(Well, almost instant.)

 

Panic!

 

You have to hand in your essay by tomorrow.  You need to write it now!

How do you go about it?

 Here’s how!

One…two…three…Go!

1. You have to have an idea of what it should be like.
2. You have to decide what you are going to say.
3. You have to say it.

 

What it should be like.

A typical philosophy essay presents an argument for or against a particular position. 

So what you have to do is make a claim and give reasons for accepting it.

Here are some examples of claims.

Time is an illusion.

Time is not an illusion.

Eating people is wrong.

Eating people is only sometimes wrong.

Eating people should be compulsory.

 

You could also present critical arguments for or against a particular argument that someone else has presented. 

For example, you can argue that McTaggart’s argument against the reality of time is fundamentally flawed.  Alternatively, you could argue that McTaggart’s critics are mistaken and that his argument is actually sound.

 

What you are going to say.

Before your write your essay, you need to know what your claim is, and how you can support it. 

Really, you should already know what your claim is.  You have looked at the essay topics that Dr. Blenkinsop, your instructor, set for you, and you have decided which one you want to write about.  You should already have researched a few arguments to support it, as well. 

 

(You haven’t done any research and the essay is due tomorrow? 

You are SO screwed! 

Go to the Research Tips page now.  Run! Don’t walk.)

 

What you have to do now is write that claim down. 

Keep it as short as you can, but keep it precise as well. 

“Eating people is wrong” is nice and short, but if all you can support is “eating people is wrong unless there is nothing else to eat“, then that is what your claim must be.

That claim, and the arguments to support it, is what you are going to say. 

Remember, this is a philosophy essay.  It isn’t your sworn testimony about what you really believe, so it is O.K. to argue for something you might not be wholeheartedly convinced about. 

 

Say it.

You say it in standard essay format, just as you expected.  Introduction, Body, Concluding Paragraph.

  

Introduction.

This bit tells me what you are going to argue for or against, and what your final conclusion will be.

Body.

This is where you actually make your argument.

Concluding paragraph.

This bit summarises your argument and restates your final conclusion.

 

So now you write a standard essay.

(Important note. Much of what is written here can be applied to essays written for other instructors, and for other academic subjects.  However, you should bear in mind that the academic conventions which apply to one subject do not necessarily apply to another.  (For example, the use of the first person (”I” and “we”) is usually acceptable in philosophy but not in physics.)  The structure of an essay depends on the type of essay, and that too varies according to subject.  Also, other instructors will have their own preferences for presentation.   You should adjust accordingly.

The Tough Love Grammar page will help you with the grammar requirements for academic style.  More pointers on academic style can be found in Jokes, Latin, and Logic.

If you have to write an essay in the postmodernist style, you can ignore this guide.  Go to the Postmodern Generator sites

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo

http://www.gingko.ch/cdrom/jwrandom/postmodernism

and you can get all the pretentious drivel you need from there.)

 If you don’t want to write a decent essay, try the alternative.

How to Write a Crap Philosophy Essay  by Prof. Lenman.

 

How do you write it?

1. Plan it. 
2. Write it. 
3. Check it. 

Plan it

Plan the body first.  Writing the introduction and conclusion will come easily once you have the body written.

The Body.

The body of your essay will consist of detailed explanation of your position, and arguments to support that position.  You should also include some discussion of the criticisms of your arguments.

Since you will be working within the limits of an undergraduate essay, you will have to select your material carefully.  Pick major, important arguments, and major criticisms. 

Most of the arguments you use are ones you will have taken from other writers.   Don’t worry about this.  It is very rare (though not unknown) for students to produce brand new arguments about the standard topics that have been discussed for centuries.   Your instructor will not fail you for showing that you have a good knowledge of the literature.  If you can include a worthwhile, original twist, do so.  You will make Dr. Blenkinsop’s day.

So gather together your research notes, and begin.

Let’s assume you are going to argue for the claim that “Eating people is wrong”.

Look at your material. 

1. Do you have arguments to support that claim?
2. Do you have criticisms of those arguments?
3. Do you have replies to those criticisms? 

You should have answered “yes” to all those questions.  If not, you should seriously think of changing the claim that you are arguing for.  Perhaps your material will support “Eating people is not always wrong”.  If so, that is what you should argue.

• Do you have arguments to support that claim?

Many essays fail because they simply do not present arguments for the claim.   They repeat the claim, give emotional responses to the claim, but that is all.

• Do you have criticisms of those arguments?

Still others fail because they do not deal with the major criticisms of the arguments.  Most philosophical arguments have been around for a while, and have been criticised by other philosophers.  You MUST acknowledge at least a few of the major criticisms by presenting them in brief.   

You probably will not have room for all the possible criticisms.  One for each argument will probably be fine. 

• Do you have replies to those criticisms?

If you have any replies to those criticisms, you should include the most important of those replies.  If you cannot defuse the criticisms, you should say so, but you will then have to at least hint as to why you do not accept them as destructive of your position. 

Do not put yourself in the position of claiming that eating people is wrong when your own essay shows that claim is not well supported.  That is simply irrational.

Important:  To avoid driving your instructor into a paroxysm of fury, make sure that you acknowledge, even if you cannot respond to, any major criticisms of your position that have been included in the lectures.   Dr. Blenkinsop spends an hour giving detailed criticisms of (e.g.) the Free Will Defence, and then receives an essay blandly presenting the Free Will Defence without any reference to those criticisms.  That is both infuriating and depressing.  You do not want your essay to be graded by an angry and depressed instructor

Criticism and counter arguments.

Do not confuse a criticism with a counter argument. 

Suppose Argument A is “Eating people is wrong because it’s icky.”

A criticism of argument A might be “argument A does not work, because eating people is not at all icky.”

A counter argument does not refer to argument A.  It is simply an argument for a contrary conclusion.  Thus, “Eating people is right because it is a tidy way of getting rid of them” would be a counter argument.

By and large, within the confines of an undergraduate essay, you will not have space both to develop your arguments and to criticize any counter arguments.  However, if you have no major criticisms of your arguments, and you know there is a powerful counter argument which you can, nonetheless, criticize, you can include that counter argument and your criticism of it

Organizing arguments

You are probably going to use either (a) several independent arguments, or (b) one complex argument. 

(a)  Independent arguments.

 How many should you have?

Three, of course!

In an undergraduate essay, usually you will not have room for more than three substantive arguments. 

Your body (no, don’t look in the mirror - I mean the body of your essay) will be like this:

Argument 1.

             Criticism of argument 1, and reply to the criticism.

Argument 2.

             Criticism of argument 2, and reply to the criticism.

Argument 3.

             Criticism of argument 3, and reply to the criticism.

 

And that organization will set up a nice rhythm of three that will make Dr. Blenkinsop feel right at home.  

No, it isn’t fancy. 

Fancy is not your friend.  Clear and straightforward is.

 

(b)  A single, complex argument

 The chances are that your single argument can be broken down into a set of subarguments.    The big question, then, is how they are related.  

Do you need to have the conclusion of subargument A as a premise for subargument B?  If so, then present A before you present B.  (Duh!)

 Maybe your argument is such that you need to combine the conclusions of sub argument A with that of sub argument B to arrive at your conclusion C.

In that case, put the more general of your sub-arguments first.  By “more general” I mean the one that establishes a general principle, or the major premise in a syllogism.

“Eating meat is wrong” is a more general conclusion than “people are made out of meat’, so you would arrange your argument like this.

 

Sub argument 1.

Show that eating meat is wrong.

Sub argument 2

Show that people are made out of meat.

Argument

Eating meat is wrong

People are made out of meat 

Therefore, eating people is wrong.

 

So far you have got this.

 

Sub argument 1.

Sub argument 2

Sub argument …

Final Argument.

 

In this case, I would advise you to put the criticisms in after you have completed the argument.  You must make it clear, though, which bit of the argument they apply to.   It will end up like this.

 

Sub argument 1.

Sub argument 2

Sub argument …

Final Argument.

Criticism 1 and reply

Criticism 2 and reply.

 

Again, it isn’t fancy. 

 And again:

Fancy is not your friend.  Clear and straightforward is.

Write it

O.K.  Now you’ve got your plan.  Time to write. Set up your word processor to fit the presentation requirements, and start.  Write the body first.

 

The Body.

And, guess what!   Three major points to bear in mind.

1. You must give the reference to the source of the argument.
2. You must rewrite the arguments in your own words.
3. You must put the premises and conclusion in order. 

(O.K.  Actually 2 and three are part of the same process, but I want to keep the rhythm of three going.)

 

Referencing - Credit where credit is due. 

Referencing is desperately important!   All ideas which are not your own must be acknowledged in one of the standard referencing systems.  (See the list below.)   If you do not know which one Dr. Blenkinsop prefers, go for the Harvard system.   

• Put the references in as you write, so that there is no chance of leaving one out.
• Each time you write a reference, add it to your list of references as well. By the time you finish writing the essay, the list of references should be complete as well.

The list of references at the end of the essay should be headed “References“.  It is a list of all and only the works you cite in your essay.   You do not include every work you have read on the topic.

Full referencing serves three (could there be any other number?) purposes.

• First, it helps to protect you from accusations of plagiarism.
• Second, it allows Dr. Blenkinsop to check that you have correctly understood and used your sources.
• Third, it gives the (misleading?) impression that you actually did some preliminary reading rather than writing the essay by free association at 1:00 a.m. the day it was due.   

Rewriting.

You can’t just quote the original version from the book, and you can’t just change one or two words.  You have to put it into your own words. 

The best way to rewrite is to take apart the original argument and convert the premises and conclusion into note form, and then write the argument from your notes 

Here’s an example.

Original: 

The mortality of Socrates is undeniable, deriving as it does from his humanity (which is patent) and the universally acknowledged principle that the grave yawns for, and will ultimately claim, all mankind. 

 

Your notes:

1.  All human mortal.  (Common knowledge)

2.   Socrates human.  (Obvious)

3.  Therefore:  Socrates mortal.

 

Your Rewritten version:

It is fairly easy to show that Socrates was mortal.  That all human beings are mortal seems to be a well established truth, and Socrates was undoubtedly human.  Thus Socrates, too, is mortal.

 

Ordering. 

Dammit, I wanted to break this into three parts, but I can only think of two.

1. Paragraph structure.

When you write your arguments, you must make it clear which parts of the paragraph are premises, and which parts are conclusions.  The usual places for a conclusion are at the beginning or end (or both, if it is clear the conclusion is being repeated) of the argumentative paragraph.  Hiding the conclusion in the middle will confuse your reader. 

Some students have been taught some nonsense about ending paragraphs with “transition sentences” which introduce the topic of the next paragraph.  Forget all that drivel.  Such a sentence will look like the conclusion or an extra premise of the argument and throw your reader into complete confusion. If your argument extends over more than a paragraph, you must make it clear at the beginning what conclusion you are going to arrive at, and at the end of the argument restate that conclusion. 

2.  Signposting.

You must make it clear how many individual arguments or sub arguments you are using, where they begin, and where they end.  

An easy way for doing this is to write something of the style “I will present three arguments for…(independent arguments) or “I will first argue against eating meat, and then show that humans are made of meat.  Finally, I will show that these imply that eating people is wrong.”

(Usually you will want to write this in the introduction.  (See below)  However, if you write it now, you will know how to tidy it up and move it into the introduction later.)

 Then you begin each argument with a signpost.

First …

Second …

Third,

 

Not zippy?  Not imaginative?   Maybe not, but it gets the job done.

 You must also make it clear which parts are criticisms of the argument you have just presented, and what the point of each criticism is. 

 At the end of the body, draw the threads of your argument together and show how it supports your position.

 

Introduction.

The introduction must tell the reader 

1. The topic of the essay.
2. The position you take on that topic.  (This is your thesis statement.)
3. An outline of the structure and scope of the argument.

Make it plain and straightforward. 

Catchy and intriguing openings nearly always fail to catch and intrigue. 

Topic and position.

Sometimes you can merge these together! 

A good way to start is with the phrase “in this paper”.  Look at the following examples.

          In this paper I will show that time is illusory.

                     Topic: time

                     Position you take:  it’s illusory.

 

          In this paper I will discuss some of the criticisms levelled against McTaggart’s view of time, and show that they fail to meet his  arguments.

                     Topic: criticisms of McTaggart’s view of time.

                     Position you take:  the criticisms fail.

 

It does not have to be that brief, but why blether on for several sentences if you can say what has to be said in a single sentence?

However, if you can’t, then use as many sentences as you need.  And no more!

Structure and scope.

This is where you put the “I will present…” bit that you planned for the body.  You can also mention the criticisms you will deal with, and perhaps mention important issues you will not deal with.

 Three things to avoid, 

1. Grandiose and portentous claims.
2. Dictionary definitions.
3. Rhetorical questions.

 1. Grandiose and portentous claims.

Many students like to begin their essays with phrases like

 

“From the beginning of time…”

“Throughout human history…” 

“Man has always wondered…” 

 

And Dr. Blenkinsop’s heart sinks.

 

Think about it.  You are making claims about the whole of history, or even the whole of time.   What basis do you have for these claims? 

“From the beginning of time…” - Did time even have a beginning?

“Throughout human history…” - Do you know enough history to be sure?

“Man has always wondered…” - Where he can get his next meal/beer/shag?  No!  Apparently, at the end of the Ice Age, the major topic of discussion in the caves and on the savannah was whether justified true belief is sufficient to count as knowledge, or the implications of the truth values of counterfactual conditionals for ontological status of possible worlds.  Those are the sort of things the average man wondered while a sabre-tooth cat was chewing off his leg.

These claims are utter tripe.  If I receive any essay beginning with or including any such phrase I will flush it down the toilet without further ado.  Dr. Blenkinsop will probably do the same.

 

2. Dictionary definitions. 

Another common dismal device is to include, in the following manner, a dictionary definition of a key term.

The Oxford Dictionary of Current English defines “superfluous” as “more than is needed or wanted, useless”.

And superfluous is exactly what such a definition is. 

If you are using the word in the normal sense, Dr. Blenkinsop probably knows what it means, and if he/she/it doesn’t, he will look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary*. 

If you are not using the word in the normal sense, then the dictionary definition will be misleading.  You will have to include your own definition.

 (*This is the One True Dictionary, and in recent years even the OED has shown signs of wavering from the Path of Righteousness.)

 

3. Rhetorical questions.

Right now I have on my desk an essay which begins:         

Capital punishment is the execution of a person by the state as a punishment for a crime.  Is this right?  When does someone make the choice that another’s life is not worth living? Are we taking God’s role into our own hands?  Is the executioner just as bad as the criminal?…

                                          (Author’s name suppressed to protect the guilty.) 

And I feel as if I am being stabbed to death with question marks!  I find myself inclining towards not just capital punishment, but torture followed by hanging, drawing, and quartering.

 Try not to use rhetorical questions.  They are simply exasperating.

 

Concluding Paragraph. 

This is almost a mirror of the introduction.  You do not bring in any new arguments or facts. 

1. You remind the reader of the structure of your argument.  (But don’t repeat the arguments!
2. You restate your position. 
3. Perhaps add a comment on the broader implications of your position.

Don’t spoil the whole thing by feeble fence-sitting.  

“Philosophers have discussed this for centuries, and there is much to be said for all points of view.” 

You have written the essay to defend one point of view.  Stick to your guns.

 

Check it. 

Check that your arguments really do what you think they do. 

Check for correct presentation.   (See the Presentation page.)

Check spelling and grammar.    (Every guide to essay writing I have seen includes this!) 

If you are using American spelling, stick to it all the way through.  If you are using British/Australian spelling, stick to that.  Your word processor will help, but the spell check will not catch (e.g.) “bear” where you mean “bare”.

See the Grammar page.

 Check that your list of references includes all and only the works you cite in the text. 

Get someone else to read it through and make comments and corrections.  Ask “Are all my sentences clear?”

(Your boyfriend/girlfriend/roommate will be happy to help.  Ask him/her/it as soon as you have finished your essay at 2:30 a.m.)

Make any corrections necessary.

Staple the pages together. 

Make sure your name is on the essay.

Done!

Get some sleep.  You can turn it in tomorrow.