Challenges of philosophical writing .

The Challenges of Philosophical Writing

The aim of the assignments on your philosophy training

is to get you doing philosophy. But what is philosophy,

and the way is it to be completed? The answer is complicated.

Philosophers are often encouraged by one or greater of what

we might name the “Big Questions,” which includes: How must

we stay? Is there free will? How will we realize anything?

Or, What is reality? While philosophers do no longer agree amongst

themselves on either the range of right philosophical

questions or the right techniques of answering them, they

do agree that merely expressing one’s private evaluations

on arguable subjects like those isn't always doing philosophy.

Rather, philosophers insist at the technique of first reaching

clarity about the exact question being requested, after which

presenting answers supported via clear, logically structured

arguments.

An ideal philosophical argument have to lead the reader in

simple logical steps from manifestly genuine premises to an

unobvious conclusion. A negative argument is an objection

that tries to reveal that a declare, theory, or argument is

wrong; if it does so effectively, we say that it refutes

it. A high quality argument attempts to aid a claim or principle,

for instance, the view that there's true free will,

or the view that we have to never devour animals. Positive

philosophical arguments about the Big Questions which are

ideal are extraordinarily hard to assemble, and philosophers

inquisitive about formulating or criticizing such arguments

usually become discussing other questions that can at the beginning

seem pedantic or contrived. These questions motivate

philosophers due to the fact they seem, after investigation, to

be logically related to the Big Questions and to shed

light on them. So, for instance, whilst trying to answer

Big Questions like those above, philosophers might locate

themselves discussing questions like (respectively): When

wouldn't it be morally permissible to push a person into the

path of a dashing trolley? What is a cause? Do I know

that I have palms? Is there an external international? While

arguing approximately these questions may appear stupid or pointless,

the satisfactions of philosophy are often derived from,

first, coming across and explicating how they're logically

connected to the Big Questions, and 2nd, constructing

and protecting philosophical arguments to reply them in

flip. Good philosophy proceeds with modest, careful and

clean steps.

Structuring a Philosophy Paper

Philosophy assignments typically ask you to keep in mind

a few thesis or argument, regularly a thesis or argument that

has been presented via another philosopher (a thesis is

a declare that can be proper or fake). Given this thesis or

argument, you may be asked to do one or more of the

following: give an explanation for it, offer a controversy in guide of

it, offer an objection to it, guard towards an objection

to it, compare the arguments for and towards it, talk

what results it'd have, determine whether

a few different thesis or argument commits one to it (i.E.,

if I regular the alternative thesis or argument, could I be

rationally required to accept this one due to the fact I receive

the other one?), or determine whether or not a few different view

can be held consistently with it. No depend which of

these tasks you are requested to finish, your paper need to

normally meet the subsequent structural requirements:

Begin with the aid of formulating your unique thesis. State

your thesis virtually and concisely on your introduction

so that your reader knows what your paper sets

out to acquire. Get to the point quickly and with out

digression. Don’t attempt to introduce your argument

inside a grand historical narrative, as an instance. Your

thesis does not need to be similar to any thesis

stated inside the undertaking, despite the fact that in a few cases it

can be.

GOOD WRITING EXAMPLE

Jen turned into an wonderful philosophy writer who

acquired the following task:

Evaluate Smith’s argument for the declare

that people lack unfastened will.

Jen decided earlier than she started writing her paper

that Smith’s argument in the long run fails because it

trades on an ambiguity. Accordingly, she commenced

her paper with the subsequent sentence:

In this paper, I will refute Smith’s argument towards

the lifestyles of free will via showing that it trades on an

ambiguity.

Jen’s thesis, then, was that Smith’s argument is

invalid because it trades on an ambiguity – and she

stated it surely right at the beginning of her paper.

Note that Jen need no longer say something in any respect approximately

the fact or falsity of the thesis that human beings lack

unfastened will; despite the fact that Smith’s argument for it's miles invalid,

it'd nevertheless be proper that humans lack unfastened will.

SPOOR WRITING EXAMPLE

In solution to the formerly cited

task, George wrote a paper arguing that

there has been free will, since George

become himself privy to making all sorts of free

picks each day. His conclusion became that

Smith’s argument (which he had now not explained,

and cited handiest at the quit of the paper) ought to

be fake, in view that there's loose will.

George’s professor requested him to rewrite, telling

him that he had didn't engage with Smith’s

argument inside the first draft. Here is an excerpt

from George’s much less-than-a success rewrite…

… Smith says on p.Nine, “The truth of causal

determinism having been installed via this argument

from removal, we shall circulate on to show

incompatibilism.” Smith then says that the supply of

an agent’s moves is some occasion that befell before he

changed into even born. If an occasion took place earlier than a person became

born, it can't be a manufactured from his choices. Therefore

incompatibilism is actual. On p.10, Smith addresses the

objection that…

George does not nicely explain and examine

the common sense of Smith’s argument (a philosophy

paper), however instead reviews what Smith says and

the manner in which it seems in the text (a book

record). In the first sentence George fees

Smith without delay wherein there is no want to do

so, and he provides no clarification of Smith’s

sentence or the technical phrases in it that indicates

that George without a doubt knows it. In his 2nd

sentence, George just follows Smith’s text even as

paraphrasing it. In his 1/3, George can be

attempting to: (i) truly paraphrase Smith, or

(ii) paraphrase and suggest Smith’s declare, or (iii)

make his personal personal point – but to the reader

it's far left ambiguous what George thinks Smith’s

view is and what George’s own view is.

If you use a declare that your

reader might find dubious,

then you definately must attempt to give the

reader convincing reasons for

accepting it.

Evidence

From your philosophy trainer, a request for proof

for a declare is generally a request for an issue, or

for a higher argument. While philosophers may additionally from

time to time employ medical generalizations or

results, they typically avoid the messy and specialised

commercial enterprise of accumulating and arguing approximately empirical information,

and confine their investigations to their armchairs. This

is a wide generalization; once in a while empirical proof

from psychology, physics or different fields of inquiry can be

positioned to proper use in philosophical arguments. But if you

do use such proof from some other place, by no means simply expect

that it solves your philosophical query: be cautious to

provide an explanation for precisely why it's miles relevant and exactly what we can

conclude from it, and do make sure which you as it should be

record what the scientists have to inform us.

Philosophers nevertheless find loads to argue about even if

they positioned empirical questions apart. For one element, the

query of what kind of empirical evidence could be

needed to decide the answer to a question might itself be

a non-empirical query that philosophers discuss. For

another, philosophers spend quite a few time discussing how

distinctive claims (which may be empirical) relate logically

to every other. For instance, a common philosophical

mission is to show how or more perspectives can not be held

constantly with each other, or to expose that although

perspectives are regular with each other, they together

entail an incredible 0.33 claim. If a hit, this kind of

argument, known as a reductio advert absurdum or reductio for

brief, suggests that we've got purpose to reject at the least one of

its premises.

EXAMPLE OF A REDUCTIO

sGOOD USE OF EXAMPLES

Jen is arguing for the thesis that it is permissible

for me to perform some moves that have

foreknown side results which it wouldn’t be

permissible to aim at immediately. She uses examples

efficiently each to explain the notion of a

“foreknown facet-effect,” and to help deliver our

intuitions to endure on her thesis:

A foreknown aspect-effect of an action is an event or country

of affairs that one does no longer intention at whilst one acts, but

that one knows will (possibly) result from one’s action.

For instance, I decide to drive to class if you want to store

time. I recognize that my riding will leave the parking

space in the front of my house empty. The empty parking

space is a foreknown aspect-effect of my action: I don’t

purpose at it, due to the fact my purpose is most effective to get myself to school

quicker.

…

To help prove my factor approximately the distinction in

permissibility between ambitions and foreknown aspect-outcomes,

I will use the following hypothetical instance: Bill

the bomber pilot has decided to bomb an important

munitions manufacturing facility. Bill knows that the factory is subsequent

to a medical institution, and that about 1,000 civilian casualties

are probably. But bombing the factory will bring an early

defeat to the enemy with the aid of cutting their fingers glide. This

will demoralize them and assist end the warfare. Bill’s

action, I contend, may be permissible. Now I’ll simply

regulate the case slightly: Bob the bomber pilot has determined

to bomb a munitions factory. Bob is aware of that the

factory is next to a health facility, and that about 1,000

civilian casualties are possibly. In fact, bombing the factory

is the exceptional way to result in this type of high wide variety of

casualties, and this is why Bob has decided to bomb

there. Bringing about this many civilian casualties will

assist weaken the enemy’s resolve and thereby bring an

early end to the warfare. (It may even have a aspect-impact of

reducing their arms float). I contend that Bob’s motion is

truly impermissible.

Examples like these might deliver clean moral

intuitions, and if Jen can assemble an example

in which she can persuade us that it's far certainly

clear that something could be approved as a

foreknown aspect-effect but not as an purpose, she will

have an amazing argument for her thesis.

There are a couple of kinds of “proof” that you should

now not use in philosophy papers: Do no longer argue that a declare

is true, or is in all likelihood to be genuine, just due to the fact a person of

high-quality authority believed it. Authorities may be incorrect, and

philosophers want to see the arguments for a view. And do

no longer argue from what the dictionary says about something.

If the dictionary defines reality as “correspondence with

reality”, you can not use this as an argument that truth

is correspondence with fact due to the fact either you're

treating the dictionary as an authority, or you're citing

it as a reporter of commonplace usage. But philosophers don’t

want to recognize what the majority think or expect approximately

what reality is, they want to recognise what's in reality the

case! (N.B.: you could additionally be misled while you seek advice from

the dictionary because a few words have technical,

philosophical meanings inside the concern that vary from

their everyday utilization.)

Sources

You may freely use the arguments of different philosophers

for your papers so long as you credit score them appropriately,

and also do your personal philosophical questioning. Again, if

you need to provide an explanation for someone else’s argument, you have to

do so for your own words and in step with your personal clean

knowledge of the logical steps worried in it. It is also

extraordinarily vital that when you give an explanation for the arguments

of different philosophers, you interpret them charitably. This

does no longer suggest which you are barred from criticizing them,

but alternatively which you have to interpret every creator as protecting

the most powerful possible argument constant with what they

have written. If a truth seeker’s argument seems glaringly

incorrect, then you definitely likely do now not apprehend it well.

Even if a truth seeker’s argument appears right, you must

take extremely good care to avoid difficult their argument with any

other argument that sounds similar to it.

You can help yourself to avoid these difficulties by using education

your self to examine philosophy articles extraordinarily slowly and

cautiously if you want to apprehend the perfect steps of the

author’s argument. It isn't uncommon to should examine a

philosophy article numerous instances in order to grasp its information.

Philosophy is tough through nature: to avoid making matters

even more difficult, ensure that the argument for your paper is

truly as clean and smooth to understand as feasible!

If you are requested to provide an issue or an objection and

the undertaking does now not require that it be your own, then

you could usually use one that you have found out in elegance

or from the readings, with proper credit score. In this case, you

need to now not handiest placed the argument for your personal words

and within the logical shape that appears clearest to you, however additionally

see whether or not there is any way wherein you may improve

at the argument you have heard. Perhaps you may provide

motive to adjust it, or offer extra considerations in defense

of it that assist give an explanation for why you yourself find it viable.

Look for approaches to show which you are doing all your own.On’t attempt to write a philosophy paper from scratch, from starting to give up: you ought to go away lots

of time to devise things out first. Think about the assigned topic for some time, and figure out a likely

thesis and a difficult argument for it to your head. If you’re finding this tough, begin writing rough

sketches of relevant ideas. You’ll throw numerous this material away later, however the act of writing can assist

you to suppose matters thru. When you’re geared up, start to increase a master define on paper. Your

outline ought to display your thesis and your argument in abbreviated form but with maximal logical

readability; attempt to use one line for each logical step of your argument. Make certain it includes capacity

objections and replies, using just more than one lines for every.

You’ll almost honestly discover, as you produce your outline, which you want to revise portions of your

argument or maybe your entire solution. Keep writing sketches of portions of your paper at some point of the

outlining system if it helps. Continue revising the outline till the argument in it's far completely clear

and satisfactory to you. (Try explaining your argument to someone else; if you could’t provide an explanation for it, your

outline needs extra work!) At this factor, write a primary complete draft of your paper out of your define,

that specialize in clarity of the overall shape of your argument.

Once you have got a first draft in hand, hold to revise it, with both the argument’s shape and

your unique phrase selections in mind. Save your drafts as you cross along, so that you can move again in case you

exchange your thoughts. Read your paper out loud or have a chum study it to exercise session which elements of your

argument might confuse or fail to influence the reader and need greater paintings. Be open to changing

your mind and your arguments in any respect degrees of the system, and keep your define updated as you do.

Your final draft need to provide the clearest expression you could manage of your final, well outlined

argument.