Writing Philosophy Papers:

Tactics and Techniques

Mason Cash

Department of Philosophy,

University of Central Florida

The following is a generic set of instructions for writing philosophy papers in courses I teach.  Some aspects may be less applicable to this course.  Most of the instructions and advice should apply well to this course, however.  Use your judgment.

On This Page:

General Advice.

Quotations and Citations.

Plagiarism and how to avoid it.

Presentation requirements.
 

The point of a philosophy paper is to do the following:

(a)   Demonstrate that you've been paying attention in class.

(b)   Demonstrate that you've been doing the readings.

(c)   Demonstrate that you've understood at least some of what you've heard and read, to the degree that you can explain the main points in your own words.

(d)   Demonstrate that you're been thinking about what you're been hearing and reading, to the degree that you have some interesting comments or objections of your own to make about it.

(e)   Clearly express your point of view about what you've been thinking about, so that it is easy to grasp what your point is, how it relates to what you've been hearing and reading, and why you think it is important or interesting.

(f)     Be convincing.  Give an argument as to why what you are saying is worth consideration.  Support your argument with judicious use of the texts. Consider possible points of view opposed to your own, and imagine how someone who disagrees with you might object to what you say.  Your view will often be made stronger by defending against such imagined objections.

These are all important.

The in-class and web-based discussions should give you practice at all six.

The papers, and other assignments are your opportunities to demonstrate these skills.

General advice about writing philosophy papers.

Don't go too far past the assigned readings.

Sometimes you might find references in bibliographies to interesting and relevant articles.  I encourage you to explore other literature on your chosen topic or problem (and may be able to suggest good places to look), but at the undergraduate level this is only expected to a limited degree.  I would prefer to see a good grasp of the topic or problem and the few assigned readings relevant to the topic or problem, and a lot of your own thoughts on them, than to see a shallow grasp of many readings, with not much of your own thoughts.

What you argue matters less than how well you argue for it.

Don't think that you have to agree with my perspective or with an author's perspective in order to get good marks.  A well-argued paper that I disagree with will earn better marks than a poorly defended paper whose conclusions I agree with.  As long as you defend your views well, and consider seriously alternatives to your views and how to respond to proponents of these alternatives, it matters little what position you are arguing for.   The difference between a "good" paper and an "excellent" paper is usually not the quality of the ideas, but the clarity of their expression and the thoroughness of their support.

Use simple language.  Clarity and ease of understanding your argument matter most.

Avoid pretentious jargon-mongering and big words.  You will find that philosophy is positively littered with "ism"s and other jargon (Utilitarianism, Consequentialism, Egoism, Kantianism, Pluralism, Monotheism, Deontology, Universalizability)  I will attempt to make these clear when we first meet them.

But if you don't understand terms we come across during class time, then please ask, in class.  Even if you're sure that the text explained it, your in-class experience will make much more sense if you ask for clarification when you think it's needed. (You probably wouldn't be alone here, even if only 10% of the class don't understand, there'll probably be at least a dozen people relieved that you asked.)

When you come to write, however, you'll demonstrate your command of the territory much more effectively if you can explain yourself without over-using jargon and "ism"s and other big words.  Of course, use technical terms if they're absolutely necessary to avoid ambiguity and to be precise.  However:

Explain any technical terms you use, the first time you use them. 

This is especially necessary because in philosophy many technical terms and jargon have special uses, and many words are used by different authors in different ways.  When reading your paper, I need to understand what you mean by each term you use.

And explain such terms in your own words. (Demonstrating that you can copy definitions from a dictionary or an article doesn't show that you understand the definitions.)  Also explain any esoteric terms, jargon, and other possibly ambiguous or difficult words that you believe you really need to use. 

Have an introduction and a conclusion.

Your introduction should include a statement identifying the problem you are going to address, and outlining what you aim to say about it.  Your concluding paragraph should remind the reader of how you achieved what you claimed in your introduction you were aiming to achieve.

A hint: many people find it easier to write the introduction after they've written the paper.  Often exactly what you have to say about a problem will change as you write, since writing is part of the process of examining an issue deeply, not merely the result of the process.  To get started in the writing process, write an outline, not an introduction.

Be concise and to the point.

A good argument in philosophy rarely suffers from being concise, as long as all the relevant points are made.  By "relevant" points I mean only those essential to your point, no matter how interesting and well-written other tangential points may be.  Removing a tangential and inessential paragraph or two that you're especially proud of can be very painful (I know this from experience). A paper can nonetheless be significantly improved by doing so.

A useful tactic here is to identify the overall conclusion you are trying to make. (If you're making more than one, you're probably taking on too much.) Then identify the points that are needed to support this conclusion.  Keep those.  Toss out (ouch!) any other points you're tempted to make which don't either directly support your overall conclusion (perhaps by explaining why alternative conclusions aren't as appealing), or support points which support the conclusion.  (A further tactical hint: this is a good way to plan the paper before you start writing.)

Pay attention to word limits.

They are a good guide to the amount of depth to go into.  A few words more or less is okay, but please be reasonable.  Significantly less or significantly more is not so okay. Marks will be deducted for this.

One showing is worth a thousand sayings.

That is, use examples.  Use them often.  A good example of the point you are making shows how the concepts and theories would look when fleshed out in real life applications.  It is also a good way to demonstrate that you're thinking the issue through thoroughly.  If you can't think of an example, then you probably need to clarify some aspect of your argument.  An example is also a great tool for digging out problems, complexities, and contradictions in an argument; your own or someone else's.
For example, if someone insists that something must be the case, give a counter-example of a situation in which it isn't the case; if someone says that a phenomenon falls into a dichotomy, it's either one of these or one of those, give an example which slides muddily between the two alternatives, to show that the dichotomy might be less tidy than it's claimed to be.

Avoid gender biased expressions and examples.

Not everyone is aptly referred to by "he", "his" and "him", fire-fighters are not necessarily firemen, and less than half of the human species is referred to by "man", "men" or "mankind".  Male pronouns and possessives will not be accepted as  referring indiscriminately to males and females (neither will female terms, though). But try not to massacre the language. Use "human" and "humankind" instead of "man" and "mankind". Pluralising ("A student shouldn't use only male pronouns in their papers," for example), and using constructions such as "s/he" or "him- or her-self...." are okay with me. Use a balance of male and female characters in your examples.  Be reasonable and readable.

Use a style that you're comfortable with.

Many areas of academia, I understand, want students' papers to convey a certain "scientific" or "professional" image.  I don't care much about this. I certainly don't have any strong expectations that you ought to write with a certain style.  As long as you aim at being both convincing and clear, write any way you are happy with. (Overly wordy, jargon laden, writing, that uses all the big words the writer knows, is almost definitely NOT writing as clearly as possible though.  Use simple language as much as practicable.)  Lists of points are not acceptable for a paper, however.

Personally, I like to imagine a conversation with the reader when I write.  My aim is to speak convincingly to this person, and to engage them and their critical faculties in exploring an interesting problem or question with me.  To do this, I find a slightly informal, "chatty" writing style suits me best.  I certainly don't mind using contractions ("don't", "you're", "haven't" etc.), as I do when I speak.  Perhaps this sort of style isn't one you're comfortable with, though.  Find one that is.

Own your own ideas.

Some people have the impression that using the third person gives their statements an air of objectivity and authority.  This might be the custom for the sciences (and wannabe-sciences) but in philosophy most of what you write is (should be) your own argument, opinion or idea.  Be proud of that. Don't make these sound like they are facts.  Claim what you have written as your own by using the first person.  For example: "I believe that..." "I disagree with..." "My conclusion is that..." and "I will argue that...".  In group work "We decided that.." and "We agreed that.." and so on are also suitable.

Pay careful attention to spelling, punctuation, and grammar.

These aid in ease of reading immensely. They also matter for the same reason that how you dress when you go to a job interview matters --you want to be taken seriously, and you ant people to be attending to what you say, not to details of presentation. (This is the reason I'd wear shoes to a job interview, for instance.)

At the end of a university education you should be able to write professionally, even if you choose not to in some contexts. You and your friends may choose to use a different style when texting one another, but your writing style for a paper (and for emails to your professor) should not undermine your being taken seriously. Poor grammar and spelling can do that. Papers for a course like this are an opportunity to practice that ability, and to show off your best grammatical and punctuating skills.

Use your word-processor's spell checker, or invest in a good dictionary.  

Also proof-read well yourself for grammar and punctuation. A useful tactic is to read the paper aloud --yes, ALOUD; speak as you read it.  Many times you'll only notice that something is amiss because it sounds wrong.

For help with grammar and punctuation, consult the rules here at The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation site (especially on apostrophes, the differences between "their", "there" and "they're").

You can also listen to StrongBad's songs about simple grammatical rules from Email 89: http://homestarrunner.com/sbemail89.html (click on the "strong arm" on the cue card at the end, or get the useful summary and mp3 files here).

Get someone else to proof-read your paper.

A good philosophy paper should be easy to read, and all the points in the arguments should be clearly explained.  That is, it should be written in such a way that a reader who has no detailed knowledge of the topic, readings, lectures and so on, could still

(a) understand what the issue at hand is,
(b) understand your position on this issue, and
(c) understand why you think your position is a good one.

A good check for this is to get your roommate, significant other, parent, friend, sibling, or a class-mate to read it over and talk with you about what they read.  I'm very serious about this!  Many times (I know this from painful experience) you can believe that what you're saying is perfectly clear, when it's only clear to you, because you know details that should be explained, yet haven't been.

A proof-reader can help catch such errors and unclarities. Get them to talk to you about what they take you to be arguing. It's a good way to weed out excessive jargon and wordy expressions.  It's also a fun way to while away the long winter evenings. Get your proof-reader to point out the places where they have trouble following you, and where they have trouble understanding why you say what you do. 

Think about how any parts your proof-reader doesn't understand could benefit from re-wording, further explanation, clearing up ambiguities, or just general clarification.  Try explaining difficult points to your proof-reader conversationally, and pay attention to how you explain it.  When they get it, write down what you've said.

Take your time!!

Please, please, please, don't leave things too late to get started.  The "flashes" of insight that (clearly explained, of course) turn a mediocre paper into something to be proud of are delightfully rewarding experiences; they're what many of us academics are in the game for.  I certainly hope you have them often. Usually, however, these only occur when you're deeply immersed in a problem.  And to get this immersed takes time.  The problem needs to stew in the back of your mind for a while; for days, at least. 

So write an outline -or better, a draft- at the very least a week before the due date. A good philosophy paper is rarely (perhaps never) produced on the first draft; or the second, or the third, even.  Expect that your initial draft will only vaguely resemble the finished product.  You'll be surprised how much a paper can change, as your ideas get slowly sorted out while writing.  Let the ideas percolate.  Leaving a day, or at least a few hours, each time between writing and re-reading enables you to better read the draft as if for the first time.  This way, it's much easier to notice areas that need clarification, elaboration, cutting (ouch!), or revision.  (I find that scribbling changes on a printout then typing in the changes works well.)  Do the revising, then let things percolate a while longer and re-read your draft, noting any changes and clarifications necessary.  Repeat this process many, many, times.

Be prepared, and leave time for "glitches". 

Only the most severe and dire emergencies will be accepted as excuses for late assignments.  Situations which are the result of bad planning on your part, such as other major projects due or midterms for another course, failure to get to a computer lab at a time when there are computers free, failure to get to the computer lab with time to deal with the printing glitches that will inevitably happen when you attempt to print out your final copy, failure to back up your files or keep hard copies of work, will not be accepted as sufficient excuses.

 

---

Quotations and Citations

Summarize rather than quote.

Only use quotations when you absolutely have to, to back up your interpretation of an author's position.  Explaining what an author says in your own words requires and demonstrates far more understanding than is demonstrated by merely copying words down. (Of course, give citations for summaries as well as for quotes.)  If you do use the actual expressions employed in someone else's writing, put the expressions in "quote marks", and give a full reference.

Defend contentious claims with evidence.

If any claim you make is one that some people might disagree with, then give reasons and evidence for your claim.  This goes also for factual claims Mir technical details that might not be common knowledge, and especially for your interpretation of an author's point.  This is why you should cite references for disputable factual claims, and cite passages which you summarize.  If someone might disagree with your interpretation of an author's point, then argue for your interpretation, using judicious references to the texts as evidence.

Give proper citations for both summaries and quotations.

Whenever you make a claim about what some author believes, claims, concludes or assumes, you should back up this interpretation by giving a citation, either in a footnote or in the body of the text.  

This goes for reports of what someone else says, as well as for direct quotations. e.g.:

"[blah blah blah {a quoted sentence} blah]" (Chapham, 1995, p. 67)  (i.e. use quotation marks.)

As Chapham (1995) says, [blah blah {a summary of the position expressed by Chapham, written in your own words} blah blah] (p67).  (i.e. no need for quotation marks, but you still need a citation.)

I'm not particularly fussy about what style of citations you use ( Chicago style is nice, though).  If your major requires a certain style from you, then use that style.  However, some styles (e.g. APA) don't require you to give page numbers for claims you make.  If this is the case with your preferred style, then please change this aspect for your writing in this course and give page numbers. Your citation will refer to one of the references that you give at the end of your paper.  From your citation I should be able to tell exactly where in the work referred to you took the quotation, or what part of the work you are summarizing. Your job is to help me find the original myself, in case I need to compare your interpretation to the original.

 The library has links to citation guides here. 

For more information on how to properly cite resources (including Internet-based resources) see the Dalhousie University Libraries' Plagiarism page

If you use a web-site as a reference,

include the title of the page, the name of the organization or individual who wrote the page, the date the page was written and last updated (if available) and the date you accessed the page.  Remember that the information on the web has not necessarily been reviewed for accuracy, fairness, reliable statistical methods, etc.  Take the time to evaluate the sites you use.  Web sites should certainly not be the only resource you use for research.

Citation examples

Austin, J. L. 1961. A Plea for Excuses. In Philosophical Papers by the late J. L. Austin, 123-152. Oxford: At The Clarendon Press.
Braitenberg, V. 1984. Vehicles. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press,  A Bradford Book.
Brooks, R. A. 1991. Intelligence without Representation. Artificial Intelligence 47:139-159.
Dennett, D. C. 1994. The Practical Requirements for Making a Conscious Robot. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A (349):133-46.
Keijzer, F. 2001. Representation and Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  A Bradford Book.
Whitaker, R. 2000. Introductory Tutorial on Autopoiesis and Enaction. http://www.informatik.umu.se/~rwhit/Tutorial1.html, Last Updated 2000 [cited Feb 12 2004].

Give other people credit for their ideas and expressions.

The above goes for every idea or expression you use that's not originally your own. I thoroughly recommend that you discuss your ideas with whoever you can get to listen, and will attempt to frequently create situations where this can be done with other members of the class.  When in such a discussion someone else gives you a good idea that you'd like to use, then

1. tell them you'd like to use that --it's only polite, and a good ego-boost for them to know they've offered you something useful and insightful,
2. give them credit if you do use it in a paper or other written work --it's only honest to do so. 

I certainly won't give you less credit if you've garnered a useful idea from someone else.  In fact, I applaud it.  Much progress in philosophy is achieved by an insightful gathering and interrelating of other people's ideas.  Just noticing that what someone said is relevant and useful to your argument is a skill well worth cultivating. 

If you talk about your paper with anyone (I highly recommend that you bend the ear of anyone willing to discuss it with you), and that person explains their way of looking at the problem, a perspective that strikes you as so stunningly insightful that you just have to use it in your paper, then give that person credit.  A footnote saying something like "I owe this point to Indira Gandhi (personal communication, February 2, 2003)," is sufficient.  Note: Failure to do this is plagiarism (making someone else's idea appear to be your own).

---

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is everyone’s business. 

Students who earn their degrees honestly by engaging in the scholarly work that develops the skills and knowledge the UCF degree symbolizes are affected by their peers’ plagiarism and cheating.  Such cheating and plagiarism is unfair to those who work to earn their grades and degrees honestly, and is contrary to the values expressed in the UCF Creed.

If you are aware of someone plagiarizing or cheating, it is your civic responsibility to do something. What you do is up to you, though. Consider:

• Talk to the person.Try to persuade them not to plagiarize or cheat. Remind them that plagues is serious business. Remind them that it's unfair to everyone else in the class.
• Talk to other people that person respects. Perhaps their friends can dissuade them more effectively.
• If that fails, or you cannot talk to the person safely, then talk to me, your professor. Feel free to leave me an anonymous message to examine so and so person's assignment when it is submitted

Plagiarism is very serious business

Whenever you submit work for academic credit, your instructor should be able to trust that it is the result of your own scholarly and creative efforts.  In most cases it is appropriate to use others’ work to support your academic work.  In fact, the ability to use others’ ideas, expressions, arguments, images, or data to support your work is an important aspect of academic research.

However, whenever you use another’s work to support your own, you must give a full citation that credits the original source. Not giving credit to the original author creates the false impression that work you present for academic credit represents the results of your efforts to master the skills and knowledge that is the purpose of the academic exercise.

Plagiarism defined

UCF’s Golden rule defines plagiarism as the following: “whereby another’s work is used or appropriated without any indication of the source, thereby attempting to convey the impression that such work is the student’s own.” 

Thus you commit plagiarism whenever you use in your academic work any argument, image, expression or other element of another’s work that is not common knowledge and is not clearly credited to its original author.

Common knowledge is difficult to define precisely.  Consider as a rough guideline that you do not necessarily need citations for facts that anyone could reasonably be expected to know. If in doubt, err on the side of being helpful to your reader, though. If it is possible that a classmate who reads your paper finds a statement of yours to be interesting, surprising or otherwise useful, and the reader is interested in investigating further, give them a citation that directs them to your sources.

Self plagiarism also undermines the academic purpose of the exercise of working on course assignments. You plagiarize yourself if you submit for university credit a piece of work that is the same or substantially similar to work for which you have already gained or intend to gain university credit, at this or any other university. To avoid self plagiarism, you must have prior permission from the relevant instructor(s), and give full attribution to the source (i.e. yourself).

How to avoid plagiarism:

You must clearly identify which parts of your work are derived from each source, using in-text citations, footnotes or endnotes. Ending with a list of “works consulted” is not sufficient.  Ask your instructor about appropriate citation style.  See UCF library’s guides to citing sources: http://library.ucf.edu/Reference/Guides/Citation.asp.

Any expression you use that is identical to one in the original source must be presented using “quotation marks,” and the source should be clearly identified.

Any other aspect of another’s work you use that is not a direct quotation should be a paraphrase or summary in your own words.  Simply rearranging the wording of sentences or replacing words with synonyms (changing “occasionally” to “sometimes”) does not qualify as an adequate paraphrase in your own words.  See the following for advice about acceptable paraphrasing http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_paraphr.html.

Furthermore, a significant portion of your work must be the result of your own scholarly efforts.  A succession of quotations with a few of your own comments to string them together is unlikely to be considered acceptable scholarship.

Plagiarism is a serious academic offense. 

I consider it something of a duty to not let people obtain a degree they did not earn, by not doing the work and learning from the process of writing a paper. It is unfair to those who do earn it honestly, and cheapens the degree by having people without certain skills claiming to have graduated from programs that should have equipped them with those skills. 

So, if it is discovered that you have made it appear that someone else's idea, argument, or expression is your own, severe penalties could result.  Typical penalties may be either loss of credit for the assignment or a failing grade in the course. Perpetrators may also be required to take an academic integrity seminar. Serious cases can lead to academic probation, suspension, expulsion from the University, or the revocation of a degree.

Honestly, I hope you will decide that it is not worth the risk, and can see that doing the assignments honestly is part of the educational experience that you came to university to have.

 

---

Presentation Advice:

I'll let you in on a secret.  Grading papers is not all that much fun.  (Duh... Really?)  So as you write, imagine the following:

it's 1:00 am, I have been grading papers all evening.  My eyes are sore, I'm grumpy and tired and need to get to bed, but I decide to grade one more paper before I crash: yours.  It really is in your interest to not put me in a worse mood that I'm already probably in. 

You paper will be considerably more enjoyable to grade if you pay attention to the following presentation advice.

Clarity is more important than immaculate presentation.

If, a couple of minutes before submission, you notice in the final printout of your paper a missing word, a malformed sentence, or a phrase that doesn't fit, then neatly cross it out or use correction fluid, and very neatly handwrite the revision on your printout.  Provided I can easily tell how you want it to be read, I'd rather find a last -minute hand-written revision than a sentence that contains typos, doesn't make sense, or isn't a full sentence.

Papers should not be handwritten.

There are plenty of computer labs on campus open for students to use word-processors and laser printers to write and print their papers on.   If you don't have your own computer, please use them.  If it's just plain impossible for you to do this (e.g.  if your computer has swallowed your file and died, and you only have a scribbled-on printout), then handwrite your paper as neatly and legibly as you possibly can.

Double space your papers

This means the lines should have lots of space between them. This leaves me lots of room for writing feedback. Again, if you really have no alternative but to handwrite, then write on every second line of lined refill paper.

Leave a wide right-hand margin.

I often have lengthy feedback to give you, so leave me some space in which to write.   Two inches or so on the right hand side is a good margin width.

Use a large font that's easy to read.

One with serifs is a good idea for printed material (reading from a screen is apparently easier without serifs—that’s why this is written without them, in Arial font).  Serifs are those little ticks on the tops of "d"s and "l"s and "h"s and so on. (This is a font with serifs; get the idea?) Times, Garamond or Times Roman are good examples. Serifs supposedly make it easier to recognize words by their shape, making it easier for me to read at 1:00 am when I've been grading papers all evening and my eyes are tired. 

Use no smaller than 12 point font size. 

If you prefer a font that's smaller than normal (like Times), then use 14 point.  It's better to have more pages, than to have less pages with more crowded onto them.

Number every page, and staple them together.

If your printer uses the sort of paper that's joined by perforations, then separate the pages and staple them together. 

Don't rely on paper-clips; they often can grab parts of other papers in a pile and make things difficult for me, and they can be difficult to keep in place while reading a paper, thus making it possible for pages to get separated from one another. 

Hence, the need to number pages and have your name in the header of each page. If you can't figure out how to get your word processor to number the pages, then do it by hand.

Ensure your name is on the cover page, and on every page.

It's surprising how many times people forget to identify themselves.  A simple cover page with your name and , the paper title, the course number and title, and my name is sufficient.  A running header throughout with your name on it is a good idea, just in case the pages somehow get separated.

Don't bother with fancy plastic folders or covers.

These get in the way, and the static electricity they collect can make them unwieldy in a pile of papers.  Papers submitted in plastic covers will probably be returned without them.

Above all, enjoy yourself.

---

Last updated: 11/20/07 by Mason Cash