第2章批判的思考と調査・読解・論文執筆Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing
2.6 Writing Philosophy Papers2.6 哲学の論文を書く
Learning Objectives学習目標
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
この節を学び終えると、次のことができるようになる。
Identify and characterize the format of a philosophy paper.
哲学の論文の形式を挙げ、その特徴を説明する。
Create thesis statements that are manageable and sufficiently specific.
扱いきれる範囲で、十分に具体的な中心命題文を作る。
Collect evidence and formulate arguments.
証拠を集め、論証を組み立てる。
Organize ideas into a coherent written presentation.
考えを整理し、首尾一貫した文章で提示する。
This section will provide some practical advice on how to write philosophy papers. The format presented here focuses on the use of an argumentative structure in writing. Different philosophy professors may have different approaches to writing. The sections below are only intended to give some general guidelines that apply to most philosophy classes.
The key element in any argumentative paper is the claim you wish to make or the position you want to defend. Therefore, take your time identifying claims, which is also called the thesis statement. What do you want to say about the topic? What do you want the reader to understand or know after reading your piece? Remember that narrow, modest claims work best. Grand claims are difficult to defend, even for philosophy professors. A good thesis statement should go beyond the mere description of another person’s argument. It should say something about the topic, connect the topic to other issues, or develop an application of some theory or position advocated by someone else. Here are some ideas for creating claims that are perfectly acceptable and easy to develop:
Identify a piece of evidence or argument that you think is weak or may be subject to criticism. Why is it weak? How is your criticism a problem for the philosopher’s perspective?
Apply a philosophical perspective to a contemporary case or issue. What makes this philosophical position applicable? How would it help us understand the case?
Identify another argument or piece of evidence that might strengthen a philosophical position put forward by a philosopher. Why is this a good argument or piece of evidence? How does it fit with the philosopher’s other claims and arguments?
Consider an implication (either positive or negative) that follows from a philosopher’s argument. How does this implication follow? Is it necessary or contingent? What lessons can you draw from this implication (if positive, it may provide additional reasons for the argument; if negative, it may provide reasons against the argument)?