How to write Philosophy

[Holiday20310401]

I was wondering when writing philosophy if there is a general format to follow outside of the forums. Is philosophy best written formally or imformally? Is there is structure format to follow?

[VideCorSpoon]

I don’t exactly know what type of format you are referring to. If you are talking about “format” format, then MLA style is the best to use. If you are talking about “how to write a philosophical thesis,” or more precisely “how to write an academically presentable paper,” then you would want a supported thesis with abstract.

First, I should say that there is no official way to write a “philosophy paper.” You can write a paper in MLA format, but that’s as far as structure is concerned (indentation, etc.). You can use whatever method you want, as long as it conveys the point clearly and precisely, which is what I think your question pertains to.

This is the method I used in my philosophy course at university…


1 - THESIS STATEMENT

Decide on a THESIS STATEMENT. A thesis statement is basically an assertive idea you want to put forward in your paper which you intend to prove with your own particular research and unique ideas. This is the most important part of your paper which you will revisit over and over again. Make sure you get a good thesis statement before you move on to the rest of your paper.
A thesis statement would be something like, “Corporate persons are not entitled to personhood.” It can be a sentence to a paragraph long. But the longer the thesis, the more difficult it is to keep everything together.


2 – RESEARCH

Perhaps one of the most important parts of your academic paper is the research. There are a few requirements. No doubt, the paper is about your ideas. You can talk about anything you want in order to prove your thesis (i.e. support your assertive idea). But you need research. You yourself may not need it, but the reader will, because we assume they are also avid philosophy readers as well and will be able to draw the same conclusions you would from the same pool of texts and concepts.

So, to support my thesis statement “Corporate persons are not entitled to personhood.” I need to research in specific areas such as; Corporations, Personhood, Law, etc. Anything that would pertain to the subject of Corporate personhood and lend weight to my argument. This research may be in form of books, internet articles, etc. I would use books like West’s business law, or even case citations chronicling the evolution of corporate personhood like Dartmouth College v. Woodward or Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad Company. This is the ammunition you will need to make a legitimate argument.

Of course some don’t feel the need to provide any citations or research. Now ask yourself… would you believe a person’s argument “just because…” or would you believe a person’s argument if they provided solid evidence and acknowledged facts to support an examined thesis. Simply, if you just put your own thoughts down and reject any outside opinions and facts, your just writing a rant and not an academic argument. I guess the informal way is just that.


3 – THESIS STRUCTURE

I don’t want to make this post too long, so I’ll give you a basic outline of what a thesis may look like.

I.INTRODUCTION

a.Thesis statement, “Corporate persons are not entitled to personhood.”
b.State how you are going to prove this thesis statement in your paper by outlining what steps you are going to take to prove this statement. So, I am going to prove that corporate personhood is a benefit to society by;
i.Examining personhood
ii.Etymology of personhood
iii.Different accounts of personhood
iv.Corporations and personhood

1.INSERTION OF THESIS ARGUMENT.
a.“Corporate persons are not entitled to personhood because of the problematic accounts of personhood. To affirm this statement, I will examine 3 aspects of corporate personhood
i.Corporate personhood as legal fiction
ii.Corporation as a legal entity
iii.Concept of a corporation as a “loophole” person.

II.EXAMINING PERSONHOOD
a.Account of what a person is according to S.F. Sapontzis.

III.ETYMOLOGY OF PERSONHOOD
a.Link the account of personhood according to S.F. Sapontzis to the etymology of the word. In the etymology of the word, we discover evidence of two differing accounts of personhood…natural and artificial.

IV.DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF PERSONHOOD
a.Accounts of personhood according to Hobbes Leviathan “on personhood and things personated.
b.Account of personhood according to Carl J. Mayer

V.CORPORATIONS AND PERSONHOOD
a.INSERT THESIS STAMENT
b.State your arguments for why corporate persons are not entitled to personhood

VI.Corporate personhood as legal fiction

VII.Corporation as legal entity

VIII.“loophole” personhood

IX.CONCLUSION

That is a basic structure of a thesis. The abstract comes after the paper has been made and basically describes the paper in a short paragraph. If you submit your paper anywhere academically, you need an abstract.
I’m sure I could elaborate further. Hope this helps.

[one-philosophy]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

I was wondering when writing philosophy if there is a general format to follow outside of the forums. Is philosophy best written formally or imformally? Is there is structure format to follow?

lol, if your talking about the structure, composition and substance of philosophical writings you've pretty much mastered it already with what you have just asked!

I say that there doesn't have to be any boundaries, but in general principle I say that the structure of a philosophical debate is usually something like this.

1-Philosophical thought or question or claim or theory
2-Justification for thought/question/claim/theory.
3-Counter argument
4-Justification against thought/question/claim/theory.
5-Counter argument
6-Repeat steps 2 to 5 eternally, mosts philosiphers won't put down their guns and unfortunately end up repeating what they say in the first place.

Sometimes as is often the case, the two main entities of argument will argue continuesly with counter arguments and sometimes just keep slandering each other. But don't worry, everyones nice on this forum *except those God Forsaken Athiests! Grrr (just messin', they can be nice too)

Lets take the example of God as it is pretty well known.
1-Is there a higher diety called God outside this space and universe?
2-If there is a creation there must be a creator.
3-What if we are an accident from another cause like the big bang?
4-We can study how the big bang came into being so we were caused from the big bang.
5-What if God caused the Big Bang?
6/2-The Big bang is such a finely detailed process, so including many other factors, and slight change in history even to the likeness of an atoms difference would mean the big bang would not of happened the way it did meaning that we would not exist.
6/3-If there was the slight change, maybe life would appear in another part of the universe.
6/5-You cannot know that because it never happened.
6/3-Then You can't know God as we've never seen him
6/5-We've seen his actions and in the good that is brought about.
6/3-Then what about suffering?
6/5-People suffer because of mans evil
6/3-What about hurricanes, tsunamis etc.
6/5-If someone is hurt on account of someone else then they shall be punished on judgment day.
6/3-You cannot know that as it hasn't happened.
6/5-But it will happen
6/3-I dont believe you
6/5-You dont believe anything
6/3-I believe you should go to hell
6/5-You don't believe in hell
6/3-Shut up!
6/5-Make Me
6/3-Hey whats that gun for?
6/5-You gunna die!
6/3-Oh GOD NO I'M TOO YOUNG TO DIE
6/5-Relax its a toy gun, but look who you call upon now. You call upon God in times of need.
6/3-That was a force of habit

And so on...

[de Silentio]

Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper

http://oregonstate.edu/cla/philosoph...TING_GUIDE.pdf

Some sites that I have used as a starting point.

[Fido]

To write anything is to write philosophy. It is not what people think, but what people do. And the abstraction of knowledge is the beginning of it. So write in the dust, or write in Granite, and you are asserting your being with equal vigor.

[VideCorSpoon]

Any type of philosophy is itself based on some doctrinal belief and encapsulated in some normative framework, founded or unfounded. However, I think the topic of this thread deals more with the formal aspects of writing philosophy though. But ultimately there are some degree of standards that academic philosophy has to adhered to in order to ring cogent, which I believe Holiday initially understood when he asked on the formalities of writing philosophy. I think that if we didn’t follow somewhat closely to this system, all we have are blurted axiomatic statements instead of constructive suppositions.

But I suppose you could just write down anything on any medium and call it philosophy. Nobody would take it seriously… but it is entirely possible.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Any type of philosophy is itself based on some doctrinal belief and encapsulated in some normative framework, founded or unfounded. However, I think the topic of this thread deals more with the formal aspects of writing philosophy though. But ultimately there are some degree of standards that academic philosophy has to adhered to in order to ring cogent, which I believe Holiday initially understood when he asked on the formalities of writing philosophy. I think that if we didn’t follow somewhat closely to this system, all we have are blurted axiomatic statements instead of constructive suppositions.

But I suppose you could just write down anything on any medium and call it philosophy. Nobody would take it seriously… but it is entirely possible.

Non sense old Vid. We write to communicate, and communication requires abstraction, and abstraction requires truth. Truth, knowledge, is that which we most presume and most need to prove. The other presumed fact is that we exist, and this too is in want of proof. So, these two things are philosophy, and one may be chicken and the other egg, but my guess is the natural order of philosophy, the process if you prefer is: Am I, and, am I truth? Before we can know truth we must prove it, and before we can prove it we must know what it is, and excluding all else, show the relationship between what is known, and what is good. However this story is presented, it is always the same story, seeking the real to prove we are real. Once the truth is known it is a small matter to tell it. The truth is proved when it results in good for ourselves and others, so the truth proves us as we prove it.

[Holiday20310401]

Yeah, I mean my writing can be so abstract, and so hard to understand b/c of it and lack of coherence that well, I'm still finding it hard to see why we would be wanting to incorporate a writing structure

[Victor Eremita]

To write ACADEMIC phiosophy, I agree with VideCorSpoon's and any other structured way to write philosophy. Students ought to pay heed to thesis, argument, counterarguments, conclusion format.

But to write philosophy, one can be as irrational as Shestov, as mathematical as Frege, as unclear as Hegel and Heidegger, as clear as Mill, as poetic as Kierkegaard, as narrative as Descartes, as fables as Plato, as confessional as Augustine and Rousseau, and so and so on.

[VideCorSpoon]

Fido

In abstraction we deal with terms unestablished. So I don’t agree that abstraction requires truth, which to a point requires fundamental views. Relativism maybe, but not truth. Abstraction is a process we use when we cannot draw on established ideas As to your whole spiel on truth, knowledge, and existence… its kinda irrelevant to the discussion. Were the two things you were trying to convey philosophy? Probably not, but they do sound romantic in an oratorical kind of way, and that is not a bad thing. Etc, etc, etc.

It’s not meant to be mean or critical, but keep in mind the point of the thread... which is how to write philosophy, not how to write romantic axioms… that’s why we have poetry. The poetic prose that flows off the mind and sounds nice is entirely different than the philosophically inclined construction of cogent arguments.

Holiday

You ask why it is necessary for us to incorporate a writing structure? It’s not exactly the fact that there is a specific structure to writing philosophy, just a necessity to write philosophy cogently. If you have a solid grasp of syntactical structure, semantics, good grammar, and a cogent argument you can put your argument forth in any domain, academic or not. Victor Eremite brings up an excellent point about academic philosophy and philosophy in general. But Descartes, Hegel, and the pretty much all the others had training and familiarity on how to construct cogent writings because of their extensive education in philosophical discourse. Undoubtedly they all have their own styles, but they incorporate fundamental elements of formulation in their writings.

Victor,

I agree, there is a somewhat visable distinction between academic and philosophy in general. But that division is evident now because past standards of writing were different than today’s standards of writing. Descartes and his ilk had to write in a particular way to confront scholastics, etc. Today, philosophers have to confront one of the most difficult opponents to argue with… science. Science has a set methodology and in order to relate, philosophy adapts to that methodology. That is perhaps why logic and formal structure are so heavily emphasized in universities today.