Home | Programs | Courses | Faculty | Prizes & Awards | Online Resources | MTA

Philosophy aims to develop creative and independent thinking on a variety of complex and difficult problems. While there is much to be learned from extensive reading and unstructured discussion, there are also distinctive benefits to be gained from organizing one's thoughts on a specific problem clearly and carefully in a form in which they can be examined critically by others. Considerable emphasis is therefore placed in philosophy courses upon presentation of written material. Essays and reports are not merely a means of mastering assigned material; they also provide opportunities for reflection upon the questions raised by the subject matter of the course. Students are encouraged to think seriously about these questions, so that they may make their own contribution to the subject from the start.

Many students who are relatively unfamiliar with the study of philosophy have found, at least initially, that written assignments present certain difficulties. The notes that follow attempt to provide some guidance for those who may be uncertain what is expected of them. They should not be regarded as canonical. They do not prescribe any one method of working on assignments as "correct", nor are they intended to cramp individual style. Experienced students may prefer to disregard them entirely. It is hoped, however, that most will find some of the suggestions helpful in improving their grasp of the discipline no less than in meeting the formal requirements of a course. They are based upon experience of what makes for fruitful discussion, and of the problems commonly encountered by those for whom philosophy is a new subject. They are offered with the special needs of philosophy in view, although they have some application to academic reporting generally.

It is a good idea to start an essay by outlining what you propose to do. Alternatively you can end with a summary of what you have shown. In any case the reader needs to know at the beginning where you are going, and at the end where you have got to. It is helpful to keep paragraphs fairly short, and to structure them so as to establish a sense of direction within each paragraph and between paragraphs. The opening sentence of a paragraph should catch the reader's eye and can usefully emphasize the main point which the rest of the paragraph will develop. Bear in mind the value of logical connectives like "for", "therefore" and "but" in showing the direction of your argument. But make sure that you use these words appropriately. Ask yourself whether what follows "therefore", for example, really does follow from what precedes it.

The use of reading material as support for essays is sometimes misunderstood. An essay is supposed to be your own response to the problem under discussion, and not merely a reproduction of material from another source. Occasionally a close paraphrase of part of another work may be appropriate, but it should always be phrased in your own words and the source should be indicated. More often, you will be conscious of a more general debt to an author for a line of thought that you are developing. Any such debts that you are aware of should be acknowledged. A list of books consulted should be provided.
Direct quotations should not be too numerous or too long. They are best used: (a) when you propose to subject exact words to close scrutiny, so that it is essential to get the writer dead right; (b) when supporting your interpretation of the writer by citing evidence for it (but mere references to the text are often enough for this); (c) when the writer has said something so good that it can't be improved upon (but this should be used sparingly). Put all quotations inside quotation marks and acknowledge their exact source. If you do not clearly distinguish them from your own words, it looks as if you are trying to pass them off as yours. Direct quotation without acknowledgment is plagiarism. It can usually be detected by experienced readers, has no academic value and is unacceptable in university work.

Avoid quoting commentaries on a point where the original work speaks best for itself. For example, quote Socrates rather than a modern commentator to the effect that the unexamined life is not worth living. If, however, you wish to quote a passage which you have not read in the original work (A.B.) But which has been quoted by someone else (X.Y.), it is more honest to document it as "AB quoted by X.Y." than to imply, without mentioning X.Y., that you have read the original work.

Try to avoid technical terms where plain ones will convey your meaning as well. Technical terms in philosophy do not always have a clear and universally accepted usage, as they do in other disciplines. Sometimes the propriety of value of a term is itself a point for philosophical argument. Is the use of the terms "sense-datum" or "efficient cause", for example, justified? Are the distinctions they are supposed to mark clear ones? Or should they be abandoned altogether? Make a point of defining any technical terms you use, i.e., stipulating what you propose to mean when you use them.

Examples often play a crucial role in expounding and criticising philosophical arguments, and are a sign of philosophical imagination and originality. Make up your own examples as freely as you can. Do not stick rigidly to the textbook or standard case. You can show that you have grasped an abstract point by considering a number of concrete examples imagined in as much detail as you may need. Consider also whether a point that has been made in terms of one or two examples will stand up equally well if it is tested with others.

There are no "authorities" in philosophy, but only standards against which the student can measure him or herself. Eminent philosophers such as Aristotle and Kant are not infallible. They deserve respect but not reverence. On the other hand, it is arrogant simply to charge them with superficial errors or fallacies and leave it at that. In general the evaluation of a philosopher should be integrated with an attempt to understand the person. If on a given interpretation something obviously foolish has been said, it is usually worth looking for an alternative interpretation. However, if on reflection an author seems to you mistaken, you should not hesitate to draw this conclusion.

There is a special problem about dealing with philosophers of an earlier period, especially in a foreign language. You cannot assume, without knowledge of their language or culture, that you have come to terms with them adequately. It is in fact extremely difficult to interpret such thinkers in depth or detail. Translations can be misleading. It is often instructive to consult several different translations of a single passage, to see what vital difference the translator can make to the sense. Beware of the associations of modern English words - "One who opened Jowett's version of Plato's Republic at random and lighted on the statement (549B) that the best guardian for a man's 'virtue' is 'philosophy tempered with music' might run away with the idea that in order to avoid irregular relations with women, he had better play the violin in the intervals of studying metaphysics. There may be some truth in this; but only after reading widely in other parts of the book would he discover that it was not quite what Plato meant." (F. M. Cornford, translation of the Republic, p. vi).

Mere summary of a writer's position is inadequate and should be distinguished from creative exposition of this text. The most effective presentation of the expressed view, even if you are going to attack it, is a sympathetic exposition. Enter into the writer’s position, "get inside" the argument, and try to see things, at least temporarily, from the writer’s perspective. There is nothing objectionable about devoting an entire essay to the interpretation of a difficult work or passage, illuminating the structure of a philosophical argument, e.g., by using one passage to throw light upon the meaning of another, or by exploring an author's use of key terms. Constructive philosophical scholarship may demand no less creativity than destructive polemic. Omit biographical data, unless it has a direct bearing upon something that you want to discuss. A philosopher's life story, although it may help towards a historical or psychological understanding of the person, may be of little relevance to the philosophical understanding or rational assessment of what has been said. The same tends to be true of data about cultural influences upon him or her. The way in which a certain belief was acquired need have no bearing upon its truth, or upon the validity of arguments for it. For example, Descartes' cogito argument, or his proofs of God's existence, can be discussed without reference to his espousal of the Catholic faith.

Style is an individual matter, but some general guidance may be offered. It has been said that a writer's style should be like a pane of clear glass, through which the reader can see the intended meaning. It is generally best when writing philosophy to try to say exactly what you mean and not to leave your reader to fill in gaps or interpret your remarks. Philosophy is a quite difficult enough subject as it is, and does not need to have its obscurities compounded by jargon, oracular profundities or woolly rhetoric.

You can sometimes clarify a difficult passage by analysing its argument into a series of ordered propositions, so that its premises and conclusions stand out clearly, and the various stages of the argument can be considered separately. The argument thus stated may be more formally structured than its author intended, but it may be useful to bring out in this way its strengths and weaknesses, questionable assumptions or faulty inferences.

In evaluating an argument, distinguish between considering whether its premises (or unexpressed assumptions) are true and considering whether its conclusions follow from those premises. Note that you do not disprove a conclusion, either by showing that it is based on false premises, or that it does not follow, or even by showing both these things. All you do, thus far, is refute an argument. By refuting a person's thesis argument, you have not thereby refuted the thesis itself. Refutation of a thesis requires demonstrating that all possible arguments for it are untenable.

Begin work on a paper by reading, making notes of what you find significant as you go along. Don't read too much. You must leave enough time to reflect upon and organize what you have read. When you are ready to do this, start by jotting down, with as little reference to your notes as possible, ideas that are in your head, which could form the raw material for your paper. Next, try to formulate a pattern into which those ideas will fall, or a skeleton of the work to be written. This should consist as far as possible in the raising of specific questions, and the marshalling of arguments for or against alternative answers to them. There can be no independent thought without asking oneself questions and trying to answer them. In philosophy, as in other disciplines, asking the right questions is more than half the battle. When you have done this, possible answers will often suggest themselves, and the paper will be much easier and more fun to write.

After you have completed the skeleton, it is time to write your first draft. This version of the paper may well be awkward for a variety of reasons, but it should present your argument from beginning to end. Once this first draft is in place, you can begin to polish your work, tightening up arguments and pruning excess verbiage. At this juncture careful proofreading of all written essays is essential. A staff member will not expect to make your corrections for you, nor, in discussing the paper, to spend time on elementary points of punctuation, grammar and style. "Descartes felt that the existence of a deity could be rationalized. He came up with several arguments, i.e. the ontological, cosmological etc., but as this was not true, therefore he was not too successful in what he brought forth." Read this carefully and ask yourself how many things are wrong with it. There are at least twelve.

The most difficult yet vital part of planning an essay is the arranging of ideas in a coherent pattern. A number of alternative possible patterns for a paper are suggested below. These are only rough and flexible plans, and may be varied or combined according to the purpose and subject matter of the paper.
(a) Outline a writer's main thesis and concentrate upon major arguments. Supplement them with others of your own or suggest objections that the writer may not have considered.
(b) Fasten upon a single striking statement from the author and consider what was meant by it in the light of other things being said, or use a statement of this kind as a talking point, i.e., as a subject for discussion in its own right, without special reference to the author.
(c) Take some issue discussed by an author and reformulate it in contemporary terms, using the text as a peg upon which to hang an independent discussion of a problem that you find of special interest.
(d) After reading around the subject, put away your books and write on the problem out of your head. This does not mean writing off the top of your head, or saying the first thing that comes into it. It means only that you do not have to relate your discussion explicitly to any others at all. Your grasp of what others have said will show through what you say yourself.
(e) Concentrate in detail upon some particular passage in an author which you think repays close study. Explore its internal structure in depth, and its relation to the wide context of the work in which it occurs.
(f) Build your paper around an author’s treatment of a single problem in two or more different passages or works, comparing and contrasting these treatments, and considering the pros and cons of each different position (if they are different).
(g) Do the same thing for two or more different authors, who discuss the same problem, considering which of them comes off better, whether they both have part of the truth, or whether there are alternatives that neither of them has considered.
(h) A common and effective pattern for a paper is to begin by reviewing a number of existing solutions to a problem, show that none of them is free from objections, and then offer a new and improved solution of your own.

Footnotes should be used with discretion. Try to avoid what has been called "foot and note disease" or "fuss-notes". The main use of footnotes is for incidental remarks or for stretches of difficult subsidiary argument which would distract attention from the main drive of the paper if included in the text. References should be sufficiently detailed and accurate to enable a reader to find the passage easily. Footnotes, like other conventions of academic writing, have no essential connection with philosophical thinking. They are helpful for making written work easy on the eye, and for showing that the writer has, so to speak, funds to support the cheques issued in the main text. But every writer has to earn these funds by reading and thinking for himself.

The following examples illustrate basic conventions for reference to books and articles in footnotes and in bibliographies.

(a) First reference to a book or pamphlet in a footnote.
(i) J. D. Fowler, Mastering the Art of Philosophical Enquiry (Middle Sackville, 1978), p. 35. (ii) This argument is based on James Juice, Pragmatica (Halifax, 1959), I, 175-183.
(b) Second reference to a book or pamphlet in a footnote.
(iii) Juice, Pragmatica, II, 196. - OR - Juice, op. cit., II, 196.
(c) First reference to an article or selection in a footnote.
(iv) Paul Peter, "The Thomas Principle" Philosophy Yesterday, XXIV (1853), 198. (v) William Johns, "The Nature of Existence", in J. B. Jones, ed., Existence and Essence (Antigonish, 1909), pp. 351f.
(d) Second reference to article or selection in a footnote.
(vi) Johns, in Jones, ed., Exis. And Essence, p. 364. - OR - Johns, op. cit., 364.
(e) Reference to books, articles and selections in a bibliography.
Author, John. The Book to be Referred to. Edited by James D. Editor. City: Publishing Company, 1952. Peter, Paul. "The Thomas Principle", Philosophy Yesterday, XXIV (1853), 195-203. Johns, William. "The Nature of Existence", in J. B. Jones, ed., Existence and Essence. Antigonish: St. Francis Xavier Press, 1909.

(Adapted from a pamphlet prepared by the Philosophy Department, Trent University)

Back to Top