HOW TO WRITE PHILOSOPHY PAPERS AND SCORE HIGH GRADES
Writing philosophy papers is a skill. It is something you should do consciously and with planning. In fact, the truth is if you do not write your philosophy papers consciously, chances are that you may hardly score high grades. For example, if I want to get to the senate building from the library, I already know where I would pass through even before I take my first step. This is how writing philosophy papers should be. You must learn how to write in such a way that you would already know what grade to expect. I have tried this several times and it has never failed. So, ‘how do you write a philosophy paper, if you must score high grades’?
Firstly, understand time management. I must tell you that any question you are attempting to answer be it in test or in examination should not exceed four pages. Basically, our examination booklets have twelve pages each and you are expected to answer three questions. This simply means that it is expected that each question should not exceed four pages. So, you must ditch the idea of writing long stories and collecting extra sheet. During examinations, you are given two hours to answer three questions of which if you ever dream of scoring an A or a B grade, you must answer all three questions. Two hours is equivalent to 120minutes, so 120 divided by three gives us 40. In other words, you are expected to spend no more than forty minutes on a question; and since each question would take four pages, that means 10 minutes per page. So, if you get into the habit of writing stories, you would end up wasting precious time that you are meant to use on other important things. So, be wise. For example, I personally am not a fast writer; and I am only able to make use of three pages to answer a question in examinations. But, I still articulate my points well and I usually get the grade I expect 90% of the time.
Secondly, now that you have understood the idea of time management; what next? You now have to learn how to manage your four page space and make sure it contains all the vital points which will make you score that high grade. Accordingly, there is a blueprint for answering philosophy questions which some professors (in Cambridge and Harvard) attest to. I have been using it and it has never failed me. It is one of the secrets of my academic success and I am so eager to share it with you as I want to see you score good grades too. This blueprint is given below;
· Introduction
· Stating of the problem
· Arguments for the position (optional)
· Arguments against the position (necessary)
· Contemporary importance/relevance
· Conclusion
Also in the process of constructing the philosophical write-up, these following elements must be included, they are;
- Originality
- Logic and analytical style
- Grammatical expression
- Reference
Below, I would be explaining them one after the other. However, have it at the back of your mind that anything you are writing must not exceed four pages (of an examination booklet) or two-third pages (of a middle page of a full scarp sheet).
INTRODUCTION
Your introduction should be the briefest part of your write-up. As a guiding rule, it should not exceed six lines. Basically, the introduction should simply tell us what you intend to do in the write-up based on the issue at hand.
STATING OF THE PROBLEM
This is the easiest part of the write-up. It is also the most deliberated on by most students, so they tend to waste much time and space on this section; but it should not be so. It entails presenting information on what the topic is all about. This is where you write all those things you have read in your textbooks and class notes. It is where you tell us all what we need to know about the issue at hand. The reason why most students do not get good grades is because they waste all their time doing only this part of the write-up.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE POSITION
This section would contain reasons and arguments why the issue being discussed is the way it is. It entails you bringing in ideas to support the claims of the topic, depending on how it has been structured. However, you must know that it is optional (i.e. you may or may not include it in your write-up). The reason is that ‘a philosopher asks fundamental questions. So, he or she is meant to create problems by criticizing ideas and not supporting them unnecessarily’. In fact, the only reason why you should include this part in your write-up is, if it would be helpful in further illuminating your arguments against the position.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE POSITION
This part is quite very important as it is what marks you out as a true philosophy student. It is the part where you give all your criticisms of the issue at hand. Arguing against is encouraged to be in most (if not every) philosophical write-up. It basically entails;
· Exposing ambiguities and fallacies· Highlighting vague and irregular expressions
· Uncovering assumptions
· Analyzing inconsistencies and inherent contradictions
· Discussing implications of specific ideas
CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE
This is the part which highlights the double-edged sword (positive and negative) effects of the discussed issue on today’s societal life, in the write-up. But not all philosophical write-ups may need this. So, use your discretion. Sometimes, this could be included within the conclusion of the write-up.
CONCLUSION
This is where you round off all you have been discussing in one sentence. No unnecessary stories; go straight to the point.
So far, I believe I have just been quite theoretical. Now, I would become practical by showing you how one can include all these elements in a philosophical write-up that will attract a high grade. Let us take the following question in Socio-political philosophy (PHY 241) as an example. It goes thus;
CRITICALLY EVALUATE THE MAJOR PROBLEMS OF PLATO’S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
(The introduction comes first)
Plato’s political philosophy has been summarized as the ‘rule of the best man’. Although this may sound plausible, it can be made obvious that this political ideology has inherent faults; and this is the main aim of this write-up.
(The stating of the problem comes next)
Plato, a pupil of Socrates based his political philosophy on the concept of justice. He usually had various discussions with some of his contemporaries. The varying ideas that ensued led Plato to postulate his own philosophical conception of justice.
Plato held that justice can be found in man. He theorized that every man is composed of three parts which are ‘nous’-reason, ‘thumos’-chest and ‘epithumia’-appetite. So, for one to become a just man there must be a balanced agreement of his rationality, bravery and desire.
In a somewhat similar fashion, for Plato, an ideal state is an organized combination of the guardians, soldiers and the artisans. When each person plays his part obligatorily well, there will certainly be justice in the state.
Lastly, Plato advocated that a skilful ruler who has been trained in the discipline of philosophy is the right person to oversee the political affairs of a state. Plato held that the best man or the philosopher king alone has the intellectual arsenal to guide citizens alongside the lines of justice.
There are many problems associated with Plato’s ideal state but we would be focusing on only one and that is ‘Plato’s prescription on the financial and material state of the guardians, and its implication on their desire or appetitive part’. In his book the ‘republic’, Plato prescribes that ‘the guardians must live in poverty; with any possessions they do have, held in common’.
(The argument for the position comes next)
On an immediate analysis of the above, one would think that Plato’s prescription is absurd but his reason is very plain; that is, ‘to prevent the peasants from being envious of the power of the guardians who could use it to enrich themselves at the detriment of the ruled’. However, this is not enough justified reason for such a prescription by Plato.
(The argument against the position comes next)
On a more closer look, one would find that Plato himself has erroneously contradicted his standard for justice in the man. His above prescription disregards the fact that guardians like every other natural human has desires and are not likely to be happy in a situation that denies the satisfaction of their simple desires.
In addition, a just man is meant to have a balanced position of the three parts; if not, then according to Plato, ‘he is not just’. But, Plato’s prescription cheats on the appetitive part of his philosopher king. Hence, there can be no such thing as a just balance.
Finally, considering Plato’s standard for justice in a man, as well as his above prescription, it is impossible for the philosopher king to be just. Even though Plato had a good reason for his prescription, he did fail to consider its effect on the nature of justice in the philosopher king. So, if the guardian lives in poverty, he cannot be just (for it contradicts his appetitive part). And if the philosopher king is not just, how can he then oversee or influence a just state? Hence, the problem lies in the fact that Plato focused solely on just one part (the reason) in a man that he himself said has three parts (reason, chest, desires).
(No need for contemporary relevance/importance)
(Conclusion follows last)
Consequently, the major problem explained thus far as regarding Plato’s political philosophy is that, his life for the guardians violates human nature just as Plato defined it. This would make the guardians unhappy and this negates the goal of virtue in Plato’s ethics, which is happiness.
To begin with, you would notice that the question said ‘critically evaluate... But (think for a moment), how can one critically evaluate (the whole of Plato’s political philosophy) in four pages? That is why I simply chose a part of his political philosophy (which is his prescription on private property for the guardians) and I at least to some extent critically analyzed it. You would notice how short, crisp and straight to the point this philosophical write-up is. Every aspect of writing a philosophy paper (except contemporary relevance) was evaluated accordingly. Let me just say it that, this was exactly how a student's assignment (name withheld) in the course ‘Introduction to Socio-political philosophy’ (200 level-first semester) was written. It was over 40 and he had 34 (which implies 17/20 i.e. on an over 20 scale which is very much on the high side). I applied the same writing style in the examination and I had an ‘A’. Come on! You too can do it; just understand the concept.
Again, you would notice that the simple write-up had the elements of;
· Logic and analytical style (the paragraphs connect meaningfully to one another)
· Grammatical expression (there were no blunders)
· Reference (there was a reference made to the ‘Republic’- Plato’s book on politics, in one of the paragraphs)
·
Also, in the ‘arguments against’ section, there was an analysis of an inconsistency and a contradiction. Also, the implication of Plato’s prescription was highlighted.
Once you digest the basic idea behind this exposition and you begin to apply same, you would begin to notice that your writing style would become better as well as your grades. Try it out and see for yourself. Good luck!
