Introduction

As a student new to philosophy, the task of writing a philosophy paper is usually the first thing that you will focus on — and dread. However, what will become a more immediate concern for you is getting through your philosophy text without getting disheartened and overwhelmed. It is often difficult for newcomers to make sense out of some of the articles you are asked to read. The difficulties that you may discover are often simply due to your being unfamiliar with the writing styles of professional philosophers. This brief section will offer some ideas on how to work your way through the essays in this book.

Two bits of advice though:

1. Do not read while lying down on a couch or in bed, since you will probably want to drift off to sleep.
2. You will have to read each article more than once. Sorry, but as a film instructor of mine told me: “If a film isn’t worth watching twice, it isn’t worth watching once.”

Part of your difficulty getting “used to” reading philosophy is that the styles that you will encounter can be quite different than what you are familiar with. Styles can differ depending on the author’s intended audience (is it for laypersons or other philosophers?) and whether the article is a translated work (are you reading an English translation of a Greek text?). Even the century that the work is drawn from will affect your reading comfort level. As well, the particular school of thought that the author comes from can have significant impact on how the piece is presented (is the philosopher from the analytic or continental tradition?). Finally, the author’s own personality and style will often come through in his/her writing. So, even though all philosophy papers have the intent to convince the reader of some claim or other, how the author conveys his/her views can vary considerably.

A philosopher’s use of complicated phrases or sentences and the development of complex arguments, combined with your limited experience, requires that you develop an active reading skill. So, without further ado, here are a few tips on how to better understand and therefore appreciate philosophy papers.

Understanding

First, skim over the article in order to get a general idea of what the author is trying to say. Pay attention to the title and subtitles, since they will often inform you of the area of inquiry. Pay attention to the opening paragraphs, since authors will sometimes offer summaries or overviews of their papers (e.g., “In this paper it will be argued that . . .”), or they will set the context of their paper (i.e., what area of concern their paper is in, what issue it will deal with, or even who it is in response to).

Working Backwards

Working your way to the conclusion, you will want to make a note of it; this is what the author wants to convince you of. Underline it or highlight it (assuming it is your own copy and not the library’s). Try and write the conclusion down on a piece of paper in your own words, since that will help you remember it. Now, go back to the beginning of the paper, and with the conclusion in mind, try and see how the author tries to take you there. In other words, think of the challenge as being akin to re-reading a murder mystery novel; it was fun to try and figure out who the murderer was, you saw clues here and there, and perhaps you were able to figure out some, but others eluded you. Now that you know who the culprit is, it can be fun to see how all the clues that you missed fit together. (This approach is one reason why I do not like Agatha Christie novels; it seemed to me that she never provided enough clues, and the murderer only shows up in the last five pages — so most of the novel is irrelevant to its ending! Of course, I am overstating my perception of her work, but you get the idea: It is no fun reading something or watching a movie when the author brings in a character right at the end with no previous connection to the story. Keep this in mind when you are planning your own essay!)

As you are reading each paragraph, you will find that the first and last sentences will often provide key elements of the author’s thought process; here, you may find a conclusion or premise of an argument or sub-argument. Now, I should explain these terms so that you not only can analyze the essay you are reading but also can also create your own well-founded arguments later on.

Premises and Conclusions

What is important is that the author does in fact offer you a reason, any reason, for the conclusion; otherwise, they are just stating an opinion. If I said: “Universal health care is a good thing,” all you can do is either just smile or say something like, “That is nice,” for I have not given you anything more than a simple statement on what I believe. I have just given you an unsupported claim. Accordingly, while you may agree or disagree with my opinion, because I have not stated any justification for my view you do not know what to make of it, and so, you should never just accept it — even if you happen to agree. I must offer a defence of my position before you can determine if you should rationally accept or reject it. Even if you agree with the opinion, you may not agree with my reasoning, and that is just as important.

Here is an example:

• I say: “I think capital punishment is wrong.”
• You say: “I agree!”
• Then I say: “I think it’s wrong because those murdering bastards should be tortured slowly instead!”

Now, because you did not wait to hear my reason, you have, or you have at least given me the appearance that you have, bought into my rather shocking perspective — but more than likely you would want to disagree with me. The moral of the story is that people can agree on the same points but for different reasons, and some of the reasons may be good and others may be bad.

Another quick example:

• You and I both agree that the sum of 2 + 2 is not 5.
• You (rightly) believe that 2 + 2 does not equal 5 because it actually equals 4.
• I (wrongly) believe that 2 + 2 does not equal 5 because it equals “Tuesday.”

You must consider both the premises and the conclusion before making a final judgement about whether the argument is a good one or not.

Indicator Words

In an argumentative essay, such as those that you will be reading in this book, the paragraphs are an opportunity for the author to offer a somewhat self-contained argument. As noted earlier, each self-contained argument then may be intended to substantiate some larger position of the author. Premise and conclusion indicator words will often (but not always) help you distinguish the different parts of the arguments, as well as distinguish arguments from non-arguments. These useful words indicate or signal that there is a reason (or premise, evidence, justification, etc.) being offered in support of a viewpoint (or conclusion). Premise indicator words include: “Because,” “Since,” “Due to,” “It follows from,” etc. Conclusion indicators include: “Therefore,” “Accordingly,” “So,” “Hence,” “Thus,” etc. Such words then will help you follow, and if necessary, reconstruct, the argument of the author. If there are no indicator words and you suspect that you are dealing with some part of an argument, try inserting an indicator word of your choice to see if it makes sense.

Other Things to Watch Out For

When trying to capture the author’s argument, making notes in the margin is useful. For example, you might put a couple of words beside each paragraph that highlight the topic of the paragraph. Do not simply underline every word, since not everything the author will say will be significant and/or relevant to the main thesis. For example, the author might provide you with background factual information, editorial or introductory comments, and personal asides. See if the author defines the terms that they are using. This is important, since you want to make sure you actually understand their view before challenging it.

So, look for stipulative definitions whereby the author defines what they mean when they use a certain term (e.g., “By ‘universal health care’ I mean that everyone receives health care regardless of their ability to pay, regardless of where they live, and regardless of the amount of responsibility or ‘blame-worthiness’ that they have for causing their own injury or illness.”). See if the author offers distinctions between his or her views and those of other authors (e.g., “It is a mistake to believe that a dualist shares the same views with all anti-materialists.”). As well, look for the use of other writers’ ideas, either as supporting evidence or as positions that the author wants to refute (e.g., “In 1993, Simonson argued (rightly/wrongly) that . . .”). At a later date, you may want to look up those references for your own essay.

Reword the Main Arguments

Next, try to put the main arguments (the premises and the conclusions) of the paper in your own words. Make sure that what you believe the author is arguing for is in fact what the author intended. This is a crucial step because sometimes people will misinterpret what the author has written and then criticize them for the apparent views that they hold. This is known as committing the Straw Person Fallacy. Simply put, it is easy to criticize someone for something when in fact it is you, not they, who stated it!

Review What You Have Done

Now, notice the steps you have taken so far:

1. You have skimmed over the article to get a general sense of what it is about.
2. You have put the conclusion (or what you think is the conclusion) into your own words.
3. You have gone back to carefully re-read the article to draw out the various arguments that the author raises or rejects in his/her paper.
   • Remember, not everything that the author says is going to be a positive thesis. They will often argue against other people at the same time, attempting to show why their opponent’s view is unsatisfactory and, subsequently, why their own views are right.
4. You have taken these points (many of which you have jotted down in the margins) and listed them on a piece of paper.

Take a moment to look at what you have. Do you follow the flow of the paper? Perhaps you can draw arrows and diagrams connecting the various points. Do you understand what the author has said and why he/she has said it? If not, can you guess what you need to do? Yes, you should probably read it again, and if that fails, ask well-formed questions of your instructor or peers. For example, do not just say “I do not get it.” Try phrasing your question so that it not only includes information about where you are confused but also includes your own possible answer: “On page 34, the author states X, but I do not see how this fits with the conclusion Z. Is the author saying that X leads to Y and that Y leads to Z?”

Once you understand the article, only then can you go back and evaluate it. ¹

Evaluation

So, for the sake of argument, let us assume that you have a reasonable grasp on what the author is trying to ultimately convince you of. Now the question is, is the author successful in that goal? No one is saying you must accept or reject every single point made. Some arguments can still survive, even if you have cast doubt on some of the premises. Perhaps you like the argument in general but find a few weak areas that could be revised. Perhaps you think the argument is seriously flawed from the start. Whatever you believe, you will ultimately have to convince others of the same.

Argument Types

Here is one approach that you can use to evaluate the author’s position. Let us call it the “S-test.” Are the premises satisfactory and do they sufficiently support the conclusion? First, you will want to isolate the premises that the author offers to defend thier conclusions, and you will want to consider whether or not they are rationally acceptable. This means, amongst other things, that you will want to determine if each reason or premise has been defended in a deductively sound or inductively strong sub-argument.

Deductive Arguments

A deductively sound argument is an argument that is deductively valid and in which the premises are true. A deductively valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. Notice that I have emphasized “if.” I am not saying that the premises are in fact true. We are only imagining that they are for the sake of analysis. You can have a valid but unsound argument but not a sound invalid argument. Deductive arguments are about guaranteeing the certainty of the conclusion. For example, if all humans are mortal and Jeff is a human, it MUST follow that Jeff is mortal. Replace the subject and the predicates in this argument with unknowns (e.g., X, Y, Z), and you can see that the conclusion still must follow: All X are Y and Z is an X, then Z is an X, too.

Here is another example. If I hold my breath for a long time, then I will pass out or gasp for air. I do attempt to hold my breath for a long time… Can you guess what happens? I will pass out or gasp for air! You might say “Well, that’s common knowledge.” True, but look at the structure of the argument. If I am eighteen feet tall, then I can levitate dolphins. I tell you that I am eighteen feet tall. What do you know? You know that I can levitate dolphins. For deductive validity, it does not matter what the subject and the predicate are, since it is the structure, not the content, that is important. Soundness, on the other hand, is concerned with the content. First, the argument has to be checked for validity, and then we ask “Are the premises in fact true?” For if they are, we have a deductively sound argument. If they are not, then we just have a valid one. Thus, the “holding my breath” version of the “If A then B, A, therefore B” argument is sound, but the second version is only valid.

Inductive Arguments

Inductive arguments are arguments that are evaluated in terms of “strength.” We use these types of arguments to make empirical predictions or generalizations. They do not guarantee the conclusion; rather, they provide a degree of rational persuasion for the conclusion to be considered true. For example, if eight out of ten doctors tell you that you have the flu, then odds are that you probably have the flu. If, during the autumn months, you have noticed that the weather has been turning cooler, then tomorrow will be cooler still. These are inductively strong arguments, since the premises are good indicators for the conclusion to be true. Still, they might be wrong. You may in fact have some rare disease that mimics flu-like symptoms. The weather might turn unseasonably hot tomorrow. But if you were to deny the rational strength of these arguments, then you would not be able to function in life, let alone in a philosophy class.

Assessing an Argument

The challenge, then, when you are assessing someone else’s argument is to determine if they have provided you with premises and conclusions that allow you to say they have given you good or bad arguments. Thus, arguments can go wrong in either two ways:

1. The premises may be unsatisfactory.
2. They may not support the conclusion appropriately.

Are the Premises Satisfactory?

The premises can be determined to be satisfactory on any number of grounds. I hesitate to say, “the premises are true,” because although it is quite reasonable to claim, “No one has seen a unicorn lately,” I know some smart aleck will ask, “How do you know for sure? Have you asked everyone?” Well, no. I have not. So I cannot know for sure, since I have not checked. I cannot know for certain that it is true — though perhaps I can know for certain that this smart aleck is annoying…

If the premises are true by definition, or true by the meaning of the words alone, then we are safe. For example, claiming “Mammals give birth to their young alive” is true by definition. I do not need to go and verify this claim by checking every mammal out there. Part of how we define “mammals” is by the fact that they give birth to their young alive. A claim such as “The square room next door has four corners” is known to be true by the very meaning of the word “square.” I do not need to go next door to count the number of corners in the square room to know that it has to be four. However, if the claim was “The room next door is square,” this would need to be verified.

The premises can be satisfactory by an appeal to common knowledge — not just common belief. There are lots of things that many people do believe or have believed that have turned out to be false: that the world was flat or that they will win this week’s lottery. There are lots of things that people believe that are controversial and, thus, open to debate: that slavery is acceptable or that flat taxation is just. And, finally, there are things that people believe that cannot be verified: that there is an afterlife or that if a tree falls in the forest it does (or does not) make a sound. In fact, what counts as “knowledge” will not be discussed here — for that, you should turn to the appropriate readings in the text.

The premises can be considered satisfactory if they have been successfully defended elsewhere by the author in a sub-argument or another article or by another person. They can be considered satisfactory if they are supported by a proper appeal to authority. This means that the person to whom you are referring is indeed an expert in the relevant area and that the experts in that area generally agree about the claim being made.

If, for some reason, you do not know if the premise is satisfactory, and you do not have evidence to suggest that it is unsatisfactory, then you may wish to provisionally accept it and move on to evaluate the author’s other reasons (this is one reason why we hear people say “For argument’s sake, let us assume that you are right.”). However, if you do not understand the argument, do not use provisional acceptance as a way to justify your own intellectual laziness. Sometimes, understanding a point requires re-reading a particular paper or doing a bit of background investigation.

For example, if the arguer keeps talking about another person’s argument, do you need to go find out for yourself what the original person said? What is the context of the argument, and do you need to familiarize yourself with details on the surrounding issues? Just as it is inappropriate to walk in on another person’s conversation and start arguing with them (e.g., Bob: “. . . and so as I was saying . . .” You, entering the room: “Hi Bob! You are wrong!”), it is academically inappropriate to start arguing against an author before you get the full story. If you have to, do some research!

Research does not have to be confined to the task of tracking down other lengthy books. You can try a philosophy encyclopaedia for good overviews of topics and philosophers. You can try a philosophy dictionary for help on terminology. You can talk to your peers. You can ask for directed assistance from your instructor, and so forth. Research in this sense is simply taking responsibility in finding out what you need to know in order to make a well-reasoned decision about the piece that you are evaluating.

Do the Premises Support the Conclusion?

Once you have determined whether the premises themselves are satisfactory, the next stage of your evaluation will involve determining if the premises support the conclusion. In other words, are they positively relevant to the conclusion? To be “positively relevant,” the truth of the premise will count towards the truth of the conclusion. For example, the premise “It is sunny and warm today” is positively relevant to the conclusion “I should wear shorts and a T-shirt if I want to avoid being uncomfortable today.” Whereas the premise “All ravens are black” is not relevant to the same conclusion (namely, “I should wear shorts and a T-shirt if I want to avoid being uncomfortable today.”).

Only after determining if the reasons support to the conclusion may you then consider whether or not the author has provided sufficient support for you to rationally accept the conclusion. That the suspect hated the victim supports the claim that he killed the victim, but it clearly is not sufficient support. However, that the suspect voluntarily confessed to the crime or that he left DNA and a home movie in which he is seen shooting the victim would probably convince the jury.

When determining if there is an appropriate and strong relationship between premises and conclusions, there are a few things one should consider.

Imagine someone said, “University courses are hard.” They would require extensive argumentation to try and convince you of this claim. In fact, they would fail to do this because:

• The claim is ambiguous. Do they mean all university courses are hard or that some university courses are hard?
• Are they just claiming that all the courses that they have personally taken are hard?
• Are they using their personal experience of university courses to try and support the claim that university courses in general (i.e., even the ones they have not taken) are difficult?
• What do they mean by “hard?” Time consuming? Intellectually challenging? A combination of both?

After you point out these problems, you could then tell the person what they ARE able to conclude based upon the evidence provided. Are you trying to draw a generalization? Do they want to claim “All university courses are . . .” or “Most are . . .” or “Some are . . .”? Depending upon the scope of the proposition, that is, the quantity that is being referred to (i.e., few, some, many, most, all), then the number of examples offered needs to be appropriate. Clearly, if one wants to claim that “Most birds are black,” then there will need to be more examples of black birds given rather than fewer. But if the claim is “Some students are tall,” then just a handful of examples will suffice.

Backing away from a universal claim (e.g., “All dogs are friendly”) does not necessarily mean that you are giving a weaker argument. Indeed, it may be stronger. For if you state that, “All dogs are friendly,” then your opponent only needs to find one example of a dog that is not friendly to defeat your argument. However, if you say, “Most dogs are friendly,” then that one unfriendly dog does not hurt your position. You could respond: “I did not say ‘All dogs are friendly,’ nor did I say ‘THAT dog is friendly.’ I just said ‘most’!”

Another feature to watch for is the degree of certainty that is used in the proposition. Is the person claiming “I know for sure that there is a test next week,” or are they simply claiming “There might be a test next week”? The standard of the evidence for the former statement will be much more demanding than the latter. Again, you need to assess how much evidence there is to determine how strong a claim can be put forward. Obviously, you could (or may need to) weaken your claim, but then its persuasive effect will be lost. For example, which claim sounds more interesting: “The home team will win the championship,” or “There is a possibility that the home team might win the championship”? No one would probably (!) deny the second statement, because all the home team has to do is show up for the claim to be substantiated, so why waste your time (and theirs) arguing for such a point? So, while you may need to back down from being too confident in stating your conclusion, at the same time, you do not want to present a meek position when the evidence is clearly in your favour!

Finding satisfactory premises that supply sufficient support for a conclusion entails that you be actively engaged in critical thinking. And, as mentioned at the outset, you cannot just read about how to develop these skills, because in order to learn, you have to do.

Attribution

Unless otherwise noted, “How to Do Philosophy” in The Originals: Classic Readings in Western Philosophy by Jeff McLaughlin (2017) is adapted and used under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license.