Guidelines for Philosophical Writing Professor Micah T.

Lewin

Writing a philosophy paper will be quite a bit different than writing you may have done for other courses or in other
parts of your life. Standards for philosophical writing are particularly demanding and exacting. Philosophical
writing requires clarity, precision, consistency, detailed analysis of issues, charitable reconstruction/consideration of
other authors’ positions, rigorous argument for your own position (using well-reasoned justifications and examples),
anticipation of potential objections, and consideration of plausible alternatives to one’s own views all within a
tightly-organized, well-structured, and easy-to-follow essay. This will take some time and effort to master. But
happily, all of these skills can be put to use outside of philosophy class: the rigorous demands of crafting
philosophical essays can shape you into a better, more persuasive writer.

For further guidance, please have a look at the helpful resources on of my undergraduate teachers, Professor Jim Pryor of NYU,
kindly provides on his website: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
On Reading Philosophy: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/reading.html
On Terms/Methods for Philosophical Arguments: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/

Guidelines for Philosophical Writing

(A) Good Philosophical Writing begins with Good Philosophical Reading.

a. Go back and re-read: closely re-examine the relevant readings and class materials with an eye to the essay
prompt you will be addressing.
b. Take notes: these should help you in charitably reconstructing other authors’ view in providing the relevant
exposition for your own paper.
(B) Compose a Detailed Outline or Plan for your Paper.
a. Outlines help you see if there are any gaps in your reasoning or argument.
b. An outline also helps you improve the structure and flow of your paper: you have a bird’s-eye-view of the way
the pieces of the essay fit together (or don’t yet fit together, so you can fix it).
c. Break your argument down into intelligible pieces/sections and make sure you are following the expectations
of the “Structuring Your Paper” section below (F).
(C) Write Several Drafts of Your Paper: Write, Revise, Rework, & Rewrite, and then again…
a. Your first draft will unlikely be fully satisfactory.
b. Give yourself some time away from your just-completed draft of the paper; then come back and look at it
critically with fresh eyes.
c. Imagine your target audience for the paper are the most highly critical, uninterested, unknowledgeable readers
you can think of.
i. In the writing/revising process, I find it is most helpful to imagine that your essay will be read by the
most highly critical, uninterested, unknowledgeable reader you can think of.
ii. (For me, I think of waking up my unforgiving, grumpy father late at night to look over my paper.)
iii. Your paper should be sufficiently clear, comprehensible, plausible, and convincing to appease even
that kind of harsh, uncharitable reader. If that “nightmare reader” would be able to understand your
essay, follow its line of thought, and find it plausible and strongly-enough argued, then you have
probably done your job well.
iv. So, when you re-read/revise your paper, imagine reading it from the perspective the most harsh,
uninterested, unknowledgeable critic out there.
v. Expecting your audience to be such “nightmare readers” is an exercise in preparing for the worst.
Preparing for the worst possible audience will make your writing much easier to follow and your
arguments much stronger even for more typical readers.
d. Revising, reworking, and rewriting a couple of times will vastly improve the clarity, precision, strength, and
quality of your final draft. Use this guide and the Philosophy Paper Grading Rubric during the revision/rewrite
process.

Rev. 09/2017 Guidelines for Philosophical Writing, p. 1 of 4

Guidelines for Philosophical Writing Professor Micah T. Lewin

(D) Originality/Creativity
a. Your paper should show originality and creativity—in particular, in either the position/thesis you defend
and/or the arguments you provide to support your thesis (or both). Your essays are a forum to demonstrate
independent, novel, and insightful thinking, and this can come through especially in your thesis and the
arguments you present for your thesis.
b. You may also demonstrate creativity/originality in the insightful, novel way you analyze, explain, or reconstruct
background information or other philosophers’ positions/arguments.
c. You will not always or even often be able to come up with your own new philosophical position or thesis on an
issue whole-cloth.
i. Philosophy is full of timeworn debates where a huge range of potential positions on issues has long
been articulated & discussed. There isn’t a lot of completely untraveled ground.
ii. Given this, it will be difficult to come-up with a wholly novel, viable thesis for a short essay
assignment. It is difficult enough for professional Philosophers to do so!
d. Rather, what is expected is that you show independent, creative thought in how you present your thesis, the
arguments your present for it, and/or the way you and explain/analyze the subject matter/philosophical
background and others’ positions on the issue.
i. You might seek to present an existing thesis in a novel or illuminating way.
ii. You should seek to come up with original arguments, novel justifications, and new examples in
support of your thesis (even if the thesis is not wholly original).
iii. Your explanation of relevant ideas/concepts and reconstruction of others’ views about the issues in
contention can demonstrate originality.
iv. This might take the form of combining ideas from different sources in a creative or novel way.
e. Showing some independent thought and philosophical insight is a major goal of the exercise. You are
not to merely copy, parrot, quote, and/or paraphrase somebody else’s paper on the same topic. You are
expected to show some original ideas & thought. Even if you cite this author (which you should!), if you
simply (or largely) present a wholesale copy of another author’s work this is, in effect, presenting someone
else’s work as your own and as such is academically dishonest and grounds not only for a failing grade, but
also potentially for disciplinary action.
(E) Synthesis/Integrative Understanding
a. Your paper should present an integrative understanding of the subject matter, the issue in contention, other
authors positions, and your own thesis into a coherent, overarching whole (insofar as you can do so
illuminatingly and accurately).
i. Your essay should provide the reader with at least some integrative, overarching framework or
picture of the issue at hand that illuminatingly captures the subject matter as a whole.
ii. In reading your paper, the reader should not only garner an understanding of your thesis/position on
a topic. They should also get some idea of where your thesis fits in within the “philosophical
landscape” about that issue/subject matter.
1. Your paper should present itself as not only a reliable guide to what you, the author,
happens to think about an issue.
2. It should present itself as a reliable guide-map for the relevant philosophical terrain. Your
paper should educate the reader about the issue as a whole: the background
matters/concepts/ideas, alternative/opposing positions, your own position, and etc. should
all be illuminatingly mapped out.
b. It will not be easy to reliably capture such a synthetic, integrative, holistic picture of the subject matter within
your first draft. Rather, this overarching framework or guide of the philosophical terrain is more likely to
emerge over the course of outlining, drafting, revising, and re-writing your paper.
i. Such a synthesis may only emerge and become well-articulated in later drafts of your paper.
ii. Revising and re-writing your paper with fresh eyes should help you improve this integrative aspect of
your philosophical writing. It will give you a better, bird’s-eye perspective on what you’ve written and

Rev. 09/2017 Guidelines for Philosophical Writing, p. 2 of 4

Guidelines for Philosophical Writing Professor Micah T. Lewin

how well it presents an overview or map for the philosophical terrain and the place of your thesis
(versus alternative positions) therein.
(F) Structuring Your Paper
a. Your Introduction
i. Your Introduction should:
1. concisely introduce the topic of the paper.
2. contain a clear statement of your thesis (what you’ll be arguing for/your conclusion).
3. contain a clear statement of how you’ll argue for it (your argumentative plan for the paper).
ii. Your introduction should not contain excess fluff, filler, or frill: it should be to the point (topic, thesis,
plan) and as concise as possible.
b. Body of the Paper
i. Provide an explanation and analysis of the topic/issue and an exposition of the relevant background
literature.
1. Paraphrasing, or putting matters in your own words, is preferable to direct quote.
2. Explain the topic/issue being addressed and the ideas/concepts involved therein as clearly
and precisely as you can. Analyze/break down the matter into their constituent parts and
their relations.
3. Provide a clear & charitable interpretation of the relevant sections of other authors’ work,
including those you are arguing against. Do not present others’ views as straw men (a
fallacy we discussed). Your own argument is improved and strengthened to the extent that
you are able to argue against opposing views cached in their strongest possible terms.
ii. Present your own argument in a clear, precise, consistent way, avoiding argumentative fallacies.
1. Pitch your claims at an appropriate level of strength, avoiding overstatements—
appropriately qualify or temper your premises and conclusions.
2. Make the considerations or reasons you present in favor of your thesis (premises), as clear,
precise, and concise as you possibly can.
3. Make it clear how your arguments lead to your thesis/conclusion. The
inferential/argumentative structure of your paper should not be a guessing game: it should
be obvious to the reader how the pieces fit together in support of your thesis/conclusion.
4. Be sure to think about how to make each example or each consideration as strong as it can
possibly be in support of your argument and thesis. Ask what each detail might do, and
whether changing, removing, or adding it strengthens your argumentative point.
iii. Conclusion: Tie up Loose Ends/Tidy-up Unfinished Business.
1. Again, no fluff: stay on point and be as concise as possible.
2. Your conclusion should at least anticipate, raise, and consider objections/alternatives to your
view.
a. What are two or three of the strongest objections, counter-arguments, or
alternative positions to your own position/argument that you can foresee?
b. Present a few of the best responses (if any) you can make to these objections or
alternatives and give a frank assessment of where this leaves your argument.
3. You might use the conclusion to also consider/be self-reflective about the actual strength of
your own argument and the degree of support you have given your thesis/conclusion.
4. You might use the conclusion to briefly consider some interesting, pertinent, or controversial
implications of your position, a full discussion of which would fall beyond the scope of the
paper/assignment.
(G) Readability
a. Make sure your writing is as easy to understand and comprehensible as it can be. Avoid overly-complex,
ornate, or overly-technical phrasing when doing so would stand in the way of comprehensibility.
b. Choose your words precisely.

Rev. 09/2017 Guidelines for Philosophical Writing, p. 3 of 4

Guidelines for Philosophical Writing Professor Micah T. Lewin

c. Be as clear as possible.
d. Make your writing as concise as possible without sacrificing clarity or important detail & nuance.
e. When you use technical vocabulary or concepts, make sure you define, explain, and employ them
appropriately/accurately.
f. Avoid overly complex sentences and phrases. Simplify and break these down into shorter pieces. Think about
what each word is doing for you, and edit out words/phrases that are unnecessary for your point to come
across.
(H) Organization
a. Your paper should have an argumentative roadmap in the introduction. Follow that roadmap in the paper.
i. It is no good to present an argumentative plan for the paper and then not follow it, or deviate from it
without explanation.
ii. Without a roadmap, your paper will be more difficult to follow and thus not as strong as it could be.
b. Your paper should employ a number of helpful transitional/organization-guiding phrases (i.e. guide/sign post
words like “first,” “next,” “last,” or etc.) throughout to let readers know they are in the argument plan.
c. As far as possible, clearly spell out the role of each paragraph and section of your paper, and simplify these as
best you can. If the point of one paragraph is too convoluted and/or multifarious your readers will likely have
difficulty following.
(I) Citing Sources
a. If you rely on materials from somewhere else, whether assigned readings or elsewhere, you must cite your
sources at the points in your paper where you use them. There is no shame in drawing upon someone else’s
ideas provided you give her or him proper credit. You must cite even when you paraphrase rather than directly
quote: if the idea, even if not the exact words, came from someone else, you must attribute that author.
b. I do not require a specific citation style or format, but the content of your citation should enable the reader to
easily find where you derived the material.
i. Citations should occur at the points in your paper where you are utilizing or drawing upon the
material you are citing. Regardless of whether you are directly quoting or paraphrasing, and
regardless of whether you are using footnotes, endnotes, or parenthetical citations, if you got the
idea from someone else, cite it where you use it. When in doubt, attribute.
ii. Merely having a Works Cited page at the end of your paper is not sufficient attribution for works your
quoted from or drew upon in your paper. It is not enough to put a works cited page at the end if you
did not note the places in your paper where you cited that material (whether parenthetically, with
footnotes, or endnotes). A Works Cited page is just a general list of references; it is not a replacement
for specific citations of works you draw upon at the points you use them in your essay.
iii. In papers for my students, I personally do not care how you do your citations, stylistically. It can be a
footnote, endnote, parenthetical citation, etc., and it does not have to follow any particular rulebook
of citation format (MLA, Chicago, etc.). Note: this lenience may not apply for other professors!
iv. As a matter of what substantively goes into your citation, your citations should provide enough detail
that your reader can readily find where you got the material you are referencing or drawing
upon. Again, I, personally, do not really care how you achieve this, though others may. For instance,
if you just list a last name and a page number in a footnote/endnote/parenthetical, and then have a
Works Cited at the end to spell out what these names refer to, that's fine. Or, e.g., if you have a
scheme where your first footnote lists the whole reference, and then subsequent citations of that
work use an abbreviation to reference back to that original citation, that's fine too. As long as your
citations make it easy enough for the reader to find where you got the material (down to the
relevant page in the work you are citing—though, not if a website), that should suffice.
c. The rule is, when in doubt, attribute: always cite your sources. It is better to err on the side of over-citing than
under-citing. If you do not cite your sources, then this constitutes plagiarism, which I am bound by College
and University policy to treat as a disciplinary matter not just a grading matter. Please do not try to get away
with academic dishonesty and plagiarism: it isn’t worth it. Your own work is always the better option.

Rev. 09/2017 Guidelines for Philosophical Writing, p. 4 of 4