(If you are taking my PHL 218 course, there is another version of this document that is more appropriate to writing philosophy papers about historical texts.  Please refer to that document for the best advice for the class you are taking.)

Most philosophy papers are argumentative or persuasive.  They do not simply say something; they go on to give reasons what they say.  These reasons are meant to convince the reader that the author's claims are correct.  Philosophy papers, in short, involve giving reasons and not just reporting facts or venting opinions.
    Writing like this is very difficult.  It involves three main phases:

1. The Thinking Phase: I'll explain this below, but for now, I'll just point out that it takes a long time. This fact is what makes it crucial to start early.  A good philosophy paper cannot be thrown together at the last moment.  If you try to do that, you will not be pleased with the resulting grade.  The thinking phase results in notes or an outline.  Most of the intellectual work is done in this phase.

2. The Writing Phase: Here you take the outline and/or notes that you develop in the first phase, and turn them into a paper.

3. The Editing Phase: Here you go over and over the paper, word by word, sentence by sentence, to make sure the sentences are clear and grammatical, that your words are chosen correctly, and that it is clear how everything you say is relevant to the point you are making. During this phase, keep in mind that your job is to make sure that your reader can tell what you are trying to say just by reading what you wrote, with no guesswork and no mental telepathy.
 
 

Thinking:
What it is, what it is not, and how it relates to paper grades

Remember, this is a college philosophy class.  The goal of such a class is to improve your ability to think for yourself.  A grade of a B means "very good", and I cannot in good conscience give a grade of "very good" to a paper which displays no original thought.  In order to get good grades (higher than a C+) on papers for my classes, you must do some original thinking.  (Some students think this is too much to ask.  However, this is college, and if you are not going to do some original thinking in a college philosophy class, then when are you going to do it?)

Before I explain what counts as original thinking, let me give you some examples of . . .

Things that do NOT count as original thinking:

Just stating an opinion is not thinking: anyone can state an opinion; that is no great intellectual feat.  A paper that only does this will seldom get higher than a C (and that is if it is very well-written).

A summary of an article or lecture is not thinking; it is simply repeating. (Think of a parrot: it just says what it has heard, without thinking.) 

A statement of your opinion along with such a summary of an article is still not thinking. A paper that only does this will seldom get higher than a C+.  

Using the arguments from the class or from the reading to defend your opinion is a start, but if that is all that you do, you have still not done any thinking of your own.  You have merely borrowed other people's thoughts.  If your paper does a good job of using other people's arguments to defend your opinion (for example, if you don't ignore powerful objections to the arguments you use), then it can earn a low B.  Remember that if you use someone else's ideas or arguments, you MUST give them credit.  If you do not, then you are guilty of plagiarism.)

To get into the high B and A range, you need to do some thinking of your own. This means that you must go beyond what we did in class or what was in the book. There are . . .

Three common kinds of original thinking:

1. Offer an additional argument for your position, an argument that did not come from someone else.  In some cases this new argument might be an improved version or fuller development of someone else's, but it must really be new and improved, and not simply paraphrased.

2.  Devise an original objection to some argument that we discussed in class.  In some ways, this is the easiest kind of original thinking for most students.  You can begin to write a paper of this sort simply by asking yourself why some particular argument did not convince you.  If you can find a good reason for not being convinced by some argument, then you are well on your way to formulating an objection to that argument.  And if that objection is your own and not borrowed from some other source, then you have engaged in original thinking.

3. Give an original reply to some possible objection(s) to your position or your argument.  That objection might be one we discussed in class, or it might be one that you came up with on your own.

Thinking: How to Begin

As you can see, the quality and originality of your thinking has a huge impact on your grade. Thinking about philosophy can be difficult. There is nothing I can do to change that. However, thinking for yourself is one of the main requirements for doing well in a college philosophy class, and no one ever said that college was supposed to be easy.  However, I can give you some advice to help you get started.  I have found that almost anyone who is willing to spend the time and effort to do these things can write a good philosophy paper:
 

-- Ask yourself what you believe about the topic at hand.

-- Ask yourself why you believe what you do. Pretend that someone has asked you why you believe what you do; what would you say to them? Pretend that someone has asked you why they should believe that your opinion is correct. What reasons could you give them?

-- Examine these reasons. Throw out any that are bad, or that rely on premises that your reader may not accept (e.g., premises about God).

-- Refine and develop the remaining reasons. Maybe some or all of them can be developed into an argument. Maybe some or all of them could be made stronger or clearer.

-- See whether there are any obvious objections to your position or to your reasons or arguments.  Some objections may have been discussed in class and/or the other readings. If so, then you MUST reply to them (that is, you must explain why they do not change your mind.)  You cannot claim to have defended a position if you have not responded to objections that were discussed in class or which appear in the readings.  Even if no objections to your argument or position were discussed in class or the readings, you should still spend some time thinking about whether a reasonably intelligent reader (like your prof) might find some problem with or objection to your position or the arguments you use to back it up.

-- In general, keep asking yourself: What would my opponent say to this? If you notice that your opponent could raise (or DID raise, in class or in the readings) an objection to something you say, then you need to respond to that objection if you really want to claim to have defended your opinion.

-- If you have discovered potential objections to your position or the arguments you intend to use to support it, then spend some time thinking about these objections:  If someone objects to your opinion, and you still continue to hold your opinion, then you must think deep down that the objection is no good. Either that, or you are holding your position for no reason at all. If that is the case, it should worry you.   So ask yourself, why doesn't this objection make me change my mind? (If you can't give a good reason for not changing your mind, that may be a sign that you SHOULD change your mind!)

--In some cases, a paper may have such a strong argument that there are no obvious objections.  If the main argument is strong enough and if it is free from any obvious objections, then you may not need to discuss any objections in your paper.  If you are in doubt about whether or not you should look for and discuss potential objections to your position or arguments, then please ask me.

From Thinking to Writing
When you are done, it may help to turn you notes into an outline. There is no set way to do this that works for all papers, but ONE very common and effective format is this::  

I. Introduction: Explain what you are going to be discussing and what position you are going to take and defend.  For my classes, you do not need to worry about making your introduction artsy-fartsy.  It is enough just to get to the point and tell your reader what your paper is about and what position it will defend.

II. Statement of the Problem and/or Background Material: Here you state the problem or discuss the article or argument that you are going to be examining. If you are replying to an objection, then you'd also state the objection. Essentially, you want to use this section to recap the part of the class or readings that you are starting your argument from.

III. Your position: Here you say whatever it is that you think about this problem or argument or article.

IV. Arguments/Reasons that Support Your Position: Here you explain the reasons that you think that your position is correct.

V. Examination of AND REPLY TO potential objections: Here you examine and reply to any obvious objections that someone who disagrees with you would raise. If objections to your position or argument were discussed in class or the readings, then start with them.  DO NOT SIMPLY LIST THE OBJECTIONS; you must also reply to any objections you discuss.   Your job is not simply to present both sides, but to show why one side is more reasonable than the other.

VI. Conclusion: This may be as simple as a recap of your position.
 

Now you are ready to write. And after that, edit, edit, edit. Word by word. Sentence by sentence. Do this until you cannot stand any more, and then do it twice more.