1
Philosophy revision guide
Dennis Whitcomb
Draft 9-14-09
After you have a fully thought-through and presentably written draft, go through these steps in order. These
steps are rules of thumb: they are almost always effective, but you have to use your judgment about when to
apply them. If you only have time to do a few steps, then go straight to the steps with asterisks.
A. Content-focused revisions
1. Remove confusions
____ Find claims with multiple legitimate interpretations, and specify which one you intend.
…it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong…
(Bentham, preface to A Fragment on Government).

The rightness of an act is measured by the total happiness it produces across people.
--or-The rightness of an act is measured by the average happiness it produces across people.
Exercise: Describe a case where these two principles give different results about what is right.
(Hint: compare acts that cause different numbers of people to come to exist.)
____ Find and remove equivocations (nontrivial, unargued-for uses of the same word with different
meanings).
____ Find and remove diversivocations (nontrivial, unargued-for uses of different words with the same
meaning).
It is open to the defender of the teleological account to hold that, for any inquisitive creature S,
true belief whether p, reasonably held for adequate reasons, is the goal-state of S‘s cognitive
system with respect to p. Let us use the term ―inquiry teleologist‖ to identify a defender of the
teleological account who also holds this last view about the goal-state of the cognitive system of
inquisitive creatures… … …according to the inquiry teleologist, in inquisitive creatures,
[knowledge] is realized by having true beliefs that are responsibly based upon good reasons.
(Neta, ―How to naturalize epistemology‖, in New Waves in Epistemology, Macmillan 2008, p.
344, boldfacing added).
It is not trivial that ―reasonably held‖ beliefs the same thing as ―responsibly based‖ beliefs, or
that ―adequate‖ reasons are the same thing as ―good‖ reasons. Nor does the text argue for these
sameness claims. Thus, the passage diversivocates.1
____ Search for words that someone unfamiliar with the recent work on the debate would not
understand or would misunderstand. Then explain those terms and give references.
2. Make your arguments clear
____ Take out a separate sheet of paper or separate digital file.
2
____ Write out each conclusion you take yourself to establish.
____ Then for each conclusion, write out all the premises you take to establish it.
____ Then check for validity and add premises until you get it.
____ Then, make sure the original paper explicitly states not only each conclusion, but also each
premise for each conclusion. (Be careful to not seem tedious.)
3. Make your arguments persuasive
____ Take out your list of valid arguments resulting from the clarification step.
____ Make the premises acceptable to those who are agnostic about your conclusions.
____ Make the premises supportable by considerations independent of your conclusions.
____ If you can, make the premises add something new to debates on your conclusions.
____ Whenever your premises do any of the above things, explicitly say that they do them.
4. Interpret charitably
____ Look for places where there are multiple legitimate ways to interpret somebody.
____ Pick the most charitable of those interpretations.
____ Explicitly say why it is the most charitable.
5. Preemptively address standard criticisms
***
____ Look for places someone might write the following in the margin. Rewrite accordingly:
Explain this claim
What do you mean by this?
I don't understand what you're saying here
Too complicated
Too hard to follow
Why do you think this?
This needs more support
Why should we believe your claim that P?
Explain why your claim that Q supports your claim that P
Repetitive
Not really relevant
6. Use lots of examples
____ Look for places where you have a new idea that ignorant readers might miss the import of.
____ Write out what each such idea is.
3
____ For each idea on the list, add to the paper an example illustrating it.
____ Then look for more places where examples might help, and add them accordingly.
7. Make your examples good
***
____ For each example, explain it to friends in conversation. Rework it depending on how they react.
____ Make each example short. Long examples can seem nitpicky.
B. Style-focused revisions
1. Make the paper well-organized
____ Write abstracts of each section and each paragraph, with each abstract <5% as long as the whole.
____ Re-write and re-arrange the actual sections and paragraphs in light of your abstracts.
____ Clearly state what you are trying to accomplish in the paper.
____ Clearly state why you are trying to accomplish that.
____ Clearly state what issues and debates your accomplishments are relevant to, and explain how they
are relevant to those issues and debates.
____ Go through each paragraph. Ask whether it is obvious what in that paragraph is mere exposition
and what is your own contribution. Re-write until it is.
2. Find the best ways to put your central points
____ Make a list of the five most important points your paper makes.
____ For each of those points, write out a set of four different ways of stating it.
____ Pick the very best element of each set.
____ Make that element the main way of putting the point in your paper.
3. Do the following mechanical but very powerful exercises
***
____ Search for nouns that can be replaced by non-nouns (especially verbs), and do it.
there is a difference between X and Y

X differs from Y
despite the fact that

4
even though
The positivists‘ argument for the abandonment of metaphysics was based on their view that all
meaningful claims have empirical verification conditions.

The positivists argued that we should abandon metaphysics because all meaningful claims are
empirically verifiable.
Exercise: identify the four nouns the second sentence here removes from the first.
Exercise:
(a) Reprint the following passage, but put each noun into boldface
Modern thought has realized considerable progress by reducing the existent to the series of
appearances which manifest it. Its aim was to overcome a certain number of dualisms which
have embarrassed philosophy and to replace them by the monism of the phenomenon. (Sartre,
Being and Nothingness, Philosophical Library Inc., 1956, p. 3)
(b) Say how many nouns you found.
(c) Rewrite the passage, improving it by replacing nouns with verbs and other constructions. Put
the nouns in boldface.
(d) Say how many nouns your rewritten passage has .
____ Search for adjectives that can be replaced with adverbs, and do it.
She is a clear writer.

She writes clearly.
____ Look up and challenge uses of ation, ness, ism, ility, and their plurals.
Avoid obfuscation.

Don‘t be obscure.
Validity and soundness alone don‘t make an argument good; it must be non-question-begging too.

Good arguments are not only valid and sound, but also non-question-begging.
Exercise: Create an example where you improve a sentence by removing an ism and a ness.
(Extra credit if you find the sentence in a published text and give the reference.)
____ Look up and challenge commas, especially where there are several per sentence.
Fifthly, supposing the number of counselors equal, a man is better counseled by hearing them
apart, than in an assembly; and that for many causes. (Hobbes, Leviathan, Oxford 1996, p. 173).

You should consult advisors separately instead of jointly. This is true for many reasons.
5
Christianity possesses the peculiar disadvantage that, unlike the other religions, it is not a pure
doctrine, but essentially and above all a history, a succession of events, a complex of facts and
the actions and sufferings of individuals, and it is this history which constitutes the dogma belief
in which redeems. (Schopenhauer, Essays and Aphorisms, Penguin 2004, p. 187).

A unique and peculiar disadvantage of Christianity is its status as a history rather than a pure
doctrine. It is a succession of events and facts, a record of the actions and sufferings of
individuals. Belief in this dogmatic history leads to redemption.
Exercise: Create another example where you improve a sentence with several commas by
removing some or all of them. (Extra credit if you find the sentence in a published text and give
the reference.)
____ Look up and challenge uses of the passive voice.
The view that identity statements can be informative was advocated by Frege.

Frege advocated the view that identity statements can be informative.
Exercise: Further improve this sentence by changing nouns to verbs.
***
____ Look up and challenge nested clauses, especially nested which- and that-clauses.
The argument that appears in the Meditations that is most widely discussed is the evil genius
argument.

The evil genius argument is the most widely discussed argument in the Meditations.
____ Look up repetition, especially of names of authors and views. Remove it via pronouns.
Utilitarianism fails to recognize the distinctness of persons. Therefore, utilitarianism is false.

Utilitarianism is false because it fails to recognize the distinctness of persons.
____ Look up pronoun referent ambiguity and remove it.
Utilitarians disagree with deontologists, and they‘re better off for it.

Utilitarians are better off for disagreeing with deontologists.
--or-Utilitarians disagree with deontologists, and those deontologists are better off for it.
…from Central America to Central Europe and beyond, people remember: in the dark days when
the forces of tyranny seemed on the rise, Jesse Helms took their side. (George W. Bush,
statement released by the Office of the Press Secretary, July 4th 2008)
Exercise: Identify the ambiguous pronoun here, and describe its two possible meanings.
***
____ Look up and challenge subject-verb interruptions.
6
Sellars, in an argument that influenced McDowell and Davidson among many others, claimed
that foundationalism is false because it relies on ―the myth of the given‖.

Sellars claimed that foundationalism is false because it relies on ―the myth of the given‖. This
claim influenced McDowell, Davidson, and many others.
Exercise: Create another example where you improve a philosophical sentence by removing a
subject-verb interruption. (Extra credit if you find the sentence in a published text and give the
reference.)
***
____ Look up and challenge verb-object interruptions.
Sellars argued on the grounds that nothing can jointly satisfy all the conditions required of the
―given‖ that foundationalism is false.

Sellars argued that foundationalism is false because nothing can jointly satisfy all the conditions
required of the ―given‖.
Exercise: Create another example where you improve a philosophical sentence by removing a
verb-object interruption. (Extra credit if you find the sentence in a published text and give the
reference.)
____ Experiment in replacing latin-french constructions with anglo-saxon constructions.
possible, impossible, necessary  can, cannot, must
at a subsequent time, at every time, etc  later, always, etc
sufficient condition, necessary condition  if, only if, unless, not unless
____ Look up and challenge phrases that can be replaced by single words.
not inconsistent  consistent
not consistent  inconsistent
not notice  overlook
more valuable  better
less valuable  worse
Exercise: Identify another phrase that can be replaced by a single word.
4. Use technical notation judiciously (this applies to variables, symbols, abbreviations, etc.)
____ For each instance of technical notation, experiment with using ordinary english instead.
Necessarily, for any material objects x and y, and for any time t, if x ≠ y, then x and y inhabit
distinct spatial regions at t.

No two material objects can be in the same place at the same time.
Exercise: identify each piece of technical notation the second sentence removes from the first
Exercise: identify the latin-french construction the second sentence replaces with an anglo-saxon
construction.
7
Exercise: Create another example where you improve a philosophical sentence by removing
technical notation and changing one or more latin-french constructions to anglo-saxon
constructions. (Extra credit if you find the sentence in a published text and give the reference.)
5. Find the main subject in each sentence. Unless there is a reason not to,
***
____ Get the subject across in the first 5 words.
Nagel‘s overestimation of the significance of the distinction between subjective and objective
points of view led him to apply that distinction to almost every branch of philosophy.

Nagel recognized the distinction between subjective and objective points of view; but he
overestimated its significance, applying it to almost every branch of philosophy.
Some commentary. I‘ve shortened the subject from fifteen words (Nagel’s overestimation of the
significance of the distinction between subjective and objective points of view) to one (Nagel).
The long subject taxes our RAM, but the short one doesn‘t. That is why the second sentence is
easier to read. So there is a general principle behind the ―get the subject across in 5 words‖ rule –
namely, don’t tax your reader’s RAM. Many of the rules in this guide help you implement this
principle.
Another example:
The distinction between intuitions and concepts that Kant presents in the Transcendental
Aesthetic is crucial to his arguments about the synthetic a priori.

Kant distinguishes between intuitions and concepts in the Transcendental Aesthetic. This
distinction is crucial to his arguments about the synthetic a priori.
Exercise: Improve the following passage by changing it to one or more sentences getting their
subjects across within 5 words:
For, as we shall see, it is characteristic of words like ‗promise‘, which have meaning only within
institutions, that they can be introduced into language only when certain synthetic propositions
about how we should act are assented to. (R.M. Hare, ―The promising game‖, reprinted in
Phillipa Foot (ed), Theories of Ethics, Oxford University Press 1967, p. 119.)
6. Look for sentences with subordinate that- and which- clauses. Experiment in restating them with
Resumptive modifiers. These add a comma and repeat a key word from before.
Reliabilists try to combine a normative explanation of why knowledge is valuable with a
naturalism that appeals only to notions from the sciences.

Reliabilists try to be both naturalistic and normative, naturalistic in appealing only to notions
from the sciences and normative in explaining why knowledge has value.
Exercise: Create another example that replaces a subordinate that- or which- clause with a
resumptive modifier. (Extra credit if you find the sentence in a published text and give the
reference.)
8
Summative modifiers. These start a later clause with a term that summarizes the earlier one.
The availability of works in progress online has risen dramatically, which has led to a decline in
journal reading and a weakening of the blind review system.

The availability of works in progress online has risen dramatically, and this rise has led to a
decline in journal-reading and a weakening of the blind review system.
Exercise: Create another example that replaces a subordinate that- or which- clause with a
summative modifier. (Extra credit if you find the sentence in a published text and give the
reference.)
Or remove the subordinate clause by switching nouns to verbs and verbs to nouns.
The availability of works in progress online has risen dramatically, which has led to a decline in
journal reading and a weakening of the blind review system.

The dramatic rise of online works in progress has reduced journal reading and weakened the
blind review system.
Exercise: Create another example that removes a subordinate clause by switching nouns to verbs
and/or verbs to nouns. (Extra credit if you find the sentence in a published text and give the
reference.)
Now, notice that the foregoing sentence takes 8 words to get the subject across. Applying the
―get the subject across in 5 words‖ rule, we get:
Online works in progress have reduced journal reading and weakened the blind review system.
This final formulation trades some subtlety in meaning for some ease of understanding. As you
progress as a writer, you will learn to recognize these sorts of tradeoffs.
Exercise: Describe the meaning lost in this final formulation.
7. Make it flow
____ Start sentences with familiar information and end them with new information.
***
____ Find potentially distracting peripheral ideas or tangents. Put them at the beginnings of sentences
that end with central ideas, or put them in parentheses or footnotes, or just remove them.
____
Make your prose flow in one direction, naturally progressing from one idea to the next.
To begin with, there is the historical fact that the Greek, Anaxagoras, was the first to say that
nous—understanding in general, or Reason—rules the world. By this he did not mean an
intelligence as self-conscious reason, or a mind as such. We must take care to differentiate nous
and ―mind‖ from one another. The movement of the solar system follows immutable laws. These
laws are its Reason. But neither the sun, nor the planets that revolve around it according to these
laws, have any consciousness of them. (Hegel, Introduction to the Philosophy of History,
Hackett 1988, p.14.)
9

The Greek philosopher Anaxagoras first suggested that nous (the Greek term for Reason) rules
the world. By ―Reason‖, he did not mean a conscious mental faculty. We don‘t attribute
consciousness to the solar system. But still, the solar system is governed by immutable laws.
These laws are its Reason. Thus, Reason rules all the world, even the non-conscious parts of it.
Notice that in the second passage here, each sentence begins with ideas from the end of the
previous sentence. That is the key to flow. That is what makes your prose progress naturally.
This point is so important that I‘ll illustrate it further and give some relevant exercises. Here is a
reprinting of the second passage, with boldfacing on the ideas bridging the sentences:
The Greek philosopher Anaxagoras first suggested that nous (the Greek term for Reason) rules
the world. By ―Reason‖, he did not mean a conscious mental faculty. We don‘t attribute
consciousness to the solar system. But still, the solar system is governed by immutable laws.
These laws are its Reason. Thus, Reason rules all the world, even the non-conscious parts of it.
Exercise: Apply the same boldfacing trick to the following passage.
Before I go any further into this problem, I want to talk about another distinction which will be
important in the methodology of these talks. Philosophers have talked (and, of course, there has
been considerable controversy in recent years over the meaningfulness of these notions) about
various categories of truth, which are called ―a priori‖, ―analytic‖, ―necessary‖ – and sometimes
even ―certain‖ is thrown into this batch. The terms are often used as if whether there are things
answering to these concepts is an interesting question, but we might as well regard them as all
meaning the same thing. (Kripke, Naming and Necessity, Blackwell 1981, p. 34)
Sometimes the flow instructions conflict with the earlier instructions about single sentences. For
example, sometimes the passive voice is the best tool for starting a sentence with ideas from the
end of the previous sentence. When this sort of conflict arises, try to alter your writing so that it
satisfies all the instructions at once. Sometimes you can. But when you cannot, you should go
with the flow instructions over the single-sentence instructions. That is why I have put the flow
instructions into the list at this late stage. You should first implement the single-sentence
instructions, and then further change the resulting sentences to make them flow.
Exercise: Identify a part of the Kripke passage that uses the passive voice to start a sentence
with ideas from the end of the previous sentence.
Exercise: Identify a part of the Kripke passage that puts potentially distracting peripheral ideas
into parentheses.
Exercise: Reprint your rewritten passage from Sartre. Then remove the boldfacing from the
nouns. Then change the passage so that each sentence begins with ideas from the end of the
previous sentence. Then boldface those bridging ideas, just like you did with the Kripke passage.
8. Make it elegant
***
____ Read the paper out loud. Better yet, have someone else read it out loud to you.
____ For each paragraph, after you read it out loud, put the paper down and say the same thing out
loud in a more conversational way. Replace the old paragraph with the more conversational one.
10
____ Find what you want to emphasize, for instance your main point when you restate it in the
summary at the end of a paper. See if one of the following tools will bring that emphasis.
of + noun: this brings a sentence to a climactic end
Anscombe revived virtue ethics.

Anscombe ushered in a revival of virtue ethics.
Echo salience: this is when you stress a word from previously, towards the end
Before you call him a man, how many roads must a man walk down?

How many roads must a man walk down, before you call him a man?
The new boss and the old boss are one and the same.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Exercise: Re-write the following passage without any echo salience. Then read each version of
the passage out loud.
All of us have suffered here, in this country, political oppression at the hands of the white
man, economic exploitation at the hands of the white man, and social degredation at the
hands of the white man. (Malcolm X, ―The Ballot or the Bullet‖. Reprinted in Malcolm X
Speaks: Selected Speaches and Statements, Grove Press 1994, p. 24).
Chiasmus: this is when you use a construction twice but flip its internal order.
Good writing clarifies both our own thinking and our readers‘ thinking.

Good writing clarifies our own thinking as well as the thoughts of our readers.
Or use chiasmus and echo salience:
Start with this claim:
Fear should never bring us to negotiate; nor should it keep us from it.
Adding echo salience yields
Negotiation should neither come from fear nor be avoided from fear.
Further adding chiasmus yields
Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.
Or start with this claim:
Ask what you can give to your country instead of what you can get from it.
Adding echo salience yields
Don‘t ask what you can get from your country; ask what you can give to your country.
Further adding chiasmus yields
Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.
11
Exercise: Create another example like the above two, in which a point is stated normally, then
changed to add echo salience, then changed again to further add chiasmus. (Extra credit if any of
the three forms of the sentence comes from a published text and you give the reference.)
Exercise: Identify the part of this guide that was least helpful to you, and explain why.
Exercise: Identify the part of this guide that was most helpful to you, and explain why.
(These last two exercises aren‘t throw-aways. Demonstrate that you‘ve thought about them.)
Sources
Although the presentation in this guide is my own, much of the content is borrowed from other writings, in
particular the following three writings:
Bennett, J. and S. Gorovitz. 1997. ―Improving academic writing‖. Teaching Philosophy 20/2: 105-120.
Pryor, Jim. ―Guidelines on writing a philosophy paper‖. Handout available online.
Williams, Joseph. 2005. Style: the basics of clarity and grace, 2nd edition. Longman.
For helpful comments on this material I thank Chris Bryant, Justine Fielder, Dan Howard-Snyder, Frances
Howard-Snyder, Hud Hudson, Mitchell Lee, Amanda Timeoni, Jason Turner, Aaron Washington. The final
examples come JFK, Dylan, and The Who.
1
The word ―equivocation‖ is widely used as I use it above. No word is widely used for what I am calling ―diversivocation‖. The label
comes from medieval Aristotle commentators. See Bruno Tremblay, ―A first glance at Albert the Great‘s teachings on the analogy of
words‖, Medieval Philosophy and Theology 5: 1996, pp. 265-292.