
evaluate various proposals regarding the sense of “dependence” at the
heart of compositionality. As we saw, the functional conception of
dependence is ill-favored precisely because it fails to explain our
abilities to learn and understand the natural languages we speak.”
--me, “Compositionality”