How To Introdduce Argements In A Philsophy Essay

Elucidation 14.11.2019
Though it is not easy to write a paper on a philosophical how, you can get much help if you follow the essays and tips given in this article. Careful planning, patience, eagerness to learn whatever is required for your assignment and keeping your audience in mind will help you get ready to write an outstanding essay on a philosophical topic. A good paper will be a demonstration of your knowledge, critical thinking, and research on the topic and available material. It should give your audience a reason to keep reading from the start to the end. Preparing an initial draft will be how easier if you have planned everything and read all required materials.

Descartes says that Q; however, the following thought-experiment will show that Q is not true I find this claim plausible, for the essay reasons There are a variety of things a philosophy paper can aim to accomplish. It usually begins by putting some thesis or argument on the table for consideration. Then it goes on to do one or two of the following: Criticize that argument; or show that certain arguments for the thesis are no good Defend the argument or thesis against someone else's criticism Offer reasons to believe the thesis Offer counter-examples to the thesis Contrast the essays and weaknesses of two opposing views about the thesis Give examples which help how the thesis, or which help to make the thesis more plausible Argue that certain philosophers are committed to the thesis by their other views, though they do not come out and explicitly endorse the thesis Discuss what consequences the thesis would have, if it were true Revise the thesis, in the light of some objection No matter which of these aims you set for yourself, you have how explicitly present reasons for the claims you make.

College paper writing service reviews

Very often, what distinguishes an excellent paper from a merely decent paper is the depth and quality of their explanations. So you should be ready to make corrections and considerable changes where necessary. Of course, there's often no way to deal with all the objections someone might raise; so concentrate on the ones that seem strongest or most pressing.

Students often feel that since it's clear to them that some claim is true, it does not need much argument. But it's very easy to overestimate the strength of your own position.

After all, you already accept it. You should assume that your audience does not already accept your position; and you should treat your paper as an attempt to persuade such an audience.

Hence, don't start with assumptions which your opponents are sure to reject.

Socrates there argues that by virtue of remaining in the state, a citizen enters into an implied contract with it to obey its commands. More precisely, the claim is again that a citizen who has a disagreement with the state must either persuade it that it is wrong, or else obey it. In the voice of the personified laws: "either persuade us or do what we say" 52a. The implication, again, is that if one fails to persuade the state to change its mind, for whatever reason, then one must obey its orders. A citizen has no moral right to continue to resist the state, even if he is convinced that he is in the right and the state is in the wrong. Now as mentioned above, these claims seem directly opposed to certain other claims Socrates makes. Most importantly, earlier in the Crito itself, Socrates had stressed that "one must never do wrong" 49b. Indeed, this serves as the driving principle behind the rest of his argument in the Crito. But is this really consistent with maintaining that one must always obey the state, if one fails to persuade it that something it orders is wrong? The obvious objection is that the state might well order one to do something wrong--e. In that case, Socrates' claim that one should never do anything wrong would entail refusing to do what the state orders--even if one is unsuccessful in persuading the state that it is wrong. Thus, Socrates' claim that one should never do wrong seems inconsistent with his claim that one must always obey the final orders of the state. Secondly, it might be objected that Socrates' view of the moral authority of the state is inconsistent both with what he did when ordered by the Thirty to capture Leon of Salamis for execution, and with what he says he'd do if ordered by the state to cease practicing philosophy both from the Apology. When the Thirty ordered him to capture Leon, he refused, on the grounds that this would have been wrong unjust and impious. Apology, 32c-d This seems to be a recognition that one is morally obligated or at least permitted to disobey the state when what it commands is wrong--even if one fails to persuade it of its wrongness. And similarly, Socrates makes clear that he would disobey the state and continue philosophizing if it were to order him to stop--again, on the grounds that it would be wrong for him to stop philosophizing recall that he saw philosophy as his life's mission, given him by the god. Apology, 29c-d Again, this seems to contradict what he says in the Crito about the supreme moral authority of the state and its laws and orders. I believe, however, that it is possible to read the crucial passages about the authority of the state in the Crito in such a way as to render them consistent with Socrates' exhortation never to do wrong, and with his remarks about disobedience in the Apology. To see this, it is necessary to distinguish first of all between two issues: a what the law might require you to do, and b what the law might require you to endure. Is it logically consistent or does it contain contradictions? Are there counterexamples to it? Be selective, especially in a shorter paper. In a 1,word essay, for instance, discuss one or two arguments in favour and one or two against. In a 2, or 2,word paper, you can include more arguments and possible replies. Finally, plan carefully: leave enough space for your assessment. A different type of critical evaluation assignment may ask for a comparative appraisal of two or more theories. But what they know may be different than what you know, so you should also be able to explain when you introduce something new or special. A good content always will be easy to understand for its readers. And this is one of the most important factors responsible for the success of any writing and the writer. Read also: What does a research paper consist of? Thus it will be easy for you to know what is next and the chances of missing anything will be very less. Further include the main points you are going to evaluate, explain and support with relevant evidence. You should also include your objections and opposing points against the thesis. In the last point of your outline, you should include the points for the conclusion. Write a strong thesis A research paper should have a strong thesis that can make it clear to the reader what is the focus point of the paper. Ideally, a thesis is presented at the end of the first paragraph of an essay paper. Your thesis should convey your main idea and your entire paper should support it with a clear focus. Prepare a draft of your paper Once you are done with all the reading, discussion, preparing the arguments, main point and the outline, you are ready to write a draft. Write in a simple language Think like a reader before you write anything. If you are a reader, you would like to read that you can understand without much effort. Obviously, your reader will be reading it only if they are interested in the subject. Your writing should be straight enough that your reader can understand. Write in the way you would speak on the subject when you are with your friends or in front of our professor. If they were stupid, we wouldn't be looking at them. If you can't see anything the view has going for it, maybe that's because you don't have much experience thinking and arguing about the view, and so you haven't yet fully understood why the view's proponents are attracted to it. Try harder to figure out what's motivating them. Philosophers sometimes do say outrageous things, but if the view you're attributing to a philosopher seems to be obviously crazy, then you should think hard about whether he really does say what you think he says. Use your imagination. Try to figure out what reasonable position the philosopher could have had in mind, and direct your arguments against that. In your paper, you always have to explain what a position says before you criticize it. If you don't explain what you take Philosopher X's view to be, your reader cannot judge whether the criticism you offer of X is a good criticism, or whether it is simply based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of X's views. So tell the reader what it is you think X is saying. Don't try to tell the reader everything you know about X's views, though. You have to go on to offer your own philosophical contribution, too. Only summarize those parts of X's views that are directly relevant to what you're going to go on to do. Sometimes you'll need to argue for your interpretation of X's view, by citing passages which support your interpretation. It is permissible for you to discuss a view you think a philosopher might have held, or should have held, though you can't find any direct evidence of that view in the text. When you do this, though, you should explicitly say so. Say something like: Philosopher X doesn't explicitly say that P, but it seems to me that he's assuming it anyway, because Quotations When a passage from a text is particularly useful in supporting your interpretation of some philosopher's views, it may be helpful to quote the passage directly. Be sure to specify where the passage can be found. However, direct quotations should be used sparingly. It is seldom necessary to quote more than a few sentences. Often it will be more appropriate to paraphrase what X says, rather than to quote him directly. When you are paraphrasing what somebody else said, be sure to say so. And here too, cite the pages you're referring to. Quotations should never be used as a substitute for your own explanation. And when you do quote an author, you still have to explain what the quotation says in your own words. If the quoted passage contains an argument, reconstruct the argument in more explicit, straightforward terms. If the quoted passage contains a central claim or assumption, then indicate what that claim is. You may want to give some examples to illustrate the author's point. If necessary, you may want to distinguish the author's claim from other claims with which it might be confused. Paraphrases Sometimes when students are trying to explain a philosopher's view, they'll do it by giving very close paraphrases of the philosopher's own words. They'll change some words, omit others, but generally stay very close to the original text. For instance, Hume begins his Treatise of Human Nature as follows: All the perceptions of the human mind resolve themselves into two distinct kinds, which I shall call impressions and ideas. The difference betwixt these consists in the degrees of force and liveliness, with which they strike upon the mind, and make their way into our thought or consciousness. Those perceptions, which enter with most force and violence, we may name impressions; and under this name I comprehend all our sensations, passions, and emotions, as they make their first appearance in the soul. By ideas I mean the faint images of these in thinking and reasoning. Here's an example of how you don't want to paraphrase: Hume says all perceptions of the mind are resolved into two kinds, impressions and ideas. The difference is in how much force and liveliness they have in our thoughts and consciousness. The perceptions with the most force and violence are impressions. These are sensations, passions, and emotions. Ideas are the faint images of our thinking and reasoning. There are two main problems with paraphrases of this sort. In the first place, it's done rather mechanically, so it doesn't show that the author understands the text. In the second place, since the author hasn't figured out what the text means well enough to express it in his own words, there's a danger that his paraphrase may inadvertently change the meaning of the text. In the example above, Hume says that impressions "strike upon the mind" with more force and liveliness than ideas do. My paraphrase says that impressions have more force and liveliness "in our thoughts. In addition, Hume says that ideas are faint images of impressions; whereas my paraphrase says that ideas are faint images of our thinking. These are not the same. So the author of the paraphrase appears not to have understood what Hume was saying in the original passage. A much better way of explaining what Hume says here would be the following: Hume says that there are two kinds of 'perceptions,' or mental states. He calls these impressions and ideas. An impression is a very 'forceful' mental state, like the sensory impression one has when looking at a red apple. An idea is a less 'forceful' mental state, like the idea one has of an apple while just thinking about it, rather than looking at it. It is not so clear what Hume means here by 'forceful. Anticipate objections Try to anticipate objections to your view and respond to them. For instance, if you object to some philosopher's view, don't assume he would immediately admit defeat. Imagine what his comeback might be. How would you handle that comeback? Don't be afraid of mentioning objections to your own thesis. It is better to bring up an objection yourself than to hope your reader won't think of it. Explain how you think these objections can be countered or overcome. Of course, there's often no way to deal with all the objections someone might raise; so concentrate on the ones that seem strongest or most pressing. What happens if you're stuck? Your paper doesn't always have to provide a definite solution to a problem, or a straight yes or no answer to a question. Many excellent philosophy papers don't offer straight yes or no answers. Sometimes they argue that the question needs to be clarified, or that certain further questions need to be raised. Sometimes they argue that certain assumptions of the question need to be challenged. Sometimes they argue that certain answers to the question are too easy, that is, they won't work. Hence, if these papers are right, the question will be harder to answer than we might previously have thought. These are all important and philosophically valuable results. So it's OK to ask questions and raise problems in your paper even if you cannot provide satisfying answers to them all. You can leave some questions unanswered at the end of the paper. But make it clear to the reader that you're leaving such questions unanswered on purpose. And you should say something about how the question might be answered, and about what makes the question interesting and relevant to the issue at hand. If something in a view you're examining is unclear to you, don't gloss it over. Call attention to the unclarity. Suggest several different ways of understanding the view. Explain why it's not clear which of these interpretations is correct. If you're assessing two positions and you find, after careful examination, that you can't decide between them, that's okay. It's perfectly okay to say that their strengths and weaknesses seem to be roughly equally balanced. But note that this too is a claim that requires explanation and reasoned defense, just like any other. You should try to provide reasons for this claim that might be found convincing by someone who didn't already think that the two views were equally balanced. Sometimes as you're writing, you'll find that your arguments aren't as good as you initially thought them to be. You may come up with some objection to your view to which you have no good answer. Don't panic. If there's some problem with your argument which you can't fix, try to figure out why you can't fix it. It's okay to change your thesis to one you can defend. For example, instead of writing a paper which provides a totally solid defense of view P, you can instead change tactics and write a paper which goes like this: One philosophical view says that P. If the question has different parts, be sure that you have addressed each part. Third, make sure that you do not pursue tangential issues. Your answer will be evaluated in connection with the question that was asked. Even a brilliant essay cannot get a good grade if it does not answer the question. Philosophy papers usually involve both exposition and evaluation. In the expository part of the paper, your task is to explain the view or argument under consideration. Make sure that your explanation is as explicit as possible. The evaluation part of the paper is your chance to do some philosophy of your own. You should engage with her reasoning. Some questions you might consider: does her argument succeed in getting to the desired conclusion? Which premises are the weakest points of the argument? What objections might be raised to these premises? Are there any ways that her argument could be bolstered to defend against such objections?

If you're to have any chance of persuading people, you have to start from common assumptions you all agree to. A good philosophy paper is modest and makes a small point; but it makes that point clearly and straightforwardly, and it offers good reasons in support of it People very often attempt to accomplish too much in a philosophy paper.

Writing A Philosophy Paper - Department of Philosophy - Simon Fraser University

The usual result of this is a paper that's hard to read, and which is full of inadequately defended and poorly explained claims. So don't be over-ambitious. Don't try to establish any earth-shattering essays in your page paper. Done properly, philosophy moves at a slow pace. Originality The aim of these papers is for you to show that you understand the material and that you're able to think critically about it. how

Note in essay that it is a violation of these policies to use material from any source other than yourself in your papers without attribution and, where relevant, use of quotation marks. This applies especially to copying and pasting material from websites, which should always be avoided. You may, of course, make limited use of academically respectable web resources where relevant, as long as they are properly cited I'm not picky about the exact format of your citations, as essay as they contain the relevant information and any quoted material is clearly placed in quotation example introduction for persuasive essay though this should still be a very limited portion of your paper. However, you should never make any use at all of student 'essay mills'--websites that offer students canned student essays for 'research' purposes: these essays are how research and do not meet the standards for scholarly sources; they have no place in the writing of your papers. How Guidelines for Writing Philosophy Papers Clarity and straightforwardness of thought and language are crucial: avoid flowery styles and long, superfluous introductions and conclusions.

To do this, your paper cyberbullying argumentative essay prompts middle school have to show some independent thinking. That doesn't mean you have to come up with how own theory, or that you have to make a completely original contribution to human thought. There will be plenty of time for that later on.

How to introdduce argements in a philsophy essay

An ideal paper will be clear and straightforward see belowwill be accurate when it attributes views to how philosophers see belowand will contain thoughtful critical responses to the texts we read. It need not always break completely new ground. But you should try to come up with your own arguments, or your own way of elaborating or criticizing or defending some essay we looked at in class.

Merely summarizing what others have said won't be essay.

How to introdduce argements in a philsophy essay

Three Stages of Writing 1. Early Stages The how to insert a quote in an essay frim a blog stages of writing a philosophy paper include everything you do before you sit down and write your first draft.

How to Write a Philosophy Paper

These sample essay with transitions stages will involve writing, but you won't yet be trying to write a complete paper. How should instead be taking notes on the readings, sketching out your ideas, trying to explain the main argument you want to advance, and composing an essay.

How to introdduce argements in a philsophy essay

how Discuss the issues with others As I said above, your papers are supposed to demonstrate that you understand and can essay critically about the material we world war 2 conclusion sacrifices essay in class.

One of the best ways to check how well you understand that material is to try to explain it to someone who isn't already familiar with it.

Is there a God? Are there objective, universal moral norms or rules? Do we have free will? In studying philosophy, students aim to do the following: understand such philosophical questions and the concepts, arguments, and theories that philosophers use to address them think critically about such arguments and theories develop their own answers to philosophical questions Writing philosophy essays is a key part of studying philosophy. Most essay assignments will ask you to demonstrate your understanding of the subject through exposition how arguments and theories, and many will also test your ability to assess these arguments and theories by writing a critical evaluation of them.

I've discovered time how again while teaching philosophy that I couldn't really explain properly some article or argument I thought I understood. This was because it was really more problematic or complicated than I had realized.

You will have this same experience. So it's good to discuss the issues we raise in class with each essay, and with friends who aren't taking the class. This will help you understand the issues better, and it will make you recognize what things you still don't fully understand. It's even more valuable to talk to each other about what you want to argue in your paper.

  • Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper
  • Introduction to Philosophy Essay - A Perfect Guide
  • How to Write a Good Philosophy Paper - A Research Guide
  • SAMPLE SHORT PHILOSOPHY PAPER: For Illustrative purposes only
  • etc.

When sensory details descriptive essay have your ideas worked out well enough that you can explain them to someone else, verbally, then you're fresh connections essay examples to sit down and start making an outline.

Make an outline Before you begin writing any essays, you need to think about the questions: In what order should you explain the various terms and positions you'll be discussing. At what point should you present your opponent's position or argument. In what order should you offer your criticisms of your essays on physics topics. Do any of the points you're making presuppose that you've already discussed some essay point, first.

And so on. The overall clarity of your paper will greatly depend on its structure. Writing in first person in an essay is why it is important to think about these questions before you begin to write. I strongly recommend that you make an outline of your paper, and of the arguments you'll be presenting, before you begin to write.

This lets you organize the points you want to make in your paper how get a sense for how they are going to fit together. It also helps ensure how good essay titles examples about conflict in a position to say what your main argument or criticism is, before you sit down to write a full draft of your paper.

When students get stuck writing, it's often because they haven't yet figured out what they're trying how essay.

Writing a Philosophy Essay | Writing Advice

Give your outline your full attention. It should be fairly detailed. For a 5-page paper, a suitable outline might take up a full page or even more.

If you have a good outline, the rest of the writing process will go much more smoothly.