PHIL
270
Tips for Writing a Philosophy Paper
SYLLABUS
Course ID # 001168 T
H 11:00-12:20
WSU/Spring 2007
Minne
Hall 102
Instructor: Ed
Slowik/325 Minne Hall/Office phone: 457-5663
Office Hours: T TH 3:00-3:30 PM, and T TH 6:30-7:00 PM, and by
appointment. I'm usually free in the late afternoon or early evenings, but feel
free to set-up an appointment.
Texts:
God Matters, R. Martin and C.
Bernard (Longman)
Seven Theories of
Religion,
D. Pals (Oxford)
Course Objectives:
This course will cover a
wide range of issues in the philosophy of religion, mainly through contemporary
readings, but also through various texts with great historical interest. Topics
will include: arguments for the existence of God, arguments against the
existence of God, the nature of religious belief, miracles, faith and reason,
as well as theories about the nature and origins of religion. We will also
briefly review the historical and theological background of the main Western
religions.
Course Requirements:
One in-class midterm
(25%), in-class final (25%), and two papers (25%). The papers are 7-10 pages double-spaced, on a topic
provided by the instructor. The due dates of the exams and papers are provided
below and in the class schedule section of this syllabus. The midterm and final
are of the multiple-choice, true/false, and short essay type. Dates for the
midterm and final are as follows:
Midterm: Thursday, March 1; Final exam: Thursday, May
3, 1-3 PM.
The tests will mainly cover the notes I give in class,
or on the web page (which are based on the readings), so it is important to
show up each day!
Web Page:
Information on the course will be posted on a web page
(hopefully). The information will pertain to: syllabus, class notes, paper
assignments, and tips for writing a philosophy paper. The address is: http://course1.winona.edu/eslowik
Phil 270 satisfies both the General Education and
University Studies requirements in the Humanities category. Students can
review the University Studies criteria satisfied by this course either by
checking the WSU web page or by stopping in the Philosophy Department (Minne
329).
NOTE: This
course will not presuppose any religious background on the part of the
students. In fact, this course will critically analyze religious views from a
philosophical/scientific framework—thus, students who may be offended by
this skeptical approach to religion should not take this course.
Schedule (vague):
I hope we can get through all of the chapters I have
listed below, but I don't want to force the pace. The specific readings for
each day will be assigned at least a class day in advance, if not earlier. The
Martin and Bernard anthology is abbreviated “MB” below.
Week 1: MB, Part I (Jan.
16, 18)
Week 2: MB, Part I, II
(Jan. 23, 25)
Week 3: MB, Part II (Jan.
30, Feb. 1)
Week 4: MB, Part II (Feb.
6, 8); Paper#1 assigned, Feb. 8.
Week 5: MB, Part III (Feb.
13, 15)
Week 6: MB, Part III (Feb.
20, 22); Paper#1 due, Feb. 22.
Week 7: review (Tues.); Midterm
(Thurs.) (Feb. 27, March 1)
Week 8: MB, Part IV (March
13, 15)
Week 9: MB, Part V, VI
(March 20, 22)
Week 10: MB Part VII, VIII
(March 27, 29)
Week 11: MB Part IX, X
(April 3, 5)
Week 12: Pals, Chapters 1-3 (April 10, 12); Paper#2
assigned, April 12.
Week 13: Pals, Chapters 4-7
(April 17, 19)
Week 14: extra-time; review
(Thurs.) (April 24, 26)
Final exam (and Paper#2 due): Thursday, May 3, 1-3 PM
Tips
for Writing a Philosophy Paper
The main point of most undergraduate philosophy papers is to present
positions backed by reasons and arguments. Even if you are simply giving a
philosopher's views on an issue, you need to be able to present the arguments
he or she relied on. Indeed, mere opinions, whether your own or those of a
well-known philosopher, are worthy of a serious hearing only when backed by
reasons.
Thus a philosophy paper is not just a series of opinions spouted by its
author, nor a straightforward reporting of events, nor a "book
report" or capsule summary of some famous person's views. It involves
giving, and weighing, arguments. If this seems intimidating, you should know
that there are some easily understood tips and techniques for writing
philosophy papers. They do not eliminate the work involved in writing the
paper–nothing will do that for you–but they can help you
systematically approach your topic. And with enough practice, you will find
yourself applying them almost automatically. (Incidentally, the plain fact is
that most people who are good at this kind of thing were not born that
way, but got that way by practice.)
Getting started.
A common mistake made by undergraduates is choosing a very large topic, one
that calls for much more discussion than can be provided in a paper of six,
eight, or even twelve pages. In general, it is better to say a lot about a
narrow topic, than to say a little about each aspect of a broad topic. (Thus,
for example, it is more productive to discuss in detail a single argument for
the existence of God, like the Argument from Design, than to run quickly but
superficially over the many different arguments for the existence of God.)
Once you have found a suitable topic, formulate to yourself a claim about it
that you wish to defend. For example, if your topic is the Argument from
Design, then your claim might be that this argument does not succeed in
establishing God's existence. Or, if your topic is the distinction between
primary and secondary qualities, your claim might be that Locke was right about
this distinction, and that Berkeley, who disagreed with Locke, was wrong.
Once you have formulated your claim, try to think of arguments that support
it, and also arguments that seem to undercut it. This sounds hard, but recall
that, if your topic was discussed in your philosophy class in the first place,
then probably there was also some discussion of arguments for it or against it.
Moreover, it is perfectly acceptable to use arguments drawn from other philosophers.
You must, however, show that you understand these arguments and are not just
"parroting" someone, and you must acknowledge your source for
the argument. Failure to credit sources properly is plagiarism, and will result
in a failing grade for the course.
One of the most impressive things you can do in a paper, besides giving good
arguments in support of your claim, is to anticipate objections (the
"arguments that seem to undercut it," mentioned above), and to show
that they do not succeed. Moreover, it is a grave error to ignore or overlook
undercutting arguments that have actually been presented in your class or in
assigned readings. If you disagree with them, you should say why; but to simply
omit them is to ask for a bad grade.
As for evaluating such supporting and undercutting arguments, that is a
skill that cannot be imparted here in a paragraph or two. The way to learn it
is to see how others do it (particularly in class, but also in philosophy books
and articles), and to try to do it yourself. Some of the appropriate techniques
are: (1) to assess whether the argument uses key terms properly; (2) to see
whether the argument rests on one or more premises that are questionable; and
(3) to see whether the argument, if accepted, leads to consequences which do
not square with known facts or credible theories.
Showing understanding.
How do you show that you are not just "parroting" someone? The
main way is to put things in your own words. It is all too easy to think that
you understand something just because you can regurgitate some buzzwords. Real
understanding typically goes hand in hand with formulating things for yourself,
in your own words. Several rules of thumb are helpful here. One is to avoid
jargon where possible; if you must use it, be sure to give a definition.
Jargon, for our purposes, is wording that rarely or never arises in ordinary
conversation, or that is being used in some non-ordinary way. Another rule of
thumb is to write as if you were explaining something to someone who is intelligent,
but is not a specialist in the subject, e.g. a favorite grandparent. Do not,
in particular, write with jargon in the hope that your professor will like it
better or will understand it better (even if you don't).
Another key technique for achieving, and showing, understanding is to come
up with your own examples to illustrate key points. Many philosophical
positions, though highly abstract and general, readily lend themselves to
concrete illustrations. For example, Hume's ethical claim that no `ought' can
be derived from an `is', comes alive when fleshed out as the claim that nowhere
among the facts about what happens when I cut off Joe's head is there
anything that tells me whether I ought not to cut off his head. (Hume
himself knew this, of course; indeed, he gives even more hair-raising
examples.)
Note, however, that examples illustrate and hence clarify, but that they do
not take the place of arguments. Thus you still need to be able to explain the
underlying principles in words–you still need to be able to explain why
the example is an example.
Finally, do not leave things unclear or make sloppy statements and then say
to the professor, "Aw, c'mon, you know what I meant!" Your professor
can't read your mind, and will probably assume from previous experience with
other students that you yourself do not know what you mean. The safest course
is, naturally enough, to say just what you mean.
Writing with clarity.
It is crucial, not just to have something to say, but to say it effectively.
The most effective presentation usually follows the old saying: "Tell 'em
what you're gonna tell 'em; tell 'em; then tell 'em what you told 'em."
That is, begin with an introductory paragraph in which you say what you take
yourself to be doing in the paper; then, after you have presented your case,
close with a conclusion which says what you have done. If you do not say
up front, in the introduction, what you will be doing in the body of the paper,
your reader will probably conclude that you do not know what you are up
to in your paper. (This is an all-too-frequent situation, especially for
students who put off papers until the last minute.)
This does not mean that you must write your introduction first. On the
contrary, it is typically better to launch into writing the body of the paper
first, since the writing process often brings insights and changes of opinion
that you didn't expect. So it is prudent to wait until you are happy with the
body of the paper, and then go back and write an introduction that spells out
in a nutshell what you are doing in the body. The same goes for the conclusion,
of course.
You may be tempted to avoid "tipping your hand" at the beginning
of your paper, so that your reader is led suspensefully and dramatically to the
eventual unveiling of your key points. Avoid this temptation. It is much more
difficult to pull off than you might imagine, and your reader will appreciate
much more the up-front approach, pedestrian as it may seem.
A final point about introductions and conclusions is that they should not
include grandiloquent phrases. Avoid saying things like, "Throughout
history, people have struggled with the question of what makes an action
good," or "Aristotle was the greatest philosopher who ever lived, and
his influence is still being felt today." Your reader, far from being
impressed, will be thinking, "Cut to the chase." Remember, you're not
actually writing for your grandparent; you should merely put things as clearly
and simply as if you were.
Structure and grammar.
Proper structure at all levels of your paper will help immensely in getting
your points across. Choose words in a way that avoids ambiguity. For example,
if you use the word "it", be sure that it is clear to which
"it" you are referring. It can help to have a friend read your paper,
looking for ambiguities that you might have overlooked. Likewise, you should
avoid run-on sentences or incomplete sentences, which can be very confusing to
read.
Paper Assignments