SUGGESTIONS for PAPERS (Advanced)

Suggestions for Papers

SUGGESTIONS FOR PAPERS (Advanced)

Read this several times before writing your papers. A thorough familiarity will be assumed. If you have any suggestions for improving these notes, please let me know.

General advice: Whenever you read a philosophy paper or book,be aware of the writing style and note what you like or don’t like about it. By explicitly paying attention to writing style, you will develop a much better sense of what is effective.

1.General

Pick an appropriate topic. It should be controversial (there’s no point for arguing for the obvious), but it should also be manageable (small enough so that you can make a contribution to our understanding of the issue).

In general, it is more manageable to criticize another author’s argument than to develop and defend your own positive position. If you do so, state and explain the author’s argument as clearly as possible (ideally with explicitly labeled premises). Then assess each premiss. If the argument fails, you should then ideally assess the conclusion. If you think the conclusion is true, give reasons, and you might even try presenting a modified, or new, argument for it.

Often when you focus on an author’s argument, your thesis may simply be critical. An alternative, however, is to improve the author’s position: weaken the thesis to avoid certain problems, strengthened the thesis to have more content, and/or give a better defense of the thesis.

Keep in mind that in philosophy (and the humanities generally), unlike in the natural sciences, writing is (normally) research and not merely a report on (e.g., lab) research. Thinking about philosophical problems is how we investigate them. We can do this by merely thinking, by discussing with others, or by writing out our thoughts. Writing, however, is typically far more effective than merely thinking and discussing (although they are important too!). In writing, shortcomings normally become much more apparent (lack of clarity, lack of structure, lack of defense, etc.). Thus, you must write to explore—even when the writing is quite bad. Keep writing! This will involve many, many drafts.

Do not confuse writing as exploration (research) with writing up a version for others to read. After many drafts of exploration, you will eventually get a clear idea of what problem you will address, what your thesis is, and how you will defend it. At that point, you start the process of writing up the paper for consumption by others. Organize your material clearly and ruthlessly cut everything that is not essential. A lot of what you wrote may be interesting and useful for some purposes, but if it plays no essential role in defending your thesis, it is clutter. Creating this public version of your paper will take many revisions.

You should plan on having your first public draft (good enough to be read by someone else) ready at least two weeks before the paper is due. This gives you time to get a few people to comment on the paper and to revise. It also gives you some time to distance yourself from the paper. Given that producing the first public draft will take many revisions, you should plan on starting to write the paper at least two weeks earlier. (This is just for course work. For truly professional work, it takes a lot longer and a lot more revision.)

Don’t try to solve all the problems related to your central question. There are just too many of them! Instead, it is often appropriate to simply note the issue, make a stipulation (e.g., with acknowledgement that it requires defense), and move on. For example: (1) For some notions, you may not be able to give an adequate full explicit definition. It may, however, be sufficient to simply characterize the notion intuitively and with some examples. (2) For notions that have different conceptions (e.g., wellbeing), you may be able to leave open what the correct or relevant conception is. (You may not need, that is, to tell us exactly how you understand wellbeing.). (3) For some non-central claims of your argument, it may not necessary to fully defend them. Instead, it may be enough to discuss the issue, give some reasons in favor of your position, and then explicitly assume it.

Your paper should reflect any significant existing literature on the topic you address. The first place to start is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: plato.stanford.edu. You should then consult the main readings cited in our course readings and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You can’t pursue all citations and should therefore limit yourself to those that seem to be especially on topic, are frequently cited, are by prominent authors, and/or are in prominent journals or presses. Another useful source is the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

To search for related literature, usethe Philosopher’s Index, which is available free of charge to students (when logged in to library) from Type in “Philosopher’s Index” and then click on that name. Normally, search by Subject and specify your subject (and perhaps other parameters). Normally, you can limit publications to the English language within the last 20 years (earlier important work will typically show up in the citations of most of the more recent works). Click Search. Note that the index recognizes only certain predefined subjects. Thus, you may need to try several different ways of specifying your topic.

Don't plagiarize. See “Advice and Class Policies”.

Never pad your paper to make it longer. That always dilutes the overall quality.

2.Paper Structure

Important: Your paper should be very carefully structured with a clear thesis and a systematic defense. After writing a draft of your paper (so that you know roughly what your paper is about), identify what the main (e.g., five) steps in your argument should be (e.g., explain thesis, present argument, defend each premiss) and then make sure that your paper has guideposts for those steps and includes no material that is not essential to those steps.

Here are three basic kinds of papers:

(1)Model 1: You reconstruct and criticize someone else’s argument for a thesis (weak version: you leave open whether the conclusion is true; strong version: your further argue that thesis is false, using Model 3 below).

(2)Model 2: You argue for a thesis by means of a formal argument (with premisses),

(3)Model 3: You argue for a thesis by motivating it and rebutting possible objections to your thesis.

The following is a standard sort of structure:

A. Introduction: In a paragraph or two briefly state the problem you will address, and the thesis that you will defend. Short snappy introductions are the best.

B. Background:

(1) The problem: Explain carefully the problem/question that you address. Define key terms and give examples. Explain why the problem matters.

(2) Your thesis: Define any key concepts in the statement of your thesis.Give examples.

C. Defense of your thesis:

- Model 1 (criticize someone else’s argument): You charitably reconstruct the argument for clarity and to make deductively valid. Then you grant certain premises and criticize others (usually in order of increasing strength of your criticism).

- Model 2 (provide a deductively valid supporting argument for thesis): Explain each premiss and defend its plausibility against objections. Normally, it’s best to discuss the premises in the order listed (but be sure to list them in a logical order).On this model, one doesn’t normally address objections to your thesis. Instead, each objection is addressed to a premiss.Thus, if an author has an argument against one of your premises (even if the negation of your premiss is only an implication of the argument, rather than the explicit target), then you will need to address (reconstruct) that argument and show why it fails.

- Model 3(no deductively valid supporting argument; just motivate and answer objections): Give general reasons supporting your thesis, and then raise and reply to objections to your thesis.Here, you should probably order objections in increasing order of importance (and/or length of your discussion). Thus, if an author has an argument against your conclusion (even if the negation of your conclusion is only an implication of the argument, rather than the explicit target), then you will need to address (reconstruct) that argument and show why it fails.

E. Conclusion: In a paragraph or two, summarize your argument and its significance.

Objections to a claim (an opponent’s or your own) can take the form of an abstract objection (without considering specific concrete implications) or an objection to its implications for a concrete case (or type of case). For example, in assessing the act utilitarian claim that an action is permissible if and only if it maximizes total welfare, one could object to the abstract idea that we have a duty to maximize wellbeing as opposed to not harming individuals. Or one could specify a concrete example and claim that a specific action (e.g., watching television under normal circumstances) is permissible even though act utilitarianism says that it’s not. Normally, the best objections are stated both abstractly and then concretely. The concrete objection identifies a problem with the view and the abstract claim identifies the source of the problem.

Note that we can distinguish three kinds of objections to a position (an opponent’s or your own):

(1)Conclusive objections (rare): those that refute the position.

(2)Pro tanto objections: those that cast doubt on the position, but may not refute it, since all positions have some doubtful features.

(3)Mistaken objections: those that are raised but are based on mistakes (false assumptions, bad inferences, confusions, etc.).

In criticizing someone else’s view, only the first two are relevant. In defending your view by replying to objections, only the last two are relevant.

3.Style

3.1Introduction and Conclusion

Stylistically, the two most important sections of your paper are your introduction and your conclusion. These sections will most affect the reader’s (or referee’s) reaction to your paper. Thus, keep them simple, clear, and short. Focus on big picture essentials.

Introduction: Keep it simple and focused on the big picture. Avoid details that the reader won’t be able to process fully before knowing more. Although many authors give section summaries as part of the introduction, I think that this tends to overburden readers with details. Remember that the reader doesn’t really know what the paper is about at this point. Focus on essentials!

Conclusion: In general, I would limit it to three paragraphs, and one is perfectly fine. Sum up the main thesis and the main argument for it. Comment on the significance of the thesis (e.g., some of its implications).

3.2Clarity

- Include guideposts for readers, giving them a review and preview at each step. It may be obvious to you what you are doing, but it often is not to readers. An excellent technique is to start each section with a reminder of your general thesis and then identify a problem with the general thesis (e.g., of clarification or of plausibility) that you will address in that section. For example: “Below I will argue that responsibility requires voluntary action. In this section I clarify the conception of voluntary action.” This helps the reader see how the section supports your thesis.

- Divide the paper into sections to highlight the main steps in your presentation. Use descriptive section headers (e.g., “2. Assessing Premiss 1”) to make it easier for the reader to know what the main point of the section is (in addition to explicit stating what they point is in the first paragraph of the section).

- Include only material that is necessary for establishing your thesis. All other material (even if loosely related) is just clutter.

- Explain the concepts and theories that you use.Give an abstract explanation and a concrete example. Don't assume that your reader understands them.Write your paper as if it were to be read by someone who had not taken or taught the course.

- Introduce concepts and explanations when they become relevant for your argument rather than in the abstract in advance. Otherwise, it won’t be clear to the reader why you are introducing such material. It’s also a good way of making sure that your discussion is really essential to your argument.

- If you use symbols, technical terms, or a complex analysis, it’s important to be sure that the reader understand what is going on. The following is often useful: Start by giving an intuitive (perhaps oversimplified) statement of the problem and your solution. You can then give a more formal (and complete) statement of the problem and your solution (if needed). Before defending your position, give an intuitive gloss of the significance of the problem and your solution as revealed by the more formal statements (i.e., make intuitively clear what the formalisms adds).

- If you are going to deal with several arguments given by an author, give your analysis of each immediately after presenting it. Don’t present all the arguments, before assessing them sequentially. It’s much easier for the reader to process things if you fully address each issue as it is introduced.

3.3General Style

- Write concisely: Cut words, sentences, paragraphs, and sections that can be cut without loss.

- Write simply: Use shorter rather than longer words and common words rather than uncommon ones.

- Make sure your sentences are neither too long nor too complex.

- Your paragraphs should be neither too short (that makes the paper choppy) nor too long (that makes the paper lack a clear structure). Each paragraph should develop a single idea. Don't mix unrelated ideas in the same paragraph. In general, a paragraph should be 1/4 to 1/2 a page long.

- For an excellent site on grammar and punctuation, see

- Double-space, and indent new paragraphs (do not leave a blank line). (One leaves a blank line only when single-spacing.)

- For section headings: Don’t put a colon at the end.

- Don’t indent the first paragraph of the paper or of a section.

- Use commas for logical punctuation:

• to set off two or more independent propositional clauses: “John found the book, and Mary left the house.” [No comma when there is a single subject: “John found the book and left the house.” Not: “John found the book, and left the house.]
• to set off dependent propositional clauses(e.g., providing information about time, place, or manner of action from independent propositional clauses): “If X, then Y.” “Although it’s not generally accepted, Y is true.”
• When a stand-alone “if” is embedded in a sentential operator, do not use a comma: “Mary agreed to sing if John came.” [Note that this is very different from: “Mary agreed to sing, if John came.]
• When “if-then” (etc.) is embedded in a sentential operator, use two commas: “I shall argue that, if A, then B” and “I fear that, if A, then B”) [Not: “I shall argue that if A, then B” or “I fear that if A, then B”.]
• By convention, typically no comma is used when the dependent clause occurs after the independent clause. We write “While I was eating, the cat scratched the door.”, but “The cat scratched the door while I was eating”.
• to set off adjectival clausesthat are non-essential(non-restrictive) to the core meaning of the main clause: “Theonly son, who spent years in search of his mother, was financially broke”[No comma is usedwhen the clause is essential (restrictive).For example, to pick out one of several sons: “The son who spent years in search of his mother was financially broke.”]
• to set off adverbial clausesthat are non-essential(non-restrictive) to the core meaning of the main clause: “With these preliminaries in place, I shall argue that …”. “The man walked, slowly and carefully, to his bed.” [No comma is used when the clause is essential (restrictive): “His argument falters when he addresses the question of happiness.” (Here, the key point is not merely that the argument falters. It is that it falters on the subject of happiness.) “He watched as the cat drank the milk.” (Here, the key point is not that he watched something. It is that he watched the cat as it drank milk.)]
• Adverbial clauses are essential much less frequently than adjectival clauses.
• When an adverbial clause is (etc.) is embedded in a sentential operator, use two commas (e.g., “I fear that, while I was eating, the cat scratched the door”) or none (“I fear that the cat scratched the door while I was eating”) [Not: “I fear that while I was eating, the cat scratched the door”.]
• For more advice on comma use, see this, this, and this.

- Use “which” for non-restrictive (e.g., non-essential) clauses and set them off with commas (“The book on the table, which was slowly getting wet, was not the one that John wanted.”) and use “that” for restrictive (e.g., essential for identification) clauses (“The book that John was looking for was slowly getting wet.”). This usage is not strictly required, but many (most?) good writers follow it.