Topic: Descartes Mastery over nature

Order Description Paper due on Tuesday, December 1 Expected length: five to seven full pages (doubles spaced)  You may either have a thesis that agrees with the text or one that disagrees with the text.  You must include at least three quotations from the course texts along with citations to indicate where they can be found in the texts. Topic: Descartes argues that the goal of human progress should be the mastery of nature. Explain why he believes this in your background section and then argue for or against it. Guide to Writing Philosophy Papers I. Purpose of a Philosophy Paper The purpose of a philosophy paper is most often to argue that some statement (called a thesis) is true. For example, a paper might be written to argue that “It is better to be vegetarian than to eat meat,” that “Dogs are better pets than cats,” or that “Angry nuns should not have access to rulers.” Whatever the thesis is, it should be identified clearly at the beginning of the paper, and everything else in the paper should contribute to showing that it is true. II. Structure Good philosophy papers typically have one of the following structures, depending on whether the paper is written to agree or to disagree with something that someone else has said. When disagreeing with someone: When agreeing with someone: Introduction Introduction Background (Objection) Background Replies to Background Objections/Replies Other Objections/Replies Affirmative Arguments Affirmative Arguments Conclusion Conclusion A. What to Put into an Introduction The introduction should only do one thing: Explicitly identify a thesis. Do’s • Make it absolutely clear which sentence is your thesis. The best way to do this is to have a sentence that says, “My thesis is.…” or “In this paper, I will argue that….” It is usually best to identify the thesis in the first sentence, the last or both. • Clarify your thesis. E.g. if you are writing about why vegetarianism is better than meat eating, explain what vegetarianism is, or what counts as meat. • Keep the introduction short and simple. A sentence or two might be enough. Don’ts • Don’t give reasons for your thesis yet. (Save that for the rest of the paper!) • Don’t make statements that aren’t relevant to your thesis. For example, don’t start off with “Socrates was one of the greatest philosophers of all time” or “Philosophers have been debating this question for centuries.” B. What to Put into the Background Section Your paper will usually be a response to something that someone else has written or said. When that person agrees with your thesis, the background should explain why. Also, when that person disagrees with your thesis, the background should explain why. If you are writing to disagree with someone, the background will also function as an objection to your thesis and you will need to reply to it directly. Do’s • Keep it relevant. This isn’t your opportunity to summarize the whole book. Just present the parts of it that are relevant to your thesis. What does the reader need to know? • Make the background viewpoint look credible. If you disagree with the person in the background, it is tempting to make that person’s argument look silly. But you need to present it as credibly as possible so that it will be clear to your reader that you really do understand your opponent’s view. • Keep it short and sweet. The bulk of your paper should be your own arguments, not just a summary of the book. So this section shouldn’t be more than a third of the paper, and will often be much less. Don’t • Don’t simply state what the other person believes. Explain his reason for believing it. C. What to Put into the Objections/Replies Section It is not enough simply to argue in favor of your thesis. You need to show that you have also considered arguments against it (objections) and can reply to them. That is especially easy to do when you disagree with the viewpoint in the background paragraph. In that case, the background already constitutes an objection to your thesis and you must reply to it. Sometimes, you may need to make up objections to your thesis yourself. It is helpful to start them by saying “Someone might disagree with my thesis because….” Your replies to objections should point out the flaws in the objections. Perhaps they are based on false claims? Perhaps they are misleading? Perhaps what they say is true, but not really sufficient to disprove your thesis? Whatever the flaws are, point them out so that your reader will understand how your thesis can survive the arguments against it. Do’s • Give each objection its own paragraph and give each reply its own paragraph. Take time to explain each idea carefully. If you rush or try to cram more than one idea into a paragraph, then your reader won’t be able to follow what you are saying. • Be choosy about which objections you present. Only present the objections that your readers might actually take seriously. • Explicitly tell the reader when you are introducing an objection or replying to one. At the beginning of an objection paragraph, say something like “One objection to my thesis is….” And at the beginning of a reply paragraph, say something like “The argument in the previous paragraph doesn’t work because….” These explicit cues will help your reader to understand the purpose of each paragraph and how they fit together. Don’ts • Don’t present an objection without replying to it. Remember that if you disagree with the viewpoint in your background section, then that paragraph is also an objection to your thesis and you must reply to it. D. What to Put into the Affirmative Arguments Section Affirmative arguments are arguments in favor of your thesis. At this point in the paper, you are done replying to objections and ready to tell your reader why your thesis is true. Since the whole point of the paper is to prove your thesis, this is the most important section. See Section IV of this handout for ideas about how to argue. Do’s • Explain why your reader should agree with your thesis. Don’t simply explain why you believe it yourself. Why should your reader believe it? • Be selective about which arguments you present. Only use your best arguments. It is better to present only one well-developed and convincing argument than to present several that aren’t very good. • Provide an original argument. If you agree with the viewpoint in your background section, don’t simply recycle that person’s argument. Give a different reason for the truth of your thesis. Don’ts • Don’t try to prove a general point with a single story or example. Eg. Don’t say that because your friend was injured by a seatbelt, no one should wear them. You would need more data to show that. • Don’t appeal to majority opinion or “common sense.” The fact that most people with common sense believe something doesn’t make it true. • Don’t base your argument entirely on quotations from authorities. Quoting a historian, scientist or religious leader may be helpful. But it only shows that someone smart agrees with you, not that what you’re saying is true. You need to provide reasons and evidence. E. What to Put into the Conclusion The conclusion is the final paragraph. It should only summarize what you have said in the paper and how it has all shown your thesis to be true. Do’s • Explicitly restate your thesis. • Quickly walk your reader through the arguments presented in the paper. Don’ts • Don’t include any new ideas or arguments. Those should all be presented before you get to the conclusion. • Don’t leave important parts of the paper out of your summary. III. General Points • Topic sentences – The first sentence of every paragraph should summarize the point of the paragraph, and also make it clear what role the paragraph has in the paper. (Is it an objection? A reply? An affirmative argument? Make it clear from the beginning.) • One idea per paragraph – If a paragraph can’t be summed up in one simple topic sentence, then you are trying to do too much in that paragraph. Split it up. • Read your paper out loud – You will catch many grammar mistakes this way. • The friend method – Have a friend from outside the class read your paper. If your friend can’t immediately understand every line of it, then you need to make it clearer. • The high school freshman rule – Write as though your reader will be a high school freshman with no background in philosophy who has never read your textbook. If the freshman wouldn’t have enough information to follow your paper, you aren’t being clear enough. Hold the reader’s hand and baby step through each of your points. Be explicit about what you are doing in every paragraph. Spoon feed it to the reader! It is better to explain too slowly and in too much detail than too quickly. • Don’t use a thesaurus! – Don’t try to sound sophisticated, flowery, or collegiate. Just use good grammar and say things as plainly as possible. If you use a thesaurus, it is likely that you will misuse words, and your paper will be gibberish. • Don’t mention class – Pretend that you are writing this paper for publication. So don’t say “as we discussed in class…” IV. Ideas for Arguments • Process of Elimination (Example: The best form of government must be aristocracy, oligarchy or democracy. It isn’t oligarchy, because oligarchy allows the rich to exploit the poor. And it isn’t democracy, because democracy leads to divisions. So it must be aristocracy.) Caution: You have to be sure that you have listed all of the possibilities. If you have left some out, then there will be holes in your argument. • Generalization from Examples (Example: Justice is good, honesty is good, bravery is good, generosity is good, patience is good, etc. So we can conclude that all virtues are good.) • Analogy (Example: God is like a good human father. And good human fathers don’t punish their children for accidents. So, God doesn’t punish us for accidents.) • Distinction (Example: There is a distinction between killing for a noble reason and killing for an evil reason. Killing for an evil reason would be immoral, but killing for a noble reason would not. So some killing is not immoral.) • Reductio ad absurdum (Show that denying your thesis leads to silly results.) (Example: If justice always requires us to return people’s property, then justice would require us to return a man’s weapons to him even if he has gone insane. But it is absurd to call that justice. So justice cannot require that we always return people’s property.)