c
 

  

 
The standards for writing a good philosophy paper are like those for any scholarly writing. The
writer should discuss the issues or ideas that form the subject matter of the paper in an orderly
manner, omit needless redundancy and material irrelevant to the central issues of the paper, and
provide footnote citations and quotations wherever necessary to support the views expressed in
the paper. If you are writing on a topic of your own choice, you will want to choose a topic that
can be addressed adequately in the number of pages allotted, and develop a strategy for
discussing the topic in a lucid manner. If the question you are writing on is assigned there will be
no need to search for an appropriate topic, but you will still need to decide upon the best strategy
for addressing the issues involved.

Consequently, before you begin to work on your paper there are a number of questions
that you will need to ask yourself in order to give your writing project some direction.

O‘ ›
 


  


  
 

   


1.‘ If you are asked to write on a topic of your own choice, you will want to
tailor the scope of your topic to the length of paper you are writing. For
example, it would be inappropriate to attempt to write a fifteen page
research paper on Aristotle's philosophy as a whole. There is simply too
much material to discuss in the space of fifteen pages. You might,
however, choose to write on some more limited aspect of Aristotle's
philosophy, such as the concept of motion in his a  .
2.‘ ut even if the question on which you are writing is assigned, you will
still need to consider what aspects of the question can be discussed fully in
the number of pages you plan to write.
O‘ ›
 



 
 

 

 
 
 


1.‘ For a lengthy research paper you will want to do some library research in
order to find source materials for your paper and draw up a bibliography
of the books and articles that appear to be of particular relevance.
2.‘ ut even if you are simply writing a short paper limited to the assigned
texts of the course you will still want to identify those chapters and
passages that you believe will be most helpful in addressing the issues on
which you are writing.
O‘ 
  

   
 






 
 
 The overall clarity of a paper
depends to a great degree on its structure. It is best to outline your paper before
you begin to write to help guide the writing process and to assure that all of the
major concepts and principles that you intend to discuss in your paper will be
fully explained. You might also want to explain any specialized terminology that
you believe might not be readily understood by your reader.
 It will also be crucial that you write one or two introductory paragraphs for your paper to
give your reader some sense of the issues or questions you will be considering in the
paper and what, in general, you intend to say about these issues or questions.

O‘ ›
 
 




 This raises the question of
the proper use of citations and quotations.

^ 
 

In any academic discipline there are certain standards of evidence that must be followed
whenever a particular thesis or view is proposed. In the empirical sciences, for example,
it is generally accepted that any scientific theory should be supported by empirical
observations made under specified controlled conditions. If this standard is met then
anyone who questions the theory can replicate the conditions under which the
observations that allegedly support the theory were originally made in order to discover
whether the observed phenomena reported to have occurred actually do occur, and
consequently whether the proposed theory is supported by the empirical evidence.

It would be inappropriate to run scientific experiments when writing on the ideas of a

particular philosopher or philosophical topic. Nevertheless, there are standards of
evidence that also apply in philosophical writing. Two common ways of providing
evidence for a philosophical view or an interpretation of a particular philosopher are
citation and quotation.

  
 It is accepted practice in all disciplines that when a writer mentions or discusses
at length the ideas of another writer, a footnote citation of the original source of these
ideas should be supplied. For example,

c



 
 




 

  
 


 [usually superscripted]
Footnote 1 would supply the bibliographical information necessary for the reader to find
the page in the Π


    where Aristotle makes this statement (see below).
This allows a skeptical reader to look up the original passage to see if Aristotle actually
says what he is reported to have said.

è
 
 When a passage from a text is particularly useful in supporting your views or
your interpretation of an author, it may be helpful to quote the passage directly, with a
footnote citation to show where the passage can be found. Direct quotations, however,
should be used 
, and should only be used in connection with an interpretation of
the quoted material. Part of the purpose of writing a paper is to communicate to the
reader your understanding of the views of a particular philosopher. Quoting at length
from a text without providing an interpretation of what is being said in the quoted
passage fails to fulfill this purpose.
The standard practice for direct quotations is to surround quoted passages of three lines of
text or less with double quotation marks ("), and indent passages of greater length five
spaces from the left hand margin.


 A footnote should contain complete bibliographical information of a source
that is being used or quoted in your paper. This includes the author, title of the book
(underlined), translator and/or editor (if any), place of publication, publisher and date of
publication, and the number(s) of the page(s) in which the original material discussed or
quoted in your paper appears. For example, footnote 1 in the example above would read,

c

 
 

    

 
 

 !"#
The number of the footnote is typically superscripted, as it is in the text of the paper
itself, and the first line is indented five spaces.

If the next footnote refers to the same source, you can simply use "Ibid.," which means
"in the same place," followed by the page number(s) of the material discussed if these are
different from the previous note. Thus if in footnote 2 you wish to refer to page 35 of the
same edition of the Π


   , you would write
!

$#
If, however, you refer to some other source in footnote 2, and you wish to refer to the
Π


    again in footnote 3, or some later footnote, you can simply write the
author's name and " ," which means "in the work cited." For example,
$
c

$#

Footnotes can be placed either at the bottom of the page where the citation or quotation
appears, or at the end of the paper on a separate sheet (as "endnotes").

For more information on the proper form of footnotes you can look at the College Edition
of a standard dictionary, such as Webster's or Random House. These usually have a guide
to writing research papers in the back pages. Another excellent source of tips and
information for writing research papers is Kate Turabian's c!

›"

a
" 
#
, Fifth Edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1987).

  ^
 ^


The works of a particular philosopher that you are writing on are called "primary
sources." It is the interpretation of these writings that should be your central focus in the
paper. ut it is sometimes helpful to read the interpretations of other philosophers who
have studied and written on the same primary sources--what are called "secondary
sources." There are a couple of things to keep in mind in deciding what secondary
sources to use in your research, and how you should use them. First of all, you should
avoid using any secondary sources that you find difficult to understand. Some secondary
sources are written by philosophers with advanced understanding of primary source
materials for an audience with similar background knowledge. It is likely that using such
sources will only confuse and mislead you in your attempt to gain insight into the ideas of
a particular philosopher.

You should also be careful not to allow a secondary source to dominate the structure and
argument of your paper. It is your responsibility as a writer to offer an interpretation and
defend it. Take whatever is useful from a secondary source that helps to strengthen your
interpretation, but remember that it is  interpretation that you are developing in the
paper, and so you should not simply repeat what has already been said in the secondary
source you are using.

elow are three secondary sources written for the general reader that you might find
helpful in your research.

O‘ Frederick Copleston, c$a  , 9 vols. (Garden City, NY: Image
ooks, 1963). The most extensive history of philosophy in English.
O‘ W.T. Jones, c$›a  , 5 vols. (New York: Harcourt race
Jovanovich, 1975). More concise than Copleston, with volumes covering the
classical and medieval periods, early modern philosophy, and the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries.
O‘   
a  , 8 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1967). Generally
contains sound scholarly articles on all areas of philosophy and all major
philosophers.

In addition, you might wish to use " a  %  (owling Green, IN:
Philosophy Documentation Center), an index of all secondary literature published in
English since 1940.

@ 
c


   It is accepted practice in scholarly writing to identify quoted passages
from an original text with the use of quotation marks or indentation with full footnote
citations. This not only applies for quoted material of a sentence or more, but also for key
phrases taken directly from the text. For example,
 %
&

'  ( ) *+
 
, 


-


  +-.  )



 
,  
 





 
 
,
Using a passage from any source without indicating in these ways that it is taken from an
original source is called "plagiarism" and is not condoned in scholarly writing. Plagiarism
is considered an act of intellectual dishonesty since it is representing someone else's
writing as one's own.

Often inexperienced writers do not plagiarize with the intent to deceive, but simply
because they become so engrossed in the wording of the original text on which they are
writing that they incorporate phrases from the original into their discussion without full
cognizance of what they are doing. To avoid this it is helpful to distance oneself
somewhat from the text one is attempting to explain in a paper. Close the book while you
write and try to explain in your own words the meaning of the text. Later you can return
to the text to find citations and quotations that help to support your interpretation of it.

   Another closely related problem that can arise at times in the work of
inexperienced writers is that rather than simply copying the text verbatim, as occurs in
cases of plagiarism, they write in close paraphrases of the text, changing some words or
punctuation, omitting other words or phrases, but retaining much of the sentence structure
and verbal content of the original. Thus, where erkeley writes, "It is evident to anyone
who takes a survey of the objects of human knowledge, that they are either ideas actually
imprinted on the senses, or else such as are perceived by attending to the passions and
operations of the mind," a student may write, "erkeley says that it is clear to everyone
who thinks about the objects of human knowledge, that these are either ideas in the sense
organs, or those perceived by paying attention to the operations of the mind."

There are a couple of problems with paraphrasing. First, paraphrasing is a mechanical

process of exchanging words and phrases for synonyms that discourages careful
consideration of the meaning of the text itself. Consequently, the writer may, in making
small changes in the written text, actually change the meaning of original passage without
realizing it. When in the illustration above, for example, erkeley's "ideas imprinted on
the senses" is rendered in paraphrase "ideas in the sense organs," the writer erroneously
suggests that the ideas that erkeley refers to are states of the body. A second problem
with paraphrasing is that since it is a mechanical process it demonstrates little of the
writer's understanding of the material on which he or she is writing.

The solution to close paraphrasing is the same as the solution to unintentional

plagiarizing: you should attempt to gain some distance from the text. If you close the
book while writing you will never run the risk of writing in paraphrases.

 !" #   "  $ ^    It is not enough simply
to make a statement in a scholarly paper, you must explain the statement and make it
clear to the reader how the statement is relevant to the topic of the paper. If you are
writing on the ideas of a particular philosopher, you must not only be concerned with
what the philosopher says, but   he or she says it, and   you are reporting it in your
paper. It would be of little help to a reader of a paper on Descartes' concept of nature, for
example, to be told that Descartes believed that God exists if nothing is said about the
strategy he uses to prove God's existence and Descartes' theism is never connected to his
concept of the natural world. Likewise, if you offer your own opinion on a particular
issue in a paper, it is not sufficient simply to state your opinion--you must also give your

 for having the opinion you have.

When writing a paper, then, you should adopt the following rules of thumb: (1) never
raise a topic unless you are prepared to provide as full an explanation as is necessary to
show its relevance to the subject matter of the paper, and (2) only offer your own opinion
when you are prepared to provide an argument or give some reasons in support of it.

% & ' è 

 It is the writer's task in a research paper to offer
some conclusions concerning the subject matter of the paper, whether it be a
philosophical issue or the views of a particular philosopher. The writer fails in this
responsibility when he or she raises questions in a paper while offering no suggestions as
to how these questions might be answered. You should not, then, ask a question of your
reader unless you are prepared to answer it.

You should also avoid asking rhetorical questions, that is, making statements or claims
expressed in interrogative form. Often inexperienced writers will ask a rhetorical question
when they feel unsure of a claim that they wish to make in a paper. Thus instead of
writing, "His theory of forms determined, in significant ways, the solutions Plato offered
to the moral issues and dilemmas of his day," a tentative writer might make the same
point in interrogative form by writing, "Wasn't it the theory of forms that determined, in
significant ways, the solutions that Plato offered to the moral issues and dilemmas of his
day?" Attempts to avoid the criticism of readers in this manner usually fail: it is clear in
these instances, despite the evasive wording, that a claim is being made, and the
interrogative form only serves to give the reader the impression that the writer has not
thoroughly researched the paper topic.

( )
 è
 
 y all means avoid them. It is seldom necessary to quote any more
than a few sentences from a primary or secondary source in order to support a view or
interpretation in a paper.

* ½+ è
 
 Quotations should be used only as a means of supporting
views, ideas, interpretations, etc., that you have already explained in your paper in your
own words. They should never be used as a substitute for your explanation.
Consequently, you should never write your paper by simply compiling a series of
quotations. The bulk of the text of your paper should be your own writing, not quotations
from primary and secondary sources.

,    The rule that a writer should follow in criticizing the views of a
philosopher is often called the "Principle of Charity." According to this principle, before
offering a criticism of a philosopher's views it is considered good practice for the writer
to provide a sympathetic account of those views. Without such an account the reader
cannot judge whether the criticism of a philosopher offered by a writer is cogent, or
whether it is based simply on the writer's misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the
philosopher's views. At times writers will deliberately misrepresent the views of a
philosopher so as to make those views easier to attack. This is considered a fallacy of
reasoning called a "Straw Man Argument," and should always be avoided.
- 
 
 

' Perhaps the surest way to guarantee failure in a writing
project is to set out to address a topic without any grounding in the existing writing and
research in the relevant area. No researcher in any area of study--science, mathematics,
as well as philosophy--has been able to produce worthwhile ideas from scratch. Research
is always a matter of becoming familiar the most recent work in a given field, and using
this as the starting point for one's own work. Doing this avoids two common pitfalls of
writers who attempt to go it on their own. First, without understanding what viewpoints
and directions of thought have already been pursued, one might pursue a course of
thinking that has already been proven to be a dead end, and thus simply waste time.
Second, one might pursue a course of thinking that has already been proposed, thus in
effect "reinventing the wheel." ut more typically writers who aspire to be too
independent and original fail to find any cogent line of thinking, and end with garbled
confusion, since their ideas on a given topic have not been subjected to the conceptual
frameworks, organizing structures, and clarifications that previous work in the area has
already accomplished. In any writing project, therefore, it is important for the writer to
gain some familiarity with the established research in the field.

  

It would be difficult to list all of the criteria that are relevant to evaluating the quality of a
philosophy paper, but some of the more important ones are listed below.

1.‘ c The accuracy of factual statements or interpretations of a particular

philosopher's writings is always relevant in evaluating written work.
2.‘ 
 
   
 The use of citations and quotations in support of the
interpretations offered in the paper of a philosopher's views will be considered in
grading. In particular, citations and quotations should be (a) accurate, (b) in the
proper form, and (c) relevant to the topics or issues discussed in the paper.
3.‘ 
 
  The amount of effort put into preparing the paper, insofar as
this can be ascertained from the written work itself, will be considered in grading.
Some signs that insufficient effort has been made are (a) work that falls short of
the requested length, (b) writing that includes frequent misspellings and/or
grammatical errors, (c) sloppy or illegible writing.
4.‘ 

 @
   Central to the pursuit of philosophical wisdom is the task
of discovering reasonable beliefs that are based on sound justifying arguments
and evidence. Thus one criterion for judging the quality of philosophical writing
is how well an author supports his/her views with clearly stated and convincing
reasoning.
5.‘ $   A superior paper will display some insight into a philosophical issue or
the views of a philosopher that goes beyond what is said in class lectures and
discussions.
6.‘ [   A superior paper may also include some original ideas or new
approaches to philosophical issues. Of course an idea or approach is not good
simply because it is original. There must still be some reasons offered as to why
the idea or approach is plausible, useful, reasonable, important, etc.--in short, why
 it should be entertained or accepted. (Also keep in mind what is said in section 8
above--don't commit the error of being too original.)

For a sample undergraduate research paper in philosophy, click here.

ÿ$^)c$.& [½ )$c
$)$@
The individual to whom this page pertains is solely responsible for the
information, content or materials contained in it. ecause Northwest Missouri State University has no
involvement in managing the content of this page, Northwest will not be liable for any damages of any kind
arising from the use of it, including, but not limited to direct, indirect, incidental, punitive, and
consequential damages.