What is a philosophy paper?

Just as there are many approaches to philosophy itself, there are also many different types of philosophy papers: comparison and contrast of different views, explanations of philosopher's claims, original arguments, and others. This guide is not intended to provide a magic formula you could use to create the perfect philosophy paper -- there is no such thing! However, this guide will primarily discuss the most common type of paper required in philosophy classes today: the argument paper. At the end, various other types of papers will be discussed briefly.

Overview:

A philosophy argument paper differs from other papers in its emphasis on clarity of expression and seriousness of argument. A philosophy argument paper must always aim to convince the reader that some particular thesis is correct. Of course, most other types of scholarly papers also have this goal, but the philosophy argument paper places special emphasis on it. Conclusions must be explicitly stated. Reasons must be identified and themselves defended. Counter-arguments to the main arguments must be considered. Above all, be sure to make all arguments clear even if the result seems boring: if the reader cannot understand your argument, your paper has failed in its task no matter how interesting it is to read.

Each of the following sections covers specific concerns in more detail.

1. General structure
2. Clarity in expressing arguments
3. Citations
4. Conciseness
5. Considering objections
6. Creativity
7. Writing and re-writing
8. Problems to avoid
9. Other types of philosophy papers
10. Academic Honesty

a. General structure.

The Five-Paragraph Essay is not Dead.

The first essays you wrote in your education were probably supposed to conform to the famous five paragraph structure: one introductory paragraph, three body paragraphs each devoted to one main point, and one concluding paragraph. University level essays, of course, are not restricted to such a structure. You might have even been taught in other classes to ignore such a structure and to write essays which flow more smoothly and require the reader to actively engage your writing. Despite these lessons, don't give up the five-paragraph essay for dead! Certain elements of the five-paragraph essay are important for writing an argument paper. You must have some sort of introduction to the issue which includes your thesis. You must distinguish clearly the several points you make in the body of your essay. And you must tie your argument together in the end with a conclusion to ensure that your reader grasps your main point. Use the spirit rather than the letter of the five-paragraph essay form.

Introduction

Many of us were taught in high school to include an introductory paragraph which funnels the reader from a very general topic to the specific topic of your paper. In extremely short papers (up to 5 pages) it is best to vastly reduce such introductions, or better yet skip them altogether. Begin by discussing the specific topic of your paper (example: "In this paper I will show that the mind and the brain are the same substance"). Longer papers may include a longer introduction, but avoid beginning with statements so general they add nothing to your paper (example: "Since the beginning of time, humans have wondered whether there is a God").

Your introductory paragraph will probably also include a thesis (see below). You might work in a short outline of your paper, even if it is just one sentence naming your three or four main arguments. This outline can also be done in a separate paragraph. Including such an outline helps the reader to anticipate and follow your argument.

Thesis

Each paper must have a thesis, that is, the point which you are trying to prove in your paper. Your thesis may be something about a topic (example: "I will show in this paper that under certain circumstances physician assisted suicide is morally permissible"), about a philosopher’s argument (example: "I will show in this paper that Kant would have accepted physician assisted suicide under certain circumstances"), or about a secondary source (typically only in higher-level classes, example: "I will show in this paper that Jones is wrong when she denies that Kant would have accepted physician assisted suicide under certain circumstances).

Note that in each of the above examples, the word "I" is used. In philosophy argument papers the first person singular is appropriate. Everyone knows that it’s your paper with your arguments anyway!

Note also that in each example no reasons for the thesis are given. It suffices that the thesis itself is plainly stated. You may include your chief reason in the statement of the thesis (example: "I will show in this paper that under certain circumstances physician assisted suicide is morally permissible in order to uphold the autonomy of the individual.")

The thesis may be the first sentence of your paper. More typically you will want to use a few sentences to lay out the topic before giving your thesis, and thus will place your thesis somewhere else in the first paragraph. You might also put it further down the first page. Don’t wait too long! If the reader does not find a thesis on the first page, she might not be able to follow any arguments you are giving.

Arguments.

The vast majority of your paper will consist of your actual arguments. The number of arguments you give is not dictated by the structure of the paper; on the contrary, the structure of your paper is dictated by the number of arguments you have identified already. You might have only one argument! You might have ten.

Depending on the number and type of arguments you are giving, you might use several paragraphs or only one for each argument. Simple arguments can be stated along with objections and replies in one paragraph. More complicated arguments require several paragraphs to state, one or more paragraphs for each objection, and several paragraphs for your replies. If you have several arguments of moderate complexity, you might use the following paragraph structure after the introduction (note that there might be different numbers of objections and replies, dictating different paragraphing):

1. argument one
2. first objection to argument one, your reply
3. second objection to argument one, your reply
4. argument two, begun
5. argument two, concluded
6. objection to argument two, your reply
7. argument three
8. objection to argument three
9. your reply to objection to argument three
10. counter-reply to your reply, with your response
11. argument four
12. objection to argument four, your reply
13. general objection to your thesis
14. your reply to general objection

In the outline given here, argument two is long enough to require two separate paragraphs. A general rule of thumb is that you ought to have at least one, preferably two or more, paragraph breaks on a page. The number of objections, replies, counter-replies, etc, is dictated by your analysis of each point. Do not first create an outline and then attempt to fill it in with objections and replies!

An alternative structure using the same number of arguments would be to first give all your arguments, then give all the objections, then give all your replies. This structure is useful if some objections cover more than one argument you give.

Regardless of the exact number of arguments you present, each argument, objection, and reply must be clearly distinguished from the others. For example, be sure to signal to the reader when you are offering objections to your arguments; otherwise the reader might attribute the objections to you and will assume you are contradicting yourself!

Conclusion

In your final paragraph or two, it is helpful to tie together the arguments you have been making. You might repeat your thesis using different phrasing. In general, remind the reader of the most important reasons you have given for your thesis.

Your conclusion need not belabor the detailed points you made in the body of your paper. The reader can always refer back to those specific arguments. Rather than mere repetition of your particular arguments, your conclusion should include a final assessment of the basic points you made. You might include brief discussions of some of the following: Which of your arguments is most decisive? Which objections come closest to falsifying your thesis? What further information or arguments would bolster or invalidate your thesis? What claims do you want the reader NOT to confuse with your own claims; that is, what might be a common misinterpretation of your thesis and arguments which the reader ought to be warned to avoid. You don't need to include all of these matters.

 b. Clarity in expressing arguments

Your arguments must suffice to convince the reader to agree with your thesis. To do this you will not only have to have a clear structure and consider possible objections to your position (see the separate pages devoted to those topics), you will also have to be clear in presenting your specific points. Some suggestions for clarity are:

1. Give sufficient background information.

You must not assume that your reader has thought about the issue as much as you have. You ought to aim your paper at an intelligent reader who has general knowledge of the topic but not specific awareness of the issues you raise. One good strategy is to assume that your reader is another student in your class. For example, if you write a paper on Plato's theory of Forms, you can assume that the reader knows not only who Plato was but also the general outline of the theory of Forms; but you should not assume that the reader knows the specific analyses, definitions, arguments, and objections, which you use in your paper. The reader might not have thought enough about Forms to be able to formulate any definition at all! Your job is to give information like that necessary for your own arguments.

2. Define your terms.

Philosophy uses both everyday words and special vocabulary. In both cases, whenever a specific word is crucial to your arguments and analyses, you need to offer a definition so the reader is clear about your meaning. Most of the time you should cite a definition from your text or from the philosopher you are writing about. If there is none, then you should create one of your own. You might phrase it like this: "By 'knowledge', I mean justified true belief."

3. Use consistent terminology.

Use the same terms for the same concepts. For example, if you are writing a paper about the mind/body relation, then use the term "mind" each time. Don't substitute "spirit", "soul", "essence", or any other similar term. You might mean the same concept by each of these terms but your reader will not realize this. Instead your reader will assume that "mind" is not the same as "spirit"; for otherwise why would you use different words?

4. Avoid Repetition.

Clarity not only means making a point well, it means not needing to make the same point twice. Anytime you repeat yourself you are liable to confuse the reader who will assume that you are actually making a new point. Now, of course sometimes you will need to repeat yourself, such as when you reiterate the implications of a previous argument you made. In these cases, be sure to note to the reader what you are doing by saying something like "as I showed earlier, . . . "

5. Use signal words.

To help the reader follow your arguments you can provide pointers along the way. Words such as "for", "because", "since", and "the reason is" signal to readers that a reason is being given for one's conclusion. Words such as "thus" and "therefore" signal to readers that the conclusion itself is being given.

6. Avoid complex sentences.

Each sentence should include one or two thoughts. If you try to add too many thoughts into one sentence, a sentence which can stretch for line after line as you proceed down the page presenting point after point, including points which you support with further premises and small arguments, thus, that is, not only other thoughts, but whole series of other thoughts, and include as well tangential material which comes to mind as you write but does not relate to the main point you were making in the main part of your sentence which by this point of the sentence is completely lost, then your reader gets lost. Avoid sentences like the one you just read. Instead say something simple like "Long sentences confuse the reader".

More detail on how to construct clear philosophical arguments can be obtained from the philosophy web page devoted to logic.
http://www.msu.edu/unit/phl/phlskills/logic.htm

c. Citations

Although philosophy papers of all types require you to make original arguments, you will nonetheless refer to other sources at some point in almost every paper.

Here are instances when citation is required:

1. A direct quotation from another book or article.
2. A specific claim from another book or article.
3. Any fact not generally known.
4. Definitions obtained from a dictionary or a philosophical source.
5. Particular claims made by your professor in lecture. But different professors have different views about citing class lectures; it is best to ask your own professor.

Here are instances when citation is not required:

1. Your own arguments.
2. Generally known facts.
3. General background information such as summaries of part of a book or article.
4. Definitions you provide.
5. General background information about the topic or text given by your professor in class, given in the course readings, or obtained from a standard philosphical reference.

The particular method for citation you use depends upon the instructions of your professor.

d. Conciseness

In "Hamlet", Polonius famously states "brevity is the soul of wit" in the middle of a long-winded tirade anything but brief. Brevity is also the soul of philosophy, despite what you might think after reading some very long-winded famous philosophers! The best arguments are stated clearly and concisely. Elaboration is given when necessary.

Here is an example of a wordy argument:

The God discussed in this essay can be defined and conceived as a being without any limitations at all. This infinite being, because of the lack of limitations, must include everything: every person, every tree, every fish, every cloud in the sky, everything. Nothing is left out of God. Since God must therefore include everything, God also includes all the bad things: pain, murder, hate, evil, all the bad things. Therefore God, who includes everything, includes evil, and it is wrong to say that God is good but not evil at the same time.

Here is the same argument given clearly and concisely:

God, as an infinite being, must include all existing things. Pain and evil are existing things. Therefore, pain and evil must be included in God.

Not only is this version of the argument clearer, it also takes up less space, leaving more space for you to consider objections, provide other arguments, and draw further conclusions.

It’s also possible to be too concise. Often famous philosophers are guilty of this fault just as they can be long winded at times. Here is an example of an argument which is too concise:

The nature of the human soul requires that it be free.
Therefore, the human soul is immortal.

The brevity of this argument leaves much important information unstated. What exactly about the human soul makes it free? How is that consideration linked to immortality: is it that all free beings are made by God as immortal? Or that the characteristic of being free precludes death? Or something else? The lack of a definition of "soul" is also problematic; the author of this argument is obligated to provide a definition, although this definition can be given prior to the argument itself.

How do you know that you are being too concise? The ultimate test is whether your argument is clear. If your argument cannot be understood by the reader, it requires more explanation. Provide just enough explanation and detail in the argument to make it clear. Additional material beyond this amount becomes wordy. After providing the argument itself you will likely discuss its parts when considering objections and to give arguments for controversial premises. But these later discussions are ways of supporting your argument after it has been explained and do not belong in the explication of the argument itself.

e. Considering objections

In your paper you must of course present your arguments. The goal of your paper is to convince the reader of your thesis. To convince the reader, however, you must show not only what your arguments are but also show that alternative arguments or objections to your arguments are not strong enough to disprove your original argument. It's important when setting out a position on a philosophical issue, to anticipate and respond to possible objections to your major claim and argument. You must assume that the reader is initially opposed to your claims and needs to be convinced. Part of being convinced is being shown that alternative views are wrong, or at least not as well-supported, as your views. These alternative views are what we call objections. An objection is a claim opposed to your argument which a reasonable person might raise as part of testing the plausibility of your views.

There are two types of objections: first, general objections to your thesis, and second, specific objections to the premises or reasoning of your argument. General objections are reasons why someone might believe the opposite of your thesis. For example, if your thesis is that God does not exist, and your argument raises the problem of evil as the main support, then a general objection would be the cosmological argument (which argues that God must exist as the cause of the universe). Because general objections themselves usually raise complete arguments, you are not always expected to pursue them. Further, if you can prove your own argument, then other arguments with opposite conclusions are automatically cast into doubt. In your paper, then, general objections are usually not required.

Specific objections point toward your specific reasoning for your thesis. For example, if your thesis is (as above) that God does not exist, and your argument raises the problem of evil as the main support, then a specific objection might be the free will defense (which argues that evil is not traced to God but only to human free will). Specific objections, it must be stressed, always refer to particular parts, not the whole, of your argument. How do you find out which part of your argument is the target of an objection? To ask the question that way is to put the proper order backwards: you ought to examine your argument piece by piece and ask yourself what possible objections might be raised to each piece. When writing, you will then identify the particular parts of your argument to which the objection refers.

Sometimes you'll come up with an objection to one of your central points that simply devastates your position. What do you do then? Well, if there's a different position that isn't so severely flawed, perhaps you ought to adopt it and start over again. The point of writing a philosophy paper is not to defend a position "through thick and thin." Philosophy isn't academic debate. Rather it is to find the most nearly defensible position on a difficult philosophical issue. So, if it turns out that when you attempt to get your thoughts on paper, the position you initially thought best turns out to be severely flawed, frustrating as it might be, you need to rethink your entire approach. Maybe you'll have to change your position. If this happens you should not think you've utterly wasted your time to this point. In learning that a position you initially thought was plausible won't work, you will have taught yourself something very important. And you will have material you can use in arguing for the opposite position, should that be the position you now think is right and wish to defend!

f. Creativity

Philosophy has been around a long time and spans all the major civilizations of the world. How can you hope to create an argument no one has ever created before? It seems hopeless.

Do not despair! Keep in mind the following points:

1. New times bring up new issues. For example, prior to the discovery of the structure of DNA in the 1950s, there was simply no possible question about the precise identification of genes and their effect on human medical practices. Now with the explosion of gene technology, important new issues arise for philosophers. You might be the first person to write about a topic!
2. Old arguments are always being reassessed. You probably won't create a new argument for the existence of God, but you might be able to shed new light on an old argument. Your paper can be a defense of the cosmological argument given the new ideas you have about it.
3. You're just a student anyway. No one expects you to be familiar with all the thousands of variations of arguments on traditional topics in philosophy. Creativity can be relative to the knowledge base you have. If you merely parrot arguments from your texts or lectures, you are failing to be creative. If you go beyond those sources in your own thinking, you are being creative. (But if you go beyond those sources by looking at other sources and drawing your ideas from them, you are plagiarizing! See the section on Academic Honesty)

g. Writing and re-writing

Philosophical thinking and writing often amount to the same thing. When working on a tough and complicated problem it is unlikely you will be able to work your position out fully in your head and then simply transfer it to paper. Often we do not know what we think about a tough complicated problem until we begin writing our thoughts down. The relationship between thinking and writing is usually dialectical. We begin with a hunch, set it out in a paragraph or two, read and revise it, and then do a few more paragraphs -- after which we read all of what we've done so far, revise it, write some more, and so on. So don't wait until you think you have everything figured out before you start writing. If most of us operated this way, we'd never get anything written.

With rare exceptions, most of us cannot write a decent philosophy paper in one draft. It's usually necessary to rewrite a paper at least once and more often several times. Students are often under the (false) impression that they are the only ones in the class that have to revise and that most everyone else can turn out a very good paper at a single sitting. This is not only false about most other students, but it is also false about the authors of philosophical books and articles as well. It would be nice if, after enough experience, we could write decent papers in one sitting. But it doesn't work that way. I -- and other authors of philosophical books and articles that I know -- go through many drafts until we become even remotely satisfied with what we have written. Writing philosophy, then, often involves a number of false starts -- deleting words, moving paragraphs, sometimes junking what you've done so far and starting over. But remember this is the rule, not the exception.

Sometimes it's helpful to write a first draft of a paper as soon as you can and then place it in a bottom drawer in order to get a day or two's "psychic distance" from it. During this period you may want to do a bit more reading or re-reading, talk about the subject with your friends, or simply clear the topic from your mind. Then take the paper out of the drawer and read it with the eyes of someone who is inclined to disagree with it. Identify weaknesses of style and content and then have another go at writing the paper. Work at eliminating the weaknesses of the earlier draft.

It's sometimes useful to have a friend criticize a draft of your paper. This should be a very good friend -- the friendship should be strong enough that he or she does not fear that pointing out problems with your paper will threaten your friendship. Ask your friend to identify obscurities, vagueness, ambiguity, bad arguments, missing information, questionable assumptions, poor organization, and so on. If your friend makes suggestions or criticisms -stylistic or philosophical -- that lead to significant changes in your paper, you ought to acknowledge in footnotes where what you have written was suggested by him or her. Remember, however, that with regard to philosophical suggestions, it is up to you to determine whether they are good or not. My hunch is that many of your friend's suggestions may not be worth uncritically incorporating into your paper. Think of yourself, in this connection, as the President and of your friends as Presidential advisors. Your friends, classmates, and those you read will be giving you all sorts of conflicting advice on what your position should be. But the ultimate decision is yours -- and yours alone. Once you decide to incorporate the suggestions of others you become responsible (and have to answer) for the weaknesses of these suggestions as well as their strengths.

 h. Problems to avoid

After you have a complete draft of your paper, you will want to reread it in order to catch problems you might have missed while writing and re-writing it. Here are some particular things to look for when editing your paper:

Appeal to authority.

Make sure that you do not simply claim that something is true because some authority said it. There are no authorities in philosophy. That is, there is no person such that if he or she said something about a philosophical issue or problem, what he or she said is thereby true. In general, if the only argument for a philosophical claim is that someone else (Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Wittgenstein, your teacher) has made it, then there is no argument for the point and it is best dropped.

Bad definition.

Check to see whether your definition is clear and does not beg the question. For example, in response to the question of whether euthanasia is permissible you respond: "Of course it is. By 'euthanasia' I mean 'legitimately ending a person's life to relieve suffering' and it's always permissible to relieve suffering." Such argument by redefinition is a special case of begging the question.

Bad rhetorical question.

It's a good idea to avoid rhetorical questions in philosophical writing. Rhetorical questions are used legitimately when the answer to the question is obvious and the obvious answer is correct. A rhetorical question is bad when one or other of these conditions is not fulfilled. Here's an example taken from a student paper. "Who would ever suppose that a person should act from duty alone?" The answer the student thought obvious was "No one." The correct answer is, "For one, the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant."

Begging the question.

You beg the question when you fail to answer it, either by assuming in your reasoning what you're trying to prove or by answering another, very much simpler, question instead. In a particular argument, you beg the question by assuming the truth of the conclusion in one of your premises. A classic example of this is the claim that God wrote the Bible, thus we must believe the Bible when it says that God exists. This begs the question because your premise that God wrote the Bible assumes that God exists, which is what you are trying to prove!

Emotional appeal.

Appeals to emotion do nothing to substantiate a philosophical claim. Though it may be good to be emotionally involved in supporting certain issues, and though the views you hold may be correct, good reasoning alone is sufficient for showing that these views to be true. In short papers it's wise to avoid polemics.

Examples.

Often a well chosen illustration will greatly increase the effectiveness or intelligibility of a particular claim or argument. Philosophical arguments are very abstract; examples help the reader to see your point in a more concrete way. But be sure that the examples you use are not misleading! Another way to illustrate your arguments is with analogies. An analogy differs from an example in that the former gives a situation parallel to your argument while the latter gives a particular instance of your argument at work.

Irrelevance.

When you write a philosophy paper, every paragraph -- indeed, every sentence-- ought to bear on the original problem and its resolution. Ask yourself of every sentence and every paragraph whether it is moving the reader further toward the resolution of the central problem at issue. If you find sentences or paragraphs that do not contribute to this end, you ought to consider deleting them.

Missing Definition.

When you use a term in an unusual or special sense, you should explain exactly what you take it to mean. Failure to do this prevents the reader from fully understanding your point. Problems of intelligibility occur when you use a term or make a point that is obscure or ambiguous. This can be avoided by formulating your point more clearly and precisely.

Not answering the question.

Finally (perhaps first of all!) you must double-check to make sure that your paper covers the topic given you, and that you do say in your paper what you claim you will say at the beginning! By not answering the question or sticking with the topic, you often avoid the problem to the detriment of your paper. In general, make sure you always answer the question that's being asked. Then, when you have adequately done so, you may, if you wish, discuss related matters if you have the time and space.

i. Other types of philosophy papers

The other sections in this web guide to writing philosophy papers have focussed on the most common type of paper, the argument paper. You might be required to write a different sort of paper. Consider the many forms philosophers have used to present their ideas in the past: dialogues, meditations, treatises, aphorisms, novels, lectures, disputations, and others. These historic philosophical writings are all different ways of presenting philosophical ideas. The argument paper is just one of many possible types of papers.

If assigned a different type of paper, you ought to ask your instructor how that paper will differ from an argument paper. Many of the suggestions regarding argument papers, such as the need to rewrite and the stress on clarity, apply to other types of papers as well.

Here are a few other papers you might be expected to write:

1. Very short papers. Some instructors will assign short (one or two page) papers of various types. If you are assigned a short argument paper, you will usually be able to treat at most one argument and one or two objections. You ought to limit or eliminate your introductory material. If you are assigned another type of paper for a very short assignment, you ought to be sure to ask your instructor what you are expected to do. Some assignments will stress comprehension, others will stress style, still others will stress reflection.
2. Explication of a philosophical position. You might be required to explain what a philosopher is arguing in a particular passage or on a particular topic. This type of paper does not ask for your own arguments; however, it requires you to identify and present that other philosopher's arguments. Thus, much of the material about presenting arguments applies. Objections are to be raised only if they are raised and dealt with by the original philosopher. Creativity is to be limited.
3. Assessment of a philosophical position. In many ways like the above explication paper, an assessment paper also asks you to evaluate critically the philosopher's position you describe. Treat it like a combination explication and argument paper. Your arguments will be about the soundness and validity of the philosopher's own arguments.
4. Comparison and Contrast. This type of paper is also similar to an explication paper, but you are expected to explain two or more philosopher's views on some topic. These papers involve not just working through what is different between two positions but also evaluating when something new is being accomplished by a thinker or where a change of aims is taking place (especially in the case of past philosophers). In writing this type of paper, you are sometimes asked not only to explain the different views but show how and why one is better than another.
5. Application of a philosophical claim. You might be asked to show how some general philosophical claim can be applied to a particular situation. In this case you will not be evaluating the general claim in itself. You will still be evaluating something, namely, the manner of application to a particular situation. For example you might be asked to show how the concept of autonomy might apply to some particular situation in medical practice. This sort of paper will involve creativity and evaluation but not follow the argument/objection/reply format as strictly as the argument paper.
6. Imitation of a philosophical style. You might be assigned an unusual type of paper: one which focuses on famous philosophers' styles as much as on the content. For example, you might be asked to write a dialogue like Plato, a short story like Sartre, or a series of aphorisms like Nietzsche. You will be expected to make philosophical points through these styles; however, they will differ widely from the argument paper as given in the other web pages.

j. Academic honesty

When you write you are obligated to provide proper citations for ideas which you yourself did not originate. But just what does this mean? Surely you cannot cite every single point others have ever made. You also cannot be expected to read everything anyone has ever written on the subject to see whether you are really the first person to make your point. The solution is to be honest.

1. When you are writing your paper, if you come up with an idea on your own, then you don't need to cite any source. If later in your reading you happen upon someone else giving the same idea, it is standard to cite that source in a footnote, saying that the source agrees with the idea you came up with.
2. If you come up with an idea yourself while reading another source, you should cite that source as your inspiration in a footnote. This sort of thing happens frequently. The source you read does not have the exact idea you had, but your idea is based on something in that source.
3. If you are using a suggestion from a friend, fellow student, or other reader, you should identify that person in a footnote. If someone gives you suggestions for more than just one specific point in your paper, you should instead thank them for their general help in a footnote at the beginning or end of your paper.
4. If you did not come up with an idea on your own but instead obtained it from another source, you must cite that source. In your argument paper, you should minimize the number of ideas you obtain from other sources. You want your paper to reflect your work!

Remember: trying to pass off someone else's ideas as your own is not only dishonest, it violates the academic standards of the university and can lead to failure for the course or expulsion.