How to write essays

The Golden Rule: Arguments for your thesis, and nothing but arguments for your thesis

What counts as a good essay in philosophy can differ considerably from what counts as a good essay in other humanities subjects or in the social sciences. The golden rule is to identify your thesis upfront i.e. the thesis you will argue for and defend. You should then focus all your attention on arguments for your thesis (i.e. arguments that conclude that the thesis is true) and on arguments against your thesis (i.e. that conclude that the thesis is false.)

Arguments. The only thing that is directly relevant in your philosophy essay is interesting arguments for your thesis and against your thesis. Arguments whose conclusion is a distinct but related thesis are totally irrelevant.

  • Giving an interpretation of past philosophers is NOT directly relevant. For example don’t quote Hume in order to argue that Hume agreed with your thesis. Interpreting Hume’s position is only relevant insofar as it is a discussion of Hume’s arguments for/against your thesis. For example, interpretative work on Hume might highlight a crucial ambiguity in the argument.
  • A classic mistake is the following. Suppose the essay question asks you to evaluate whether Bob Dylan is the best 20th century lyricist. And suppose you have lots of material on whether Leonard Cohen is the best 20th century lyricist. It’s very tempting to write an essay almost entirely about Leonard Cohen, but this is a mistake. Fair enough, an argument for the Cohen thesis is an argument against the Dylan thesis. So that’s relevant. Crucially, however, an argument against the Cohen thesis is not automatically an argument for the Dylan thesis. (After all it’s consistent with Joni Mitchell being the best lyricist not Bob Dylan.)
  • An argument against the Cohen thesis can only become relevant if it is also an argument against the Mitchell thesis and other alternatives. In which case you should be presenting it as such.

Counterarguments. But the above is a bit simplified. There is something else relevant to your essay: counter-arguments. For example, whenever you present an interesting argument AGAINST the thesis you are defending, you need to identify exactly which premises you find  uncompelling. Or you need to identity exactly which move in the argument you find uncompelling. It is not good enough to vaguely say that there are “problems” with the argument. In other words, you need a counter-argument.

Counterarguments II. If you want to be really impressive you can find counter-arguments to interesting arguments FOR the thesis you are defending. This shows a fair-minded approach. For example part of your introductory paragraph might read: “Putnam has presented an argument for [the thesis you are defending]. I reject the argument by rejecting the move from [premise 3] to [premise 4]. I then present a modified argument for [the thesis you are defending] that is immune to this objection.” Fill in the brackets here with the appropriate premises.

Counterarguments III. If you want to be very sophisticated you can go into three levels of depth: finding counter-arguments to counter-arguments. For example part of your introductory paragraph might read: “Nagel has presented an argument for [the thesis you are defending]. Stalnaker rejects this argument by rejecting [premise 2]. But in Stalnaker’s counter-argument against [premise 2] he appeals to his own premise that [premise 5]. I in turn reject this counter-argument of Stalnaker’s by rejecting [premise 5]. Thus I show that Nagel’s argument [for your thesis] suceeds in establishing it.”

Structure. Reading a philosophy essay can be puzzling at the best of times. Make things really easy for your reader by making it clear at the start of each paragraph or two what you are going to establish by the end of that paragraph or two. Otherwise they won’t know why your two paragraphs are relevant. For example are you hoping to establish your thesis in these paragraphs? Or are you merely presenting an argument against your thesis to which you will later provide a counter-argument? (Or indeed are you merely present an argument for your thesis to which you will later provide a counter-argument?) The reader needs to know up front what the conclusion of the argument presented is so that its relevance is obvious. And the reader needs to know up front whether you will eventually be accepting or rejecting this argument.

Dialectic Depth

When I comment on your essay I will give you a percentage assessment of the ‘Dialectic Depth’ of your essay. This is basically a reflection of how relevant and interesting the material in your essay is. Getting above a third class assessment requires that you include genuinely relevant arguments; hence the importance of the golden rule above. And I will mark sections of the essay, indicating whether they contribute negatively to this assessment (using the symbols D0, D1, D2 as shorthand) or positivly to this assessment (using the symbols D3, D4, D5 as shorthand). For example I will place a D0 symbol beside any material I think is irrelevant.

The dialectic depth assessment is also a reflection of whether the overall structure of your essay makes this relevance clear. (I will mark problems here with a D0 in brackets or a D1.) For your essay depth to be assessed as first class requires dealing with `deep’ arguments. (I will mark good depth with D4 and excellent depth with D5.) Deep arguments are arguments which have prima facie compelling premises, and in which the premises appear to support the conclusion. In other words:

  • When rejecting arguments: it’s not very impressive to provide a counter-example to an argument whose premises are obviously false, or in which the premises obviously do not support the conclusion. Much more impressive to provide counter-arguments to arguments that have some prima facie plausibility.
  • When accepting an argument: it’s not very impressive to construct a valid argument when the premises are hugely controverital, and would not be accepted by any of your opponents. Much more impressive is to take some premises that opponents to your thesis are commited to and show your thesis follows from those premises.

The best way to ensure that you are dealing with deep arguments is:

  • deal with the arguments that come up in the lectures or course readings; and
  • always think of counter-arguments to arguments; and indeed counter-arguments to the counter-arguments.

Validity

When commenting on your essay I will also assess the overall ‘Validity’ of the arguments that you propose and criticise. Basically this is all about making it clear that your own arguments are both valid and compelling, and making it clear exactly what is objectionable about others’ arguments. (I will mark sections that contribute negatively to this assessment with V1 and V2 symbols, and those that contribute postively with V3, V4 and for really good bits V5 symbols.)

Precision

Finally I will give you a percentage assessment of the overall precision of your essay. Precision requires writing precise, gramattically simple sentences in an non-pretentious, clearly-explained vocabulary. And it requires presenting other philosopher’s views accurately. (I will mark sections that contribute negatively to this assessment with underlined squiggly lines, P1 and P2 symbols. And I will mark those that contribute postively with P3, P4 and for really good bits P5 symbols.)

Final advice

Clarity. The second golden rule is clarity. You need to produce clear sentences, arguments, and essay structures respectively. Now suppose you don’t really understand an argument or a position. It’s very tempting in this case to start writing complicated jargon-filled sentences, arguments in which the logical structure is vague, and loosely structured essays. Don’t. It’s the easiest way to lose marks. Whenever you face a choice between vaguely sketching a mysterious and seemingly profound argument (on the one hand) and clearly laying out a relatively trivial argument (on the other) opt for triviality every time.

Further suggestions