On Writing a Good Philosophy Paper

[stressedout]

I thought I might solicit some advice from ya'll concerning how to write a good philosophy paper.

 

Regarding style, some people tell you to emulate popular stylists (like David Lewis, for example), and others stress developing your own.  Then there are the more structured recommendations everyone knows about -- Jim Pryor's website, for example; or the "Improving Academic Writing" paper by Bennett and Gorovitz -- but I wondered if there were any other tips here.

 

Regarding substance, there are a lot of how-to docs out there and the general advice about getting feedback on your work early and often.  That's all well and good, but I wonder how you all start writing a philosophy paper.  How do you settle on a topic, and what constraints do you put in place to ensure that the piece of work will be any good?

 

[Mavngoose1]

I have found that attempting to emulate others' styles is very helpful. On the structural level of the essay, I most often attempt to emulate people like Derek Parfit and Shelly Kagan.  I struggle more on the sentence level, but I aim to emulate David Lewis, Mark Schroeder, and Jonathan Schaffer as much as possible there.

Another bit of advice I've been given: write as if you are attempting to convince an actual person you know. This might be someone you know who is an especially harsh critic or a particular professor you have worked with. If you can write it in such a way that you think it would convince someone like this of your view, your paper tends to come out with a extra clarity. In other words, perhaps think about the paper as if you are addressing someone and not just writing an essay.

I often also find it helpful (at least in the writing process) to actually write the entire dialectic of the argument out in first-order logic or do it natural language in excruciating (seemingly pedantic) detail. Sometimes I will put this as a numbered, deductive argument in the paper and then comment on it. Other times, I just use it to organize my thoughts as I'm writing. It helps to see exactly where the crux of the argument lies. It is funny how often you can do this and realize that some philosopher has made an invalid argument or has a hidden premise that you can attack. In case it's helpful, here's an example of what I meant by putting the argument in natural language:

(1)   If some set of value bearers are comparable, then some value relation holds between them. (Definition)

(2)   'Imprecise' means not precise. (Definition)

(3)   Some value bearers are not comparable by a precise value relation. (The Small Improvements Argument)

(4)   Some such value bearers are still comparable. (The Unidimensional Chaining Argument)

(5)   A value relation holds between such value bearers. (1 & 4)

(6)   The value relation that holds between such value bearers is not precise. (3 & 5)

(7)   There are imprecise value relations. (2 & 6)

 

I put this in the first section of a paper (not my writing sample) and then went on to first discuss the two definitions (section 2), then offer the two crucial arguments for 3 (section 3) and 4 (section 4), and the rest follows deductively (or so I hope). It is seemingly valid and offers a nice, clear way to refer to the steps of your argument through out the body of the paper and a natural way of organizing the paper into sections. Most of the more creative philosophical work can then take place in defense of 3 and 4 and consider objections, etc. I often find that if I can't put an argument in a form even like this, then I probably don't really have an argument. Anyways, that's my two cents. 

Edited March 5, 2014 by Mavngoose1

[lesage13]

This is a great idea for a thread. I also thought it was really cool that some were sharing their writing samples and other work here. Personally, I didn't put mine up because I was worried about being identified through my sample by snooping professors--even though I haven't posted anything I think I'd regret, just paranoid, really. But it might be a good idea to start an anonymised repository of work somewhere (e.g., a shard dropbox or google drive or something) both so we may trade comments and so future applicants may get a sense of the level of work required for developing a writing sample. Would this be something anyone here would be interested in?

[ungerdrag]

This is definitely a great idea for a thread!

 

Here's my sample, FWIW: https://www.academia.edu/6287019/Reason_Passion_and_Conflict_Non-Naturalism_and_Humes_Arguments_in_T_2.3.3

[lesage13]

FWIW, I think an efficient, clear, and focused presentation of a readily identifiable and digestible question or topic is a necessary feature of any great paper. This is also something I really struggle to achieve in my own work. I find that thinking hard and long about scope and structure at the beginning of the writing process really helps with this.

 

Specifically, I try to:

(1) Set a narrower scope of investigation than I'm comfortable with, since it's always easier to add than to cut;

(2) Work out short definitions of all the concepts I'll be referring to in the paper and set out all my arguments in schematic form, even if I won't present these ideas in so formally in the paper itself; and

(3) Set out distinct and well defined sections, with each serving an explicit, non-overlapping role in the paper, and work within these.

 

The idea is basically to take a modular approach in order to better keep track of the moving pieces throughout the paper writing process. This is helpful for cutting down on unnecessary tangents, for figuring out the progression, and for making changes later on. Generally, I find that better mental organisation often translates to more focused end products on paper.

[philophilosopher]

Underdrag, you have done well in you application season, but I have a small question to ask you about your writing style. I have never once in life been advised to use contractions in formal writing, but you frequently say "I'll" and "don't" instead of "I will" and "do not." Is there any reason why you do this or have you never been advised against it? Or is there something else I am missing here?

[ungerdrag]

Underdrag, you have done well in you application season, but I have a small question to ask you about your writing style. I have never once in life been advised to use contractions in formal writing, but you frequently say "I'll" and "don't" instead of "I will" and "do not." Is there any reason why you do this or have you never been advised against it? Or is there something else I am missing here?

 

Great question. I prefer contractions for "I will," "will not," "do not," "I have," and several others. ("Could've" and "should've" are a bit too informal.)

 

Contractions are unstiff and easy to read, so I use them whenever they don't sound too informal. Formality and informality are both fine, but not if they get in the way of the flow of ideas: you want prose that's maximally clear and minimally distracting. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

[stressedout]

Great question. I prefer contractions for "I will," "will not," "do not," "I have," and several others. ("Could've" and "should've" are a bit too informal.)

 

Contractions are unstiff and easy to read, so I use them whenever they don't sound too informal. Formality and informality are both fine, but not if they get in the way of the flow of ideas: you want prose that's maximally clear and minimally distracting. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

 

This isn't Nam, underdrag, there are rules!

I've also been told (and have seen for myself) that contractions in philosophy aren't a huge deal.  In fact, philosophy in America is much, much more informal regarding writing than other disciplines.

[philophilosopher]

Got it, thanks! You are definitely not out of your element.

[dgswaim]

Ever read Derrida's "Glas"? I try to write like that.

[Differance]

Ever read Derrida's "Glas"? I try to write like that.

 

Thank for the much-needed laugh

[PhD applicant]

I tend to free-write on the topic first and see what happens - this is only because I usually start with an idea that I really like and have a lot of strange ideas about how to argue it. So I'll see what sort of arguments just fall out of my head that way.

Then I try to do what the professors tell me: Write out the logical premises and etc.; you know, the not fun part.

Then reconstruct, expand, revise, peer-review, repeat.

[humean_skeptic]

I have found that attempting to emulate others' styles is very helpful. On the structural level of the essay, I most often attempt to emulate people like Derek Parfit and Shelly Kagan.  I struggle more on the sentence level, but I aim to emulate David Lewis, Mark Schroeder, and Jonathan Schaffer as much as possible there.

Another bit of advice I've been given: write as if you are attempting to convince an actual person you know. This might be someone you know who is an especially harsh critic or a particular professor you have worked with. If you can write it in such a way that you think it would convince someone like this of your view, your paper tends to come out with a extra clarity. In other words, perhaps think about the paper as if you are addressing someone and not just writing an essay.

I often also find it helpful (at least in the writing process) to actually write the entire dialectic of the argument out in first-order logic or do it natural language in excruciating (seemingly pedantic) detail. Sometimes I will put this as a numbered, deductive argument in the paper and then comment on it. Other times, I just use it to organize my thoughts as I'm writing. It helps to see exactly where the crux of the argument lies. It is funny how often you can do this and realize that some philosopher has made an invalid argument or has a hidden premise that you can attack. In case it's helpful, here's an example of what I meant by putting the argument in natural language:

(1)   If some set of value bearers are comparable, then some value relation holds between them. (Definition)

(2)   'Imprecise' means not precise. (Definition)

(3)   Some value bearers are not comparable by a precise value relation. (The Small Improvements Argument)

(4)   Some such value bearers are still comparable. (The Unidimensional Chaining Argument)

(5)   A value relation holds between such value bearers. (1 & 4)

(6)   The value relation that holds between such value bearers is not precise. (3 & 5)

(7)   There are imprecise value relations. (2 & 6)

 

I put this in the first section of a paper (not my writing sample) and then went on to first discuss the two definitions (section 2), then offer the two crucial arguments for 3 (section 3) and 4 (section 4), and the rest follows deductively (or so I hope). It is seemingly valid and offers a nice, clear way to refer to the steps of your argument through out the body of the paper and a natural way of organizing the paper into sections. Most of the more creative philosophical work can then take place in defense of 3 and 4 and consider objections, etc. I often find that if I can't put an argument in a form even like this, then I probably don't really have an argument. Anyways, that's my two cents. 

 

This is *very* good advice!