WORKSHOP: WRITING PHILOSOPHY PAPERS
1. Two basic structures of a philosophy paper
ONE
I. Introduction
(II. Setup)
III. X’s argument
IV. My counterargument
V. How X might respond
VI. How I’d respond to that
VII. Conclusion
TWO
I. Introduction
(II. Setup)
III. My argument
IV. Ways one might object
V. My responses to those objections
VI. Conclusion
Notes:
• Either way, you’re carrying on a kind of dialogue.
• The “Setup”: If there are terms, concepts, etc., that your readers will need to know in order
to understand the arguments that follow, then you should explain those things beforehand.
• You should characterize X (or your objectors) as charitably as possible.
o Think about it: If you make X sound like a fool, then why should your reader be
impressed that you can defeat X’s argument?
• This is a lot to fit into just a few pages.
2. The introduction
The introduction should do three things:
• Motivate the paper: Why is it important that this paper exists? Why is it important that the reader keep
reading? What problem are you attempting to solve?
• State your thesis: What position will you be defending (or criticizing) in this paper? What one claim will
the rest of the paper serve to uphold?
• Describe the basic structure of the paper: How will you go about establishing your thesis? What will have to
come first? And then what, etc.?
The thesis statement:
• Don’t use words like ‘explore’, ‘discuss’, ‘investigate’, etc.
• “In this paper, I will argue that …”
o Writing in first-person?! Yes. Please do.
• The more modest, the better (because: the more likely it is that you’ll be able to defend it)
• But not so modest that no one would deny it.
o Example: “In this paper, I will argue that animals communicate with each other.”
§ No one denies this; so there’s no reason to argue for it.
Your audience should not have to read any further than the introduction before knowing exactly what the
paper is about, what you’ll be arguing, and how you’ll organize the argument.
1
Example of a good introduction:
The goal of this paper is to examine Locke’s account of our ideas of power. Specifically, I
want to argue that there are many different ideas of power at play in the Essay. Prior accounts have
assumed that Locke employs only one idea of power, but I will argue that there is a distinction to be
made between the simple idea of power and complex ideas of specific powers. Further, I will show
that recognizing this distinction can help us to avoid several serious problems previous
commentators have alleged that Locke faces. My plan for the paper is as follows. In Section 2 I will
review Locke’s distinction between simple and complex ideas. Section 3 argues for the distinction
between the simple idea of power and complex ideas of power and Section 4 shows how this
distinction solves three problems for Locke. In Section 5, before concluding, I consider two
alternative approaches to these problems and show that mine is preferable.
Notice a few things:
• The first two sentences (a) clearly explain the topic of the paper, (b) clearly describe the goal/central
thesis of the paper, and (c) move from general to particular in their scope.
• The third sentence motivates the paper, i.e., explains why it’s important that this paper exists, what
unique contribution it will (attempt to) make to the field.
• The second half of the paragraph clearly outlines the structure of the paper.
3. Think of your audience
Generally speaking, philosophy papers ought to be written for an audience of intelligent strangers—i.e.,
people who are unfamiliar with the relevant debates, concepts, arguments, etc., but will be able to follow
along as long as you explain things clearly.
This has a few implications:
• Limit your use of terms of art. A term of art is a word or phrase that has a meaning that is particular to
a field or subject matter. Certainly, people other than philosophers of language have used the terms
‘natural’, ‘non-natural’, and ‘meaning’ before, but very few non-philosophers have any idea what
Grice means by ‘natural and non-natural meaning’.
o Since every term of art will have to be explained before it can be used, you should seriously
limit your use of them. Only use those terms of art that are essential for accomplishing your
goals.
• Before you get into your critical discussion (parts III-VI above), you’ll need to provide your
audience with everything they’ll need in order to follow the discussion.
o So for instance, if your discussion will focus on a particular case, you’ll need to carefully
describe the case. If your discussion will focus on a particular concept, you’ll need to
describe the concept, giving examples, etc.
Other things to consider doing:
• Have an intelligent-but-uninformed person read your paper, and encourage this person to point out
any words, phrases, paragraphs, arguments, etc., that he or she was unable to follow. Ideally, this
would be someone who is also unfamiliar with the idiosyncrasies of your thinking process, writing
style, etc.
2
•
•
•
As you’re writing (and then again after you’ve finished writing), go through your paper sentence-bysentence, asking yourself, “Can I assume that an intelligent-but-uninformed reader will understand
this?”
Use examples. There is probably no more effective way to help an intelligent-but-uninformed
audience understand the issues that you address in your paper than by relating those issues to things
already within your reader’s orbit of awareness. You can try to define ‘natural meaning’ and ‘nonnatural meaning’ all you want (and that’s fine), but the moment you throw in an example or two of
each, even the most uninformed of audiences can immediately see the distinction.
Signposting. As I said earlier, somewhere in your introduction, you should describe the basic structure
of the paper: “In this paper, I’ll A, then B, and then C.” This lets your reader know exactly how
your discussion will progress. Unfortunately, though, it’s not always clear to your reader when
you’ve finished A-ing, and when you’ve begun to B. So you’ll have to make it clear, by inserting
sentences—often called “signposts”—like, “Now that I’ve A-ed, I’ll devote the rest of this section
to B-ing, before moving on in the next section to C.”
4. Be economical with your space
Suppose you’re writing a 5-page paper …
• Your introduction and conclusion, together, could take up about a page.
• So you have 4 pages for the Setup and Critical Discussion, and your Critical Discussion should
definitely be given more space than the Setup.
o Think about what that means:
§ You’ve got roughly a single page (or less) of double-spaced prose in which to bring
an intelligent-but-uninformed audience sufficiently up-to-speed on all of the
experiments, arguments, concepts, etc., necessary for your Critical Discussion.
• Imagine having only $50 with which to buy a month’s worth of groceries ...
Things you might consider doing:
• Storyboarding. Don’t just outline your paper. Literally draw the pages out, marking off how much
space you should devote to each section. This gives you some physical checkpoints to anticipate
while you’re writing, which will encourage you to pace each part of the discussion appropriately.
• Multiple rounds of trimming. After you’ve finished writing, go back through and ask yourself questions
like, “How can this paragraph be shortened?” “Can I say in just 1 sentence what it here takes me 2
or 3 sentences to say?” “Would my paper really be any worse off without this sentence?”
5. Further points of advice
Proofread (more than once)
• Read your paper out loud
o If you can’t even say a particular sentence without stumbling over the words, change it. In
other words, even though this is a formal writing assignment, write in a relatively
conversational manner.
• Have someone else read it for you
o Make sure this is a person from whom you don’t mind taking constructive criticism.
3