Length and Scope. The assigned topic calls for a combination of textual analysis—presenting the views of two philosophers—and critical interpretation based on that presentation. Since this is a relatively short paper, you will need to pace yourself in order to cover all parts of the assignment. One way to ensure that your focus is narrow enough for a paper of this length is to choose 2-4 text passages to analyze in detail and to develop your overall presentation and argument based on this analysis. In any case, plan to limit the amount of text on which you base your discussion so that a detailed analysis is possible.
For this assignment, you have the option to prepare a proposal and an outline in advance, in order to get feedback in the early stages of developing your paper idea. Even if you don't take the option of seeking feedback on an outline, you might want to use one from the outset as a working tool to help you organize your ideas into an effective structure for your paper. Some ideas for creating effective outlines can be found in these handouts on outlines and on "reverse outlines" from the Purdue Online Writing Lab (use the navigational sidebar on the left side of the screen to move between the handouts).
Introductions, Conclusions, and Repetitions. There is a tendency in certain kinds of writing classes and manuals to insist on a formula calling for the restatement of the "thesis" of the paper in the introductory paragraph, and again at the end of the paper. In brief papers such as this one, you needn't devote too much space to restatements because your reader can easily remember on page 6 what was announced on page 1. Instead, make sure that your paper moves somewhere, that each sentence and paragraph brings your inquiry forward, successively building upon what has already been accomplished. A good test for this as you are writing your paper is to ask: Could the sentence that appears here on page 5 have been written exactly the same way back on page 1, or does it result from my work on pages 2–4? If the former is the case, it is probably necessary to restructure the paper or to rewrite parts of it. (If what I have said here is unclear, please talk to me about it.)
This is not to say that opening and closing paragraphs don't serve a function: You should indeed begin your paper by introducing the reader to the scope and purpose of your paper. But do so not by preempting your conclusion, but by arousing your reader's interest in what you have to say, by putting the central problem of the paper in as compelling terms as possible. Make your reader care enough about the outcome or upshot of what you are presenting to want to read on.
Logical Relationships and Transitions. A crucial way to make the structure or flow of your paper, i.e., the logical relationships between the ideas in it, transparent is by explicitly indicating these sorts of "transitions" between sentences and paragraphs. But beware of the lure of periodically inserting words like "however" and "thus" simply because they look good, i.e., seem to suggest a logical relationship that simply isn't there. Learn more about recognizing real and artificial transitions by reading up on "velcro" in this handout from the Harvard Writing Center: "Transitioning: Beware of Velcro." Or consult the handouts on "Writing Transitions" and "Transitional Devices" from the Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL) for more ideas.
Giving Textual Evidence. This paper assignment—like this course in general—asks you to approach philosophical problems by way of a careful consideration of the views articulated in the texts we have read. Use the techniques you have learned in class and in the writing assignments for providing textual evidence for your interpretations. Be careful, however, to quote only as much as is actually helpful in supporting the points you are trying to make (see Harvey, "Third Principle," pp. 5-6). Don't let quotations or paraphrase take over your paper; its primary aim is to communicate your interpretations and arguments. Never quote or paraphrase at length without providing an interpretation/elucidation of what is being said and making clear its importance for your purposes.
Whenever you cite/report an idea or quote a passage or term, you must provide a bibliographical reference. Follow the guidelines you have received for the previous assignments: for the primary texts you are focusing on, use parenthetical in-text references, as per Gordon Harvey, "In-Text Style for the Humanities," Writing with Sources, pp. 37-38. Since in your paper you will be discussing more than one primary text, a useful device will be to establish an abbreviation key for the parenthetical references to your texts (e.g., "EI" for Ethics and Infinity; "GWB" for God Without Being, etc.). This can go into a footnote early in your paper, or it can be part of a "Works Cited" list or Bibliography at the end.
Since the focus of this paper is on a few primary texts, it's unlikely that you'll need to include references to any other texts, but if you do, such more extensive references can go in footnotes. (Failing to cite the source of an idea or using a passage or key phrases from a text, whether consciously or unconsciously, constitutes plagiarism.)
Relevance. Make sure it is at all times clear to the reader what a given statement in your paper contributes to its overall aim. For instance, do not report the views of the philosopher you are discussing on matters unrelated to your topic.
Presenting Your Opinion/Interpretation. Note that this paper assignment doesn't ask you to give any opinion on the positions you discuss. Your paper should of course convey that the views under discussion are worthy of your and your reader's consideration, and there are many ways to do this. If you do decide to offer opinions of your own, you must be prepared to substantiate them with reasons or arguments. If you end up criticizing an author or position you have discussed, make sure you are not disagreeing simply for the sake of disagreeing. A good way to proceed is to make the case for the author's view as strong as possible (giving it the benefit of the doubt) before launching your critique. If you do this, you give your reader the opportunity to verify that you have properly understood the author's view and have based your assessment on a full consideration of its possible merits.
Grammar, etc.. Look over the assignments you have been handed back to get a sense of where your own problems with grammar (as well as usage and punctuation) tend to lie. One pervasive problem concerns the use of pronouns, e.g., "it," "this," "such," "both," "all," "that idea": Check that they all refer to something unambiguously. You can test this by trying to spell out which of the words from the preceding sentence(s) would replace the pronoun to produce the meaning you are aiming for.
Formal Matters. Your papers should be double-spaced (with first lines of paragraphs indented and no empty line between paragraphs) and have one-inch margins, with any long quotes (more than three lines) set off in separate single-spaced paragraphs, indented 0.5 inches from the left margin (or from both the left and right margins). Footnotes and block quotes should be in full-size type. Please number and staple the pages you hand in.
You may encounter the footnote bug in Microsoft Word: footnotes that refuse to stay on the same page as their reference numbers. A guide to solving this problem has been posted on the MS Word MVP FAQ Site.
Help. Beyond your discussions with me and with each other, you are encouraged to use the resources of McMaster's Writing Clinic, Center for Student Development.
© Dana Hollander, 1998-2010