Writing a philosophy paper for Prof. Kenneth Henley

 

The assignment is to write an essay of exposition and reasoned, critical argument responding to that exposition.  The paper must argue for or against a clearly stated position within the assigned topic.  This is not a research paper if that phrase means dependence upon sources outside the assigned readings in the course.  The point is to explain and critically respond to some of the reasoning found in the assignments.  Ordinarily additional sources are undesirable.

Whenever a source is quoted, paraphrased, or used for ideas or information, you must provide a note citing the source.  You may use any standard form for notes, but you must be consistent.  If you use only assigned readings, parenthetical notes would be the easiestgiving bibliographical information only with the first citation of the author, and simple author/page citations subsequently.  If you use only assigned readings, a separate bibliography is not necessary.  If you use any additional materials, a bibliography is required.

You must use standard English, avoiding slang (unless necessary to make a special point, and then within quotation marks).  The careful use of words is of great importance.  Grammar counts.  Paragraph structure matters.  If you cannot spell correctly, use a dictionary or a spell-checker in a word-processing program.

You may use the first person (I, etc.).  All of the standard rules of English prose composition must be followed.  Papers must be typed (double-spaced with standard margins and a normal font).  Do not use a binder or folder of any kind; use either a metal paper-clip or staple.

In most cases, the essay as a whole should display a classic thesis structure:

1.    An introduction that focuses the topic and states your thesis in broad terms

2.    An exposition of the thesis-focused topic with accounts of some of the views and reasoning in assigned readings

3.    Your main argument for your view including some responses to anticipated objections

4.    A conclusion that returns to the thesis but with a greater degree of specificity, achieved through the exposition and critical arguments.

 

In your own arguments, you should seek clarity about your assumptions or premises and whether you share them with those to whom you are responding.  If all of the assumptions are shared, and yet you disagree with the conclusion, you need to locate the weakness in the structure of the argument of your opponent.  If the disagreement is indeed a matter of the starting-place of the argument, sometimes it is enough to mark the fact of disagreement and show the different conclusions that follow from the differing assumptions.  But if your own assumptions are likely to seem to others very unreasonable or clearly in error, then you need to start your argument further back and support themor simply abandon them and find something else to say.

Remember that intelligent, reasoned agreement is as philosophically respectable as disagreement; however, a good essay in agreement is perhaps harder to write, for it requires that through your own examples, analogies and clarifications you demonstrate that you are not merely parroting someone elses views.

 

The most common lapse is a failure to come down to specifics, both in exposition and in critical argument.  The expository task is not a mere mechanical preliminary;  rather, it requires creativity and insight.  Try to explain the authors point using your own words, images, analogies, and examples.  Make connections that illuminate the point and give it life.  In a short paper this must be done rather quickly, but with conciseness of style it is still possiblea good analogy or metaphor can sometimes be a mere phrase, and an example occupy a sentence or two.  Sometimes an example is worth a full paragraph or more, if it illuminates a point sufficiently.  A really helpful example can even serve as a pivot uniting exposition and critical discussion.  Use your exposition to set up your critical discussion, so that the transition to your supporting or opposing reasoning flows naturally out of the expository account.