Some Writing Tips for Philosophy
compiled from a multitude of sources for Prof. Borrowman’s Philosophy 1000
Thinking about a philosophical problem is hard. Writing about it ought not to be. You're not
trying to craft some fancy political speech.
General tips:
1. Get started early.
2. Take notes as you read.
3. Focus on the question you’re asking or concerned with in the text.
4. Don’t try to cover too much.
a. A good philosophy paper is modest and makes a small point; but it makes that
point clearly and straightforwardly, and it offers good reasons in support of it
b. People very often attempt to accomplish too much in a philosophy paper. The
usual result of this is a paper that's hard to read, and which is full of inadequately
defended and poorly explained claims. So don't be over-ambitious. Don't try to
establish any earth-shattering conclusions in your <5 page paper. Done properly,
philosophy moves at a slow pace.
5. Use overly simple and concise language. Or, use the right word.
a. But be aware that some common words have precise philosophical meanings.
Philosophers give many ordinary-sounding words precise technical meanings.
i. Define any technical term you use. So, for instance, if you use any
specialized terms like "dualism," you should explain what these mean.
Different people sometimes use this special vocabulary in different ways,
so it's important to make sure that you and your readers are all giving
these words the same meaning.
ii. Don't vary your vocabulary just for the sake of variety. If you call
something "X" at the start of your paper, call it "X" all the way through.
So, for instance, don't start talking about "Plato's view of the self," and
then switch to talking about "Plato's view of the soul," and then switch to
talking about "Plato's view of the mind." If you mean to be talking about
the same thing in all three cases, then call it by the same name. In
philosophy, a slight change in vocabulary usually signals that you intend
to be speaking about something new.
6. Use only scholarly references.
a. Again, terms in a philosophy class may have precise or technical meanings that
are not the same as the ones you will find in other fields or in a dictionary. Stick
to scholarly sources, and ask your professor if you’re not sure what those are.
Wikipedia is a fine place to start learning about something, but it is not an
adequate reference for a philosophy paper.
7. Always cite your sources, but paraphrase, and quote sparingly.
a. Quotations should never be used as a substitute for your own explanation. When
you do quote an author, always explain what the quotation says in your own
1
words. If the quoted passage contains an argument, reconstruct the argument in
more explicit, straightforward terms. If the quoted passage contains a central
claim or assumption, give examples to illustrate the author's point, and, if
necessary, distinguish the author's claim from other claims with which it might be
confused.
Don’ts:
 Don't begin with a sentence like "Down through the ages, mankind has pondered the
problem of..." There's no need to warm up to your topic. You should get right to the
point, with the first sentence.
 At least half of the work in philosophy is making sure that you've got your opponent's
position right. Don't think of this as an annoying preliminary to doing the real
philosophy. This is part of the real philosophical work. (And the entire aim of your
exegesis paper!)
 Philosophers sometimes do say outrageous things, but if the view you're attributing to a
philosopher seems to be obviously crazy, then you should think hard about whether he
really does say what you think he says. Use your imagination. Try to figure out what
reasonable position the philosopher could have had in mind, and direct your arguments
against that. It is pointless to argue against a position so ridiculous that no one ever
believed it in the first place, and that can be refuted effortlessly.
 Leave out biographical and historical data about the authors whom you discuss, unless
that information is relevant in explaining how an issue to which an author was responding
has changed since they wrote.
 Needless qualifiers: These are phrases that, I think, unnecessarily weaken your
statements. The following are often (but not always) needless qualifiers: “I think,” “I
attempt,” “it seems,” “could be,” “if I am correct,” “my claim is,” “we are justified in
concluding.” No one wants to read mealy-mouthed prose by an author who can’t make up
his mind. (But this is not to encourage overstating your case.) If you’re wrong, then
you’re wrong—no one is going to say, “Well, it’s all right that he was wrong because he
put ‘we are justified in concluding’ before the false statement.”
o Notice how the third example below is so ennervated by needless qualifiers that it
has almost no content and even ends up denying that the author’s theory is true. It
is also too wordy.
An example:
Bad: In this paper, I will attempt to defend moral realism.
Ok: In this paper, I defend moral realism.
 Undermining your credibility:
o Admitting that you don’t know what you’re talking about, as in “This is just my
opinion,” or “The conclusions defended in this paper may well be mistaken.” If
you have nothing definite to say about a topic then don’t write about it. Choose a
different topic.
2

Overly polemical or emotional style. This undermines your credibility by raising doubts
in the reader's mind about your ability to give objective reports or assessments. Also,
readers who are initially skeptical of your position will just be pushed farther away.
An example:
Bad: Such generalizing nonsense needs to be put in its place.(9)
Ok: This objection is fallacious
How You'll Be Graded:
When I grade your paper, I’ll be asking myself questions like these:
 Is your prose simple, easy to read, and easy to understand?
 Do you illustrate your claims with good examples?
 Do you present other philosophers' views accurately and charitably?
The comments I find myself making on students' philosophy papers most often are these:
 "Explain this claim," or "What do you mean by this?" or "I don't understand what you're
saying here."
 "This passage is unclear (or awkward, or otherwise hard to read)."
 "Explain why this is a reason to believe that P."
 "Explain why this follows."
As far as references go:
I realize each discipline has its own style of citation. I don’t care what you use, as long as
it’s very clear to me what information is not your own or from in class material and where you
got this information.
For Platonic dialogues, we use line numbers. So, if I want to quote Socrates in the
Phaedo (note: dialogues and films are italicized), I would write:
It is strange that Socrates would chose to write poetry, given that he infamously
never put pen to paper, even if on his death bed. He attempted to write fables, like Aesop,
after finding that his first odes, written to the god of the present festival, were
insufficient. He says to Simmias, “a poet, if he is to be a poet, must compose fables, not
arguments” (61b).
All other references can be given in footnotes. Again, the style you choose is up to you, as long
as it is clear and I can track it down if need be.
If you are talking about multiple dialogues, just be sure I know which one you are referencing.
3