Writing a Philosophy Paper: Argument & Analysis

Writing a philosophy paper is a unique intellectual exercise, distinct from essays in other humanities fields. It's not merely about summarizing a philosopher's views or presenting your opinions. Instead, it's about engaging in a rigorous dialogue, constructing and critiquing arguments, and articulating your reasoning with precision and clarity. At its core, a philosophy paper is an argument for an argument, or an analysis of an argument.

Understanding the Philosophical Paper's Purpose

Unlike a history paper that recounts events, or a literature paper that interprets texts, a philosophy paper primarily aims to:

• Clarify a philosophical position: Explain a complex idea or argument from a philosopher, ensuring the reader fully grasps its nuances.
• Evaluate an existing argument: Assess the strengths and weaknesses of another philosopher's argument. Is it valid? Is it sound? Does it rely on questionable premises?
• Construct your own argument: Develop and defend a novel thesis on a philosophical issue, providing clear premises and logical inferences.
• Explore implications: Unpack the consequences or broader significance of a philosophical claim or theory.

Your goal is to convince your reader, through logical reasoning, that your thesis is plausible or correct, or that your critique of another's argument is justified.

The Heart of Philosophy: Argumentation

At the core of any philosophy paper is the argument. In philosophy, an argument isn't just a disagreement; it's a set of statements, one of which is designated as the conclusion, and the others as premises, intended to provide support for that conclusion.

Components of an Argument

1. Premises: Statements offered as reasons or evidence in support of the conclusion.
2. Conclusion: The statement that the premises are intended to support or establish.
3. Inference: The logical step or process by which one moves from premises to conclusion.

Example:

• Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
• Premise 2: Socrates is a human.
• Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Validity and Soundness

When analyzing or constructing arguments, two key concepts are crucial:

• Validity: An argument is valid if its conclusion must be true whenever its premises are true. Validity is about the structure of the argument, not the truth of its premises. A valid argument can have false premises and a false conclusion.

Example of a valid but unsound argument: P1: All birds can fly. (False) P2: Penguins are birds. (True) C: Therefore, penguins can fly. (False) Structure is valid, but P1 is false, making it unsound.*

• Soundness: An argument is sound if it is valid and all of its premises are actually true. A sound argument guarantees a true conclusion. This is the gold standard for philosophical arguments.

Your task, whether building or critiquing, is to aim for soundness. If you're critiquing, you might show an argument is invalid, or that one or more of its premises are false (thus, it's unsound).

Constructing Your Own Argument

When your paper requires you to take a stand, follow these steps:

1. Formulate a Clear Thesis: This is your central claim, the conclusion you want your paper to defend. It should be specific, debatable, and manageable within the scope of your paper.

Weak Thesis: "Descartes' argument for mind-body dualism is interesting." Strong Thesis: "Descartes' argument for mind-body dualism, specifically the divisibility argument, fails because it conflates properties of concepts with properties of objects."

1. Identify Your Premises: What reasons or evidence will you offer to support your thesis? These premises should be plausible and, ideally, accepted by your reader (or you should be prepared to defend them too).

For the strong thesis above, premises might involve:* defining "divisibility," showing how Descartes applies it, and then arguing that the application is flawed by miscategorizing properties.

1. Establish Logical Connections: Ensure your premises genuinely lead to your conclusion. The logical steps should be explicit and easy for the reader to follow. Avoid leaps of faith or unstated assumptions.

1. Anticipate Objections: A strong philosophical argument acknowledges and responds to potential counterarguments. Consider what a thoughtful critic might say to your premises or inferences, and address these objections within your paper. This demonstrates a deep understanding of the issue.

Developing Your Analysis

Analysis in philosophy goes beyond mere description. It involves dissecting concepts, arguments, and implications to reveal their underlying structure, assumptions, strengths, and weaknesses.

1. Clarifying Concepts

Philosophical terms are often technical or used in specific ways. Before you can analyze an argument, you must ensure you and your reader understand the key concepts precisely.

• Define terms: If a philosopher uses "substance" or "good" in a particular way, explain that usage. Don't assume shared understanding.
• Distinguish related concepts: For instance, clarify the difference between "moral right" and "legal right," or "knowledge" and "belief."
• Use examples: Illustrate abstract concepts with concrete scenarios to aid understanding.

2. Identifying Underlying Assumptions

Every argument rests on certain assumptions, some explicit, many implicit. A crucial part of analysis is uncovering these hidden premises and evaluating their plausibility.

• Questions to ask:

What must be true for this argument to hold? What beliefs does the philosopher take for granted? * Are these assumptions justified? Are they controversial?

• Example: An argument for free will might implicitly assume a libertarian view of agency, where agents could have acted otherwise. An analysis might challenge this assumption by presenting a determinist perspective.

3. Evaluating Evidence and Reasons

Philosophical arguments rarely rely on empirical evidence in the scientific sense. Instead, "evidence" often comes in the form of:

• Intuitions: Appeals to what seems self-evident or universally true (e.g., "It's intuitively wrong to harm an innocent person").
• Thought experiments: Hypothetical scenarios designed to test a philosophical claim (e.g., the Trolley Problem).
• Logical coherence: Demonstrating that a set of beliefs is consistent and free from contradiction.

Your analysis involves assessing the strength of these forms of "evidence." Are the intuitions widely shared? Is the thought experiment well-constructed and relevant? Is the argument truly coherent?

4. Considering Objections and Counterarguments

A robust analysis considers opposing viewpoints. This isn't just about being fair; it strengthens your own position by showing you've considered the alternatives.

• Identify potential objections: What are the most compelling criticisms of the argument you are analyzing?
• Present them fairly: Accurately represent the objection, avoiding straw man fallacies (misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack).
• Respond to objections: Explain why the objection doesn't ultimately undermine the argument (if you're defending it), or why it reveals a fatal flaw (if you're critiquing it).

Structure of a Philosophy Paper

While formats vary, a typical philosophy paper structure includes:

1. Introduction:

Hook: Briefly introduce the philosophical problem or debate. Thesis Statement: Clearly state your main argument or the position you will defend/critique. * Roadmap: Briefly outline how you will proceed (e.g., "I will first explain X's argument, then raise two objections, and finally defend my own revised position.").

1. Exposition (if analyzing another's work):

Clearly and accurately explain the philosopher's argument or position you are discussing. Use direct quotes judiciously and explain them in your own words. * Avoid interpreting too early; first, ensure the reader understands the original.

1. Argument & Analysis:

This is the core of your paper where you present your own argument or detailed critique. Each paragraph should ideally focus on one point or step in your argument. Provide premises, explain your reasoning, and offer examples. If critiquing, identify specific premises or inferences you find problematic and explain why.

1. Objections and Replies (if applicable):

Dedicate a section to presenting the strongest potential objections to your own argument or the argument you are defending. Clearly articulate each objection. * Provide a reasoned reply, explaining why the objection fails or how your argument can be modified to accommodate it.

1. Conclusion:

Restate Thesis: Rephrase your main argument in light of what you've discussed. Summarize Main Points: Briefly recap the key steps in your argument or analysis. * Broader Implications: Offer a final thought on the significance of your discussion, the unresolved questions, or the implications of your conclusion. Avoid introducing entirely new arguments here.

Writing Style: Clarity and Precision are Paramount

Philosophical writing demands a unique style:

• Clarity: Use plain, direct language. Avoid jargon where simpler terms suffice, but use technical terms accurately when necessary. Every sentence should have a clear purpose.
• Precision: Be exact in your word choice. Words like "assume," "imply," "infer," "prove," and "demonstrate" have specific meanings in philosophy.
• Objectivity: Present arguments fairly, even those you disagree with. Avoid emotional language, sarcasm, or personal attacks.
• Anticipate the Reader: Write as if your reader is intelligent but unfamiliar with the specific debate. Guide them through your reasoning step-by-step.
• Be Specific: Instead of saying "Plato believes in forms," say "Plato believes in Forms, which are perfect, unchanging, and non-physical blueprints for everything in the sensible world."

Practical Tips for Success

1. Outline Religiously: Before writing, create a detailed outline. This helps organize your thoughts, ensure a logical flow, and check for gaps in your argument.
2. Draft, Revise, Refine: Your first draft will rarely be your best. Be prepared to revise extensively. Focus first on content and structure, then on clarity and style.
3. Read Aloud: Reading your paper aloud can help you catch awkward phrasing, run-on sentences, and logical inconsistencies that you might miss when reading silently.
4. Seek Feedback: Ask a peer, tutor, or professor to read your draft. Fresh eyes can spot weaknesses in your argument or areas where your explanation is unclear. After crafting your initial arguments, platforms like Humanize can assist in refining your prose, ensuring maximum clarity and impact.
5. Cite Thoroughly: Always cite your sources properly, whether direct quotes, paraphrases, or ideas derived from another philosopher. Adhere to your instructor's preferred citation style.
6. Don't Summarize, Analyze: The most common pitfall for new philosophy students is simply summarizing texts. Remember, your paper needs your argument or your analysis.

Writing a philosophy paper is challenging but rewarding. By focusing on strong argumentation, rigorous analysis, and clear communication, you'll develop critical thinking skills invaluable not just in academia but in all aspects of life.

Example of an Analytical Paragraph

Let's say your thesis argues that John Locke's "tabula rasa" concept, while revolutionary, struggles to account for innate moral intuitions.

Example

"While Locke effectively dismantles the notion of innate ideas in the Cartesian sense, his empiricist framework faces a significant challenge when addressing the apparent universality of certain moral intuitions. Locke asserts that all knowledge derives from experience, either through sensation or reflection (Locke, Essay, II.i.2). However, many philosophers, and indeed common experience, suggest that basic moral principles—such as the wrongness of arbitrary killing—appear to be recognized across diverse cultures without explicit instruction, often before extensive 'reflection' on complex social contracts. For Locke to maintain strict empiricism, he would need to demonstrate how such robust and widely shared moral intuitions are purely products of sensation and reflection, rather than suggesting a pre-disposition or inherent faculty for moral apprehension. This requires a more detailed account of moral development from sensory input than Locke explicitly provides, leaving a potential lacuna in his broader epistemological project."