Some Notes on Writing in Philosophy

Nathan Robert Howard

Precision is often regarded as a hyper-cautious characteristic. It
is importantly the opposite. Vague statements are the hardest to
convict of error. Obscurity is the oracles self-defense. To be precise
is to make it as easy as possible for others to prove one wrong. Tat
is what requires courage. But the community can lower the cost
of precision by keeping in mind that precise errors often do more
than vague truths for scientic progress.
1
Contents
1 Introduction and Conc|usion 1
1.1 Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Exposition 2
3 Organization 3
4 Argumentation 3
5 Writing 4
1
Williamson (2007, 288)
1 Introduction and Conc|usion
1.1 Introductions
Te purpose of the introduction is to tell the reader what to expect from the
paper. Te introduction describes the rest of the paper. It shouldnt be more
than a half page long for an 5-page-or-fewer paper longer papers merit
longer intruductions. A good introduction does 4 things:
(1) a. Clearly identies a thesis. (hint: use locutions like I will argue
or Tis paper demonstrates )
b. Lays out the structure of the paper relative to the papers argument
for its thesis.
c. Briey states the conclusion of the argument.
d. Does nothing more than this (e.g., avoids sweeping claims like Since
the beginning of the modern era, everyone has wondered about the
nature of consciousness )
Here is an example of what I think a good introduction looks like:
I will argue that in Platos Apology, Socrates demonstrates both a
reasoned investigation into the nature of right (moral) action, and
a reasoned reection on the connection between right action and
the acquisition of knowledge. Tis essay proceeds in four sections.
First, I will clarify the distinction between the rst-order investiga-
tion of questions, and the second-order investigation of the process
of investigation itself. Second, I will recapitulate Socrates argu-
ment that the source of wrong action is ignorance. I will then
explain Socrates views about the nature of investigation and the
1
Naruax Roniir Howaio Notes on Writing in Philosophy
acquisition of knowledge. Finally, I will argue that the positions
discussed in sections two and three provide answers to rst- and
second-order philosophical questions, respectively.
An an exercise, try to determine which of the following two introductions
is superior:
In a society that is politically correct, animal rights is a hot-button issue.
Various groups ght for these rights to such extremes that it sometimes
appears that certain species, particularly if they are endangered, have
more rights than do humans. Tere is, however, a dierence between
rights and ethics. Te concept of rights connotes more of a legal in-
terpretation, whereas ethics implies moral obligations. How humans
treat animals is a moral issue, then, not a rights one. While there are
dierences in the hierarchy of evolutionary beings, it is still important
to analyze what moral obligations humans have to animals, and how
animals should be treated by human beings. For this endeavor, four
philosophies will be examined as written by Rene Descartes, Tom Re-
gan, Peter Singer, and Holmes Rolston III.
In Practical Ethics Singer argues that we should consider all sentient
beings, i.e. those capable of conscious experiences which provide en-
joyment and suering, to have equal status as moral patients, that is
as entities worthy of our moral concern or consideration; however, we
should deny any moral patient status to non-sentient beings. Tis es-
say explains Singers position on what has moral patient status, presents
his main supporting arguments, and sketches out his meta-ethical posi-
tion (that is his view of about what ethical judgements are) from which
his supporting arguments spring; I then criticize his view, arguing that
given Singers meta-ethics, non-sentient entities should be included in
our sphere of moral concern.
Note that (at |east in terms of the papers I grade) the use of I is per-
fect|y acceptab|e rvrx rxcounaorn.
Locutions like I will argue are especially helpful they allow the reader to
immediately identify the thesis. Note also that the paper described above is
organized into discrete sections. Tis suggests that the author has given some
thought to how the paper is structured.
1.2 Conc|usions
(2) a. Have one: it could very well be a restatement of your thesis, or a
brief analysis of its direct implications.
b. Dont delve into any new topics that you havent already discussed
(other than material directly related to your thesis).
Other than that, I have no strong views on how conclusions should be writ-
ten. As usual, I prefer short and sweet.
2 Exposition
A|ways dene your technica| |anguage. Relatedly, because you must dene
all of your technical terms, try to minimize your use of them to leave room
for more argument and exegesis.
(3) a. It can be hard to judge which terms do need exposition, e.g., non-
cognitivism, and which do not, e.g., consequently. However, good
philosophical judgment is one of the skills we hope you to develop in
this course, and, hopefully, by thinking about which terms to dene
youll (a) learn the meanings of your terms better, and (b) be more
conservative in their use.
b. For examp|e, dont assume that the fact that you know that I know
what non- cognitivism implies that you dont have to dene the
term when you write papers for me. I need to know whether you
know what non-cognitivism means.
When trying to exp|ain a phi|osophers view, minimize your use of quo-
tations. Instead, paraphrase that is, precisely summarize the philosophers
view/argument in your own words. You can buttress your summary by
footnoting a quotation, if you like. Te reason I dont like students using the
authors words rather than their own is that copy-pasting a salient passage
doesnt demonstrate understanding of the information contained in the
passage.
Exercise: which is the better paraphrase and why?
(4) a. Origina| David Hume: All the perceptions of the human mind re-
solve themselves into two distinct kinds, which I shall call impres-
sions and ideas. Te dierence betwixt these consists in the degrees
2
Naruax Roniir Howaio Notes on Writing in Philosophy
of force and liveliness, with which they strike upon the mind, and
make their way into our thought or consciousness. Tose percep-
tions, which enter with most force and violence, we may name im-
pressions; and under this name I comprehend all our sensations, pas-
sions, and emotions, as they make their rst appearance in the soul.
By ideas I mean the faint images of these in thinking and reasoning.
(Hume, Treatise on Human Nature)
b. Paraphrase 1: Hume says all perceptions of the mind are resolved
into two kinds, impressions and ideas. Te dierence is in how
much force and liveliness they have in our thoughts and conscious-
ness. Te perceptions with the most force and violence are impres-
sions. Tese are sensations, passions, and emotions. Ideas are the
faint images of our thinking and reasoning.
c. Paraphrase 2: 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...
2
A good paraphrase faithfully expresses the content of the paraphrased text
without distorting it, or reproducing it verbatim. A good paraphrase is hard
to do: it requires both thorough comprehension of the passage and strong
writing skills.
3 Organization
I generally organize the bodies of my papers into sections. However, your
papers are mostly quite short. Other than the rudimentary Introduction -
Main Part - Conclusion there is no simple rule for organizing a paper. Forget
about the ve part essay form. You learned that in high school simply so that
you could understand the idea that an essay should have some structure. Te
best way to organize your paper depends on the structure of your argument.
2
Taken from Prof. Jim Pryor: click here.
4 Argumentation
Howwell you argue accounts for a substantial portion of your grade. Empha-
sis should be placed on advancing logically valid arguments. Te argument
neednt be complex, nor need it to have sweeping consequences for the rest
of philosophy but it needs to be valid. Your argument could be as simple
as showing that a view or position has an extremely counterintuitive conse-
quence (reductio ad absurdum).
It is especially helpful to mark premises explicitly. Te following is how
I tend to structure arguments (Im giving this as an example you neednt
copy my form). Tough you need not do so, you may nd it helpful to think
and write this way: In this essay I defend the following argument:
(5) a. If I know I have hands, I know that I am not a handless brain in a
vat.
b. I know that I have hands,
c. Terefore, I know that I am not a handless brain in a vat. (modus
ponens)
Dont worry if you dont know what modus ponens is. Rather, what is impor-
tant is to see how an argument can be broken into sentences that entail the
conclusion, and that can be defended individually. Also, dont underestimate
howhard it is to transformthe pseudo-argument in your head into something
explicit and logically valid. But doing so makes you a better philosopher.
(6) a. (Proper|y) Use words |ike premise, conc|usion, there-
fore/consequent|y/thus, etc... they help me to identify your
argument, and they make your paper easier to read. Be carefu| not
to misuse them I wi|| notice!
b. Avoid making your premises and thesis broad or imprecise in
general, the broader the claim, the more susceptible it is to coun-
terexamples, therefore the harder it is to defend. e.g., all tigers have
stripes is harder to defend than all non-albino tigers in India have
stripes.
Precise narrow arguments are easier to defend than broad
vague ones. Formulating a claim thats precise enough to de-
fend adequately is one of the most challenging aspects of phi-
losophy.
3
Naruax Roniir Howaio Notes on Writing in Philosophy
c. Be aware when you are merely asserting a premise instead of arguing
for it. If you dont have an argument for a premise, or dont have the
space to provide one, say that you are assuming the premise this
signals to me that you know that your claim isnt self-evident and
otherwise requires support.
5 Writing
Te mark of bad writing is the use of needless words (in my eyes). Because
students are under a word limit, there is motivation for them to use as many
words as possible in a sentence, even if the sentence could communicate the
same thought with fewer words more words than necessary. Tis is exactly
wrong. Good writing is marked by concision and precision. Ru|e of thumb
#1: be suspicious of any sentence youve written that is more than 2.5 |ines
|ong.
E.g., (from http://web.uvic.ca/~gkblank/wordiness.html)
(7) a. Bad writing: Due to the fact that access to internet resources are
actually at the present time very easy to access in many places, the
vast majority of users seek to have those kinds of devices that are
most easy to carry around with them wherever they go.
b. Good writing: Because the Internet is available most places, users
often prefer portable devices.
(Do exercises here: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/
concise.htm)
Use paragraphs. Ru|e of thumb #2: No paragraph shou|d be more than
34 of a page |ong. Be suspicious of paragraphs of fewer than 3 lines.
Excellent sources for further advice:
(8) a. Mike Huemer: http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/writing.
htm
b. Jim Pryor: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/
writing.html
c. More links to guides courtesy of the Dept. of Philosophy @ U of T:
here
References
Williamson, Timothy. 2007. e Philosophy of Philosophy. Blackwell Pub-
lishing.
4