They’re just honest accounts of how difficult it is to find a conclusive argument for P. They’ll change some words, omit others, but generally stay very close to the original text. Only summarize those parts of X’s views that are directly relevant to what you’re going to go on to do. After all, neither of these papers commits you to the view that not-P. It was clear from the outset that Philosopher X was assuming A, and that if you don’t want to make that assumption, you don’t need to accept X’s conclusion. It need not always break completely new ground.
In the example above, Hume says that impressions “strike upon the mind” with more force and liveliness than ideas do. The point of the papers is to teach you how to analyze a philosophical argument, and present your own arguments for or against some conclusion. Thanks to Professor Horban for allowing me to incorporate some of his suggestions here. , “I’ve just explained why. And the student may very well be right that Philosopher X should have given more argument for A. Your paper should do some philosophical work A kind of complaint that is common in undergraduate philosophy papers goes like this: Philosopher X assumes A and argues from there to B. Ideas are the faint images of our thinking and reasoning. Do you say exactly what you mean.
Responding to comments from me or your TA When you have the opportunity to rewrite a graded paper, keep the following points in mind. It was clear from the outset that Philosopher X was assuming A, and that if you don’t want to make that assumption, you don’t need to accept X’s conclusion. ” or “I don’t understand what you’re saying here” “This passage is unclear (or awkward, or otherwise hard to read)” “Too complicated” “Too hard to follow” “Simplify” “Why do you think this. In a philosophy paper, it’s OK to use this verb as much as you need to. B seems unattractive to me.
But we will have no trouble agreeing about whether you do a good job arguing for your conclusion. Don’t use words that you don’t fully understand. But don’t treat the philosopher or the views you’re discussing as stupid. Explain how you think these objections can be countered or overcome. I don’t think A is true. Done well, these forms of philosophical writing can be very effective.
B seems unattractive to me. Only summarize those parts of X’s views that are directly relevant to what you’re going to go on to do. Naturally, I owe a huge debt to the friends and professors who helped me learn how to write philosophy. But I hope you’ll all do better than that. I also, like you, read advice with that mixture of hope and frustration.
Main thesis about advice on writing
If you got below an A-, then your draft was generally difficult to read, it was difficult to see what your argument was and what the structure of your paper was supposed to be, and so on. That doesn’t mean you have to come up with your own theory, or that you have to make a completely original contribution to human thought. (Start with a new, empty window in your word processor. Do you offer supporting arguments for the claims you make. Only summarize those parts of X’s views that are directly relevant to what you’re going to go on to do. The petals were voluminous enough to be stirred by the summer breeze, and when they moved, the red, blue and yellow lights passed one over the other, staining an inch of the brown earth beneath with a spot of the most intricate colour”), so thick with visual description it seems almost to become a garden itself.
Check out the following web site, which illustrates how to revise a short philosophy paper through several drafts. Keep in mind that when I or your TA grade a rewrite, we may sometimes notice weaknesses in unchanged parts of your paper that we missed the first time around. In the first place, it’s done rather mechanically, so it doesn’t show that the author understands the text. A lot of the suggestions here derive from writing handouts that friends and colleagues lent me. It is this genuine caring, and not your games with language, which will be the most compelling and seductive element in your style. , “I’ve just explained why. Pretend that your readers have never heard them before. The point of the papers is to teach you how to analyze a philosophical argument, and present your own arguments for or against some conclusion. (Watch the YouTube video clip). So I can just reject A and thereby avoid B. Those perceptions, which enter with most force and violence, we may name impressions; and under this name I comprehend all our sensations, passions, and emotions, as they make their first appearance in the soul.
” or “I don’t understand what you’re saying here” “This passage is unclear (or awkward, or otherwise hard to read)” “Too complicated” “Too hard to follow” “Simplify” “Why do you think this. These are sensations, passions, and emotions. But it’s okay to use “person” in this way if you explicitly say what you mean by it. If the quoted passage contains an argument, reconstruct the argument in more explicit, straightforward terms. Peter Horban’s site deserves special mention. Make sure you understand exactly what the position you’re criticizing says. Here’s an example of how you don’t want to paraphrase: Hume says all perceptions of the mind are resolved into two kinds, impressions and ideas. When you do this, though, you should explicitly say so. ” On some interpretations of “person,” it might be quite obvious that a fetus is a person; but quite controversial whether it’s always wrong to kill persons, in that sense of “person. Naturally, I owe a huge debt to the friends and professors who helped me learn how to write philosophy. Full licensing details are here. However, there are some reasons to be doubtful whether P. This course covers approximately the same ground as our English department’s ENG 1320 Grammar course. Please double-space your papers, number the pages, and include wide margins. How good are the arguments you offer.
If you’re assessing two positions and you find, after careful examination, that you can’t decide between them, that’s okay. But the student hasn’t really philosophically engaged with Philosopher X’s view in an interesting way. The comments I find myself making on students’ philosophy papers most often are these: “Explain this claim” or “What do you mean by this. Pretend that your reader has not read the material you’re discussing, and has not given the topic much thought in advance. Presenting and assessing the views of others If you plan to discuss the views of Philosopher X, begin by figuring out what his arguments or central assumptions are. We do not judge your paper by whether we agree with its conclusion. But I hope you’ll all do better than that. For instance, if you object to some philosopher’s view, don’t assume he would immediately admit defeat.
So tell the reader what it is you think X is saying. And you should say something about how the question might be answered, and about what makes the question interesting and relevant to the issue at hand. Formulate the central problem or question you wish to address at the beginning of your paper, and keep it in mind at all times. (These things should be obvious, but apparently they’re not. Are his assumptions clearly stated. ” “Explain why this is a reason to believe P” “Explain why this follows from what you said before” “Not really relevant” “Give an example. It’s not enough that you know what their point is. You need to master ordinary philosophical writing before you can do a good job with these more difficult forms. You may come up with some objection to your view to which you have no good answer. They tempt the author to be imprecise and to use unclear metaphors. For instance, suppose you’re writing a paper about abortion, and you want to assert the claim “A fetus is a person. These are sensations, passions, and emotions. ” That, however, didn’t discourage her from writing; she’s the author of several successful novels as well as a book on writing, which a lot of people are familiar with, entitled “Bird by Bird”. Edu
This work licensed under a Creative Commons License
URL: http://www.
More content about advice on writing:
A much better way of explaining what Hume says here would be the following: Hume says that there are two kinds of ‘perceptions,’ or mental states. This resource offers advice on how to avoid plagiarism in your. If necessary, you may want to distinguish the author’s claim from other claims with which it might be confused. ” What do you mean by “a person”. It is better to bring up an objection yourself than to hope your reader won’t think of it.
So you need to teach yourself to write a draft, scrutinize the draft, and revise and rewrite your paper before turning it in to be graded. Is it obvious to the reader what your main thesis is. Don’t vary your vocabulary just for the sake of variety
If you call something “X” at the start of your paper, call it “X” all the way through. Philosopher X just assumes A and doesn’t give any argument for it. Grammar It’s OK to end a sentence with a preposition. I don’t think A is true.
If you don’t explain what you take Philosopher X’s view to be, your reader cannot judge whether the criticism you offer of X is a good criticism, or whether it is simply based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of X’s views. ” “Am I just repeating myself here. You should never introduce any points in your paper unless they’re important to your main argument, and you have the room to really explain them. And likewise for other words. Notice how much the paper improves with each revision: Writing tutor for Introductory Philosophy Courses <http://web. Call attention to the unclarity. But I hope you'll all do better than that.
But I hope you'll all do better than that. Further support for this claim comes from. Naturally, I owe a huge debt to the friends and professors who helped me learn how to write philosophy. It also helps ensure that you're in a position to say what your main argument or criticism is, before you sit down to write a full draft of your paper. So you need to teach yourself to write a draft, scrutinize the draft, and revise and rewrite your paper before turning it in to be graded. These are optional, and are for your independent study.
Consult the handouts on Philosophical Terms and Methods to make sure you're using these words correctly
If you got below an A-, then your draft was generally difficult to read, it was difficult to see what your argument was and what the structure of your paper was supposed to be, and so on. That doesn't mean you have to come up with your own theory, or that you have to make a completely original contribution to human thought. (Start with a new, empty window in your word processor. Do you offer supporting arguments for the claims you make. Only summarize those parts of X's views that are directly relevant to what you're going to go on to do. The petals were voluminous enough to be stirred by the summer breeze, and when they moved, the red, blue and yellow lights passed one over the other, staining an inch of the brown earth beneath with a spot of the most intricate colour”), so thick with visual description it seems almost to become a garden itself.
Check out the following web site, which illustrates how to revise a short philosophy paper through several drafts. In the first place, it's done rather mechanically, so it doesn't show that the author understands the text. A lot of the suggestions here derive from writing handouts that friends and colleagues lent me. It is this genuine caring, and not your games with language, which will be the most compelling and seductive element in your style. , "I've just explained why. Pretend that your readers have never heard them before. The point of the papers is to teach you how to analyze a philosophical argument, and present your own arguments for or against some conclusion. Those perceptions, which enter with most force and violence, we may name impressions; and under this name I comprehend all our sensations, passions, and emotions, as they make their first appearance in the soul.
But it's okay to use "person" in this way if you explicitly say what you mean by it. Peter Horban's site deserves special mention. Here's an example of how you don't want to paraphrase: Hume says all perceptions of the mind are resolved into two kinds, impressions and ideas. " On some interpretations of "person," it might be quite obvious that a fetus is a person; but quite controversial whether it's always wrong to kill persons, in that sense of "person. This course covers approximately the same ground as our English department's ENG 1320 Grammar course. Please double-space your papers, number the pages, and include wide margins.
But we will have no trouble agreeing about whether you do a good job arguing for your conclusion. Don't use words that you don't fully understand. But don't treat the philosopher or the views you're discussing as stupid. Don't worry about using the verb "is" or "to be" too much. Explain how you think these objections can be countered or overcome. I don't think A is true. Done well, these forms of philosophical writing can be very effective.
B seems unattractive to me. " If you mean to be talking about the same thing in all three cases, then call it by the same name. Only summarize those parts of X's views that are directly relevant to what you're going to go on to do. Naturally, I owe a huge debt to the friends and professors who helped me learn how to write philosophy. But I hope you'll all do better than that. I also, like you, read advice with that mixture of hope and frustration.
(Start with a new, empty window in your word processor
In conversation, you can expect that people will figure out what you mean. But we will have no trouble agreeing about whether you do a good job arguing for your conclusion. You can say things like: I will begin by. So it's important to ask yourself: What are the most important things you have to say. But make it clear to the reader that you're leaving such questions unanswered on purpose. " "Explain why this is a reason to believe P" "Explain why this follows from what you said before" "Not really relevant" "Give an example.
