How To Write a Philosophy Paper

(with asides about writing for anthropology)

What is a Philosophy Paper?

Philosophy papers are a kind of analytic writing. Analytic writing is used throughout the sciences, and in the world at large. There are two main kinds of anthropology papers that beginning anthropologists write: ethnographic papers (which have little in common with philosophy papers) and analytic papers, which have a great deal in common with philosophy papers.

Briefly stated, an analytic paper uses intellectual means to break a topic down into parts, examine it closely, and, perhaps, to restate the topic in a new way. The skills you will learn in writing this type of paper will be useful in all kinds of non-fiction writing, especially in the social sciences.

The Goal

The general goal of the paper is usually to state clearly and precisely (without ambiguity) what you have learned about the particular philosopher you are studying. You should be able to show the teacher that you did the reading, and that you understood it.

The Opening

The suggestions in this section apply to your entire paper, but nowhere are they more important than in the beginning of your paper.

Example1: (wrong)

I think that what Descartes trying to say is pretty clear. He says that all our knowledge should rest on top of something.

1) Avoid the use of extra words, especially personal, subjective terms. This is NOT a good opening sentence. Get rid of the "I think." It is assumed by readers of analytic papers that you, the author, are doing the thinking, so the "I think" is redundant. Similar phrases, such as "I guess" or "I feel" are equally unneeded, and even worse, not called for in an analytic paper (leave out your feelings or guesses). (Sometimes this advice causes an uproar among students, who have recently been told - usually in self-help books or by their therapists - that feelings really do matter. OF COURSE feelings matter. But it is useful to untangle feelings from other kinds of thoughts - a very useful task indeed. That's what an analytic paper does).

2. Descartes isn’t "trying" to say anything. Even if you find it difficult to understand Descartes (or whomever), don’t diminish the work of this great thinker by suggesting he’s only a beginner. The word "trying" implies that he didn’t quite accomplish what you’re about to say he did. Remember, that some of the best minds, over several centuries, after reading Descartes, believe that he is one of the greatest philosophical minds ever. While you could conceivably be more knowledgeable in the field than Descartes (or all these other philosophers), it will be impossible to demonstrate that clearly in a short paper! If you can’t demonstrate/support it, don’t say it! (At least, not in an analytic paper!)

3. "Pretty clear." The term is vague and imprecise. Do not open your paper with a point about Descartes that is vague. Choose the thing you think is clearest and start there. "Pretty" clear is obviously not the height of clarity. By the way, arguing that Descartes is vague will be "pretty hard" unless you are an exceptionally good writer yourself. Instead, you might want to consider the idea that Descartes is himself very clear (compared to most of us). In general, most famous philosophers are regarded by their readers as paragons of clarity - about very difficult topics.

BETTER:

The philosopher, Descartes, says that all our knowledge should be based on something.

This is still vague (and not the best opening sentence), but compared to where we began, it’s a great improvement. Notice that we lost a whole sentence.

BIG TIP: Allow plenty of time to write your paper. Read and reread it. CROSS OUT all redundant words and sentences. It’s better to fall short (in terms of required length) than to have a bunch of extra words as padding to make it look like the right length.

TO GET AN "A": The paper will be the proper length AND devoid of "I thinks," "I guesses," redundancies, etc.

4…"based on something…"

This is vague, too. It shows that the writer’s own thinking failed before the end of one sentence. Still, it’s better than where we started.

EVEN BETTER: The philosopher, Descartes, says that all our knowledge should rest on a firm, thoroughly examined foundation.

At this point, the reader of the paper can either agree or disagree with your statement about what Descartes says. Is this what Descartes is saying? You’d better go on to support it.

EXAMPLE 2: (better) The philosopher, Descartes, stated that all knowledge should rest on a firm, thoroughly examined foundation. Descartes, writing in the 17th century, became very influential in Western thought for his views on knowledge. Unless knowledge is shown to rest on a defensible, examined foundation, it is not knowledge. Unfortunately, finding this foundation turns out to be a difficult task. Still, unless it is done, all of our knowledge isn’t true knowledge, it’s just belief. Descartes’ theory is sometimes called "foundationalism" because of this search for a foundation.

This paragraph shows the teacher that you know a little about who Descartes is (you could even work in more of your knowledge, if you tried). It states a clear idea (thesis) about what Descartes said. It provides the teacher proof that you have learned how to use the term "foundational" in relation to Descartes. Given what the first paragraph now says, the teacher is expecting to find the following in the rest of your paper:

1. A further discussion of what is knowledge

2. What it means to place a piece of knowledge on a foundation

3. What the foundation looks like

4. What happens when the foundation is shown to be faulty

If you are actually able to do 1-4, then you'll do well! If not...not so good...

Getting to an "A":

SHOW THAT YOU KNOW THE CENTRAL TERMS Start thinking about what you suppose the teacher (and Descartes or whomever) thinks is important to know. Look at your lecture notes. Make a list of the terms your teacher might have mentioned. For example, with Descartes, the list might include: epistemology foundational skepticism dualism physicalism (etc.) Try to work in as many of these terms as you can. This does NOT mean that you just get a dictionary and define them (although that would be better than nothing). Instead, find a way to REWRITE that opening paragraph to try and show that you are going to talk about those terms. If you can’t quite do that, at least try and work these terms into the body of your paper. Show that you actually understand the terms, not just by defining them, but by using them correctly.

PROVIDE AN ORGANIZED ARGUMENT The little portion of Descartes (or whomever) that you’ve read has a beginning, middle and end. Try to identify those sections and follow them in your own paper. It’s perfectly okay to say things like: "First, Descartes realizes that most of what he thought he knew, in his life, really isn’t knowledge." Let the reading itself provide the organizational skeleton of your argument. (More advanced philosophy papers won’t do this, this is advice for a beginner).

SHOW SOME INSIGHT Really good papers are going to show that the author of the paper (you), has done some thinking about the topic at hand and can apply that thinking (in some way) to a new situation. This might include thinking up examples that demonstrate Descartes’ skepticism (in our example) that Descartes himself did not use. Or, you might try to think of some part of the foundation of knowledge that stands up to your own scrutiny. These insights should be sparing and not go beyond the scope of the topic. For example, it would be pretty poor philosophy to say something like, "One of the foundations Descartes should have looked into is science." First of all, you’d have to show the teacher that you know what "science’ means (good luck). And of course, many would claim that Descartes is the person who began modern science in the first place - in his larger body of work. Remember, your topic is ONLY the first meditation…you can’t go beyond that.

The Summary

Every paper, in every class, should contain a summary paragraph. In a philosophy paper, if you have done a good job in the central portion of your paper, your summary paragraph might look like this:

So, we have seen that Descartes is a major contributor to modern epistemology. Even a brief reading of Descartes’ First Meditation raises epistemological questions that are still intriguing today. We have seen that while Descartes attempted to complete a foundational project, he ended up with skepticism. But in the process of becoming a skeptic, Descartes somehow furthered the task of philosophy and of science.

This is NOT an example of a whiz-bang, top-rate summary. And, it may not even be accurate (regarding Descartes’ place in philosophy). Indeed, Descartes is NOT a skeptic, so you got that wrong. However, if the student-author of this paragraph has tried hard to show that Descartes was concerned with epistemology, that Descartes seems sometimes a foundationalist and sometimes a skeptic and that in the end, he ended up a skeptic, then most philosophy teachers (at the introductory level) will agree that this is a good summary paragraph (even if the teacher writes lots of comments disagreeing with what you actually said).

If, on the other hand, you write a paragraph like this and, in the body of your paper, you have confused skepticism with something else, or failed to define it, or failed to show how it relates to Descartes, well then, this summary paragraph is very bad. A summary can NEVER make up for an otherwise incoherent or sketchy paper by simply asserting things that should have been done in the body of the paper.

Some final tips and reiterations

1. Use your best vocabulary. Choose the word that is most specific to the task of the sentence.

2. Read and reread your paper. Read it one time just for word choice. Read it again for grammar. Read it again for accuracy (and so on).

3. Be concise. State everything in as few words as possible. Points are taken off for rambling, for redundancy, and for padding.

4. Reread your paper. Read it one for time to see how many words you can leave out and still be clear.

5. Be very clear. Have someone else read your paper to see if they think it’s clear.

6. Do not use dictionary definitions. Dictionaries are designed for people who have never heard a word before, or for quick definitions. Philosophers spend lifetimes defining words like "knowledge," you can’t substitute a quick dictionary definition.