Philo

Doing Philosophy
This page intentionally left blank

Doing
Philosophy
A Practical Guide
for Students
Clare Saunders, David Mossley,

George MacDonald Ross
and Danielle Lamb
Edited by Julie Closs
Continuum International Publishing Group
The Tower Building 80 Maiden Lane
11 York Road Suite 704
London SE1 7NX New York NY 10038
www.continuumbooks.com
© Clare Saunders, David Mossley, George MacDonald Ross,

Danielle Lamb and Julie Closs 2007
Reprinted 2008, 2010
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or
retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN: HB: 978-0-8264-9872-4

PB: 978-0-8264-9873-1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Doing philosophy : a practical guide for students/Clare Saunders . . .
[et al.]; edited by Julie Closs.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-0-8264-9872-4 — ISBN 978-0-8264-9872-1
1. Philosophy—Textbooks. I. Saunders, Clare. II. Closs, Julie.
III. Title.
BD31.D65 2008
107.1—dc22
2007034980
Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk

Printed and bound in Great Britain by
MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall
Contents
Preface viii
Introduction 1
1. Studying philosophy 3
What is philosophy? 3
What philosophers think about 5
Why study philosophy? 8
What does studying philosophy involve? 10
Summary 13
2. Reading philosophy 15
What to read 15
The reading list 15
How to read 27
Reading philosophically 27
What makes reading philosophy challenging? 48
Summary 66
3. Taking notes 69
Why is note-taking important? 69
Recording what you have learned 69
Engaging with the material 70
Content – what should I write down? 70
Summarizing material 70
Evaluating material 71
Recording your sources 72
Method – how should I go about taking notes? 72
Use your own words 73
Use quotations carefully 73
Leave plenty of room on the page 74
Distinguish between different types of information 74
vi CONTENTS
Find ways to relate different pieces of information 74

An example of effective note-taking 75
Tailoring your methods to your context 77
Making notes in lectures 77
Making notes from your reading 78
Making best use of your notes 82
Reviewing your notes 82
Comparing your notes 83
Storing your notes 85
Summary 86
4. Discussion 87
The value of discussion 87
Active learning 88
Contested subjects 88
Roots of philosophy 89
Discussion seminars 90
Preparation 91
The discussion itself 94
Other forms of discussion 98
Presentations 98
Electronic discussion 99
Summary 100
5. Writing philosophy 101
What to write 101
The essay question list 102
Preparing to write 107
How to write 107
What is philosophical writing? 107
Structuring the essay writing process 109
Planning your essay 112
How to avoid plagiarism 115
Writing your essay 122
Example essay questions 125
Example essay A 126
Example essay B 131
Example essay C 135
Example essay D 144
Example essay E 150
Assessment and feedback 157
CONTENTS vii
The purpose of assessment 157

Why bother with feedback? 157
Sources of feedback 158
Understanding your feedback 160
Using your feedback 163
Summary 165
6. Resources 166
Library resources 166
Books 167
Journals 169
Copyright 170
Referencing 171
Internet resources 172
Support systems 175
Student centres 175
Careers centres 175
Disability services 175
Philosophy societies 176
Subject associations 176
Some useful philosophical terms 177
Metaphysical terms 177
Epistemological terms 178
Semantic/logical terms 179
Index 181
Preface
In compiling this book, we have relied not only on our own

experience and expertise, but have also benefited from the advice
of numerous philosophy staff and students from a wide range of
universities and colleges across the UK and internationally – to
name them all would be a book in itself. Nonetheless, particular
thanks are due to the following individuals and organizations.
First and foremost, we must thank our colleague Julie Closs, who
acted as our in-house editor in compiling this book, and has borne
much of the responsibility for transforming our disparate musings
into a unified guide. This book would not have been possible
without her insight, expertise and hard work – not to mention her
patience with our various individual authorial quirks.
We have also benefited hugely from the helpful comments,
suggestions and criticisms provided by the philosophers who
reviewed earlier drafts of this book: Keith Crome (Manchester
Metropolitan University), Betsy Decyk (California State Uni-
versity, Long Beach), Edward Grefenstette (British Undergraduate
Philosophy Society) and Dave Leal (University of Oxford). We
are also grateful to numerous undergraduate philosophy students
in the University of Leeds who likewise provided us with invaluable
guidance on both the content and style of this volume. Of course,
any remaining flaws are the sole responsibility of the authors.
We hope that you will find this book useful, and we would
welcome your feedback. Please send any comments to:
enquiries@prs.heacademy.ac.uk
Introduction
The aim of this book is to provide a practical guide to studying

philosophy for undergraduate students. We focus on introducing
you to the methods and techniques of philosophy. It is not a ‘how
to’ manual, as this would imply that there is only one method of
doing philosophy, and there are many. Instead, it presents a variety
of practical strategies for tackling tasks that the majority of first year
students will inevitably encounter.
There are many generic study skills guides and introductions to
the subject matter of philosophy, and you can read more about
these in Chapter 6, ‘Resources’, at the end of the book. We do not
aim to replicate any of these, but rather to provide a structured look
at the process of doing a philosophy degree. This book is unique in
that it aims to equip the reader with a range of tools to deal with
the often problematic transition from A-levels or Access or other
courses to studying philosophy at undergraduate level.
Even with changing teaching methods, you will probably study
philosophy predominantly by reading philosophical texts, and be
assessed mostly by writing essays or papers. The approach we
have taken means that the chapters on reading and writing philo-
sophically are by far the longest. This is because you are likely to
spend most of your study time on these activities, and there is
simply more to say about them.
The structure of this book is roughly chronological, based on the
order in which new students will face certain tasks and challenges
when studying for a degree in philosophy.
In Chapter 1, ‘Studying philosophy’, we set out the challenges
and benefits, and how philosophy differs from other subjects you
may have studied before. We address the kind of issues it is useful to
think about when deciding whether to undertake a degree in
philosophy.
2 DOING PHILOSOPHY
Once you have decided that philosophy is for you and obtained a
place at university, probably the first thing you will be asked to do is
to read some philosophy. You may well be sent a reading list before
you even arrive in the department, and this can help you to prepare
for the coming year. So, in Chapter 2, ‘Reading philosophy’, we set
out what to do when faced with a reading list, and how to go about
analysing various texts.
While reading and in lectures and tutorials you will need to take
notes, and we set out strategies for doing so in Chapter 3, ‘Taking
notes’.
You will usually be asked to prepare reading and notes before
attending philosophy classes, and Chapter 4, ‘Discussion’, concerns
seminars and tutorials. We suggest ways in which you can get the
most out of your time spent discussing philosophy, both in and out
of class.
The culmination of reading and talking about philosophy is
usually an essay or paper, so we move on to look at the topic of
writing philosophy. In Chapter 5, ‘Writing philosophy’, we set out
the different kinds of questions you might face, and work through
example essay questions to help you get a better idea of what you
need to be thinking about when you write your own essays.
Chapter 6, ‘Resources’, contains information about books and
articles mentioned in the preceding chapters, resources you might
find useful during your course of study, and advice about how to
find and use them effectively. It also features a short glossary of
terms that should help you as you begin your studies.
We hope that in focusing on the different sorts of activity
involved in a philosophy degree, and going through them in the
same order that most students will face them, you will be well
prepared for what lies ahead. This book can be used by people
thinking about whether they want to study philosophy, in order to
get a better idea of what is involved. It is mainly aimed at the first
year undergraduate student, regardless of background or prior
educational experience. We hope that the information and advice
on making the transition to degree-level study of philosophy will
be useful throughout your course.
1 Studying philosophy
What is philosophy?
Philosophy is not quite like any other subject. Even professional
philosophers find it notoriously difficult to define philosophy, and
often shy away from stating what ‘philosophy is’ in favour of giving
examples of the sorts of things that philosophers do. The dictionary
definition of ‘philosophy’ (and the literal translation of the Greek
origins of the word) is ‘the love of wisdom’, which covers just about
everything; and indeed philosophy encompasses the study of
science, and art, and language – for just about any subject you can
think of, there will be a ‘philosophy of’ that subject.
So, what sets philosophy apart from other disciplines? Although
philosophy does have its own unique areas of enquiry, one of its
most distinctive features is not so much what you study as how you
study it – and it is this which makes the experience of studying
philosophy quite different from that of any other subject. In
philosophy, we learn to identify, and think carefully about, our
most basic ideas and theories – those that support all the questing
for knowledge we do in other subject areas. It has been charac-
terized as ‘conceptual plumbing’ or ‘conceptual engineering’.1 We
look behind our everyday concerns to examine the systems and
structures which support our thinking (and which ordinarily we
take for granted), and to test their soundness.
Because of this distinctive approach it is often easier to capture
the nature of philosophy by providing examples of ‘doing
philosophy’ rather than defining its field of study. This helps us to
appreciate more fully how – even when the object of our study is
common to more than one discipline – philosophy has a distinctive
contribution to make to our knowledge and understanding of the
world.
4 DOING PHILOSOPHY
Case study
Liz has been caught shoplifting from her local department store,
for the third time in as many weeks. The police are called;
she is arrested and charged with theft. When her case
comes to court, her lawyer argues in her defence that Liz is a
kleptomaniac.
Why is this claim relevant, and what difference should it make to

the case?
An example such as this might be discussed in a number of uni-

versity disciplines:
• In law, you might explore whether Liz’s kleptomania should

be taken into account when deciding upon an appropriate
criminal sentence.
• In psychology, you might investigate whether kleptomania
amounts to a mental illness, and how it can be treated
effectively.
However, in philosophy we explore the underlying questions
raised by the case regarding human free will and responsibility.
Kleptomania is defined as ‘an irresistible tendency to theft’ – if
Liz is a kleptomaniac, is she compelled to steal? What, exactly, does
it mean to be ‘compelled’ in this context? How is it different from
being ordered at gunpoint to steal?
If Liz’s kleptomania is truly a compulsive behaviour, then she
could not have acted otherwise – but if this is the case, then she did
not choose to act as she did. Are we responsible for actions we
do not choose? I do not choose to suffer from influenza and thus
to drain resources from others (my family and friends, the health
service) during my illness – and I am not held to blame for this. In
what ways, if any, is Liz’s situation different?
By asking, and seeking to answer, these underlying questions,
philosophy helps us to understand Liz’s case differently; but it also
does much more. Philosophy encourages and enables us to explore
the bigger picture behind the particularities of Liz’s situation – to
examine the ideas and principles which underpin this case: about
STUDYING PHILOSOPHY 5
human freedom and responsibility for our actions, and the connec-
tion between these two notions.
It is from the philosophical perspective that we might ask (for
example): ‘If I am genetically predisposed towards risk-taking,
aggressive behaviour, should I be held responsible for this?’ – or,
at the limit: ‘If science will ultimately be able to provide a complete
explanation of all my behaviour, then am I truly free?’
These philosophical questions are also crucial for us to address in
order to provide a basis for tackling the practical issues raised within
our other investigations. We need to develop our understanding of
what it is to be responsible for our actions before we can make
informed judgements about many issues – for example, regarding
who is able to make autonomous decisions: children, adults with
learning disabilities, those under the influence of drugs?
So this case study helps us to capture how philosophy is not just
concerned with grand abstract theories; it also has real implications
for everyday living.
What philosophers think about

While the study of philosophy and the skills it entails can be applied
to any subject area, there are some philosophical questions that
drive a great deal of enquiry. These questions are:
• What is there?
• What can be known?
• How should a life be lived?
• What is good reasoning?
As you might expect, this list is not uncontroversial and some
philosophers would say that we should include other questions, or
that we should dismiss some of those proposed as meaningless.
However, most philosophers working today would recognize the
value of these questions as being at the core of what philosophy is
about, and they provide a basic overview of the kinds of issues you
will study as a philosophy student.
What is there?
This is the basis of a branch of philosophy called metaphysics.
While a physicist could tell us something about the nature of
physical reality, and a sociologist about the nature of human
6 DOING PHILOSOPHY
societies, a metaphysician looks at the fundamental concepts and

theories that inform how we can even ask questions in physics
and sociology, or even in day-to-day life for that matter. What is
an individual thing? How do parts make a whole? What are the
properties of things? What is an event? How do causes work? But
we can ask metaphysical questions about other fields of enquiry.
What are numbers? What is a person? Do theoretical unobservable
entities like quarks really exist? Are parts of a society real? Can a
universe of only empty space make sense? These are all meta-
physical questions too, when posed in the context of philosophical
enquiry.
Some philosophers have asked about the very nature of being
itself, trying to discover whether there is anything meaningful to
be said about how we, as enquirers capable of reflecting on our own
existence, relate to reality. Others have asked why there is some-
thing rather than nothing; while others have used metaphysical
concepts to probe the concepts and nature of God and gods,
minds, time, art, history and anthills, indeed all aspects of human
experience and enquiry. Finally, there have been philosophers who
have argued that metaphysical musings are meaningless, or at best of
little value, while others have sought to demonstrate that all enquiry
requires a metaphysics. The history of metaphysics is rich, and a
lifetime’s study in itself.
What can be known?

This is a core question for epistemology, the study of knowledge.
Other basic questions are: What is knowledge? How is knowledge
different from belief? Can we know anything without experience?
Can we even be said to know anything at all? This is the great
problem of scepticism that has arisen many times in the history
of philosophy in different guises. As with metaphysics, we can ask
about the status of knowledge in other fields. What is the nature of
scientific knowledge? How do we have knowledge in mathematics?
What is religious belief? What knowledge can we have of other
minds? And so on. We can turn this line of questioning in on
philosophy itself and ask about the status of philosophical
knowledge. Epistemological questions have also been at the heart of
philosophy for the vast majority of its history. Technical treatments
of epistemology abound in philosophy, and once the surface is
scratched, getting to grips with epistemological issues can be

extremely fruitful and engaging.
How should a life be lived?

The problems raised by ethics are, perhaps, more familiar to us
in everyday life than those of metaphysics or epistemology. We
might ask ourselves whether fighting a particular war is justifiable,
or if lying is always wrong. We may have personal experience of
very difficult moral choices over euthanasia, abortion, social and
political equality, the treatment of non-human animals, what to
eat, sexual behaviour and so on. Philosophy addresses itself to
these questions of value to try to find frameworks that could help us
to make better choices, and it also looks at the deeper issues of
morality in itself. What should constitute human flourishing over-
all? What is the basis of ethical behaviour? What is it to be virtuous?
Does the good of the many outweigh the good of the few or the
one? Do we have moral duties to others? What is the relationship
between secular and religious values?
Additionally, along this line of questioning we might also
encounter political philosophical enquiry about the nature of
society and the values we would like it to reflect. Is it more
important that individuals are free to act as they would wish, or that
society is ordered and fair? Should there be positive redistribution
of wealth to the poor? What sort of society would we devise if we
did not know the role we would have in it? What is a law?
Moral philosophy and ethics are key topics in philosophy and, it
could be argued, the most likely to generate debate and controversy
with non-philosophers. And looking at value more generally, we
can include questions about the status of our aesthetic experiences
and the nature of art in an investigation of how we should have
a valuable life, a life worth living. Aesthetics, the philosophy of
art in its broadest terms, has never been far from the concerns
of philosophers. We can also ask metaphysical and epistemological
questions about values, ethics and aesthetics.
What is good reasoning?

Clear and critical thinking is crucial to success in philosophy, so it
will come as no surprise that questions about reasoning are part of
the philosophical landscape too. What does all good reasoning
8 DOING PHILOSOPHY
have in common? Is rationality something fixed in our brains? Is

reasoning the same at all times and places? What is truth? These are
some basic questions. Logic is often the first thing that comes to
mind when we think about reasoning, and logic has developed into
a highly specialized field that informs much contemporary tech-
nology directly or indirectly, in computer architecture, for example.
But formal logic, using symbolism to represent argument forms,
is only part of the story, and philosophers have always been con-
cerned to find ways of defining good thinking more generally.
Unlike psychological approaches that are descriptive, philosophical
explorations of critical thinking tend to be about finding and
defining the best strategies in a way that distinguishes good
thinking from bad.
We can take these ideas further because there is a connection
with philosophers’ thoughts on the nature and role of language in
our thinking. Philosophers have asked about how meaning relates
to truth and the world. Philosophy of language is a largely
modern branch of philosophy that looks at how language works,
has meaning, refers to the world and limits or structures our
experiences of the world – issues that touch every other question
we ask in philosophy.
Of course, for any issue you address in philosophy there will be
a different mixture of metaphysical, epistemological, ethical and
broadly logical topics to consider. This very brief survey will give
you an idea of what is to come in your studies.
Why study philosophy?

Hopefully, in deciding to study philosophy, or even if you have just
picked up this book to find out more about it, you are motivated by
an interest in the subject for its own sake – the questions it addresses,
the methods it uses – and by a sense that there is something special
about being a philosopher. Let us look at the study of philosophy in
a bit more detail, to see why we think it is valuable, and what you
are likely to gain from it.
The study of philosophy enables us to think carefully and clearly
about important issues. We need to be able to look beneath and
beyond specific circumstances or examples (as in our kleptomania
example), to examine whether our beliefs, theories and arguments
contain hidden assumptions or gaps which might lead us to jump to

unwarranted conclusions, or to hold inconsistent opinions. While
we can often afford to take for granted such received wisdom in
our daily lives, it is vitally important to be able to examine issues
critically, to spot where underlying opinions influence areas of our
thinking (for good or ill), and to identify what the consequences
might be if we are led to change our beliefs.
This is where philosophy comes into its own. In studying
philosophy, we learn to take a step back from our everyday think-
ing, and to explore the deeper, bigger questions which underpin
our thought. We learn to identify hidden connections and flawed
reasoning, and we seek to develop our thinking and theories so that
they are less prone to such errors, gaps and inconsistencies. This is a
vital contribution to human knowledge. It is also a crucial life skill.
In studying philosophy at university, you will not merely, or
even primarily, learn to master a body of knowledge. ‘The heart
of philosophy is a set of modes of thinking’2 – the focus of your
philosophical study will be to learn not what to believe, but how
to think. This is one of the distinctive strengths, and key benefits,
of studying philosophy. Whereas the knowledge learnt in other
disciplines may become outdated, due to future discoveries, for
example, the ability to think critically will not. In fact, it will equip
you with the tools of thought you need to react to changing
situations.
Studying philosophy sharpens your analytical abilities, enabling
you to identify and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses in any
position. It also hones your ability to construct and articulate
cogent arguments of your own. It prompts you to work across
disciplinary boundaries, and to think flexibly and creatively about
problems which do not present immediate solutions. Because
philosophy is an activity as much as a body of knowledge, it also
develops your ability to think and work independently.
There are no no-go areas for philosophical enquiry, and philo-
sophical techniques are universally applicable. Different schools of
philosophy have argued for systems which colour every aspect of
human life in highly contrasted ways. You will view the universe
and the place of humanity within it differently if you are an atheist
rather than a theist; if you believe that all our knowledge is derived
from experience rather than from a combination of experience and
10 DOING PHILOSOPHY
reason; or if you believe that our will is completely determined by

causal laws rather than capable of its own free action. Even if you
suspend judgement on such issues (as some philosophers justifiably
do), your study of them will leave you enriched with an under-
standing of the complexity of the physical and human sciences
which students of other disciplines may lack.
All these abilities will enhance your educational experience
while you are studying, but they will also make a lifelong difference
to your future. Such qualities are in huge demand in the wider
world – employers in all fields look to recruit potential leaders who
can demonstrate analysis, judgement, problem solving, influencing
skills, flexibility, creativity and high-level communication skills.3
Although all degree programmes seek to develop such skills,
arguably no discipline grants them the pre-eminence they are
accorded in philosophy.4 A degree in philosophy, therefore,
provides you with an excellent grounding for your future – its
distinctive focus on developing your critical thinking abilities is one
which has value in all walks of life.
What does studying philosophy involve?

The primary focus of the rest of this book is to give you an idea of
what to expect of your degree studies (and what your degree
studies will expect of you); and to help you to develop the philo-
sophical abilities which you will need to complete your degree
successfully. So let us look in a bit more detail at what your study of
philosophy will entail.
The first, and in some ways perhaps the most important, point
to note is that studying philosophy at degree level is likely to be
quite different from your previous experience of learning at school
or college (however recent or long ago). Even if you have studied
philosophy before, students often find that degree-level courses
require you to develop and demonstrate a very different level and
range of philosophical abilities – and if you are entirely new to
the study of philosophy, then it is more than likely that your
previous experience will not have fully prepared you for the
experience of reading for a philosophy degree. Many of these
differences will perhaps be predictable, once you consider what
we have just said about the distinctive nature of philosophy –
however, it is worth being explicit about what to expect, as many

students find the transition to degree-level philosophy study
challenging.
Perhaps the single biggest difference is the premium that degree-
level philosophy places upon your ability to analyse, and then to
construct, arguments. As we have already discussed, philosophy is as
much an activity as a body of knowledge, so factual accuracy –
although important – will not alone be enough to earn you amaz-
ing grades.
Knowing about the great philosophical thinkers of the past
and their theories is naturally a crucial element of your degree
studies – as in any discipline, it is important to develop a thorough
understanding of key topics in your field. However, degree-level
philosophy is much more than the history of ideas – your
philosophy tutors will typically be much more interested in how
you analyse the theories discussed, and how you structure your
own arguments in response. Related to this, they will be interested
to hear what you think, not just how much you have been able to
learn about what others have thought about the subject – you are
learning to do philosophy, not just learning about it, and you can
best do this by actually venturing your own arguments.
There is of course a balance to be struck here – you need to
develop your ideas not in a vacuum, but informed by the philo-
sophical theories of others – but if you want to make the most of
your degree study, then you should try to philosophize, not just
to learn about philosophers. This is the key distinguishing feature
of doing philosophy – success consists not just in absorbing
knowledge, but in developing and demonstrating your own critical
understanding of, and interaction with, the issues in question.
Because philosophy is only to a limited extent about transmitting
knowledge, the stress is on philosophy as an activity and a process
rather than just on the product. You learn the philosophical virtues
of unearthing and examining hidden assumptions; of detecting
conceptual confusions and clarifying them; of revealing and
resolving contradictions; and so on.
In common with other humanities subjects, philosophy is essen-
tially contested. That is, instead of there being a single body of
accepted knowledge which you are taught, you are introduced to a
range of conflicting theories, and expected to reason and argue
12 DOING PHILOSOPHY
about their respective merits. Often there are no perfect solutions to

philosophical problems. Some answers may be better argued for,
or better equip us to deal with other issues, but none hold a per-
manent, fixed, uncontested place in the thinking of all philosophers.
So from the outset we need to understand that philosophy has the
potential to change the way we think about ourselves, the world
and everything in it. You will be required to challenge your own
ideas and the ideas and theories of others, to see how they work, or
how they might be developed.
In order to do this, the study of philosophy requires us to think
much more carefully, and using more rigorous methods of
questioning, than perhaps we are used to. Although this might
seem difficult at first, rest assured the skills involved in thinking
and working philosophically can be identified and practised. The
purpose of this book is to analyse the distinctive demands of philo-
sophical study, and to put forward some strategies for developing
the skills to meet them.
It is worth noting that studying philosophy can present a par-
ticular challenge if your degree course is a combination with one
or more other subjects. The qualities that make for a good piece of
philosophy are not precisely the same as those prized in work in
other disciplines – you will probably need to adjust your approach
according to the particular emphases and interests of each
subject.
You may be inspired to study philosophy at university because
you have already started thinking philosophically. On the other
hand, your decision may be a leap into the unknown. One word of
warning: if you are the kind of person who likes to arrive at neat
and tidy, definitive answers – and /or you enter your studies hoping
to discover ‘the meaning of life’ – then the chances are that you
will find studying philosophy rather frustrating; although this need
not mean that you will not also find it ultimately satisfying and
rewarding. Once you have learned to look at things philosophically,
issues which previously seemed straightforward will be problematic.
You will often be able to see more sides to every story, and sharp
distinctions between good and evil may become much more
blurred. Philosophy often advances our understanding not so much
by adding to our sum of knowledge, as by enhancing our grasp of
what we do and do not know. An ability to cope with, and indeed
thrive on, these kinds of uncertainty will certainly help you to

flourish in studying philosophy.
Summary
This chapter has introduced the kinds of enquiries that form the
basis of the study of philosophy as a discipline, and the skills you
will be required to develop as you learn how to be a philosopher.
Looking more deeply at these skills, and presenting various
strategies to practise and improve them, will be the focus of the rest
of this book.
Notes
1 The analogy of philosophy as plumbing is developed by Mary
Midgley; the definition of philosophy as ‘conceptual engineering’ is
Simon Blackburn’s. Both provide very readable and engaging intro-
ductions to philosophy:
Midgley, Mary (1992), ‘Philosophical plumbing’, in A. Phillips Griffiths (ed.)
(1992), The Impulse to Philosophise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
pp. 139–152.
Blackburn, Simon (1999), Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(See also Chapter 3 for further discussion of Midgley’s argument.)
2 This quotation is taken from the Subject Benchmark Statement for
Philosophy, which outlines what you can expect from a philosophy
degree at any UK university – including the skills and personal attrib-
utes that a student should develop through their degree programme:
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2000), Philosophy Subject
Benchmark Statement. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher
Education.
The full text can be found on-line at the following URL:
www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/honours/
philosophy.asp
3 Further details of what qualities employers are looking for in their
graduate recruits, and how a philosophy degree equips you to meet
such demands, can be found in:
Employability: Where next? Unlocking the Potential of your Philosophy Degree,
(2007), Leeds: Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies,
available for download at http://prs.heacademy.ac.uk/publications/
emp_guides.html
14 DOING PHILOSOPHY
4 Some independent evidence in support of the claim that philosophy

graduates have distinctive strengths in these fields is provided by a
comparative analysis of graduate profiles in different disciplines con-
ducted by the Council for Industry and Higher Education:
Kubler, Bianca and Forbes, Peter (2006), Degrees of Skill: Student Employability
Profiles: A Guide for Employers. London: Council for Industry and Higher
Education.
The full report is available to order on-line at the following URL:
www.cihe-uk.com/publications.php
2 Reading philosophy
Philosophy, in common with most humanities subjects, is a very

text-based discipline, and a large amount of your study time will be
taken up with reading philosophical texts. This chapter provides
information that should help you to decide what to read, when, and
suggests a variety of strategies that will help you to get the most
out of your philosophical reading, and to develop your own skills of
philosophical analysis.
What to read
You may be given specific guidance on what to read each week in
order to prepare for lectures and tutorials. Often, such reading is
detailed in a course handout. This makes the job of deciding what
to read seem easy. However, this may not be everyone’s experience
of starting a philosophy course. Guidance given varies hugely across
different institutions.
Even if you are given directed reading for the semester ahead, it is
likely that at some stage, particularly when you are preparing your
assessed work, you will need to take control over your own reading,
and make judgements about what to read.
The reading list

When you start your first philosophy course, the first piece of paper
you are given by your course tutor – perhaps in the student hand-
book, perhaps in your first lecture or seminar – is likely to be a
dauntingly long list of famous and /or obscure philosophical texts,
that might look something like this:
16 DOING PHILOSOPHY
Introduction to Ethics – Reading List

Rachels, J. (2007), The Elements of Moral Philosophy (5th edn). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Benn, P. (1997), Ethics: Fundamentals of Philosophy. London and
New York: Routledge.
Glover, J (1990), Causing Death and Saving Lives. London: Penguin.
Singer, P. (1993), Practical Ethics (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mackie, J.L. (1977), Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Harmonds-
worth: Penguin.
Norman, R. (1983), The Moral Philosophers: An Introduction to
Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Williams, B. (1972), Morality: An Introduction to Ethics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Blackburn, S. (2002), Being Good: An Introduction to Ethics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Mill, J.S. (1861), Utilitarianism. Repr. in J.S. Mill and J. Bentham

(1987), Utilitarianism and other essays, ed. A. Ryan. London:
Penguin.
Hume, D. (1777/1975), Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals,
ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge (3rd edn). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kant, I. (1993), Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. and
ed. M. Gregor. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Aristotle (2000), Nicomachean Ethics, trans. and ed. R. Crisp.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sartre, J.-P. (1948), Existentialism and Humanism, trans. P. Mairet.
London: Methuen.
Jamieson, D. (1991), ‘Method and moral theory’, in P. Singer (ed.)

(1991), A Companion to Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.
LaFollette, H. (2001), ‘Theorizing about ethics’, in H. LaFollette (ed.)
(2001), Ethics in Practice (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell.
Crisp, R. (1997), Mill on Utilitarianism. London: Routledge.
Hughes, G.J. (2001), Aristotle on Ethics. London: Routledge.
Baillie, J. (2000), Hume on Morality. London and New York: Routledge.
Sullivan, R.J. (1994), An Introduction to Kant’s Ethics. Cambridge:
Urmson, J.O. (1988), Aristotle’s Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Smart, J.J.C. and Williams, B. (1973), Utilitarianism: For and Against.
London: Cambridge University Press.
READING PHILOSOPHY 17
Korsgaard, C.M. (1989), ‘Kant’s analysis of obligation: the argument

of Groundwork’. The Monist vol. 72 no. 3, 311–340. Repr. in C.M.
Korsgaard (1996), Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge and
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Foot, P. (1972), ‘Morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives’.
Philosophical Review vol. 81, 305–316.
McDowell, J. (1978), ‘Are moral requirements hypothetical impera-
tives?’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society suppl. vol. 52, 13–29.
Anscombe, G.E.M. (1958), ‘Modern moral philosophy’. Philosophy vol.
33, 1–19. Repr. in G.E.M. Anscombe (1981), Collected Philosophical
Papers, Vol III. Oxford: Blackwell.
Foot, P. (2001), Natural Goodness. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hursthouse, R. (1999), On Virtue Ethics. Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press.
McDowell, J. (1979), ‘Virtue and reason’. The Monist vol. 62,
331–350.
MacIntyre, A. (1981), After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. London:
Duckworth.
Foot, P. (1985), ‘Utilitarianism and the virtues’. Mind vol. 94, 196–209.
Repr. in S. Scheffler (ed.) (1988), Consequentialism and its Critics.
What do you do next? Surely you are not supposed to buy and
read all these texts – but how do you know where to start?
Understanding the reading list

Let us begin by looking at an excerpt of it, and seeing how we
might begin to find our way around it.
Each book entry on this reading list tells you:
Author surname, initials. (Date of publication), Title of book

(edition, translator, other information if appropriate). Place of
publication: publisher.
In your reading list, the order and format in which this infor-
mation is presented may vary. However, it should provide you
with all the key information you need to find the right book.
18 DOING PHILOSOPHY
Rachels, J. (2007), The

Elements of Moral
Philosophy (5th edition).
New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Benn, P. (1997), Ethics:
Fundamentals of
Philosophy. London and
New York: Routledge.
Norman, R. (1983), The
Moral Philosophers: An
Introduction to Ethics.
Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Hume, D. (1777/1975),
Enquiry Concerning the
Principles of Morals, ed.
L.A. Selby-Bigge (3rd
edn). Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Aristotle (2000),
Nicomachean Ethics, trans.
and ed. R. Crisp.
Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Urmson, J.O. (1988),

Aristotle’s Ethics. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Foot, P. (1985),
‘Utilitarianism and the
virtues’. Mind 94,
196–209. Repr. in S.
Scheffler (ed.) (1988),
Consequentialism and its
Critics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
McDowell, J. (1979),
‘Virtue and reason’. The
Monist 62, 331–350.
The last item is an article in a journal. It tells you:
Author surname, initials. (Date of publication), ‘Title of article’

Title of journal, volume number, page numbers.
As with book details on a reading list, the precise format of the

information about the journal article may vary, but these are the
key details you need to find the appropriate volume of the journal
in the library.
Types of texts
Let us look at these different types of text in a bit more detail.
Textbooks
Often, and especially on introductory level courses, textbooks will
be included on the reading list. They are usually written with a
student audience in mind, with the aim of providing an overview
of the area of philosophy being discussed. They draw on the work
of other philosophers to outline the background, and major philo-
sophical problems, of the topic under discussion. A good text-
book can be a great way into a difficult subject area, and if you
cannot afford to buy many books, getting hold of a recommended
textbook can be a valuable initial investment.
Primary texts
Where the work of a particular philosopher is going to be dis-
cussed in detail in your course, the original text by that philosopher
is likely to be included. Original texts are often called primary
texts.
These may well be historical texts, written several centuries ago,
and quite possibly in a different language. Where the text is written
in antiquated English, or has been translated, the edition you use
can be very important as you try to get to grips with the content.
Particular translations may be controversial. Because of this, your
lecturer is likely to recommend a particular edition or English
translation of the work, and it is a good idea to stick to this. For
instance, our sample reading list specifies Roger Crisp’s translation
of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.1
20 DOING PHILOSOPHY
Secondary texts
Secondary texts may also be included on your reading list. These
are texts which other thinkers have written about the primary
texts in question. Typically these provide a detailed analysis of the
original text, and of its impact on subsequent thinking. Secondary
texts can be a very good way of helping you to get to grips with a
difficult primary text, but should be read in conjunction with the
original, rather than instead of it, not least because a secondary text
only offers one person’s interpretation of the material.
Note that the terms primary and secondary texts do not mean the
same as essential and optional reading.
Anthologies
Another type of book you may come across is the anthology. These
are collections of writings on a particular topic, and may consist of
(more or less) short extracts from primary texts; essays or discrete
articles on the subject; or a combination of both. Reading a
recommended anthology can be a good way of familiarizing your-
self with the breadth of opinion about a particular subject without
spending hours trawling the library catalogue.
Journals
Journals are publications made up of collections of articles, often
referred to as papers, written by university researchers, and pub-
lished in serial volumes once or several times a year. Journal papers
are the format in which much academic research is first published,
and philosophy is no exception.
Journals are a distinctive feature of academic life. They are one of
the principal means by which academics across the world discuss
and develop their ideas. As such, they are an important way of
finding out the latest developments in your subject. Many journals
specialize in particular areas of philosophy, so if you are studying
ethics, for example, it may be that one or more of the specialist
ethics journals will be included on your reading list, as several of the
articles found in the various volumes of this journal may be relevant
to your course.
There are also journals aimed at specific levels of philosophical
study, including those written by and for undergraduates. See
Chapter 6, ‘Resources’, for more details.
Articles
Philosophy articles, whether published in an anthology or a journal,
may well be more challenging to read than a textbook. This is because
they are often (although not always) written for an audience of
philosophy academics rather than students; they are typically
focused on a very specific issue, and may be very densely argued.
When reading a journal article, you should not be intimidated if
you do not understand everything on your first, or even second,
reading. Even professional philosophers will often need to read such
an article several times in order to tackle it thoroughly; this is what
it is like to read philosophy.
In your first year, you are unlikely to be required to read many
articles at the cutting edge of philosophical research, but as you
progress and develop your own areas of interest and specialization,
you may find that journal articles provide you with a depth of
understanding of specific issues that you come to value.
Other types of text

We have looked at the most common forms of philosophy text,
but you may find other types of material included in your reading
lists too. Certain courses may include references to fiction, for
example; this may perhaps be used to illustrate particular philo-
sophical problems or approaches in a way which complements
traditional philosophical writing. In such cases, you will typically be
expected to read with attention to its philosophical content and
implications, rather than focusing primarily on literary qualities
(although these are not always easily teased apart), and your tutor
will give you more specific advice.
Prioritizing your reading

Let us go back to our starting point – that reading list. It would
probably take you all term to read that lot (and this is just the
reading for one course) and it would certainly cost you a small
fortune if you were to purchase all these texts. So you need to
prioritize – but how? Here are some suggestions.
Follow your lecturer’s advice

If your lecturer has provided with you with a lengthy reading list,
then this is not because she expects you to read every word of every
22 DOING PHILOSOPHY
text, but in order to provide you with, for example, further reading
on particular topics that will be useful if you choose to write an
assignment in that area; or a range of different textbooks in case one
or more prove difficult to obtain.
In this case, it is likely that further guidance will be given within
this list, highlighting which texts are essential. It goes without
saying that you ignore this at your peril; these are the texts that are
likely to form the core of your classroom discussions, and of your
assessment, so you will be at a disadvantage if you have neglected
them.
Do not be afraid to ask for more guidance

If this information is not provided on the reading list itself, and /or
you find that the ‘essential reading’ list is still too much for you to
manage (sometimes reading lists are rather optimistic about what is
feasible) ask your tutor for further guidance. Most will be more
than happy to help students get to grips with their reading, and this
is always preferable to omitting it altogether because you do not
know where to start.
Do not be ashamed to admit it if you are struggling to keep up
with the suggested reading. Some reading lists are designed with a
‘typical’ student in mind who is full-time, single-honours, with a
humanities background (so used to reading large quantities of text),
no other work or family commitments, and for example no dyslexia
or other particular study requirements. It is not a failure on your
part if you do not fit this profile, and it is quite reasonable for you to
ask for further guidance to reflect your circumstances.
Identify the core texts for your course

Sometimes these will be obvious – for example, for a course on
Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, it is safe to infer that his Critique of
Pure Reason, at the top of the list, will be a core text.2 When these
are not immediately obvious, however, they can often be identified
by reading ahead in the module guide. Does this provide you with
suggested or required readings for weekly seminars? Sometimes
these are provided in a course reader, but if not, it is worth
seeing which texts occur most often, and seeing if you can get your
own copies, rather than fighting to get hold of them from the
library.
Consult the library

Which texts are to be found in the reference and /or ‘short loan’
section(s) of the university library? Does the library hold multiple
copies of any of the texts on your reading list? If so, these are
the texts which are most frequently used by students – a reliable
indicator that these are a core resource for your module.
University libraries, often cavernous spaces with unfamiliar
systems for classifying and shelving the books they store, can be
daunting. However, new students are usually offered short intro-
ductory tours and /or courses. We recommend that you invest some
time at the very start of your degree studies in familiarizing yourself
with the library systems. This will be invaluable in equipping
you to use these resources effectively throughout the remainder
of your degree programme. Library staff are also a useful mine of
information – there will be a philosophy specialist you can consult
for more detailed advice if necessary.
Aim for a representative sample of texts

This is a bit more tricky – how do you tell what counts as a
‘representative’ selection of reading material? To some degree
you may need to work this out as you go along. To give you an idea,
though, let us review our sample reading list at the beginning of this
chapter.
The module outline for our course will tell us the core areas
to be covered: in this case, an introduction to key ethical theories;
including Kantianism, virtue theory and utilitarianism.3 So first of
all we want to ensure that none of these core issues is missing from
our selected reading. If this is not obvious from the titles of your
texts, then try checking the contents pages: does this help to tell you
what is covered? If you do not have immediate access to a particular
book, then sometimes this information is provided in the library
catalogue entry, or can be found on the website of the publisher or
bookseller.
More than this, however, you want to try to make sure that your
reading is not unduly biased in its treatment of any of these core
topics. This can be a complex matter to judge, and one on which
you should be given more detailed guidance by your tutors. How-
ever, there are some quick and easy ways to ensure that your reading
is not hopelessly one-sided.
24 DOING PHILOSOPHY
No single author can be completely impartial; and in many (if

not most) cases, the texts you are reading will be explicitly arguing
in favour of a particular view or approach. In order to develop a
balanced standpoint, therefore, you should aim to read more than
one account of any given topic, so that you have experienced more
than one thinker’s perspective.
If you find that these thinkers are saying much the same things –
do both the summaries you have read so far think that Kant’s
stance on ethics is roughly the right approach, although with some
difficulties for everyday implementation? – then scout around for a
text which provides a different interpretation: who disagrees with
Kant’s position, and /or thinks that it presents very different
challenges? Have you read Kant’s own work, to form your own
opinion? This is crucial – you will not be in a good position to
decide between rival accounts of a theory unless you have read the
original account of that theory.
Be prepared to use other resources
If you are unable to find the text you want from the reading list, cast
your net wider. You need not restrict yourself to the listed texts. In
fact, this can be of benefit as it can give you a different perspective
on the topic, which may be valuable in prompting you to form
your own views, rather than being tempted to repeat the standard
view you have heard in lectures and seminars. Independent
thinking is highly valued in philosophy, and will be a key skill for
you to develop high-quality philosophical work of your own. Here
are some suggestions for finding other resources.
Encyclopaedias. Try looking up your topic in an encyclopaedia of
philosophy. As well as providing a useful overview, these often give
suggestions for further reading.
Libraries. Browse the university library catalogue, using ‘key
word’ searches (perhaps ‘Kant’ + ‘ethics’, in our previous example)
and consult library courses and staff for support to refine these
search skills. Browse the library shelves in the relevant sections; if
the book you want is missing, there may still be other texts nearby
which are equally topical. Check what is available in other libraries
– does your department have its own book collection which
students can use, for example?
Electronic resources. You may have noticed that very little has been
said so far about anything other than printed texts. It is notoriously
difficult to provide detailed guidance on good web-based resources,
as these can become out of date very quickly. There are some
excellent philosophy resources on-line, such as internet encyclo-
paedias and gateways to other resources on various topics. However,
there are also many of very dubious quality, so it is important to be
very careful and critical in your use of information you find on the
web.
Again, your library should be your first port of call – they are
likely to offer a variety of useful internet resources, such as:
• On-line reading lists.
• e-texts; many core texts, and reference texts such as encyclo-
paedias, are now available on-line, so you do not need to rely
on tracking down a hard copy.
• Recommended websites; these will have been assessed to
ensure that they are of suitable academic quality, so are a much
more reliable means of accessing on-line information than a
general internet search.
See Chapter 6, ‘Resources’ for more detailed advice on using the
library and internet.
How much should I read?

It may not have escaped your attention that, in all the advice given
above on tackling your reading list, one topic has not yet been
addressed – namely, the thorny issue of how much you should read.
What counts as enough reading to equip you to tackle a seminar
discussion, or an essay, for example?
There are no hard and fast rules here. Some basic guidelines
might include the following:
Follow your lecturer’s advice

Once again, your tutor should be a key source of guidance here.
Your module handbook may well provide set readings for seminar
preparation, which let you know what is expected of you. For
essays, you could find out whether sample essays from previous
students on your course are available, so that you have a ‘bench-
mark’ for the typical bibliography that is expected in a philosophy
26 DOING PHILOSOPHY
essay for this module. However, most tutors would say that quality is
far more important than quantity.
Depth is more important than breadth

In philosophy, it is more valuable to read a few texts carefully than
to skim-read a large amount of material. As we discussed in Chapter
1, being successful in philosophy involves developing a deep under-
standing of the issues, and this can often be done effectively by
reading relatively little in terms of quantity, but reading it very
thoroughly.
Proportion your efforts to the course requirements

Naturally, your tutor will not expect the same depth and breadth
of reading as preparation for a 500-word assignment as she would
expect to see in the bibliography of a 5,000-word dissertation.
Likewise, you will typically be expected to do more reading for a
40-credit final-year module than for a 10-credit introductory
module.
Trust your instincts

If you are bitten by the philosophy ‘bug’, you will always be
tempted to read more; but you will also start to develop a sense
of when you have read enough to have an adequate grasp of the
issues. Seek feedback from your peers on the course, and your
tutor, directly, and /or via seminar discussion, to test your under-
standing of what you have read so far. Use the feedback from
your first assignments to calibrate what is required of you in the
future.
While we, and your tutors, would encourage you to read beyond
the bare minimum required for your course, it is worth noting that
your first-year courses should be designed so as not to over-burden
you as you get used to new subjects and methods of study, and
often a new way of life. These considerations should help you to
balance your workload between different modules or areas of study,
and with the rest of your life.
How to read
So now you have worked out what you need to prioritize, trawled
the shelves for your selected readings, and are at your desk with a
stack of books and articles – what next?
Reading will form a significant part of your study time, so it is
important that you approach it with some idea of what to expect
and some strategies for getting to grips with the texts.
Some philosophers have gone out of their way to make their
arguments clear and engaging for the reader, so there are some
philosophy texts that are paradigms of clarity and expression.
Others are more challenging. One thing is certainly true of the
majority of philosophy texts – they are difficult to skim-read, and
require effort, thought and time. But they will pay off with rich
rewards and give you an intellectual workout you cannot easily
forget.
It is up to you to get the best out of the reading you do.
Philosophy encourages direct engagement. This means working
towards really understanding what is going on so that you feel
confident enough to create and defend your own interpretations,
which may well be different from (and potentially better than) the
ones that you might be offered by a lecturer or a textbook. There is
a great deal to be gained by thinking about what else a text could
mean and trying out your own ideas, as long as you fairly represent
what the text says and provide good evidence and arguments for
your views.
In the rest of this chapter we will look at how to begin reading
and then finding, analysing and evaluating arguments when reading
philosophy. This is only a first taste of how you can use analysis
of arguments to understand philosophy, but it should give you a
flavour of the way it can be used.
Reading philosophically
The process of reading philosophically could be seen as consisting
of three main activities:
• Getting an overview of the text, its structure and the philo-
sophical problem under discussion.
• Understanding the arguments used and the conclusions
reached – that is, analysing the details of the structure.
28 DOING PHILOSOPHY
• Interpreting the overall meaning – understanding the con-

cepts and ideas and how they feed into other ideas discussed in
other texts and by other philosophers.
Each of these will be dealt with below, although they are not as
discrete as they might appear, and can occur in any order.
For example, in looking at a chapter in a book, you might come
across a clear statement of the arguments used as a summary, either
at the beginning or the end, and this could help you to get an
overview of your reading, and also guide how you choose to
look at the details of the arguments in the body of the chapter.
Additionally, you might find that the summary contains concepts,
words and ideas you have encountered in other reading, which
help you place the assumptions the author has made about the kind
of background ideas informing the chapter. And as you analyse
the arguments, this will again feed into your ideas about the overall
thrust of the chapter.
It is important that you do not miss out any of these activities,
because they each inform the others and provide a sound basis for
reading in a philosophical way, rather than just reading philosophy.
Structured reading
Here are some strategies that might seem obvious, but which might
help you to approach your reading in a structured way, in order to
get more from it:
1. Get a good overview of the text:
• What is its title? Does this tell you what it is about?
• How long is it? How much time do you need to put aside
to read it?
• Is there anything particular about how the text is set out
on the page?
• Does it have an introduction that sets up the problem or
argument addressed?
• Is there a conclusion that sums up the argument and
points the way forward to other ideas?
• What are the section or chapter headings? Can you see a
pattern or structure?
2. Think about what you want from the text: a good grasp
of the arguments? A framework for understanding some-
thing else? An understanding of a concept that is new to

you?
3. Use the text’s own form to guide your reading: it has the
structure it does for a reason.
4. Take your time: being slow is not a problem, and often a
benefit in philosophy.
5. Make notes and jot down your own ideas as you go along:
engage with the ideas from the start, challenge and test
them.
Hopefully there is nothing too surprising in this list, but thinking
about reading as a structured activity should help you to engage
with difficult material. In particular, time is certainly something
very important to take account of when you sit down to read, or are
planning your workload. It takes longer to read philosophy com-
pared with other everyday writing, and often longer than other
academic texts. This is because you have to pay attention to the use
of words and structure much more closely, and because the ideas
being discussed are often very complex. There is nothing wrong if
you find yourself reading much more slowly than you do else-
where: this is normal for reading philosophy and allows you the
opportunity to analyse the arguments being presented.
In planning your time, look back at what you have noted about
the form of the text and the sections or chapters in it and then
allow yourself time to deal with whole chapters, sections and
subsections.
Identifying philosophical problems

When reading philosophy, the first challenge is to identify the
nature of the problem the author is addressing. Identifying the
problem – the topic or focus of the text – will help you to approach
your reading in a structured way; you will be able to spot the key
themes and ideas throughout the rest of the text, and to identify the
wider context for the author’s argument.
This might initially seem too obvious to be worth stating: the
topic at hand is usually specified in the title, and the text will often
start by setting out the questions the author is seeking to answer.
What more is needed?
In philosophy, understanding what the problem is, and why it
30 DOING PHILOSOPHY
deserves our philosophical attention, involves not just identifying

the topic, but also appreciating its significance. You need to identify
precisely what is problematic about the issue, and what philo-
sophical questions are raised by it. This is largely because
philosophy deals with abstract ideas and concepts. Most of our day-
to-day existence is taken up with the consideration of particular
things. For example, if you think about a television you might
describe it in a number of different ways:
• as an electronic device
• as something needing a licence (in the UK)
• as a means of communication
• as entertainment
• as something to arrange your time around
We can say something about these features of a television in every-
day terms. But what about these more general ideas or concepts?:
• physical objects
• taxes
• events
• actions
• people
• time
We call these abstract ideas because they are not about particular
things. Take the first item on the list: what is a physical object? Is
there any way of saying what all physical objects have in common?
Do they all take up some specific volume of space for example?
Take a few minutes to consider how you might describe all physical
objects yourself. To start with, what should you include as a
physical object? What should you exclude? Are shadows and valleys
physical objects in the same way that lampposts and mountains are?
What about people?
Thinking about these questions means thinking about very
general ideas. Philosophers focus on getting a better understanding
of the general abstract ideas that make sense of the particular parts
of the world. Mountains and lampposts, valleys and shadows,
televisions and your best friend, are all examples that are used to
illustrate, explain, prove or disprove a general point. Even the most
brilliant and captivating of specific examples is there to help the
reader come to terms with a general point. If you read a passage

of philosophy and find you have come away with a thorough
understanding of the example, but are a bit foggy on what it was
meant to show, go back and look again, or at least keep your
fogginess in mind, so that you can sharpen things up later. The
challenge of reading philosophy is that we need to make sure we do
not get too distracted by the examples and illustrations, but remain
clearly focused on the abstract ideas underneath.
Here is some practice. Can you tell where the discussion is
abstract or particular in the following? Which aspects will philo-
sophers be interested in as philosophers, do you think?
My television has mass and it takes up space. It has a range of colours on its
surface that change with the conditions under which I view it. I like the way
it looks and sounds. It has been made with aesthetic qualities in mind. As
a thing it can, in theory, exist independently of everything else. It’s a bit
expensive. But I have an obligation to continue to pay the government for a
licence. Should I do so?
Issues you may have picked up on are the nature of mass, space,
perception and colour, aesthetics and pleasure, existence, the nature
of objects and moral duties. There are others.
It is possible to look at difficult pieces and begin to see ways of
working through them by noting what is going on in broad terms
first. Just recognizing that the really important ideas in philosophy
are abstract and general is a central strategy that will pay in dia-
monds in the long run. It is a challenge to do, but the more you try
the easier it will become.
Identifying the abstract ideas being looked at – the philosophical
problem under discussion – will require you to do some critical
thinking as you read. Start by looking for key ideas in the title and
opening section of the text; but bear in mind this initial sketch of
the problem is often only provisional, and your understanding of it
will be refined as you read further.
You also need to read the text not just in a passive way, but by
interacting with it – having a dialogue with the ideas as you go
along.
Let us explore the nature of this challenge by means of an example,
a famous paper by the philosopher Thomas Nagel, entitled ‘What
is it like to be a bat?’4
32 DOING PHILOSOPHY
In this case, the title of the paper seems to give a clear state-
ment of the question to be addressed; but it is not clear why
this is a philosophical question. Why does it matter what it is
like to be a bat, and what do we learn from exploring this
question?
The first sentence of the paper itself gives us a clearer statement
of the philosophical problem to be addressed:
Consciousness is what makes the mind–body problem really intractable.

This provides us with two useful indicators of what Nagel’s paper is
about:
• He is tackling the mind–body problem – the problem of

understanding how the mind (our mental life: our thoughts
and feelings and so on) is related to the body.
• According to Nagel, the particular problem here is posed by
consciousness; so presumably this will be the focus of the rest
of his paper.
However, it is perhaps still unclear how this opening sentence
relates to the title. What does the question ‘what is it like to be a
bat?’ have to do with Nagel’s problem of consciousness? Indeed,
what exactly is the problem of consciousness according to Nagel?
In order to discover this, we need to read on:
. . . an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is
something that it is like to be that organism – something it is like for the
organism . . .
I assume we all believe that bats have experience . . . Now we know that
most bats . . . perceive the external world primarily by sonar . . . But bat
sonar . . . is not similar in its operation to any sense that we possess, and
there is no reason to suppose that it is subjectively like anything we can
experience or imagine. This appears to create difficulties for the notion of
what it is like to be a bat . . .
It will not help to try to imagine that . . . one has very poor vision, and
perceives the surrounding world by a system of reflected high-frequency
sound signals . . . Insofar as I can imagine this (which is not very far), it
tells me only what it would be like for me to behave as a bat behaves.
But that is not the question. I want to know what it is like for a bat to be
a bat.
The first sentence of this (abridged) excerpt from Nagel’s paper

specifies the link between consciousness and the ‘what it is like’
question which Nagel poses in his title; and the next paragraph
introduces the ‘bat’ of his title as an example of what he considers
to be the problem of consciousness.
What, exactly, is this problem, however? Why does the bat
example pose the difficulties that Nagel claims it does? In order to
understand this, we need carefully to re-read, and think about, this
passage.
At first sight it seems as though Nagel’s point concerns the fact
that bats are very different from us: he says that ‘bat sonar . . . is not
similar . . . to any sense that we possess . . . This appears to create
difficulties’. Why are these differences problematic? In order to
understand this, we need to think about how this point relates to
Nagel’s focus on ‘what it is like’-ness as a core feature of conscious-
ness. Only when we link these two ideas together do we start to
see that the dissimilarity between bats and humans makes it difficult
for us to grasp ‘what it is like to be a bat’; and that, because of
this, we also face difficulties in understanding consciousness as it is
manifested in bats.
This does not yet capture the precise nature of the problem,
however, as Nagel goes on to make another, separate point about
the difficulty of grasping ‘what it is like to be a bat’. We do know a
lot about bats, which equips me to imagine myself as a bat; but this
‘tells me only what it would be like for me to behave as a bat behaves
. . . not . . . what it is like for a bat to be a bat’.
Let us pause for a moment and think about that last phrase in the
excerpt. Do you understand the distinction Nagel is making here,
and why it is significant? How would you explain this in your own
words?
Nagel’s point is that all our knowledge of bat life is ‘from the
outside’ – we know scientific facts about bat perception and so on,
but not ‘what it is like’ subjectively. (Nagel’s use of this term in the
second paragraph is a clue to his meaning; and, indeed, this also
becomes clearer when you read the whole unabridged paper.) We
can use these facts to make an imaginative leap from our perspective
towards that of the bat, but this is not the same as knowing ‘what it
is like’ for the bat – we cannot inhabit the bat’s perspective ‘from
the inside’.
34 DOING PHILOSOPHY
This is quite a slippery distinction, and we need to read Nagel’s

paper carefully in order to understand it fully; otherwise, it is quite
easy to focus on the factual claims – the differences between bats
and humans, the limits of our imagination – and overlook the
philosophical point about ‘outsider’ and ‘insider’ perspectives, the
difference between subjective and objective features of perception.
If we miss this point, then although we might understand what
problem Nagel is addressing, it might be difficult to see why it
matters. It is only when we understand this second point Nagel
makes – that the key difficulty in understanding ‘what it is like to be
a bat’ arises from the subjective nature of experience – that we can
see that his argument is not just about understanding bats, but is
making a wider claim about the nature of consciousness. In order to
grapple with the philosophical significance of his argument, we
need to be able to detect these underlying, wider conceptual points
– the abstract ideas as well as the details of his bat example.
In this example, we have frequently stopped to think about a
phrase – to ask ourselves: What, precisely, does this mean? Why is it
significant? How does it relate to other claims in the text (and
indeed, to what else we know about this topic)? This is a core
feature not just of identifying the problem, but also of reading all
philosophy.
Finding the arguments

Arguments are at the core of philosophy. What do we mean
when we refer to a philosophical argument? We do not mean an
emotional statement of opinion, or a fight (‘an argument in a pub’).
We mean a way of persuading or convincing someone of an idea,
theory or situation using rational principles applied to some
accepted evidence, authority or commonly held observation. An
argument of this sort might come in a number of different forms
and with radically different contents, but there will be a conclusion
that is the point being made. The facts or ideas that form the main
basis of the argument are usually called premises. Some examples will
help:
The following are not arguments as they stand, although they
could be conclusions of arguments, because without seeing how
they have been arrived at they are bald statements of opinion, belief
or fact:
• I do not like eggs.

• e=mc2
• There are no physical objects larger than basic particles.
• Rain makes the streets wet.
• Freedom is defined negatively as absence of constraint on
behaviour.
• Unicorns are always beautiful.
We might have very good reasons for holding any one or more of
these to be true, and we might also believe that we could persuade
or convince others to think so too, but without stating the case
in favour of them, we have not produced an argument for
consideration.
Now look at these, which are arguments (although not all are of
equal strength):
• When it is raining, everything that is outside and uncovered

gets wet. (and) Most streets are outside and uncovered. (there-
fore:) When it is raining most of the streets will be wet.
• Freedom cannot be defined in positive terms. (and) A work-
ing definition of freedom is required for political theorizing.
(therefore:) We must define freedom negatively as the absence
of this or that constraint on behaviour.
• I have come across many examples of unicorns roaming
freely in the Scottish Highlands. (and) I have found, without
exception, and beyond doubt on my part, that each individual
is as graceful and aesthetically pleasing as any creature I could
ever imagine meeting. (therefore:) It is my considered opinion
that it is the natural state of all unicorns, wherever they
may be, to be possessed of a beauty beyond expression in
words.
Obviously in the way these arguments are set out, the key here is
the word ‘therefore’ inserted before the conclusion. This is a signal
for the point being made. However, you will also notice that if
you took it out of the passages they would still make sense. In
philosophical writing that you will encounter in the course of
your studies, ‘therefore’ is often implied rather than being stated; it
is sometimes for you to determine where it should go. The extra
‘and’s help us to see where the evidence is being joined together. So
36 DOING PHILOSOPHY
we can insert a ‘therefore’ to help us identify that the next sentence

or statement is the conclusion of an argument. It is often helpful to
mark on the text you are reading where the conclusions to different
arguments are, and note where a ‘therefore’ could fit. (Obviously,
if you are reading a paper copy of the text, only do this on ones you
own . . .)
You are probably wondering what we should say about the third
argument, since its conclusion is clearly false in some sense: after all,
there are no unicorns, whether in Scotland or not. But this does not
mean that this is not an argument, only that we need to evaluate
further either the premises (the sentences that contain the ideas we
work on to get to the conclusion) or the conclusion itself, by other
means.5
Another common form for arguments reverses the positions of
conclusion and premises, putting the main point at the beginning:
the word we could insert here is ‘because’, after the conclusion. You
could reverse the examples above in the following way:
• When it is raining most of the streets will be wet. (because:)
When it is raining everything outside and uncovered gets wet.
(and ) Most streets are outside and uncovered.
• We must define freedom negatively as the absence of this or
that constraint on behaviour. (because:) A working definition is
required for political theorizing. (and ) Freedom cannot be
defined in positive terms.
• It is my considered opinion that it is the natural state of all
unicorns, wherever they may be, to be possessed of a beauty
beyond expression in words. (because:) I have come across
many examples of unicorns roaming freely in the Scottish
Highlands. (and ) I have found, without exception, and beyond
doubt on my part, that each individual is as graceful and
aesthetically pleasing as any creature I could ever imagine
meeting.
But notice what has happened to the way the premises are used to
support the conclusion: nothing. The order of the sentences has
changed, but the logical structure of the argument has not been
affected. How else might we arrange the premises and still preserve
the way they support the conclusions? Try out different forms for
yourself.
Spotting the conclusion is not always easy and you will need to
think carefully: there are compound arguments in which the con-
clusion of one minor argument becomes the premise of another.
However, in doing so you are beginning the process of making
the text your own and engaging with the ideas at more than a
superficial level. Further strategies are needed to take us deeper.
Analysing arguments
Let us consider arguments in a little more detail to get a better
understanding of what makes them work, and how we could
determine their worth or value. So far we know that, in reading
philosophy, we are looking among other things for arguments to
assess. We have observed that what distinguishes an argument from
a mere statement of opinion, fact or belief is that it brings together
a set of statements, using some rational principles, to give a con-
clusion. A strategic approach towards analysing arguments at this
stage might be to ask:
1. What is the point the author is trying to make? What is the
conclusion of the argument(s) presented? Is it clear that there is
one?
2. What are the premises of the argument? What material does
the author use to reach the conclusion?
3. What is the structure of the argument? How does it ‘hang
together’? Is there one long argument or many smaller
ones with conclusions at one point becoming premises at
another?
This helps us to understand how we might begin to assess three
things:
1. the truth of the premises;
2. the logic of the way the conclusion has been reached from
the premises, that is, the form of the argument;
3. the truth of the conclusion.
When the conclusion of an argument must logically follow from
the premises, we call this a valid argument. However, this does not
necessarily mean that the conclusion is true, as the premises might
not be true. Where the argument is valid, and the premises are true,
this means the conclusion is true. This is called a sound argument.
38 DOING PHILOSOPHY
Consider the unicorn example again:

I have come across many examples of unicorns roaming freely in
the Scottish Highlands.
(and ) I have found, without exception, and beyond doubt on my
part, that each individual is as graceful and aesthetically pleasing
as any creature I could ever imagine meeting.
(therefore:) It is my considered opinion that it is the natural state
of all unicorns, wherever they may be, to be possessed of a beauty
beyond expression in words.
We would be unlikely to accept the truth of the premises, and
therefore the conclusion, because we happen to think there are no
unicorns. But how can we further assess the argument?
There are two main premises: that many unicorns have been
observed roaming in the Scottish Highlands, and that all of the
observed unicorns have been beautiful. We would want, perhaps,
to question the first of these at the very least, on factual grounds.
But we might say of the second, that if there were unicorns they
may well be beautiful.
But what can we say about the argument form; the way the
argument hangs together? It does not follow that you can extra-
polate from a quality that you have observed in a sub-section of
a group to prove that this quality is the same in the whole
group. Unicorns in Wales might be hideous. So might some other
Scottish unicorns that have not been observed, for that matter.
The form of reasoning being used in this argument is called
induction and you will come across the differences between
this and what is called deductive logic in your studies. Induction
is used in many areas of life and science, but is it completely
convincing?
Let us look at a longer, more difficult, example, from the
seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes.
Descartes’ work is often used in philosophy courses to illustrate
how we can come to question very basic ideas about what we could
ever know for certain. His work raises some deep issues about
whether a philosophical picture of the world worked out from basic
principles is possible or desirable. Read through the following
paragraph and see if you can identify the main point Descartes is
trying to make:
We are diverted from true knowledge by many preconceptions which we have

accumulated since birth. This is because we were born without speech, and
we made various judgments about sensible things before our reason was
fully developed. It seems that the only way we can free ourselves from these
preconceptions is this: that just once in our lives, we should make a concerted
effort to doubt every previous belief in which we find so much as the slightest
hint of uncertainty.6
In fact the first two sentences are part of an argument with a
neatly placed ‘and’ and a ‘because’. We can look at them this way,
reversing the form as above:
• We were born without speech.

• We made various judgements about sensible things before
our reason was fully developed.
therefore
We are diverted from true knowledge by many preconceptions
which we have accumulated since birth.
Now, we can ask whether this argument works using our three
questions. Firstly, are the premises true? The first seems to be so,
based on common experience of babies. The second needs closer
examination. ‘Sensible’ here does not mean the opposite of ‘silly’,
but ‘of the senses’ – words often change their meanings over time.
(This issue will be dealt with more thoroughly in the section on
‘Historical texts and older English’, p. 53.) So the premise claims
that we have begun to make decisions about the nature of the world
we experience through our senses, before we have matured enough
to apply ‘reason’ to these ideas. Is this true? We might have to
suspend judgement on this for the time being. Bear in mind that it
is quite likely that assumptions about the way thought develops in
children differed in Descartes’ time from those we hold today. But
we now know this is something we need to keep in mind when we
consider Descartes’ position overall.
What about the conclusion? As it stands we are not really in a
position to determine its truth because it is not a straightforward
empirical claim we can see to be true or false, so this will not help us
much with analysis of the argument. We need, therefore, to see how
he expects to move from the premises to the conclusion. We need
to look at the argument form itself.
40 DOING PHILOSOPHY
Let us suppose that we accept the second premise and see what
happens. Does the conclusion then follow from the premises? Read
the sentences again and see what your own answer is. Be careful to
think why you would answer as you do and be prepared to defend
your answer with arguments of your own. What is said below is
only one interpretation and open to challenge.
If you answered ‘no’ you probably thought that since the argu-
ment does not immediately follow it can be dismissed. Not
necessarily so. As noted above, Descartes assumed that his readers
shared a lot of knowledge with him: what appears to be a jump
from the premises to the conclusion, might simply be that other
parts of the argument are elsewhere in the text, or that the assump-
tions he draws on are considered common knowledge and not
worth stating at all.
If you are tempted to answer ‘yes’ then you will have given
Descartes the benefit of reading a lot into how he uses certain
words and will have assumed a series of other premises that are not
explicitly stated. The idea of ‘true knowledge’ is not given in either
of the premises, but is a significant point in the conclusion. One of
the hidden premises might be:
Only judgements about sensible things based on fully developed
reason give true knowledge.
Another might be:
Speech is required for the formation of reason.
And there is a point in the conclusion that we have ‘preconcep-
tions’ that we continue to employ even now, which we have picked
up from our early years, even though we have reason on our side. So
we could also add:
Judgements from earlier experience continue to act as the basis for
current assumptions about what we sensibly experience.
If we add these to our first starting premises we can begin to see
how we might answer ‘yes’ if asked whether the conclusion follows.
The argument looks like this now:
• We were born without speech.

• Speech is required for the formation of reason.
• We made various judgements about sensible things

before our reason was fully developed.
• Only judgements about sensible things based on fully
developed reason give true knowledge.
• Judgements from earlier experience continue to act as
the basis for current preconceptions about what we
sensibly experience.
therefore
We are diverted from true knowledge by many pre-
conceptions which we have accumulated since birth.
This seems much more persuasive, since we now see how each of
the premises feeds components into the conclusion in a way that
seems logical, building up to it in a manner we can follow.
So Descartes includes lots of thoughts and premises that he does
not explicitly express, even though he is presenting us with an
argument. In ordinary texts this is how lots of arguments are pre-
sented, so you do need to practise picking out partial or hidden
arguments as well as complete ones. Although we can often add in
what we think are suppressed premises to make a successful argu-
ment, the science of logic gives way to the art of interpretation at
this point. We need to make informed judgements about what
the author might mean, think about what they say elsewhere and
consider the historical context in which they wrote. Each of the
hidden premises above are either part of seventeenth-century
accepted wisdom, or explored in Descartes’ other works.
Contemporary texts also use hidden or implied premises, and
assume background knowledge that we may or may not share. In
some ways they can be harder to spot because they draw on ideas
we might already share with the author, and so we might not recog-
nize them as assumptions at all. Some feminist and Marxist phil-
osophy, for example, involves exposing these hidden assumptions,
analysing them and using them to give a different perspective on
philosophical concepts.
Let us look at another example from Descartes:
So now let us embark on our enquiry into what is true (but only what is
true). To begin with, it can be doubted whether any sensible or imaginable
things exist. The first reason is that we sometimes notice that our senses
deceive us, and it is wise never to put too much trust in what has let us down,
42 DOING PHILOSOPHY
even if on only one occasion. The second reason is that in our dreams we
regularly seem to sense or imagine many things which are completely non-
existent, and there are no obvious signs which would enable someone having
such doubts to distinguish between sleeping and waking with any certainty.7
This also has an argument in it, with apparently two independent
supporting claims or premises for the conclusion. He notes that we
are going to test those ideas (and only those ideas) which we take to
be true by doubting them or assuming them to be false and seeing
if we can find reasons for supposing this to be wrongheaded. He
decides to start with sensible (experienced through the senses) and
even imaginary things. They can be doubted, he says. We can see
that this claim is the conclusion of another argument because he
goes on to give us reasons or premises in support of it. He says there
are two, but each can be broken down into simpler statements. So
we have:
1. We sometimes notice that our senses deceive us.
2. It is wise never to put too much trust in what has let us
down, even if on only one occasion.
3. In our dreams we regularly seem to sense or imagine
many things which are completely non-existent.
4. There are no obvious signs [in dreams] which would
enable someone having such doubts to distinguish
between sleeping and waking with any certainty.
therefore
It can be doubted whether any sensible or imaginable
things exist.
Analyse this argument further yourself. First, check to see whether
you agree with how the premises have been presented. Then
work through the premises checking their initial plausibility or
acceptability. Bear in mind what Descartes has already said and
that there may be things assumed here that are not stated. Do the
premises draw on facts we could challenge? Are they based on
generally accepted experience? Then ask yourself, if we were to
accept the conclusion as true, what else do we need to make this
argument work?
If we were to read the rest of the chapter from The Principles
of Philosophy, we would see that Descartes is building up a series of
conclusions as parts of a larger point. In other words, the conclu-

sions to the small arguments are going to be used as premises of a
main one. Because of this, it would be worth noting each of them
down separately as we progress through the chapter, so that we can
refer back to them easily and see how the main argument is being
built.
Let us look at another example. Read the following passage
from the famous ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, taken from
the beginning of his Ethics:8
Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit,
is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has
rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.
We can state this argument in the following form:
Every art and every inquiry aims at some good.
Every action and pursuit aims at some good.
therefore
The good is that at which all things aim.
It is an argument about the good, but is it a good argument? It
might be possible to dispute the truth of the premises, but for the
purposes of argument analysis, let us suppose we accept them.
Does the conclusion then follow? The premises seem to claim that
various human activities are undertaken with the hope of achieving
some good; presumably good outcomes for someone or something.
The conclusion states that all things are aimed at ‘the good’. Do all
these separate goods amount to one thing that can be labelled ‘the
good’? The conclusion seems to imply that there is an objective
‘good’, which is rather different from the seemingly subjective
‘some good’ of the premises. Is Aristotle using flawed logic? Is there
a hidden or missing premise? Or have we misunderstood what
Aristotle means? How would you argue the case here?
This is only an introduction to one way you might begin to
analyse texts, and you will encounter many others. Additionally, the
premises and conclusion for an argument may be separated, whole
paragraphs may stand as premises, and there is a multitude of other
logical argument forms that might be employed. However, you
can see that in reading philosophy it is possible to begin careful
analysis of the ideas an author is using and assuming, by paying close
44 DOING PHILOSOPHY
attention to the arguments at the core of the text. You can expose
concepts and logical failings with this general strategy.
Using logic
Some philosophers use logical symbolism to express arguments or
make them clearer. This is an important and lively part of con-
temporary philosophy. You might be required to study formal
logic as a module in itself and there you will be taught how to read
and write logical notation. Additionally, you might encounter logic
in the context of other reading – especially in contemporary
philosophy of mind, language or metaphysics. We do not intend to
go into the details of formal logic here, but rather to show you
how you can use the basic principles of logic to clarify arguments to
yourself and back up your analysis of texts.
There is nothing to fear in logic, even if you feel you lack skills
at a mathematical level. In fact, it presents us, as readers, with an
opportunity to achieve a level of understanding of the relationship
between concepts and arguments that is not always available in
other contexts. It means we can find very fine-grained differences
in authors’ positions, and discover precisely where an argument
fails, or is ambiguous. It is rather like exposing the skeleton of an
argument; finding a broken bone can be a very good explanation
for why a limb does not work in the way we think it should.
Logic, when used appropriately, is powerful and something that
can improve your grasp of many aspects of current philosophical
writing considerably.
We have already noted that finding the arguments in a text is the
key to assessing the convincingness of the philosophical points
being made. We have seen that in order to spot arguments we have
to isolate the conclusion and the premises that are being employed.
Logic is simply a way of showing how the premises are related to
the conclusion. It allows you to look beyond the words and con-
cepts used in specific cases to the structure of the argument itself,
and so test the argument. Look at the following argument:
All dogs wag their tails when happy.
Santa’s Little Helper is a dog.
therefore
Santa’s Little Helper wags his tail when happy.
We know that to analyse this we should begin by thinking about

the truth or acceptability of the premises, but how should we think
about the argument structure? We could do this diagrammatically
using some circles to represent groups of things:
Circle D is all the things that are dogs.
Circle T is all the things that wag their tails when happy.
s is Santa’s Little Helper.
D is inside T because all the things that are dogs (D) are claimed to
be things that wag their tails when happy (T). There could be other
things that wag their tails when happy, but all dogs do, so no part
of D is outside of T. Also, s is inside D because Santa’s Little
Helper is a dog. From the picture we can see that it is impossible for
Santa’s Little Helper not to be inside T as well: if we accept the
premises it must be the case that Santa’s Little Helper wags his tail
when he is happy. So we can see that the argument is structurally
valid. The diagram we have used here is a form of Venn diagram.
Venn diagrams are a powerful tool for checking arguments.
Using pictures and diagrams can be a quick way of making
arguments clearer to yourself. In a similar way, logic uses a set of
established rules to construct and examine arguments. Consider the
following:
If Martin is taller than Natasha,
and Natasha is taller than Ozzie,
and Ozzie is the same height as Polly,
then Martin is taller than Polly
Let us look again at the idea of validity. It says that an argument is
valid when the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true.
46 DOING PHILOSOPHY
A sound argument is a valid argument where the premises are

indeed true. So is this a valid argument? We could examine it by
using a diagram, using simple lines of different heights rather than
pictures of people.
As the line diagrams show, we are concerned with the way things
are related in terms of their height, so the names themselves could
be anything. In fact, when considering height alone we could be
talking about lines, plant pots or ostriches as much as humans, so we
could replace the names with letters:
If m is taller than n,
and n is taller than o,
and o is the same height as p,
then m is taller than p
Next let us look at the relationships between these objects, what-
ever they are. We have two different ways of relating these things,
‘being taller than’ and ‘being the same height as’. All logic does is
look at these relationships and generalizes them so that we can look
at all arguments that have the same form. Supposing I say:
Martin is older than Polly
This is logically similar in form to:
Martin is taller than Polly
This is because if they are true then the reverse is false. It simply
cannot be the case that Martin is older than Polly and at the same
time Polly is older than Martin. The same is true of ‘being taller
than’. The relationship has a direction and an order – the relation-
ship works in a particular direction so therefore the order in which
Martin and Polly are considered is important.
But look at ‘is the same height as’ or ‘being the same age as’:
these work either way. If Ozzie is the same height as Polly then it is
obviously true that Polly is the same height as Ozzie.
So ‘being older than’ and ‘being the same age as’ are different
properties and are true under different conditions. Logic reveals this
in terms of the direction in which the properties work and shows
that the ordering of the object names really matters. When we
think about the meaning of the relations we are considering the truth
conditions (what would make the statements true) as they are passed
from one sentence to another. See what happens if you replace ‘is
taller than’ with ‘is older than’ and ‘is the same height as’ with ‘is
the same age as’ in the argument above. The argument remains
intact in terms of the way the individuals are related to each other,
although its meaning changes. Its logical form is unaltered because
the objects are represented by the same letters and the relation-
ships have not been changed in terms of the direction and order of
their operation. So the argument will remain valid, although not
necessarily sound.
So using logic allows us to make the jump to expressing an
argument’s form in a purely logical way based on relation rather
than specific properties. Whether we are talking in terms of height
or age, the argument has the structure:
If m > n,
and n > o,
and o = p,
then m > p
So if you are reading a text and you spot this argument form, you
know that regardless of the truth of the premises, the argument is
valid.
Logic is about the structure of relationships that can operate
between sentences, concepts, ideas or things. That is where its
power lies. It can be generalized across all sorts of different contexts
where logically similar ideas are used.
This is the crucial point. If we are dealing with very abstract and
48 DOING PHILOSOPHY
complex arguments in philosophy, as is often the case, logic is a tool

for looking at the form of those arguments. Most of the examples
used in learning logic seem a long way from this use, but this is to
aid learning. Being able to read and write logic is a great benefit in
tackling contemporary philosophy.
Look again at the earlier example. However, suppose that instead
of thinking about height we are thinking about an example in the
philosophy of science, about when events in a chemical reaction
occur. Instead of ‘is taller than’ use ‘occurs later than’ and instead of
‘is the same height as’ use ‘occurs at the same time as’. With logic
we do not need to think about how we could present this as a
diagram. If we know it works for height and the relationships are
all of the same sort (in terms of direction and order) and no other
structure has changed, we know it will work for time, without
checking anything else. The argument form is valid. We can use this
form for anything where the relationships are of the same kind. The
argument will always be valid, although we do need to check the
the truth of the premises by examining the world to see whether
the argument is also sound.
Logic allows us to extract the rules that show us different ways
of building a valid argument. It is illustrated here using simple
arguments, but when arguments are complex and dense, being able
to examine the form separately from the specific content becomes
invaluable. There is nothing mysterious in this if you can follow an
argument in words. If all you need to consider is the logical form
of an argument, then logic is the perfect tool to use and a powerful
one to master.
What makes reading philosophy challenging?

In the previous sections of this chapter, we looked at ways to
approach your reading so that you can understand the philosophical
points under discussion, and can analyse the arguments to see
whether they are valid and sound and hence whether you agree
with them.
But there are some aspects of philosophical writing that can
make a lot of it challenging to engage with in this way, especially
when you are new to philosophy. In this section, we will look at
various factors that can make reading philosophy challenging, and
give you some strategies for dealing with them as you read.
Technical language
The philosophers that we study do not tend to be
run-of-the-mill thinkers. Where contributions to philosophy go
beyond clarifying and developing existing ideas, and present
revolutionary concepts and theories that transform the way sub-
sequent philosophers think, new concepts require new language.
Because of this, much philosophy uses technical terms to find ways
of expressing new ways of thinking about things, and to show
relationships between concepts that cannot be expressed easily in
ordinary language.
There are two main ways in which philosophers use technical
language:
1. they use everyday words in ways that are perhaps unusual
and often much more precise than we normally expect;
and
2. they invent new terms and expressions for ideas and argu-
ments that have not been named before.
We will deal with each of these in turn.
Familiar words, new meanings

We will look first at how philosophers use words in very precise
ways to make a point, often giving new definitions for words that
have a wider meaning in everyday use. This can be explored in an
example. Consider the following, from David Hume.9
All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into
two kinds, to wit, relations of ideas, and matters of fact.
This is at the beginning of a discussion about cause and effect. Here
Hume is making a very general claim about the nature of human
ideas, but we cannot make too much sense of it without knowing
what he means by ‘relations of ideas’ and ‘matters of fact’. What
does he mean by this distinction? We should not rush on with our
reading until we get an understanding here: he has made a claim
about all of human reason. When an author makes such large-scale
claims about the way things are we should take very great care over
the words used and make sure we are focused on the precise nature
of the claim, or the distinction being drawn.
In everyday terms we might say that it is a matter of fact that
50 DOING PHILOSOPHY
circles have no corners, but actually Hume takes this ‘fact’ to be a

relation of ideas, as we shall see. This is because he is using these
terms in precise ways that he goes on to explain further.
Of the first kind [relations of ideas] are the sciences of geometry, algebra, and
arithmetic, and in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or
demonstratively certain. That the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the
square of the two sides, is a proposition which expresses a relation between
these figures. That three times five is equal to the half of thirty, expresses a
relation between these numbers.
Propositions of this kind are discoverable by the mere operation of
thought, without dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe.
Though there never were a circle or triangle in nature, the truths demonstrated
by Euclid would for ever retain their certainty and evidence.
Matters of fact, which are the second objects of human reason, are not
ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth, however
great, of a like nature with the foregoing. The contrary of every matter of fact
is still possible, because it can never imply a contradiction, and is conceived
by the mind with the same facility and distinctness, as if ever so conformable
to reality.
A lot of the work of explaining something about ‘relations of ideas’
occurs not in the examples but in the sentence: ‘Propositions of this
kind are discoverable by the mere operation of thought, without
dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe.’ We
could ask: is this a definition at all? We know that relations of ideas
are ‘objects of human reason’, and we know how to find them. Is
this enough?
To paraphrase Hume’s terms, we could say ‘relations of ideas’
are those ideas we have and test by reason and ‘matters of
fact’ are those ideas we discover and test by observation and
experiment. While there is more work to be done on the under-
standing of these terms, the point is that Hume starts off by making
it very explicit that he does not intend to use these expressions in
ways that might be more familiar to us. If we miss this point we
will probably fail to understand the rest of Hume’s argument. If
we note it and follow through with a careful inspection of what
he might mean, we will be doing philosophy and engaging with
the text. This is something you need to do with all philosophy
texts.
Here is a more contemporary example where words are used very

precisely. The following is a short extract from the beginning of a
very famous paper called ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’ by the
twentieth-century philosopher W.V.O. Quine.10
Modern empiricism has been conditioned in large part by two dogmas. One
is a belief in some fundamental cleavage between truths which are analytic,
or grounded in meanings independently of matters of fact; and truths which
are synthetic, or grounded in fact.
There are many words in this extract that are being used in a
technical sense. It is worth taking your time to look at each in turn.
You might be unfamiliar with ‘empiricism’. It means, roughly, the
idea that truths about the world can only ultimately be discovered
through observation and experience – we cannot base knowledge
on our ideas alone. ‘Dogmas’ are items of faith that are accepted
without much question, usually in a religious context, so the use of
that particular word to describe the ideas Quine is talking about
implies that he will go on to argue against them.
Notice how Quine defines ‘analytic’ and ‘synthetic’. They are
evidently being used in very different ways from how we might
use them in everyday conversation. You might begin to notice that
there is a close relationship between this passage and the extract
from Hume above. Quine talks about the terms as being ways of
distinguishing two different kinds of truths (rather than kinds of
thoughts). But he says that analytic truths are based on meanings
(similar to Hume’s relations of ideas), whereas synthetic ones are
grounded in matters of fact about the world. So by analytic he has
in mind things like ‘All squares have four sides’ – we know what
‘square’ means and that it includes having four sides by definition.
But by synthetic he means statements such as, ‘David has £5.53 in
change in his pocket’. This is true (at the time of writing), but
cannot be inferred from any of the terms in the sentence – the
name ‘David’ and the terms ‘change’ and ‘pocket’ in no way have
any specific monetary value as part of their meaning. The statement
can only be verified by observation.
When reading philosophy, you should always be on your guard
for the use of familiar words in ways which are new to you, and are
signalling specific concepts or ideas within a philosophical context.
As you come across them check your understanding, as they are
52 DOING PHILOSOPHY
likely to be crucial to the topic under discussion. You can augment

the information about the use of these terms in the text by using a
philosophical dictionary or encyclopaedia. It is a good idea to try
paraphrasing these terms with your own definitions to see if you
can make sense of them.
New words, new meanings

The second way words are used differently in philosophy compared
with everyday speech is in the invention of new words for new
concepts. This can occur when there is a distinction or concept that
has not existed before and forms part of a philosopher’s arguments,
either as a premise or as a conclusion.
Let us move on to a different kind of philosophy to illustrate this
better: that of Jean-Paul Sartre.
Jean-Paul Sartre was a twentieth-century French philosopher,
novelist and playwright. He is often classified as a ‘continental’ or
‘European’ philosopher. This means that he has a different focus
from the philosophers we have looked at up until now, and is con-
cerned with wide issues about the nature of reality in terms of our
experience, our moral stance towards it and others. There are
arguments to be found and there is work to be done on analysing
meanings here too, but you should be prepared for a different
emphasis in different philosophers and a variety of styles and uses of
words. In order to break down our preconceptions Sartre leads us
through difficult arguments. And, like other European thinkers,
from France and Germany in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries particularly, he devises new terms and explores new ways
of seeing the world in order that we can better understand our
everyday experiences.
Here is an extract from a secondary text, taken from the Stanford
Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.11 This paragraph describes the basic
approach of some of Sartre’s early work:
He subtitles Being and Nothingness a “Phenomenological Ontology”. Its
descriptive method moves from the most abstract to the highly concrete. It
begins by analyzing two distinct and irreducible categories or kinds of being:
the in-itself (en-soi) and the for-itself (pour-soi), roughly the nonconscious
and consciousness respectively, adding a third, the for-others (pour-autrui),
later in the book, and concludes with a sketch of the practice of “existential
psychoanalysis” that interprets our actions to uncover the fundamental pro-

ject that unifies our lives.
You might like to use a philosophical dictionary again to look
up ‘ontology’, a favourite word of many philosophers, and to find
a meaning for ‘phenomenological’. Together they mean, roughly, a
study of how we experience the fundamental character of being, or
reality itself. Notice how the writer here points out Sartre’s division
of the world into two separate kinds of being for which there are no
existing words – the distinction is not one that exists in language, so
Sartre has made up new compound words (in French) translated as
‘in-itself ’ and ‘for-itself ’ to distinguish between those things which
exist in an unconscious, self-contained way such as chairs and
books, and those things which have a sense of their own being, such
as ourselves. The point Sartre wants to make is that these two kinds
of being are not just different in one dimension or property, but
that they are fundamentally distinct in how they exist. This is not an
idea that occurs in everyday speech so there is no option but to
make up new words.
Even when the style is unfamiliar, your strategy should always be
the same. Make sure you think carefully about the nature of the
text; what it sets out to achieve. Look for the arguments and the way
the discussion unfolds. When new terms are introduced, make a
careful note of what the author means and enhance your under-
standing by looking at a good dictionary.
Historical texts and older English

One type of text, introduced earlier, which holds its own particular
challenges, is the historical text. The problems philosophy deals
with are largely defined by a number of classic texts. An essential
part of your learning of philosophy will probably consist in your
sharing the voyage of discovery of mould-breaking thinkers of the
past. Some departments lay more stress than others on your reading
of historical texts, and this section will be of greatest value to you
if you are studying in a department where some focus is put on
history of philosophy. However, you are likely to be required to
read at least selections from authors such as Plato, Aristotle, Thomas
Hobbes, René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, John Locke, George
Berkeley, David Hume and Immanuel Kant.
54 DOING PHILOSOPHY
In a course which compared the philosophies of Hobbes and

Descartes, one student complained ‘Why couldn’t Hobbes write in
decent modern English, like Descartes did?’ This (true) anecdote
raises a serious problem, namely that the writings of foreign
philosophers are translated into modern English, whereas those of
English philosophers are not. Studying texts from the seventeenth
or eighteenth century involves reading an older style of English
than you are likely to be familiar with. It is a shame if you find it
relatively easy to get through to Descartes’ ideas and arguments, but
struggle to make sense of his English contemporary, Hobbes.12
Let us take an example of a passage, and see how you might
tackle making sense of it. In Leviathan, Hobbes writes as follows:
To conclude, The Light of humane minds is Perspicuous Words, but by exact
definitions first snuffed, and purged from ambiguity; Reason is the pace;
Encrease of Science, the way; and the Benefit of man-kind, the end. And
on the contrary, Metaphors, and senslesse and ambiguous words, are like
ignes fatui; and reasoning upon them, is wandering amongst innumerable
absurdities; and their end, contention, and sedition, or contempt.13
To analyse this text thoroughly, the most useful tool to have at your
disposal is a dictionary based on historical principles. By far the best
is the 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary, second edition (OED2),
which traces changes in meaning over time, and enables you to find
out which senses of a word were current when your author wrote.
Of course, we are not suggesting that you buy this expensive work;
but your library is bound to have it, and probably also the on-line
version. Obviously it is inconvenient to do all of your reading next
to a copy of the OED2, and you may have to make do with a
smaller and more affordable dictionary, such as the Concise Oxford
English Dictionary (COED). However, like most other small dic-
tionaries, the COED focuses on English as it is spoken today, and it
may not have all the words and meanings you need. A compromise
would be to use the COED most of the time, and to consult the
OED2 when the former does not seem to help.
From the context, we can infer that ‘humane’ is an old spelling
of ‘human’, and does not mean ‘humane’ in the modern sense.
‘Perspicuous’ might be a bit archaic, but it means ‘transparent’, or
‘whose meaning is clear’. So Hobbes begins by saying that human
minds are illuminated by words whose meaning is clear (in fact the
main point of Leviathan, Chapter 5 is that human reasoning consists

entirely of manipulating clearly defined words). We now have the
problem of working out what is first snuffed by exact definitions: is
it the light, or perspicuous words? ‘Exact definitions’ suggest per-
spicuous words, because words have definitions and lights do not.
On the other hand, ‘snuffed’ suggests the light, because the main
artificial lights in Hobbes’s day were candles (and candles were
often used as a metaphor for that which illuminates the mind), and
candles can be snuffed, but not words. The answer seems to be that
Hobbes’s grammar is rather loose here, and he means both the light
and the words.
But what does it mean to say that the light of human minds is
snuffed? Most modern readers would assume it means that the light
is extinguished – but this would be nonsense, because Hobbes is
saying that exact definitions are what illuminate the human mind,
and so they can hardly be said to extinguish the light. This is a sign
that you need to consult the dictionary, where you will discover
that to snuff a candle means to use scissors to trim the burnt part
of the wick so that the flame shines more brightly – exactly the
opposite of the modern meaning. So the light of human minds
shines more brightly if words are first given exact definitions and
purified of ambiguity.
The rest of the sentence is obviously a metaphor to do with
travelling, involving ‘the pace’, ‘the way’, and ‘the end’. The
puzzling word is ‘pace’, since ‘reason is the pace’ makes no sense in
modern English. And here we have to reveal a dark secret, that even
the OED2, despite its 20 volumes, occasionally misses out some of
the senses in which writers use words – and Hobbes’s use of ‘pace’
in this passage is an example. So, if you were relying on the text, the
OED2, and your own brains to make sense of this passage, you
might struggle to resolve this particular puzzle. But not to worry,
because it is not crucial to your overall understanding of Hobbes’s
philosophy.
One of the lessons you need to learn about reading historical
texts is that you can come to an excellent first-hand understanding
of the philosophical ideas and arguments, even if there are many
points of detail you cannot make sense of.
As it happens, Hobbes wrote the Leviathan in Latin as well as in
English, and the Latin version makes his meaning much clearer:
56 DOING PHILOSOPHY
‘Reason is the journey; method is the road to science; and the goal of
science is the good of humanity’ – but no-one would expect you to
know this.
One more problem which you might well miss is that Hobbes
does not use the word ‘science’ in the modern sense of natural
science, which came into use only in the late nineteenth century.
Instead, he means any systematic body of knowledge known
demonstratively (as the OED2 will tell you).
The second sentence is much easier, apart from the bit of Latin:
ignes fatui. This is the plural of ignis fatuus, which occurred so often
in older English that it is actually in the OED2, meaning a will-o’-
the-wisp – a flash of light appearing above marshy ground, which
was alleged to lead travellers astray. As Hobbes argues throughout
the Leviathan, one of the causes of civil war is the way in which
various sectors of society (especially university professors and
Catholic priests) use meaningless language to gain power over
ordinary people, and lead them astray.
Translation problems
Reading a text in translation can also present difficulties. Even at
the level of everyday experience, one language is not always exactly
translatable into another, because things are classified differently.
For example, there is no Greek word corresponding to the English
words ‘melon’ or ‘peach’, because in Greek you have to specify
what kind of melon or peach you are referring to, and the more
general term does not exist. The problem becomes much more
acute when dealing with abstractions, because abstract concepts
have evolved in different ways in different cultures.
There are a number of ways in which translation difficulties
bring about loss of meaning or ambiguity, and can bring specific
problems to the reading of texts. We will look at them in turn.
Untranslatable terms
A word or phrase in the original language may have no equivalent
at all in English. In such cases, it is common to leave the word in the
original language, just as in ordinary speech we use foreign words
like Schadenfreude for ‘taking pleasure in the misfortunes of other
people’, or encore for ‘a piece of music, not on the programme,
played at the end of a concert’. So, in philosophical writings, you are
likely to come across untranslated terms such as a priori and a

posteriori for example. (Introductory definitions for these
important philosophical terms can be found in Chapter 6.) The
very fact that a word has been left untranslated flags that it is a
key but unfamiliar concept which you need to master, and the
translation should include a note or glossary explaining what it
means. You may be tempted to skip over strange terms, but you will
lose track of the argument if you do so. It is of the utmost impor-
tance that you study the explanation carefully, and refer back to it
if you have forgotten what the word means next time you come
across it.
Untranslatable ambiguities
Philosophical words and sentences are often ambiguous, and it is
rarely possible to reproduce the ambiguity in English – the trans-
lator is forced to opt for one interpretation rather than another. A
good example of this is the passage from Descartes we quoted pre-
viously. According to our translation, Descartes said that we were
‘born without speech’, whereas other translations simply refer to us
being ‘infants’. The truth of the matter is that the Latin word infans
means a baby too young to speak, and we simply do not know if
Descartes was primarily thinking of our being babies, or of our lack
of speech. It is possible that our interpretation lays more stress than
Descartes intended on the relation between speech and reason,
unlike his opponent Hobbes who, in the extract we have quoted
from Leviathan, explicitly maintained that speech and reason are
completely inseparable.
Untranslatable distinctions
The third case is when there are more words in the original
language than there are in English. For example, Kant has two
words which can only be translated as ‘object’, namely Objekt and
Gegenstand. There is clearly a difference between the two, in that
an Objekt is abstract, and contrasted with a subject, whereas a
Gegenstand is a physical object with which one can be confronted in
experience. It is a moot point how far this distinction affects the
interpretation of Kant, since the meaning is usually obvious from
the context. But most translations alert the reader to which term is
being used by a footnote. Generally, if an untranslatable distinction
58 DOING PHILOSOPHY
is philosophically significant, your teacher or commentaries on the

reading list will alert you to it.
Untranslatable differences in scope

The fourth case is when a word in one language has a narrower or
wider scope than the nearest equivalent in English. If you look
up any abstract term in the dictionary, you will invariably find that
it has a number of distinct meanings – and the same is true of
abstract terms in any other language. Now, although these meanings
may be related to each other, and although it may be perfectly
understandable why they developed as they did, it would be an
extraordinary coincidence if the meanings of terms evolved
independently in exactly the same way in different languages. Trans-
lating from one language into another always involves an element of
approximation and ambiguity.
This can be more of a problem than that of words left in the
original language, because you have no way of telling whether
the words in the English translation have the same meaning as the
original words, or whether any differences are philosophically sig-
nificant or not. If the translation is a good one, the text should read
fluently as a piece of English prose, and you will not know if any
difficulties you have in following the argument are due to what the
philosopher actually wrote, or to how it has been translated. Some-
times the problem is overcome by a running commentary which
alerts you to translation problems, or by the inclusion of a detailed
glossary which tells you how key terms in the translation differ in
meaning from ordinary English. However, translations which go into
this level of detail are the exception rather than the rule, and for the
most part you are likely to be confronted with a text which gives no
hint of how its meaning may differ from that of the original.
It is also worth remembering that translators are not infallible,
and some oddities are due to mistakes in translation. And even if
you were reading in the original language, there would be no
guarantee that the words were exactly what the author intended,
because of misprints, or because of repeated miscopyings in the case
of ancient texts. Even in the case of a modern14 work such as Kant’s
Critique of Pure Reason, there are innumerable footnotes in which
different editors have proposed variant readings of obscure or
ungrammatical passages.
It may seem that you are being set an impossible task in reading a
philosophical text in translation, but do not worry. There are many
levels of understanding of philosophical ideas. At undergraduate
level, no-one expects you to be able to argue about what a
philosopher meant in the original language. Your course will have
been designed in such a way that you can get a first-class mark by
engaging with the translation available to you. The materials you
are given may or may not alert you to translation problems, because
some teachers are more concerned with historical facts about what
philosophers actually believed, whereas others are more concerned
with the broad ideas themselves, but it is a good idea to bear these
difficulties in mind, especially if you find yourself struggling with
a particular concept.
Here is an example of how language differences can affect the
plausibility of a philosophical argument. In Principles I.14 (written
in Latin), Descartes says:
Next, the mind considers the various ideas it has within itself; and one
stands out far above the rest, namely that of a being which is totally intelli-
gent, totally powerful, and totally perfect. It discerns that this idea includes
existence – not merely possible and contingent existence (as in the ideas of
all the other things of which it has a distinct conception), but unlimited
necessary and eternal existence.
This is what was later known as the ‘ontological’ argument for the
existence of God. Descartes is claiming that we have in our minds
an idea of what God is – namely an intelligent, omnipotent and
perfect being. He argues that such an idea includes existence,
that is, in order for a being to be totally perfect it must exist. If it
existed only as an idea it would not be perfect, so given this, God
necessarily exists.
Most English-language readers find the argument implausible,
because even if we accept that we can imagine a perfect and
omnipotent being, we do not see why this idea of perfection has
to include existence. However, the scope of the word perfectus
in Latin is different from the scope of the word ‘perfect’ in English.
We tend to think of ‘perfect’ as covering no more than moral or
aesthetic perfection, whereas in Latin perfectus also includes a con-
cept that can be understood as ‘fulness of being’. So the concept
that Descartes is talking about (originally in Latin) does have a
60 DOING PHILOSOPHY
connection with actual existence, since a thing can hardly have

maximum fulness of being if it does not actually exist. This kind of
example demonstrates that sensitivity to linguistic differences can
reveal logical dimensions that might otherwise be entirely missed.
Background knowledge (or lack of it)

Another obstacle to understanding historical texts is that authors
took for granted background knowledge that you cannot be
expected to have in an entirely different age and culture. For
example, almost anyone studying philosophy in the seventeenth or
eighteenth centuries would be assumed to have a thorough ground-
ing in Greek and Roman philosophy (in the original languages),
and probably in mediaeval scholastic philosophy as well. You are
most unlikely to have this knowledge, and your teachers should
make sure that you have sufficient help to make up for this through
lectures, handouts and published commentaries.
This problem is not restricted to historical texts. Some con-
temporary philosophical writing may rely on background
knowledge of previous philosophical theories – consider, for
instance, the passage from Quine we discussed earlier, which
assumed that we would already know about empiricism. In some
fields of philosophy, other knowledge that is relevant to the field
may also be drawn upon – for example, an understanding of
psychology for discussions in philosophy of mind. So it is important
always to be on the alert for such requirements. However, as we
have already noted, this should not present too much of a challenge
for you, as your course tutor should provide you with the back-
ground information you need (or point you towards other reading
materials that will do so).
Handling ambiguity
Even the most clearly written of texts are capable of different inter-
pretations. As well as the use and invention of technical terms,
which we have already looked at, philosophers often use
metaphors, analogies and examples to get their new ideas across,
and it is ambiguous how they are to be interpreted. Ultimately, the
meanings of terms are determined by their place in a philosophical
system as a whole, and there is the catch-22 that you can grasp
the system as a whole only if you understand the terms it consists of.
In practice, the process of coming to understand a philosophical

text is what is known as an ‘iterative’ one: that is, you start with a
partial understanding of key terms, which gives you an approximate
sense of the system as a whole; this then improves your under-
standing of the terminology, which leads to a more sophisticated
view of the whole – and so on. This is why it is essential to read
texts a number of times.
There is a temptation to believe that a philosopher must have had
a clear idea of what they wanted to say, even if they had difficulty
expressing it. This may sometimes be the case, but the norm is
much messier. The most innovative philosophers were struggling
to escape from the modes of thought they were brought up in, and
their writings were often inconsistent, with the new concepts co-
existing with the old. Or they might be torn between developing
their ideas in different directions, again resulting in inconsistencies.
We have to put up with the fact that there is often no straight
answer to the question of precisely what a philosopher believed on
a particular issue.
In recent times, some thinkers have criticized the very idea of
trying to discover an author’s intentions on the basis of their
writings. They argue that meaning arises through interaction
between a text and a reader, and since each reader brings a different
intellectual background to bear on the text, there will be as many
meanings as there are readers. Once the text has been written,
the author is in the same position as any other reader, and has no
privileged access to its ‘real’ meaning.
As with any philosophical theory, there is considerable debate
about this. For our current purposes it is enough to note that
there is much that we can usefully learn from it. For a start, it is true
that there will be more or less subtle differences in the meaning the
same text has for different readers, even to the extent that no two
readings will be exactly identical.
However, it does not follow from this that all interpretations are
equally valid, and hence that it is impossible to misinterpret a text –
it is still the case that we can judge some interpretations to be more
reasonable than others, and some as plain wrong.
It is true that authors do not always have an infallible, crystal clear
and utterly consistent understanding of what they intend to convey,
and there may well be no single, definitive meaning. Authors may
62 DOING PHILOSOPHY
also make mistakes, such as giving a definition of a technical term

which does not correspond to the way they actually use it. How-
ever, all philosophers, in writing philosophy, are trying to com-
municate certain ideas, and it is useful to seek to understand
what they were intending to convey. We can therefore find argu-
ments based on the text itself, the philosopher’s other work, or on
historical information, where relevant, to add weight to the
interpretation we are proposing.
So how do you set about considering how a passage is to be
interpreted? The first stage is to decide whether you need to work
at interpreting it or not. A common experience is that you read for
a while without any problems, and then there is a sentence you do
not understand. If you put a lot of mental effort into trying to
achieve a perfect understanding of everything you find problematic,
especially in texts that feature several of the difficulties we have
examined here, you probably will not have time to complete the
required reading. You have to decide whether it is important
enough. For example, in the passage from Hobbes we considered
earlier, the important point was that exact definitions of words
lead to scientific progress, whereas abuse of language leads to the
breakdown of society. Precisely what Hobbes meant by the word
‘pace’ is irrelevant. There is no simple rule for determining what is
or is not important, and you may spend time on something that
turns out not to be so significant after all, or need to re-visit a
passage you originally dismissed as unimportant.
When you decide that a difficult passage really is important, you
need to note the alternative interpretations (from secondary
texts and from your own reasoning), and then think of reasons for
preferring one to the others. The sorts of reasons you might come
up with are as follows:
• Which interpretation fits best with what the author says else-
where? Are there other passages in which the author is clearer
and more explicit about what they mean?
• With regard to historical texts, is there any supplementary
evidence in the secondary literature about what people
believed at the time, for example, which makes one interpret-
ation more likely than the others?
• Again, for historical texts, do any of the interpretations
presuppose later concepts which were not available at the

time, or knowledge which the author could not have had?
• Does a dictionary give you any more information about the
possible meanings of specific terms?
• Is the interpretation plausible, that is, could an intelligent
philosopher actually believe what is attributed to them?
When doing this, here are some suggestions of good practice:
• Make the primary text the main focus of your reading and
note-taking. You will not be learning to become a philosopher
unless you use secondary literature as an aid to your own
thinking rather than as a substitute for it. And when you come
to be assessed, you will not get high marks for showing the
ability to summarize interpretations by recent writers, instead
of arguing about the text itself.
• When you make a note of your interpretation of a passage,
do not just note the interpretation, but also your reasons for
it. Again, when it comes to assessment, it is showing the
evidence of your independent thought as you engage
with primary and secondary texts that will get you a good
mark.
Let us take as an example Kant’s famous claim that he was bringing
about a Copernican revolution in philosophy. This illustrates not
only the sorts of reasons you might use for and against different
interpretations, but also the fact that philosophers do not always
mean what they actually say, and it is often necessary to dig below
the surface in order to come up with a plausible interpretation.
What Kant says in the Preface to the second edition of the Critique
of Pure Reason is:
Here it is the same as with the first thoughts of Copernicus. He made little
progress in explaining the motions of the heavenly bodies on the assumption
that they all revolved round the observer. So he wondered if he might not
make better progress if he let the observer revolve, and left the stars at rest. In
metaphysics, you can make a similar thought experiment about the intuition
of objects. If intuition must accommodate itself to the nature of the object,
I do not see how you can know anything about it a priori. But if the object
(as object of the senses) accommodates itself to the nature of our faculty of
intuition, then I can easily conceive that such knowledge is possible.15
64 DOING PHILOSOPHY
In order to understand this passage, you need to know that by

‘intuition’, Kant means direct awareness of objects of experience.
So he is saying that, if our knowledge of objects depends entirely on
sensory information coming from them, then we cannot have any
advance (a priori) knowledge of their general characteristics. But if
their general characteristics are determined by the mind or brain
which processes the raw sensory data, then we can have advance
knowledge of their general characteristics.
So how do we interpret the analogy with Copernicus? In fact
Kant says very little. His statement that Copernicus ‘made little
progress in explaining the motions of the heavenly bodies on the
assumption that they all revolved round the observer’ merely
re-states the traditional view that the earth is at rest, and all the
heavenly bodies revolve around it. Copernicus’s revolution con-
sisted in his wondering that ‘he might not make better progress if
he let the observer revolve, and left the stars at rest’.
Here are four different possible interpretations:
1. They were both revolutionary and of huge impor-

tance.16 This is true, but it does not explain why Kant
compared his revolution specifically with the Copernican
revolution in astronomy – any other scientific revolution
would have served just as well.
2. They both remove human beings from the centre of
the universe. This is certainly true of Copernicus, but it is
not true of Kant, because his revolution consisted in making
essential features of objects in the world depend on how we
humans perceive and conceptualize them.
3. The sun represents objects of knowledge, and the
earth represents the human observer. Motion repre-
sents being the source of knowledge, and being at
rest represents conformity to the source. Kant’s revo-
lutionary idea was that the human observer is the
source of knowledge, and that objects of knowledge
must conform to human knowledge.17 This is better,
because it does relate features of Copernicus’s astronomical
theory to features of Kant’s philosophy. However, there is no
reference to the stars; the identification of motion with the
source of knowledge and being at rest with conformity to
the source is arbitrary; and it implies that the human observer

is the source of all knowledge, whereas Kant’s thesis was
that only certain aspects of our knowledge are due to the
observer.
4. When Kant refers to the ‘stars’, he must be thinking of
the planets. Copernicus showed that the apparent,
erratic motions of the planets can be explained as
the resultant of their circular motion round the sun
and the earth’s circular motion round the sun. For
Kant, the appearances of objects are the resultant
of sensory data from the object, and the form of
intuition supplied by the human observer. 18 Of all the
interpretations, this fits best with both Copernicus’s theory
and Kant’s philosophy. The main problem with it is that
Kant does not actually say this, and one has to read between
the lines. On the other hand, Kant certainly knew that
this was why Copernicus was revolutionary. If by ‘stars’
Kant meant all the heavenly bodies, his description of
Copernicus’s theory would be simply wrong, because the
planets and the moon are not at rest; and if he meant only
the fixed stars, then he is leaving out the most important
aspect of Copernicus’s theory as giving a simple explanation
of the apparent motions of the planets. The conclusion is
that Kant did not actually say what he must have
meant, and knowledge of the broader context and what
he says elsewhere is necessary for finding a plausible
interpretation.
So, we can see that there are always going to be ambiguities and
different interpretations when it comes to reading philosophy. We
need to exercise caution and be prepared to evaluate and refine our
views continuously. But while it may be difficult to find one ‘right’
answer, that does not mean that there are no ‘wrong’ answers. As we
have seen, some interpretations are better than others, and as a
philosopher you need to become confident in advancing your own
position, and defending it against others.
66 DOING PHILOSOPHY
Summary
By now you should have a good idea of what it means to read
philosophically, rather than simply to read philosophy. Reading
philosophically means engaging with the texts, identifying and
analysing arguments, creating and refining your own interpretations
and being prepared to criticize what others think in a structured
way. The techniques suggested here should give you the tools to
take your reading further, to increase your understanding of the
topics at hand, and to use your reading to prepare you for engage-
ment in other philosophical activities, which we will examine in
more detail in the rest of this book.
Notes
1 Aristotle (384–322 BCE) was an ancient Greek thinker; and, along
with Plato (who was his teacher), arguably one of the most influential
figures in the history of western philosophy. His Nicomachean Ethics
remains a core text in ethical theory today.
2 Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) was a German philosopher, famous
(amongst other things) for synthesizing the competing philosophies of
the Enlightenment era – his work remains hugely influential through-
out western philosophy today, not least in the field of ethics.
3 Kantianism is the approach to ethics associated with Kant (see previous
note), which places emphasis on the individual’s motivations for
action. Virtue theory can be traced back to Aristotle (see note 1),
and focuses its morality on the character of the individual rather
than his/her particular actions. Utilitarianism is principally associated
with the nineteenth-century thinkers Jeremy Bentham and John
Stuart Mill; according to this theory, the moral status of an action
is determined by the extent to which its consequences maximize
happiness.
4 Thomas Nagel (1937–) is an American philosopher. His work focuses
mainly on issues in moral and political theory; but he is also well-
known for his paper ‘What is it like to be a bat?’, which became one
of the most discussed papers in twentieth-century philosophy of
mind:
• Nagel, Thomas (1974), ‘What is it like to be a bat?’ Philosophical
Review vol. 83, no. 4, 435–450.
This famous paper has also been reprinted in a number of other books,
for example:
• Nagel, Thomas (1979), Mortal Questions. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
• Hofstadter, Douglas R. and Dennett, Daniel C. (eds) (1981), The
Mind’s I. London: Penguin.
5 You should also be aware that there are other argument forms and
Chapter 6 contains advice for further reading in critical thinking
and informal logic.
6 Descartes, René, The Principles of Philosophy, trans. MacDonald Ross,
George, www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/texts/modern/
descartes/principles/dcprinc.html, I.1.
7 Descartes, René, The Principles of Philosophy, trans. MacDonald Ross,
George, www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/texts/modern/
descartes/principles/dcprinc.html, I.4.
8 Aristotle (1998), The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. J.R. Ackrill, J.O. Urm-
son and David Ross. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9 David Hume was a philosopher, historian, political commentator and
economist in the eighteenth century. His philosophy has been highly
influential and An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is a much-
studied book to this day. (The precise quotation we discuss here is
taken from its section IV, part 1, to Article 20.)
10 Quine, W. V. O. (1953), From a Logical Point of View, Harvard: Harvard
University Press.
11 This is an on-line encyclopaedia, available at http://seop.leeds.ac.uk/
or http://plato.stanford.edu/
Using on-line guides and resources has to be done with care (see
Chapter 6, and the section ‘How to avoid plagiarism’ in Chapter 5),
but can provide some useful pointers when reading and trying to
grasp the meaning of challenging texts. As already noted, at degree-
level secondary commentary texts are not a substitute for reading the
primary material.
12 There are some websites with digital translations which you may
find useful (see, for example, www.earlymoderntexts.com, and
www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/texts/modern/
modindex.html).
13 Hobbes, Thomas (1968), Leviathan, ed. Macpherson, C. B., London:
Penguin, pp. 116–7.
14 ‘Modern philosophy’, in academic discussion, refers to all philosophy
from the seventeenth century onwards – it does not refer solely
to contemporary philosophy. So Kant counts as a modern philos-
opher in this technical sense, although he wrote in the eighteenth
century.
15 Translated by George MacDonald Ross. See www.philosophy.
68 DOING PHILOSOPHY
leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/texts/modern/kant/preface2.html (accessed
04.06.07).
16 This is the interpretation of Sandra LaFave. See http://instruct.west
valley.edu/lafave/KANT.HTM (accessed 02.06.07).
17 This is the interpretation of Stephen Palmquist. See www.hkbu.
edu.hk/~ppp/ksp1/KSP3.html (accessed 02.06.07).
18 This is the interpretation of George MacDonald Ross. The whole
of this discussion is adapted from an interactive exercise at www.
philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/modules/kantmcq/p19/
p19frame.html (accessed 02.06.07).
3 Taking notes
Why is note-taking important?

Do you usually make notes when you attend a class or read a book?
Or do you only start scribbling furiously when revision week
looms? Have you ever stopped to reflect why you take notes (or
not)? Identifying what you want to gain from note-taking should
help you to approach your work in a way that effectively supports
the achievement of these aims.
Presumably you hope and expect that your attendance at
lectures and your reading of the course texts will contribute to your
knowledge and understanding of philosophy, and thereby – on a
more pragmatic note – will also equip you successfully to complete
your assessment tasks. Making notes will help you to do this in at
least two ways.
Recording what you have learned

Making a record of what you have heard or read will ensure that
this material is readily available to you for future use. This may seem
too obvious to be worth stating, but it is all too easy to sit in a
lecture and think ‘I’ll just listen, no need to write it down as well’ –
only to find, when you come to complete your essay or exam,
that you can no longer recall the key points. This argument
applies just as much to your philosophical reading. As we discussed
fully in the previous chapter, reading philosophy can be time con-
suming and challenging; so it is important also to capture notes
from your reading, to make best use of your invested study time and
effort.
70 DOING PHILOSOPHY
Engaging with the material

As well as keeping a record of your studies, making notes prompts
you to think about the ideas being discussed as you go along.
Philosophy requires direct engagement with the ideas that you
encounter, and in order to write down a summary of what you have
just heard or read, you need actively to process the ideas with which
you have been presented, not just passively to absorb them. There is
plenty of educational research to show that we learn much more
effectively when we are learning actively rather than passively. If
you make notes, you are much more likely to remember the con-
tent of the lecture or text; and you are also likely to develop a better
understanding of it – because you have been challenged to write it
down in your own words. Even if your understanding is not com-
plete, you will at least be clearer about what you do and do not
understand – and this in itself is an important step towards mastery
of the topic. So note-taking is a valuable tool in furthering your
understanding.
Content – what should I write down?

Perhaps the most obvious challenge you face when making notes
is what to include, and what to omit. How do you decide what is
relevant and important, and what can safely be overlooked?
It may be tempting to err on the side of caution, particularly when
taking notes from your reading, when you are less constrained
by time than when trying to keep up in lectures, and to note down
everything that seems as though it might be significant. However,
this strategy can be counterproductive if taken too far – the more
you focus on capturing information, the less likely you are to be
actively engaging with the material. As we know, in philosophy the
quality of your understanding is at least as important as the quantity
of knowledge you accumulate; so it is important to be selective.
Summarizing material
Identifying all (and only) the key points in a lecture or text is a
philosophical skill which takes practice, and requires you to think
carefully about what is being said. When looking at what it
means to read philosophically, that is, to gain an understanding of a
philosophical text, we broke down the process into:
TAKING NOTES 71
• Getting an overview of the philosophical problem under

discussion.
• Understanding the structure of the arguments used.
• Understanding the concepts and ideas under discussion and
how they relate to philosophy more generally.
Whether you are making notes on a lecture or a text, what you end
up with should aim to cover these points.
When trying to work out what you need to write down, try
bearing in mind the question: ‘If I were to explain this to someone
who had missed the lecture (or had not read the book), what are the
essential points I would need to include?’ The previous chapter
provides a number of tools to help you to identify the core claims
in a piece of philosophical discussion, and the key evidence and
arguments used to support them. These can also be used, therefore,
to help you pick out which aspects of the argument are crucial to
its success, and which can be omitted without changing its core
elements.
Evaluating material
Accurately capturing the essence of the author’s or lecturer’s
original argument is, however, only one dimension of effective
note-taking. You should also seek to capture your own engagement
with the ideas discussed. Do you agree with the claims being made,
or can you think of counter-examples? Does the conclusion follow
from the premises, or is the author relying on unspoken assump-
tions? (Can you identify what these are? Do you think they are
acceptable?) If you accept the author’s argument, can you envisage
any other consequences which you might be committed to as well
– and are these acceptable?
Critical analysis and evaluation of this kind is at the heart of
doing philosophy, so it is important to include these reflections in
your note-taking. When you read philosophy, take time to pause
and ask yourself not only whether you understand the argument,
but also how you think it holds up; and make a note of your
thoughts, as well as those of the author. This should include making
a note of any issues you do not understand; so that you can follow
these up later, by asking for clarification in class or doing some
further reading.
72 DOING PHILOSOPHY
Recording your sources

Finally, and importantly, your notes should always include a com-
plete record of the source for your material. If you are taking notes
on a philosophy text, make sure you make a note of the following
information:
• Name of author(s).
• Title of book or article.
• (For a book) year of publication; name of publisher; place
where it was published.
• (For an article) title of book or journal in which it was
published; date of publication; page numbers.
• Page references for any quotations you may wish to use.
You will need this information to provide a bibliography for any
written work you produce on this topic, and to make sure that you
acknowledge your sources accurately. Related to this, ensure that
you clearly differentiate in your notes between your summary
description and your evaluative comments, so that you do not risk
including someone else’s work without crediting it. (See the section
on ‘How to avoid plagiarism’ in Chapter 5.)
On a similar note, it is also a good idea to keep a record of the
source of your lecture notes – Which module do they belong to?
What was the date and title of the lecture? Who gave the lecture?
Again, this means you can use them as a source when it comes to
writing essays.
Method – how should I go about taking notes?

What methods might help you to capture these ideas effectively?
It is worth emphasizing that there are no right or wrong ways to
approach this, and we would encourage you to experiment with
different methods, in order to discover which work for you. The
suggestions offered here are a brief overview of some different
note-making techniques, which – like the rest of this book – focus
on approaches and solutions that are appropriate to philosophy.
These can be complemented by accessing a wealth of more generic
advice to help you develop effective study skills, including note-
taking. (See Chapter 6, ‘Resources’.) The key consideration is to
explore and develop a range of tactics which help you to make clear
TAKING NOTES 73
to yourself the core claims and underlying structure of a philo-

sophical argument.
Use your own words

One rule of thumb for effective note-taking is widely accepted: you
should make notes largely in your own words, rather than copying
the wording of the lecturer or author. It can be tempting to repro-
duce the precise wording of your source material. Often, this
strategy is rationalized by the thought that ‘the lecturer or author is
an expert who’s thought carefully about this, and I’m just a novice,
so she can put it much better than me’. However, this limits your
engagement with the material – a key aim of note-taking, as we
discussed previously. It is in putting the argument into your own
words that you explore your own understanding of the issues. This
can be more difficult than simply replicating the original, but it is
also much more useful for your own learning.
Furthermore, if you try to paraphrase an argument and find it
impossible, you may realize that this is because you do not yet fully
understand it. In this case, you may wish to resort to recording the
argument in its original form so that you can go back and explore it
further (in class discussions, and /or through additional reading),
but at least you will have discovered the gaps in your understanding
so that you can address them.
Use quotations carefully

Of course, sometimes you will want to record a direct quotation,
perhaps in order to cite and then to analyse the statement critically
in your written assignment. Make sure you reproduce the author’s
original words accurately, and provide a complete reference to
the original source, as outlined above. When writing out quotations
that you think you may use in an assignment, it can be a good idea
to write out a little more than you think you will need, as this
can help later with remembering the context and stitching it into
your argument. In written work, however, direct quotations
should typically be kept as short as possible – as noted above, on
their own, they do little to reflect your understanding of the issues –
so it is important to ensure that they are supported by your own
interpretation of the argument.
74 DOING PHILOSOPHY
Leave plenty of room on the page

It is a good idea to leave plenty of space in your note-making; for
instance, some people recommend writing only on alternate lines,
or on one side of the page. This helps when taking notes in lectures,
as you can go back and add to specific areas if a later point helps to
clarify something you wrote down earlier. Importantly, it also
means that when you go back over your notes at a later date, you
can add any further clarifications or comments.
Distinguish between different types of information

You might find it helpful to be able to distinguish between different
types of information. Is the statement you have just noted a sum-
mary of the author’s or lecturer’s point? If so, is it a factual claim, an
opinion, a conceptual definition, a conclusion, a piece of supporting
evidence, or an example? Or is it a comment of your own – and if
so, is it a query, a criticism, or a ‘note to self’ to follow this up later?
There are various ways in which you might choose to ‘signpost’
such different types of information in your note-taking:
• Colour coding of different types of material – such as using
black ink for factual material, red for conceptual claims,
blue for examples, and so on.
• Varying your writing style – for example some people find
it helpful to write the central claims in larger size letters,
or CAPITALS or to underline the key points.
• Physical arrangement of the notes on the page can also be a
useful tool – for example using margins and /or columns to
record different types of information.
Examples of these techniques are provided in the following sec-
tions of this chapter.
Find ways to relate different pieces of information

Some or all of these techniques may also be used to help you to
capture the relationships between your various notes – How does
the statement you have just noted relate to the previous one,
for instance? And/or the statement made at the very beginning of
the lecture or text? In this regard, you may find it particularly
helpful to be creative about how you place your words on the page.
Sometimes a linear arrangement – that is, simply noting down the
TAKING NOTES 75
statements in the order in which they are presented – will effec-

tively capture the line of the argument; for instance, in a lecture
which your tutor has carefully designed to replicate the underlying
structure of the philosophical theory under discussion. However,
this will often not be the case: a more natural flow of discussion
will frequently lead from conclusions to supporting premises rather
than vice versa (as discussed in the previous chapter), and may well
include diversions, for example into historical or cultural context,
objections and rebuttals, links to related theories and so on. In these
cases, you may wish to arrange your notes so that they map the
relationships between the ideas rather than simply the order in
which they are expressed – for example, arranging them in a flow
chart or using different columns for pros and cons of the argument.
An example of effective note-taking

To bring together some of these points about content and method,
let us revisit the passage from Hume we explored in the previous
chapter. What notes do you think you should take here? Do
Hume’s various examples of ‘relations of ideas’ need to be included,
or can you capture the sense of his argument by a different
definition of this concept, for instance?
On the following page is an example of how you might go about
summarizing the argument, using a flow chart to create a visual
representation of the relationship between the categories he is
defining.
76 DOING PHILOSOPHY
Original text: Sample notes:

All the objects of human reason or David Hume, An Enquiry
enquiry may naturally be divided Concerning Human Understanding,
into two kinds, to wit, relations of section IV, part 1.
ideas, and matters of fact. Of the
first kind are the sciences of All ‘objects of human enquiry’
geometry, algebra, and arithmetic, (things we can know
and in short, every affirmation or think about)
which is either intuitively or |
demonstratively certain. That the |
square of the hypotenuse is equal
to the square of the two sides, is ‘Relations of ‘Matters of fact’
a proposition which expresses a ideas’
relation between these figures. That e.g.s from maths
three times five is equal to the half can be found out
of thirty, expresses a relation just by thinking,
between these numbers. don’t need to found out
Propositions of this kind are see what’s in differently
discoverable by the mere operation the world = how?
of thought, without dependence on
what is anywhere existent in the
universe. Though there never were
a circle or triangle in nature, the Truth certain Less certain –
truths demonstrated by Euclid could be false:
would for ever retain their certainty
and evidence.
Matters of fact, which are the
✘ contradictory
second objects of human reason, are
✔ imaginable
not ascertained in the same manner;
nor is our evidence of their truth,
however great, of a like nature with
the foregoing. The contrary of
every matter of fact is still possible,
because it can never imply a
contradiction, and is conceived by
the mind with the same facility and
distinctness, as if ever so
conformable to reality.
TAKING NOTES 77
Does this mapping help you to make it clearer how Hume’s

various claims fit together? Would you write it differently? This
is only one way of representing the argument, as we have already
discussed. Writing things down in this way draws attention to the
fact that, in this passage, although Hume makes a positive statement
about how we discover ‘relations of ideas’, he provides only a com-
parative, negative description regarding ‘matters of fact’ – so we can
see how using this method might allow us to begin analysing and
evaluating Hume’s argument.
Tailoring your methods to your context

There are some ways that your note-taking techniques should be
tailored for specific circumstances. You will predominantly take
notes either in lectures, or when reading, so this is what we have
focused on here.
Seminars are another important learning context in philosophy
courses, but in a seminar or tutorial the emphasis will be on philo-
sophical discussion in which all students take an active part, and this
should therefore be the focus of your attention. The next chapter
of this book gives you detailed guidance on how to get the most
out of your seminar discussions.
Making notes in lectures

Earlier we looked at the reasons for taking notes – namely to give
yourself a record of what has been discussed, and to encourage your
critical thinking on the topic. Taking notes in lectures can have an
additional, pragmatic benefit of helping you to keep your attention
focused. It is well documented that it is difficult to concentrate on
a single issue for a full hour; and whereas, when reading, you can
take a break, this is typically not an option midway through a
lecture. The physical and mental activity of making notes can pro-
vide you with a prompt to keep your mind focused on the topic
at hand; and, therefore, will help you to make the most of your
lecture.
Your lecture will often be structured in such a way as to facilitate
your note-taking – it is likely, for instance, that your lecturer
will summarize the key points at the beginning or end of the
lecture, or both; she may also review the main points at intervals
78 DOING PHILOSOPHY
during the lecture. Repeated statements like this are useful

‘signposts’ to crucial points for you to note.
Your note-taking in lectures is, of course, constrained by time
and place in a way that it is not when you are reading. Because of
this, it is wise to adapt your techniques accordingly – for example
it may not be practical to juggle a set of different coloured pens in a
crowded lecture theatre.
In lectures, your lecturer sets the pace, and this can be a challenge,
particularly if you are unused to this method of teaching. If you find
it difficult to keep up, there are a few tactics you might consider
adopting:
• Ask your lecturer to slow down, or to clarify key points – if

you do not let her know that she is going too fast for you, she
may not realize this.
• Be more ruthlessly selective in your note-taking. Are you
reduplicating material which is available elsewhere, for
example in the handouts and /or core course texts? If so, try to
focus on the lecture material which is new to you, or which
will be difficult to find out elsewhere (has your lecturer drawn
attention to whether a particular point is commonly accepted,
or new and controversial, for instance?)
• Get used to using abbreviations in a systematic way. With
practice, you will probably find yourself developing a per-
sonal, philosophical shorthand.
• Ensure you make time to review your notes after the lecture,
so that you can address any gaps, and have more time to think
critically about what you have learned, as discussed above.
It can be quite a challenge simultaneously to process audiovisual

material (your lecturer’s words and, if used, their overhead slides
and /or handouts) and to make your own notes. See pages 80–1
for a sample of how you might go about this. Do you find this
approach helpful? How might you do things differently?
Making notes from your reading

Again, in reading, there are specific aims in note-taking in addition
to recording information and engaging with the material. You are
likely to be making notes for a specific use – for example, to
TAKING NOTES 79
prepare for a seminar, or to research an essay. You should bear

these different contexts in mind. If you are going to use your notes
in a seminar, being concise is more important than ever. If you have
to wade through pages of your own handwriting you are likely to
have lost the flow of the discussion by the time you find the point
you want to make. If you are preparing for essay writing, taking
down enough information to reference appropriately, as discussed
earlier, is extremely important.
When reading a text, unlike in a lecture, the full argument has
been recorded in a permanent form in front of you. How might
you wish to adapt your note-making approach accordingly?
We have already discussed the merits of reading through a text
more than once in order fully to get to grips with its philosophical
content. Many people advise that, on first reading of a text, you
should not make notes – instead, you should focus on obtaining an
overview of the argument. The rationale for this is that the activity
of making notes may prompt you to become immersed in the
details at the expense of gaining an overarching view of the text as a
whole.
While it is not necessary to be dogmatic about this – if a point
‘jumps out’ at you as you read, why not note it down for future
reference? – there are genuine benefits to be gained from bearing in
mind the principles underpinning this approach. It is often easier to
identify and understand the key points once you have first reviewed
the whole argument, so your note-taking on subsequent reading(s)
can be more selective and efficient.
The fact that the original text is already recorded in front of you
also gives you the opportunity to take notes ‘in dialogue’ with it –
for example, by annotating the margins of the text with your own
notes of summary, clarification, query or criticism. A few notes of
caution are in order here, however:
• First (and perhaps most obvious): annotating the pages of a

text is a legitimate approach only when the text in question is
your own – you should never do this with library texts, for
example. Quite apart from the question of defacing others’
property, you will not be able to retain any notes you have
made in a text which will need to be returned to another
owner.
80 DOING PHILOSOPHY
Lecture slides
Philosophy of Mind: Identity Theory

• Problems with other theories of the mind (recap):
– Dualism:
• No scientific evidence for the existence of any immaterial
mental substance
• Even if this exists, how do we account for the relation
between mental and physical substances?
– Behaviourism:
• rejects dualism in favour of a purely physicalist account of
the mind; but
• fails to explain mental causation
The Identity Theory’s Challenge
• Explain mental causation (unlike behaviourism)

• Provide a physicalist account of mental causation (unlike
dualism)
• Avoid causal over-determination:
– All physical events have a fully sufficient physical cause (the
causal closure principle)
– Some physical events have a mental cause
– How to avoid concluding that some physical events have a
sufficient physical cause and a mental cause?
The Identity Theory’s Solution
• Mental states are identical with certain particular physical

states
– namely, certain states of the brain
The mind just is the brain
TAKING NOTES 81
Lecturer’s spoken comments with the second slide
. . . So, the problem remains: we need to account for how mental states
can cause physical events – which is something that behaviourism fails
to explain – without resorting to dualism. And we want to avoid dualism
because we have good scientific reasons to accept physicalism – which is
the thesis that everything can be explained in physical terms. A key
argument of this type is the causal closure argument for physicalism, which
goes something like this:
At every time at which a physical state has a cause, it has a fully sufficient
physical cause. This scientific principle is known as ‘the causal closure of
the physical’, and it underpins all our assumptions about how the world
works – for any given event in the physical world, it should be possible to
tell a complete story about how that event came to happen, in terms of
other physical things and events. Even if we don’t know this complete
story (for instance, if science isn’t yet sufficiently advanced), we believe
that some such physical explanation exists, and that is sufficient to explain
the cause of the event in question.
But some physical states have mental states among their causes – what is
known as psychophysical causation. This also seems uncontroversial if you
think of everyday examples – for instance, how might I explain what caused
me to eat a bar of chocolate just before this lecture? I would say that I felt
hungry; I wanted to rid myself of these hunger pangs before the lecture so
that I could concentrate; and I believed that raiding the vending machine
for a bar of chocolate to eat would achieve this. Each of these explanatory
steps involves appealing to a mental state of mine – a feeling, a desire, and
a belief, respectively.
But then we seem to be left with the conclusion that my consumption of the
chocolate has both a complete physical cause, and a mental cause too –
that is, that this event is causally overdetermined . . .
Sample notes [If you have a copy of your lecturer’s slides, you can annotate these
rather than repeating their content in your own notes.]
Phil Mind: ID Theory – Prof Bloggs – 31 Nov
M causation – theory of mind needs to explain; behaviourism doesn’t
Avoid dualism – why? Science ✔ physicalism = all explained in p terms
Do we have to accept the science? Check notes from dualism lecture.
Argt for physicalism – causal closure

If event has cause, it’s a ‘suff. But some events have m causes
p cause’ – ‘psychophysical causation’
– e.g. eat choc cos feel hungry,
believe choc will help
→ ‘causally over-determined’ – too many causes?

= problem: why?
82 DOING PHILOSOPHY
• Second, the original text presents you with limited options

for arranging your notes – physical space on the page will be
very restricted, for example. If you wish to take more detailed
notes, and /or to represent the structure of the argument in
diagrammatic form, for example, you may find it helpful
to take notes separately, instead of (or as well as) making
annotations in the margins of the original text.
A final consideration: what if you are reading a text which has
already been annotated by someone else, perhaps in a second-hand
book? In this case, be cautious. You may wish to consider these
views as a complement to your own, but they should never be a
substitute for them; and you should analyse any such comments as
critically as you do the original text.
With these considerations in mind, look at the example on
pages 84–5. It uses two techniques; that of annotating the text
itself – by underlining important words or phrases and elaborating
on their meaning in the margins – and that of creating additional
notes. Do you find this way of annotating the text helpful? What do
you think of the note-taker’s comments? How would you adapt
this to serve your own purposes better?
Making best use of your notes

Once you have made your initial notes, there are further steps
you can take to ensure that you are able to make best use of them.
After all, you have put time and effort into creating what is now a
valuable resource.
Reviewing your notes

Quite possibly the most valuable activity you can undertake to
reinforce the value of your notes is to review them shortly after
making them. If you have ever unearthed six-month-old notes the
day before an exam, only to find that you can no longer make sense
of (or perhaps even decipher) them, then you will appreciate why
this exercise can be valuable. At the most basic level, it will help you
to identify any gaps, for example where you have written down a
shortened phrase through lack of time, and need to fill in further
detail in order to be able to recapture the full gist of the point at a
TAKING NOTES 83
later date. It will also give you the opportunity to identify any
action points – Is there anything in your notes which you sign-
posted ‘don’t understand this’? If so, what will you do to rectify
this? Ask about it in your next seminar, or consult a philosophy
encyclopaedia, for example?
This activity will also help to do more than ensure the accuracy
and comprehensiveness of your notes – it will also prompt you to
think again about the ideas discussed, while they are still fresh in
your mind; and give you the opportunity to come up with further
critical reflections of your own. In looking back over the argument
as a whole, you may well spot difficulties that were not immediately
apparent to you when you were immersed in the details of the
lecture or text. This can help you to pinpoint your confusion, or
disagreement, over any points which originally made you think
‘that doesn’t seem quite right, but I’m not sure what’s wrong with
it’. Reviewing your notes should help you to practise your skills of
philosophical analysis, which will be a key advantage when it comes
to discussing the issues in class or writing philosophy for assessment.
Comparing your notes

Another strategy which may help you to maximize the effective-
ness of your notes is to compare your notes with those of other
students on your course. Did they capture the same key points from
the same lecture or text as you did? If not, this may help to provide
you with further valuable material with which to refine your philo-
sophical analysis – for example, is their perspective an alternative
interpretation of the theory under discussion, which might help
you to compare, analyse and evaluate different viewpoints on the
topic?
The form, as well as the content, of your fellow students’ notes
may also be a useful resource, of course. You may be able to pick up
tips by discovering additional note-taking methods used by others,
which you could usefully add to your repertoire.
A few words of caution, however – if you do consult the notes of
others, be careful how you use them. It is extremely inadvisable to
rely on others’ notes instead of your own. As we have already
discussed, you learn much more by making your own notes than by
passively absorbing the words of others. You should also take care to
avoid presenting ideas that you have gleaned from others as if they
84 DOING PHILOSOPHY
Marginal Original text

notes [In-text annotations are indicated by underlining]
Phil like Is philosophy like plumbing? . . . philosophising is not just
plumbing grand and elegant and difficult, but is also needed. It is not
because optional . . .
...
Plumbing and philosophy are both activities that arise
– complex
because elaborate cultures like ours have, beneath their
– needed
surface, a fairly complex system which is usually unnoticed,
Unnoticed but which sometimes goes wrong. In both cases, this can
till things have serious consequences. Each system supplies vital
go wrong needs for those who live above it. Each is hard to repair when
it does go wrong, because neither of them was ever
consciously planned as a whole. There have been many
ambitious attempts to reshape both of them, but existing
complications are usually too widespread to allow a
completely new start.
System Neither system ever had a single designer who knew exactly
not what needs it would have to meet. Instead, both have grown
planned ∴ imperceptibly over the centuries, and are constantly being
difficult to altered piecemeal to suit changing demands . . . Both are
fix therefore now very intricate. When trouble arises, specialized
skill is needed if there is to be any hope of putting it right.
Phil not Here, however, we run into the first striking difference
like between the two cases. About plumbing, everybody accepts
plumbing this need for specialists . . . About philosophy, people . . . not
cos need only doubt the need, they are often sceptical about whether
for it not the underlying system even exists at all. It is much more
acknow’d deeply hidden. When the concepts we are living by function
badly, they do not usually drip audibly through the ceiling . . .
They just quietly distort and obstruct our thinking.
Difficult to We often do not consciously notice this obscure discomfort
see the and malfunction, any more than we consciously notice the
prob discomfort of an unvarying bad smell . . . We may indeed
complain that life is going badly – that our actions and
Tend to relationships are not turning out as we intend. But it can be
look for very hard to see why this is happening, or what to do about
probs / it. This is because we find it much easier to look for trouble
solutions outside ourselves than within. It is notoriously hard to see
in world faults in our own motivation, in the structure of our feelings.
outside – But it is in some ways even harder – even less natural – to
hard to turn our attention to what might be wrong in our ideas, in the
diagnose structure of our thought. Attention naturally flows outwards
internal to what is wrong in the world around us. To bend thought
probs (?) round so that it looks critically at itself is quite hard . . .
TAKING NOTES 85
Separate notes
Mary Midgley, ‘Philosophical Plumbing’. In A. Phillips Griffiths ed. The

Impulse to Philosophise (Cambridge: CUP, 1992).
Analogy: phil = plumbing:

– necessary
– complex
– hidden, taken for granted (when it works, but)
– real-world problems if it goes wrong
– relatively un-designed system, evolved over time
– requires specialists to fix ? nothing said
(yet) about
‘When the concepts we are living by function badly specialist phil
. . . They just quietly distort and obstruct our skills . . .
thinking.’ (p.139)
– difficult to identify errors in ideas, systems of
thinking
– tend to look for source of error in ext. world, not is this true? if so,
internally does it have to
be . . .
|
↓
or just mental
habits that can be
cured?
were your own. At the extreme, unacknowledged borrowing from

others’ notes in your assessed work can be construed as collusion
or plagiarism. (More detailed guidance on this is provided in the
section on ‘How to avoid plagiarism’ in Chapter 5.)
Storing your notes
A final consideration in making the best use of your notes is to
ensure that you store them effectively – they will be of little use to
you if you struggle to find the relevant information when you need
it later, for instance when preparing for an assignment. Accurately
recording the source material for your notes, as discussed in the
previous section, will help you with this – you can then organize
your notes by topic, author or whatever classification system you
find helpful.
Some people also find it helpful to keep a note of the date on
which they made their notes. This can be useful, for example, for
86 DOING PHILOSOPHY
notes on key thinkers and /or theories which you may revisit at a
later stage in your philosophical studies. You may well be expected
to read, for instance, Plato’s Republic more than once during your
degree – perhaps first as part of your ‘Introduction to Philosophy’
course, and then again in a level three Political Philosophy module.
In the third year, your first-year notes may come in useful, but you
are also likely to wish to add to them – reflecting the different focus
of your level three studies, and also your more highly developed
skills of philosophical analysis – and it will be helpful for you to be
able readily to distinguish between the two sets of notes on the
same text.
Summary
This chapter has given you an overview of how note-taking can be
a valuable philosophical activity in its own right, as well as pre-
senting you with various strategies that you can use to make sure
that your notes are suited to the context of their further use, and
continue to be a valuable resource as you progress. Being able to
take pertinent and concise notes is a vital philosophical skill to
develop, and will stand you in good stead as you go on to pursue
other philosophical activities, described in the rest of this book.
4 Discussion
Almost every philosophy department requires its undergraduates

to spend a significant proportion of their time in discussion. You
may not have experienced much formal discussion at school, so it
is important that you understand why there is much more of it at
university, especially in a subject like philosophy. Discussing things
with fellow students may at first seem an odd way to learn. If you do
not know why you are involved in a discussion, you may not get
much out of it.
The value of discussion

Although you might think that discussing is something you can
already do naturally, there is an art to being a good contributor to
a discussion. In almost any profession you might enter after
graduation, you will be expected to attend meetings, and to help
make them more productive than they would have been if you were
not there. You will be required to put forward your own views,
to defend them against the criticism of others, and to collaborate
in forming workable solutions. Here the philosophical skill of
discussion comes into its own.
As well as seeing the value of developing your discussion skills to
your life in general and your future career, we also believe that it is
a better educational experience if, at least part of the time, you are
talking to your fellow students, rather than listening to your
teachers. Why is this? Some of the reasons are common to all good
teaching at university level; some are specific to humanities subjects;
and some are peculiar to philosophy.
88 DOING PHILOSOPHY
Active learning
It is widely accepted that active learning is more effective than
passive learning. You learn more and in greater depth by doing
things, reflecting on what you are doing, and receiving timely
and helpful feedback on what you have done, than by passively
memorizing what you are told in lectures, and regurgitating it in
exams.
Discussion groups are an ideal means for learning in this way,
because you are active while listening to and seeking to understand
the contributions of others; thinking what contribution you
might make; and when you actually make a contribution. You also
obtain feedback from your fellow students and your tutor, and you
receive it instantly (whereas you may have to wait weeks to receive
feedback on your written work).
Contested subjects
The ability to discuss well is even more valuable in humanities
subjects than it is in other subjects. This is because they are contested
– that is to say, there are fundamental disagreements about the
nature of the subject, and even when two people agree on overall
aims, they may still disagree about the interpretation and evaluation
of particular texts. A well designed course will reflect the diversity
of opinions, and lectures and reading lists should enable you to
explore a range of different approaches and interpretations. How-
ever, your lecturers are human, and they may weight the evidence
in favour of their own opinions. Discussion groups provide an
opportunity to explore competing views.
More importantly, when you write essays or exams, you are
expected to show your ability to give arguments for and against
different possible interpretations of a text, and for and against the
doctrines you extract from the text. This is extremely difficult to do
if you are working by yourself, because your own judgement tends
to banish alternatives from your mind. If you have spent a lot of
hard mental effort trying to work out what a text means, one of
your criteria for success will be that your interpretation is plausible.
But if you find it plausible, you will have empathized with it, and
you will find it very hard to think up arguments against it. There are
ways round the problem if you are working in isolation, such as
using your intellectual imagination to think of the different ways in
DISCUSSION 89
which different kinds of people might interpret and criticize the

text. But the simplest solution is to discuss the interpretation and
criticism of the text with your fellow students, who will come from
different backgrounds, and have a wide variety of different
approaches and criticisms. You must acknowledge the ideas you
owe to your fellow students, but you will not lose any marks for
adhering to the academic convention of crediting your sources
while adding your own personal contribution.
Roots of philosophy
By this stage, it should be obvious why discussion is considered to
be crucial in philosophy, with its emphasis on critical engagement,
argument and counter-argument. Philosophy is a special case
because dialogue has been essential to its practice almost from its
earliest beginnings. Socrates was not the first philosopher, but he
was the first philosopher we know of who insisted, as we do now,
that any claim to truth must be subject to rational debate. He was a
brilliant teacher who never gave any lectures and never wrote any
books, but confined his teaching to conducting dialogues (recorded
by his pupil Plato). Nowadays, in modern academic culture, while
philosophers do discuss their ideas informally with their colleagues
and friends, as well as at more formal seminars and conferences, the
written word tends to be the primary method of disseminating
one’s thoughts.
We are, in effect, confronted with different models of what doing
philosophy consists in. On the Socratic model, it is a group activity,
in which the outcome depends on the contributions of the dif-
ferent members. Socrates could not achieve what he did without
the participants, any more than a conductor can play a symphony
without an orchestra. And ancient Athens was not the only place
and time where the Socratic model was practised. When university
learning was re-established in mediaeval Europe after the Dark
Ages, a key part of the syllabus was the ‘disputation’, in which
students had to defend a controversial thesis in a public debate.
On an alternative model (which was actually the preferred model
of Plato as he grew older), philosophers are soloists, who think
by themselves, and then deliver the outcomes of their thinking
through lectures or books. Discussion still has its place, but
unlike the Socratic dialogue, an individual comes to a seminar or
90 DOING PHILOSOPHY
conference with a prepared paper or presentation, and defends it

against criticisms from the audience.
The Platonic model is now dominant, and it is likely that much
of the teaching you receive will consist in your teachers giving
lectures, getting you to read books and articles in which other
academics tell you what they think, and then discussing these issues,
along with your own thoughts on them, in seminars or tutorials.
While Socratic dialogue may not be a method used in all your
classes, your development as a philosopher depends on you being
an active participant in the process of philosophical debate. Indeed,
some philosophers, such as Socrates, Hobbes and Wittgenstein,
have argued that even thinking is primarily a social activity, and the
ability to have private thoughts is parasitic on public discussion.
Plato said Socrates defined thinking as ‘the soul’s silent inner dia-
logue with itself ’ (Sophist 263E). This rings true, and it implies that
our private thinking merely mimics the cut and thrust of public
debate.
There is something artificial about the philosophical essay or
treatise, because it is written with the single voice of the author, yet
it has to take into account a range of different viewpoints, and
arguments pro and con. One of the difficulties you may have in
writing essays is that you have to express in your own voice ideas
you disagree with. It can be easier to write in dialogue form,
because you can distance yourself from the characters who say
things you disagree with. In philosophy there is a long history of
using the dialogue form in publications – Leibniz, Berkeley and
Hume are notable examples – and you could discuss with your
teachers the possibility of writing a dialogue instead of a con-
ventional essay. You may well find that it frees your intellectual
imagination to think up different points of view and alternative
arguments. Best of all, you could recapture Plato’s experience of
reconstructing discussions that had actually taken place – provided
that you also have the experience of participating in a genuine dia-
logue. The purpose of this chapter is to help you to bring this about.
Discussion seminars
One of the reasons your classes are likely to follow the Platonic
model is that the modern university is a very different setting from
DISCUSSION 91
the market place of ancient Athens. For a start, groups will necessar-
ily be much more formal than the chance discussions involving
Socrates. They will be part of a syllabus, with topics specified in
advance; they will take place at fixed times of the week and have a
fixed length; you may have no control over which group you
join; and you may be penalized for non-attendance, or graded for
the quality of your contributions. Discussions which succeed in
recapturing the spontaneity and originality of the early dialogues of
Socrates will be lively, engaging and memorable, and are something
to aim for when participating in your classes.
Groups will also vary in size and structure, and will be given
different names in different universities – what might be called a
seminar in one place might be called a tutorial in another. The
most common format is a group of perhaps five to twenty students,
meeting regularly under the supervision of a tutor to discuss issues
arising in a course of lectures, which we have called a discussion
seminar.
Preparation
As we have already said, most of the time you spend learning
to become a philosopher takes place outside the classroom, and
preparing for discussion is a big part of this.
Why prepare?
We cannot stress too much that discussion seminars are likely to be
your main opportunity to philosophize actively, and to develop
your ability to argue effectively. Preparation is key to getting the
most out of your discussions. If you come poorly prepared and do
not contribute actively, it entirely negates the purpose of having
discussion groups. It is very frustrating for your teachers because
they are likely to end up doing most of the talking. What is more,
failing to prepare also detracts from your learning experience, and
that of your fellow students. So it is ultimately your responsibility to
make sure the discussion is a success.
Apart from writing essays, it is in discussion that you have the
chance to demonstrate that you have read and understood the
required reading, and it is an invaluable opportunity for you to
fine-tune your understanding and criticism of what you have read.
So you should set aside plenty of time for preparation.
92 DOING PHILOSOPHY
How to prepare
Solo preparation
You will almost certainly have been given instructions on what to
do before the discussion. Most module or course handbooks will
tell you what reading is required, week by week, in order for you to
prepare for what will be discussed in seminars, and your tutors will
give you further guidance. Sometimes this might seem to be a
dauntingly large amount of reading, and you will be required to
make intelligent decisions yourself over what is practically possible
for you to achieve in the time available. We have already given
advice on how to decide what to read, in Chapter 2, and the key
here is to remember that depth is more important than breadth.
If you are presented with a variety of texts to read for a particular
topic, it may be better to choose a few that form a representative
sample of viewpoints and analyse them in depth, than to attempt to
read them all and achieve no more than a surface understanding.
It is also likely that you will be given a series of questions to
inform your reading, to which you should prepare answers to bring
to the seminar. Again, the extent to which your reading is directed
in this way will vary from course to course, and where little
guidance is given, you can analyse the texts you read in ways we
have already discussed, to ensure that the arguments are clear to
you.
We have already given you general advice on reading and note-
taking, and here we are concerned only with what you need to
produce in preparation for a discussion, as contrasted with writing
a whole essay. The rule is to keep it brief, and stick closely to the
questions actually set (or what you consider to be the fundamental
points, if you have not been given specific questions). The main
reason for bringing anything you have written with you to the
discussion is to remind you of salient points that emerged during
your reading. So keep your notes concise and make important
points that you want to raise, or questions that you might have, clear
to yourself within your notes so that you can find them easily as the
discussion progresses.
There is another reason for having notes with you, and this is that
you may be shy or nervous about saying anything, especially if the
topic is a difficult one, and the numbers in the group are large.
DISCUSSION 93
Quite a common scenario is for the teacher to ask if anyone has an

answer to the first question, and then if nobody says anything,
to pick an individual – who may be you. And even if you are not
singled out directly, it will add to your confidence at the beginning
of the discussion if you have something to say that is well prepared
and written down.
So it is comforting to have a brief answer written out, which
can form an early contribution. It is more difficult to prepare in
advance for supplementary questions, but if you have thought
carefully while preparing your original answers, you should be
able to field supplementaries like ‘What exactly do you mean by
so-and-so?’ or ‘What do you think her reasons were for this
conclusion?’
Collaborative preparation
So far we have assumed that you will prepare for the discussion
alone. But it is possible, and highly effective, to work collaboratively
with fellow students. One common reason for not speaking in dis-
cussions is the fear of seeming stupid. This is often the case for new
students who are not used to learning in this way. But, as often as
not, if there is something you have in mind but do not dare to say
out loud, many other people will have the same thought too. It is
also the case that intelligent questions are at least as valuable to
discussion as the presentation of complete answers.
It can help to overcome potential shyness if you talk to others in
a more casual environment before you come to the official dis-
cussion. Some departments will organize less formal meetings of
students, where first-year students feel able to talk more freely
and ask questions of each other that they might feel embarrassed
about raising in a tutorial. If your department or teacher have not
organized such informal meetings you could consider doing so
yourself. If you compare what you do when preparing for a dis-
cussion by yourself with what you do when preparing for it col-
laboratively, the biggest difference is that the skills you exercise
by yourself (reading and writing) do not feature in a discussion;
whereas those involved in collaborating with friends are exactly the
skills that discussion groups are about (listening, talking, arguing
and so on). So any such informal discussion gives you practice at the
abilities you need to demonstrate in seminars.
94 DOING PHILOSOPHY
A further advantage of belonging to an informal group is that it

enables you to share the burden of preparation. Your teachers got
where they are because they were among the best students, with a
voracious appetite for reading. Some of us may find the reading of
serious philosophical texts more difficult than they did, and, as we
saw in the chapter on reading, sometimes the reading list for a topic
might feel unrealistically long. One way round this problem is for
your informal group to share out the reading of, for example, some
of the secondary texts, and report to everyone else on what each of
you has learned.
The discussion itself

Departments can be good about giving you explicit advice or
training in the skills you need to be a competent philosopher. If so,
they will advise on how to participate in a philosophical discussion,
and any local rules should override the general suggestions we make
here. This is especially true if your contribution to discussion
counts towards your mark for the course. When this is the case,
you will be given clear criteria for how you will be graded, and you
must conform to those criteria.
However, it is just as likely that you will be thrown in at the deep
end, without being given any rules of engagement. This is another
reason why discussion groups, which ought to be at the very heart
of your learning to become a philosopher, can be a frustrating
experience for teachers and students alike. But if no-one involved
has ever been given any guidance on how to participate effectively
in a discussion, why should it work successfully?
In order for the debate to be a success, you, as one student among
many, will have to be proactive. If you genuinely want to take
advantage of this opportunity to think for yourself, rather than
merely absorbing information and opinions from others, you need
to take some responsibility for the progression of the discussion.
Formally, the teacher is in charge and directing the group. But most
teachers would be only too pleased if all they had to do was to set
the discussion up, enjoy a good debate that progresses with min-
imum intervention from them, and then draw it to a close at the
appointed time.
Remember that anything the teacher can say could equally well
be said by any student. For example, if a student asserts something
DISCUSSION 95
without backing it up with a reason, the teacher could ask the

student to give a reason. But any student could ask the same
question, just as you would in an informal group without a teacher
present: ‘You say this, but what are your grounds for it?’ A really
good philosophical discussion is when everyone is operating at two
levels: thinking about the topic of debate itself, but also conscious
of the way the debate is going, and being willing to intervene
when there is need for a steer. Even if there is an official chair,
everyone can contribute to the direction and momentum of the
discussion.
How to discuss philosophically

Here are some points that might form the basis of assessment criteria,
if you were going to be marked on your contribution to seminars
(apart from the content of your philosophical contribution). They
are very useful to bear in mind even if you are not assessed on
discussions, as they offer a good analysis of what it means to discuss
philosophically:
• Show that you have come prepared.

• Express yourself clearly and concisely.
• Speak audibly, and be clear and distinct. (Imagine you are
addressing the person furthest away from you.)
• Participate actively, but without talking too much. (Remem-
ber you should spend most of the time listening rather than
speaking.)
• Listen to what others say without interrupting. (Two people
should never speak at the same time, because they cannot
listen to each other. If this happens, the chair or someone else
should intervene.)
• Stick to the point.
• Give reasoned arguments rather than unsupported assertions,
whether making a point of your own or responding to some-
one else’s argument.
• Show respect for others. (Be polite to people you disagree
with: many find it difficult enough to contribute to discussion
at all, without being put off by disparaging remarks; and you
should remember that less confident members of the group
might still have a lot to contribute.)
96 DOING PHILOSOPHY
• Invite others into the conversation.

• Clarify what others say through summarizing or intelligent
questioning.
• Steer the discussion away from irrelevancies.
• Introduce neglected considerations.
Here is some further advice, which should help you to follow these
guidelines, so that your discussion is a productive philosophical
debate:
• Make sure you are seated so that you can see the face of
everyone else in the room.
• Do your best to empathize with different points of view: a
good philosopher can handle the fact that there may be
irresolvable differences between people, but that they can still
co-operate.
• See a discussion as a co-operative enterprise in which every-
one is seeking for the truth, rather than a competitive exercise
in which there are winners and losers.
• Address your fellow students rather than your teacher, and do
your best to establish eye contact with all of them. If you
address only your teacher, the session is likely to degenerate
into a question-and-answer session with the teacher as an
authority figure, at the expense of a genuine dialogue.
Keeping a record
It is tempting to take notes in discussion groups, so that you do not
forget valuable points that are made. But the trouble is, that if you
concentrate on taking notes, you will miss some of what is said
when you are writing down what went before, and you will not
have time to think of contributions you could make yourself.
Some teachers might appoint a single minute-taker each time, who
will post the minutes on a website to which you all have access. This
has a number of advantages:
• everyone (except the minute-taker) can concentrate on

listening and speaking;
• the discussion is more focused if the group periodically
checks that the minute-taker has a correct record of impor-
tant points;
DISCUSSION 97
• if there are several parallel discussion groups in which dif-

ferent things are said, a record of all of them will be publicly
available for comparison;
• you can quote the minutes as a secondary source, thus
avoiding the danger of plagiarism if you reproduce your own
class notes without attribution;
• the minutes can form the basis for further, electronic
discussion.
Overcoming shyness or lack of confidence

Another obstacle to a successful discussion is when a significant
number of members of the group are too shy, or too unconfident
about their grasp of the topic, to want to put their opinions forward.
We suggested earlier that it is easier to speak if you come prepared
with answers to questions written down (and perhaps the most
common reason for lack of confidence is lack of preparation).
There are also other ways of overcoming this problem.
A technique that teachers often use is to break the class up into
threes or fours (sometimes known as ‘buzz groups’) for a few
minutes, and to ask one person from each group to report back to
the whole group. It can sometimes be easier to talk to a small
number of fellow students away from the teacher, and if it is you
who is reporting back, you know that you have the support of the
other members.
There are other tactics that you can use as well. One tip is to try
to say at least something, however insignificant, within the first five
minutes or so. This way you are less likely to feel frozen out of a
discussion between the most talkative members of the group.
More generally, it helps if you can adjust your psychological
attitude towards the seminar situation. It is natural to be hesitant
about speaking if you think that others are going to try to find
fault with what you say, or if you feel you are in some sort of
competition, with winners and losers, or if you are worried
about being judged adversely. Discussion will go far better if
you and your fellow students see each other as team-mates in a
common endeavour rather than competitors, and treat every con-
tribution constructively, rather than as an opportunity for finding
fault or passing judgement. Remember that philosophical dis-
cussion is a valuable opportunity for developing your own views
98 DOING PHILOSOPHY
and philosophical skills, and you will get the most out of it if you
participate actively. Do not let this opportunity pass you by.
Other forms of discussion

Presentations
In some courses, in some departments, you will be assessed on one
or more formal presentations that you give to a class, and on
your ability to field questions about it from the class. This is a very
useful exercise, because you are learning a skill which you will
almost certainly need in any graduate profession. But valuable as
presentations are, they are very different from discussion seminars.
Apart from the presentation itself, the main differences are that:
• there is (typically) no discussion between members of the
audience;
• there is a succession of questions, not necessarily related to
each other, directed at the presenter;
• the emphasis may (although need not) be more on criticism
and defence than a co-operative search for truth.
It is difficult to provide detailed advice on giving a philosophical
presentation, because if this is part of your course, your course
leader will give specific instructions on what you are to do, and
how you will be assessed. For instance, the presentation may be on
your own individual research, or it may be on a group project. It
may last only a few minutes, or it may be equivalent in length to a
course essay. You may be asked to read out a text you have written
in advance, or you may be expected to use aids such as Power-
Point, an overhead projector, a flip chart, or photocopied handouts.
Again, the emphasis of the assessment may be on your presentation
skills, or it may be on the content of what you have to say. Most
generic study skills guides will contain advice on giving
presentations.
Having said that, it is clear that thorough preparation is vital
when giving presentations, from a confidence point of view and
because you need to be philosophically informed. It is a good idea
to know more than is contained in the body of your presentation,
so that you are more likely to be able to answer questions. For
example, if your presentation focuses on a particular school of
DISCUSSION 99
thought in relation to a specific philosophical problem, it will

probably come in useful if you have informed yourself about what
other important schools of thought have to say about the issue. It
is also a good idea to try to think of possible criticisms to your
arguments, and then work them into your presentation, along with
answers, as you would do with written work, so that your analysis
is several layers deep. You might be helped in doing this by having
a trial run in front of some fellow students, in order to gain
some alternative perspectives that will alert you to possible areas of
criticism.
Electronic discussion
Most philosophy teachers would like students to spend more time
in discussion than they usually do. The main constraint is staff time.
If discussion is to be led by a member of staff, there is a limit to the
number of groups an individual teacher can be responsible for,
and group sizes have tended to get larger and larger, to a point
where it becomes difficult for everyone to join in. An increasingly
popular way of providing greater scope for discussion is by making
electronic discussion lists available.
Most universities have a virtual learning environment, or VLE,
which allows teachers to set up a discussion list which can be
accessed only by students registered for a particular course, or by
sub-groups. There are also public discussion lists where you can
join in philosophical debate with other students, and /or philo-
sophers, of various academic levels. These can be valuable in
widening your perspectives, and might be particularly useful if
you are studying in a very small department where your pool of
collaborators for philosophical discussion is small. Some examples
of these are given in Chapter 6, ‘Resources’.
There are both advantages and disadvantages to electronic
discussion. Advantages are:
• Assuming the discussion is asynchronous (that is, the mem-

bers of the group are not required to be present at the same
time), it gives you the opportunity to think about your con-
tribution and to word it carefully, removing some of the pres-
sure often felt in classroom discussions to think of immediate
responses.
100 DOING PHILOSOPHY
• If you are shy about speaking in class, you may find the ability
to make a written contribution to discussion liberating.
• You do not have to travel to a classroom.
• There is a permanent record of the discussion.
Disadvantages are:
• You lack cues, such as facial expression or tone of voice, which

contribute to the meaning of the spoken word – so it is easier
for misunderstandings to occur.
• If you are dyslexic, you may find it more stressful to write than
to speak.
• If you do not have a computer and an internet connection
where you live, you may have to go to a workstation on
campus in order to contribute.
Generally, the rules of engagement for an electronic discussion
are the same as those for a face-to-face discussion. So the only
additional advice we shall give is that discussion is so important for
your development as a philosopher that you should grasp every
possible opportunity for it, whether in scheduled classes, informal
groups, or on-line – even if it does not count directly towards your
marks.
Summary
This chapter has focused on the vital nature of discussion, both
in the development of philosophy as a discipline, and in your own
philosophical development. It has broken down what constitutes
good practice in philosophical debate, and outlined some strategies
for making the most of the various opportunities for discussion that
you may be given.
Although discussion can initially seem daunting, it is intrinsic to
becoming a philosopher, and as your philosophical skills develop, it
is an activity that you will come to relish.
5 Writing philosophy
There are many times that writing will be required during your
course, ranging from writing emails to writing a dissertation. Some
of this will be assessed, and some of it will not. But you will find
yourself writing philosophy in diverse forms for many different
purposes.
This chapter focuses on writing essays and papers. It remains the
case in most universities and colleges that essays, whether course-
work essays or those written in exams, are the principal forms used
to assess your progress and achievement. So looking at the writing
of essays will be how we explore and demonstrate the best ways
to write philosophy. However, the central points about argument
structure and clarity that we shall be discussing apply across all
contexts when you are thinking about the presentation of philo-
sophical ideas.
Having said that, you may well find it useful to look at guidance
for other forms of writing to build on the advice given here – short
communications need a different style and very succinct expression,
and dissertations present the opportunity for exploration of greater
detail and more creative work. Increasingly, philosophy under-
graduates are asked to produce a variety of types of written work,
from presentations to participating in blogs, and all of these require
specialized writing skills. Chapter 6, ‘Resources’, provides some
pointers.
What to write
In your first year, you are likely to be given a lot of guidance in
what to write. Then the level of support will probably decrease as
you continue your course; and if and when you write a dissertation,
you will choose your own philosophical question to answer. This
section will look at what is involved in answering different types of

questions, and so help you to choose what to write on.
The essay question list

When you are set assignments for your philosophy courses, you are
likely to be presented with an essay list to choose from. Like a
reading list, this can be a bit intimidating, especially if it is given to
you early in the semester, when you are still getting to grips with
the subject. It can also appear pretty daunting when you turn over
an exam paper. Having an idea of what might be expected of you in
answering the questions will help you decide how to choose which
essay to write.
Usually your lecturer or tutor will give you a selection of essay
titles to choose from, which may look something like this:
Introduction to Ethics – Assignment Titles

For each assignment: choose one of the following titles and
answer the essay question in no more than 1500 words.
• Assignment 1 must be submitted to the philosophy office by

5pm on 15 November
• Assignment 2 must be submitted to the philosophy office
by 5pm on 15 January
The assignments should be entirely your own work – see the

Philosophy Student Handbook for further information on
plagiarism and collusion. The Handbook also provides detailed
guidance on assessment criteria, requirements for essay sub-
mission, and penalties for failing to meet them.
Assignment 1 (due 15 November)

1. ‘Should those who abuse their bodies pay the price?’ Analyse
this article by Glenda Cooper (Independent, 28 January
1997).
a. What ethical concepts and principles does this article use?
b. What assumptions does the author rely on? Can these be
justified?
c. Identify the author’s conclusion, and the reasons given for
reaching it. Are these reasons good ones?
WRITING PHILOSOPHY 103
d. Should we accept the author’s conclusion? If so, what

further implications does this commit us to?
2. ‘Honesty is the best policy’. Is it in our own interests to be
moral, or is the moral life valuable for its own sake? Discuss
with reference to at least one philosopher studied on this
course.
3. ‘If God is dead, then everything is permitted’ (Dostoyevsky).
Do you agree?
4. Is the killing of another human being ever justified? Discuss
with reference to utilitarianism.
Assignment 2 (due 15 January)

5. Critically assess the claim that euthanasia is morally wrong.
6. ‘We should treat humanity always as an end, never as a
means only’ (Kant). What does Kant mean by this statement?
7. Does Aristotle still have anything to say which is of relevance to
modern ethics? Give examples, and reasons for your answer.
8. Are feelings or reason a better guide to morality? Discuss
with reference to Hume and Kant. Which approach do you
find most acceptable, and why?
Choosing which assignment to complete is a personal matter,

which will be influenced by your own particular interests and
strengths (as well as pragmatic considerations, such as the topics for
which you have access to the appropriate reference material). One
important factor to consider when making your choice and writing
your essay, however, is precisely what the assignment question is
asking you to do.
Let us look at these questions in more detail.
1. ‘Should those who abuse their bodies pay the price?’
Analyse this article by Glenda Cooper (Independent,
28 January 1997).
a. What ethical concepts and principles does this article
use?
b. What assumptions does the author rely on? Can these
be justified?
c. Identify the author’s conclusion, and the reasons
given for reaching it. Are these reasons good ones?
d. Should we accept the author’s conclusion? If so, what

further implications does this commit us to?
This is a structured question. The main source that you need
to engage with is clearly stated, and the ways in which you need to
comment are laid out for you, so the focus is on a detailed under-
standing of the text in question. However, you also need to bring
in other ethical theories, so you will need to have a wider under-
standing of the issues involved and the context in which the text is
situated.
Questions 2–6 each provide you with a statement, and ask you
to respond to it – this is a common tactic in philosophy assign-
ments, and these are all variants of this general approach. However,
these assignment titles, although superficially similar, are asking
subtly different questions, so we need to look at these a little more
carefully:
2. ‘Honesty is the best policy’. Is it in our own interests to
be moral, or is the moral life valuable for its own sake?
Discuss with reference to at least one philosopher studied
on this course.
This title spells out quite precisely how you are expected to address
the initial statement – the discussion should focus on ‘why be
moral?’, and it should discuss the views on this topic of at least one
thinker you have learned about during this course.
3. ‘If God is dead, then everything is permitted’
(Dostoyevsky). Do you agree?
This question is much less detailed. Clearly, your tutor expects more
than just a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer – you should explain and analyse the
reasons for the view expressed in the quotation, and some reasons
against it too; evaluate their respective strengths; and use this assess-
ment to conclude whether or not you agree with the claim.
4. Is the killing of another human being ever justified?
Discuss with reference to utilitarianism.
5. Critically assess the claim that euthanasia is morally
wrong.
These two questions are explored in more detail below. They
require critical engagement with particular ethical issues, although
question 4 gives you guidance on which school of thought you

should focus on, whereas question 5 leaves it more open for
you to discuss the issue in any way you want.
6. ‘We should treat humanity always as an end, never as a
means only’ (Kant). What does Kant mean by this
statement?
This question is also quite precise: it asks you to explain Kant’s
statement. Your focus in this essay should therefore be on analysing
Kant’s arguments, looking carefully at the particular passages of
his writing that are being referred to (rather than, for instance,
discussing other thinkers’ reasons for rejecting his claim).
7. Does Aristotle still have anything to say which is of
relevance to modern ethics? Give examples, and reasons
for your answer.
This question asks you to analyse the impact of a classical
philosopher on contemporary thinking about ethics – so you
would need to show some knowledge of Aristotle’s ethical theory,
and also to explore how this relates to modern ethical thought. The
question is quite open-ended – for instance, you could do this by
giving examples of how contemporary philosophers use Aristotle’s
ideas in their ethics, or by applying Aristotle’s ideas to modern
moral dilemmas to explore how his approach can be used today.
8. Are feelings or reason a better guide to morality? Discuss
with reference to Hume and Kant. Which approach do
you find most acceptable, and why?
This question is another common essay type – namely, a com-
parative question. You need to focus on the work of the two
named philosophers with specific regard to the subject area under
discussion, and evaluate their respective positions.
Let us look at the different types of question in a bit more detail,
so that you will be able to repeat this type of analysis for your own
assignment lists. On the whole most undergraduate essays are one,
or a combination, of the following kinds.
Structured questions
Here you are asked to follow a number of small tasks to form a
complete answer. Most of the work of looking at how your answer
as a whole hangs together is done for you, but this means you have
to pay particular attention to arguing concisely and logically in each
part of the question. Often critical thinking or logic tests and essays
will be of this form.
Descriptive questions
Questions of this type are usually indicated by words like ‘describe’,
‘show how’, ‘demonstrate’, ‘explain why’; for example ‘Describe
how Descartes reaches the conclusion that the only clear and dis-
tinct idea initially available to him is the cogito’. Here you are being
asked to explain, in your own words, how the arguments of others
work. Simply stating an opinion of your own, or only giving the
conclusion of the argument, will not be enough; you need to show
how premises and conclusion(s) work in an argument, which is
another reason why spotting arguments in your reading can be so
important.
Evaluative questions
Essays of this sort ask you to do more than just describe the argu-
ments of other philosophers. You need to make a critical assessment
of the arguments and ideas being proposed, and indeed questions
like this are often introduced by words such as ‘discuss’, ‘evaluate’,
‘critically examine’, or ‘assess’. Crucially, you are expected to form
an opinion – importantly, one that is supported by evidence from
what others have said, or by what you can argue yourself. You need
to do more than recapitulate the arguments in the piece – you also
need to show where they are weak, or where they have been
criticized by others, and demonstrate how your analysis feeds in to
your thoughts on the issue.
Comparative questions
In comparative questions, you are asked to take two or more
positions and look at them alongside one another. You may be asked
to ‘compare and contrast’ two positions or to argue for one over
another. In all cases you are being asked to show how the arguments
differ and are similar, so you need to show that you understand the
point and workings of both, and are capable of formulating
reasoned opinions on which view is the more defensible.
Preparing to write
As we have discovered, choosing your essay title means looking
carefully at what you are being asked to discuss. Do you have a
good grounding in the topic under discussion? What is the basis of
knowledge and understanding that you have to build on? If the
answers to these questions are ‘no’ and ‘very low’, this does not
necessarily mean you should not choose that particular question,
if it interests you, but obviously it will require a lot more pre-
liminary work than another on a topic with which you are more
familiar.
Preparing for writing an essay involves a certain amount of the
philosophical activities we have already discussed, namely selecting
your resources, reading them and engaging with them and taking
notes on this engagement, as well as hopefully being able to use
what you have learned, and the opinions you have formed, through
attending lectures and seminars, tutorials or discussion groups.
How much new work you undertake at the point when you are
beginning your assignment will depend on which question you
choose, and how much background work you have already done
on the subject. It is likely that even if you have kept up well with
your course reading, when it comes to preparing for an essay you
will want to expand your knowledge a bit further using the philo-
sophical skills and techniques you have been developing.
In taking part in all these activities, you have been ‘doing
philosophy’. Although starting to write your essays may feel like a
bit of a milestone, it is simply the next step towards becoming
a successful philosophy student. The skills of critical thinking and
argument analysis that you have been practising in reading, note-
taking and discussion will serve you well when it comes to writing
– it is now a question of demonstrating them in your written
assignments.
How to write
What is philosophical writing?
At its most basic, writing philosophically means getting down your
own ideas and arguments using your own words. Philosophical
writing – using the written word to express ideas clearly and
logically, and to convey new concepts, and relationships between
concepts, creatively and accurately – lies at the heart of what it

means to be a philosopher. Reading the ideas of others and under-
standing them is only one part of the process of doing philosophy.
In order to engage as fully as possible you have to show your under-
standing to others and carry the arguments forward.
Of course this can be done orally – in seminars, at home, relaxing
with friends and in debate – but capturing what you think in a
more permanent way involves writing. Not only does this mean
that your arguments and views remain available for others, but pro-
ducing a written text also gives you the opportunity to clarify and
review your own point of view, and to hone your critical skills by
examining your own arguments. In writing you really start doing
philosophy for yourself.
Making sure that you understand the question, and addressing it
directly, is fundamental to successful writing in a philosophy course.
This may seem obvious, and indeed it is common advice through-
out school and university study, but it is especially important in
philosophical writing, where fine-grained nuances of language are
particularly significant. When you look at complex ideas for the
first time it can be tempting simply to write down everything that
you have been taught. This strategy would work if the question
began ‘write down everything you know about . . .’, but this kind
of essay task never occurs, so do not attempt to begin writing
without a clear understanding of what you need to do. Essays are
your opportunity to show your engagement with, and understand-
ing of, arguments and ideas. They are not designed for pure repeti-
tion or paraphrasing of lecture notes or books, which could well
constitute a form of plagiarism – as we will discuss below – nor for
expressing simple opinions without support.
Since philosophy is about engagement it is useful to have a
position of your own. All philosophy essays will have a similar
pattern in that, as already noted, creating a valid and sound argu-
ment in an essay follows the same pattern as looking for one in your
reading. You need to show what the premises are, how well they are
supported and how they fit together to form a coherent account of
your position. How you do this will become clearer as we explore
the essay writing process.
Structuring the essay writing process

Beginning the writing of an essay can be difficult. It can often seem
as though a massive task lies ahead, but if you approach the process
of essay writing in a structured way, it can make it more manage-
able. Try asking yourself the following questions:
1. Format: What is the required format and word count?
2. Question analysis: What is the essay title or question that
you have chosen? What sort of question is it?
3. Background knowledge and preparation: What do you
need to know in order to address the point or question in the
title? Are you supposed to have read a certain text, or to have
made notes on a particular issue?
4. Time management: How will you allocate your time?
5. Marking criteria: What will your tutor be looking for in
your work when it is assessed?
How you structure the process will vary from situation to situation
– in particular, it will probably not be possible to apply so much
detail to the planning and execution of your essays if you are
writing them in an exam situation. However, even in an exam, the
basic principles of good philosophical essay writing hold true.
Let us consider an example from our earlier assignment list to see
how we can apply this process.
Is the killing of another human being ever justified?
Discuss with reference to utilitarianism.
Format
There is a word limit to stick to: indeed, to aim at. (Your department
may give further specific advice on whether, and if so to what
extent, it is acceptable for you to deviate from any recommended
word limit.) We also know the format and that the tutor expects the
essay to be word-processed.
Question analysis
As we saw earlier, this question is a common type in philosophy
essays, in that it provides you with a statement, and asks you to
respond to it. At first glance the initial question might not seem
to fit any of the specific types of essay we described, but you can see
from the second part that you are being asked to use an evaluative
approach to the question, with particular regard to utilitarianism.
(As we noted, most questions will be a combination or variation of
the basic types outlined.) You need to get to the end of the essay
with an answer to the question set. An open-ended discussion of
utilitarianism will not do this, so you need to take up a position and
argue for it, demonstrating along the way that you understand the
various nuances of the argument.
Background knowledge and preparation

Obviously you need to have done the reading on utilitarianism and
the different forms it can take as an ethical stance, and to have read
all the required materials on the topic. We have seen where to look
for these, the course reading list, and we know from looking at
reading lists earlier how to find the right materials.
You also need to have grasped the philosophical ideas raised
by the issue of one human being taking the life of another. You
need to think about the different contexts in which such an act
might occur. There is a definitional issue because murder is by
definition illegal, whereas killing might turn out to be justified in
some circumstances. But you do not want to become entangled
too much with this since it would not be addressing the question
directly. You have to make sure that you address philosophical
issues and not legal ones. For a philosopher there are moral issues,
questions about intentions, and debates about what a human being
is.
Time management
How long will it take to write a 1,500 word essay? This very much
depends on your own individual experience of writing. Your
department or tutor may give you more advice on how long a
particular assignment may take you. You need to factor in time for
doing the preparation described above. Consider how long it would
take you to write this amount of text from scratch. Then add in
time to re-read and rewrite and to check that you have correctly
referenced all the books and papers you have used.
It is also worth saying that philosophical ideas, like intellectual
concepts of any kind, take time to develop fully. If you have kept up
with your reading plan you should be on top of the required basic
materials for writing and you now have the opportunity to explore
an idea in more depth. It can be a good idea to leave sufficient time
to have a first attempt at writing the essay, leave it for a while, and
then return to it – you will probably find that you have gained
additional insight into the topic in the meantime. What is more,
you are more likely to be able to spot any mistakes or weaknesses
with a bit of distance. Of course, this means starting to write your
essay well before the submission date.
Marking criteria
Your department should provide you with information about the
marking criteria that your tutor will be using to assess your essay. In
the example assignment list above, it is stated that they are published
in the Philosophy Student Handbook – and you should make sure
that you have a copy of this to hand, or other documentation where
the criteria appear, and look at it carefully before tackling your
assignments, so that you can ensure your work meets the criteria
against which it will be marked.
The following is an example of the marking criteria used at one
UK institution for assessing undergraduate philosophy essays.1 It
sets out the basic requirements which your essay must meet in order
to be awarded a first, 2.1 and so on.
Level 1 Essay Marking Criteria

The following relates qualitative criteria to the class your essay falls
into. Marks within a class may often be determined by features
specific to the essay, which it would be difficult and perhaps also
unhelpful to characterize in general terms.
First (70+): The essay meets at least one of the following descrip-
tions: (i) faultless exposition, which is clearly structured around a
central thesis; (ii) essay which shows deep understanding, in which
there are clear signs of creative engagement with the issues.
II.i (60–9): Clear exposition, which shows good understanding of

topic, and is structured around a central thesis. Defects in
exposition may to some extent be compensated for by evidence of
independent thought.
II.ii (50–9): At least reasonably clear exposition, demonstrating an

acceptable level of understanding for this level.
III (40–9): Exhibits a basic level of understanding, but fails to make

II.ii grade because lacking in one or more of the following: (a) clarity
of exposition; (b) structure; (c) grasp of topic.
Fail (39 and below): At best, shows some sign of familiarity with
course topics, but nothing else.
When you are at the start of the essay-writing process it is useful to

keep in mind that if you are aiming for a first, for example, you must
demonstrate clarity and accuracy in your exposition of the central
thesis, as well as independent thought and creative engagement.
If you find it difficult to develop a clear sense of the standard of
work expected of you, then it is a good idea to ask your tutor if
sample essays are available from previous students on your course.
This will help to furnish you with a more specific picture of ‘what
a first-class essay looks like’, and how this differs from (say) a third-
class essay.
Assessment criteria are not entirely idiosyncratic – what counts
as first-class degree-level work is comparable across all universities
and programmes (and in the UK, for example, there will be a system
of external review whereby your department’s marks are examined
by an academic from another university to ensure this). How-
ever, what counts as a first-class essay in any particular context will
depend to some extent on the aims and learning outcomes of the
course. Your tutor may be able to offer you more detailed marking
criteria. It is worth asking for guidance, as it makes sense to build up
as clear a picture as possible of what is required of you, and the
specific criteria may vary across courses or modules.
Planning your essay

You have now identified the type of question and begun to form an
idea of the sort of conclusion and arguments you need to create;
and you have planned out your writing schedule accordingly. We
have noted that you might need to do some extra reading to check
that you have all the relevant sources to hand. Now you can begin
to sketch out the essay itself.
Essay structure
Let us now turn to the structure of the essay. We will return to our
earlier example to look at how the different parts of an essay should
work. There are other requirements, but the central components
are:
• An introduction, that spells out the basis of what will be
argued for.
• The body of the essay that carries the main arguments.
• A conclusion that summarizes the argument, recapitulates the
position and points to further considerations beyond the
scope of the essay.
How much of your word count is given over to each of these
sections may be suggested by your tutor or in general style guides,
but as a rule of thumb the introduction and conclusion should
each not exceed ten per cent of your total. In the example we have
been looking at this would mean your introduction will be no
more than 150 words. Bearing in mind that undergraduate essays
may often be even shorter, for example 1,000 words, you need to
limit the word count of the introduction and conclusion to make
sure that there is enough room for you to express your arguments
clearly. Often 50 words may suffice for an introduction that
adequately and succinctly expresses what you will be arguing in the
main body of the essay.
It is always a good idea to prepare an essay outline for philosophy
assignments, because this will help you to clarify the structure of
your argument – and, as we have emphasized throughout this book,
this is a crucial component of doing good philosophy. People differ,
however, on how early in your essay preparation this should be
done. See the other examples in this chapter and experiment with
different approaches, in order to find out what works best for you.
The introduction
An introduction should set the stage in a concise and clear way.
Try to avoid re-stating material that is already in the title; but it is
perfectly acceptable to state what you will argue for, for example,
‘In this essay I argue that killing another human being is sometimes
justified.’ You also need to say a little bit about the context of the
discussion and something about its history if this is appropriate.
You may also want to give the reader pointers as to the kind
of arguments you will be using, or the evidence you intend to use,
for example, ‘I will draw on the work of J.S. Mill and consider
whether a time traveller would be justified in killing Hitler as a
baby.’
Because you need to outline what you will be arguing for in this
way, it is often advised that you should leave writing the intro-
duction until last, as it is often only after the rest of the essay is
written that you will have a clear idea about what to say.
The main section

Let us suppose you decide to defend the position that taking a life
is sometimes justified. You make a note of this. This answers the
question, but it does not fulfil the question brief and is not a philo-
sophical response. You need to draw on the materials you have
marshalled and, most importantly, you need to make an argument.
What premises might support such a position?
Utilitarianism, in its simplest form, says that we should maximize
the greatest utility or happiness of the greatest number of people.
So you need a premise that includes that principle. You also need to
say something about the deliberate taking of another’s life. You
could begin with a very simple argument:
We should maximize the happiness of the greatest
number whenever possible.
Sometimes the greatest happiness for many is achieved
through the death of one.
Therefore Taking a life is sometimes justified.
Let us apply our reading analysis here. Does the conclusion follow?
Does the conclusion actually sound plausible in the light of these
premises? Does it need more support? Have you assumed other
premises? Can you see a way to justify the premises themselves?
Can they serve as the conclusion of further arguments? In doing
this you are constructing a case for the conclusion you want to
defend – you are making your own argument. As we shall see in
more detail below, this process of argument building comes in
different forms and has different applications, but it is the key
process in planning your writing in detail.
Consider where you might go next with building up the argu-

ment for this particular essay.
The conclusion
The conclusion should wrap up your essay by summarizing what
has been said without repetition and suggesting ways that the
argument may go forward in the future. It should not state anything
new. The main body of your essay should carry all the main logical
structure of the argument you are presenting. In some literary
traditions, and in other cultures, the conclusion of the essay (rather
than the argument) is the point at which you reveal the dénoue-
ment of your narrative. On the whole this is bad practice in
philosophy. If the essay’s conclusion contains material that could
not have been known already there is something awry with
your structure. The reader should not be presented with a stated
opinion that they could not have anticipated from the rest of your
essay.
As with the introduction, you may, or may not, know what will
feature in your conclusion before you start writing. It is worth
keeping an open mind, as the detailed argument development and
analysis you engage in as you write may present new possibilities or
lines of enquiry which you wish to develop further.
How to avoid plagiarism

In writing your essays, the issue of plagiarism is very important.
Plagiarism may be defined as passing off the work of other people
as your own, and it is regarded as a very serious offence in all
universities. However, each university has its own definition, which
you need to study with great care and abide by.
The very idea of advice on how to avoid plagiarism may seem
strange to you. After all, you do not need advice on how not to
steal other people’s property, so why should stealing other people’s
intellectual work be so different? But in fact you can steal by mis-
take. For example, if you are the treasurer of a student society,
you might have rather sloppy practices which mean that you
inadvertently treat some of the society’s money as if it were your
own. Without intending to, you have committed the crime of
embezzlement, and you could go to jail for it. No one has ever been
jailed for plagiarism, but some people have been deprived of a
degree because of it, with serious consequences for their future

careers. Like the embezzlement example, many students who have
been punished for plagiarism did not do it deliberately, but had
inadequate note-taking and referencing practices in which they
confused the words of others with their own. In both cases, you
need to learn how to do the job properly before you embark on it.
What your teachers are looking for

When your teachers assess what you do, they have to make two
kinds of judgement: (a) what is this product worth in itself? and (b)
how far is it a reflection of the knowledge and the skills of you, the
student who submitted it? If there are doubts about the second
judgement, these negate the first. A brilliant essay is worth nothing
if it is not yours. Your teachers have to play the double role
of helping you to learn, but also of assessing how well you have
learned. This inevitably means a certain amount of policing of
your performance, since it would damage the reputation of the
department and the university to give a high mark to work which is
later discovered to have been plagiarized.
You may feel that your university is overly obsessive about the
whole issue – promulgating detailed regulations and procedures,
threatening you with dire punishments, running your work
through plagiarism detection software, and requiring you to sign a
declaration of academic integrity every time you submit any work.
But this is necessary for your university to protect itself against any
claims that it is failing to take plagiarism seriously – and so under-
mining the value of its degrees (including yours) – or that its
punishments are unfair. However, there are at least two unfortunate
side effects. One is that plagiarism tends to be seen exclusively as a
crime deliberately committed by students, whereas in fact it is often
unintentional. The other is that it can create the illusion that
plagiarism is an illicit but desirable good, which students can be
prevented from pursuing only by dire punishments. In fact it is not a
good at all, because you are taking your course in order to learn to
become a philosopher; and if you merely pass off the work of others
as your own, you will not achieve this.
As a university student of philosophy, you are not expected to
write in the way that philosophers such as, for example, the
twentieth-century Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein did,
producing an extended original argument without any reference to

other writers. After all, you have been provided with a reading list,
and you are expected to give evidence of having engaged with the
works in it. On the other hand, if you write essays which merely
summarize your reading, you will get low marks, and perhaps you
will not pass at all, since you will have given no evidence of your
ability to think and argue philosophically for yourself. The key
to writing philosophy is to make absolutely clear what you have
derived from others, so that you are implicitly claiming everything
else as the product of your own thinking.
The purpose of this section is to advise you on how to write in
such a way that your teachers will be confident that it is entirely
your own work.
Referencing
We do not give detailed advice about how to give references here,
because there are various systems, and different departments have
different preferences. Indeed, if you are studying another subject in
addition to philosophy, you may well find that the two departments
require different referencing systems. See Chapter 6 for more
information on referencing. The important point is to check
whether a particular style is required in the student handbook, and
if so, to stick to it rigorously.
If no particular style is required, then the golden rule is to give
sufficient information for the reader to be able to check that the
author referred to did actually write what you attribute to them.
At a minimum, the reader needs to know what edition of a work
you have used, and what page the quotation comes from (or some-
times a section or paragraph number, if the work is numbered
that way). So as a guide, you need to state the author, the name of
the work, the translator (where appropriate), the editor (where
appropriate), the publisher, the place of publication and year of
publication, and the number of the page where the quotation or
idea comes from. This is illustrated by this example taken from our
earlier reading list:
Kant, I. (1993), Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, trans.
and ed. M. Gregor. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press, p. 29.
Using teaching resources

One grey area is the issue of how you should treat information you
have been given by your teachers – in course packs, lecture hand-
outs, your notes of what they said in lectures or seminars, and so on.
Some teachers will expect you to treat their own words in exactly
the same way as those of secondary sources, because their focus is
on the extent to which you are thinking for yourself, rather than
merely regurgitating what they have taught you. Other teachers are
less strict about this. You should acquire a sense of what different
teachers are looking for from the comments they make on your
coursework; but our general advice is that, if you are in any doubt,
you should err on the side of independent thinking.
How to demonstrate independent thought

This brings us to a related worry which some students have, which
is a direct result of the institutional emphasis on policing plagiarism.
The reasoning goes like this: ‘I’m just an undergraduate, and if my
thoughts have any value, they must already have been thought by
expert philosophers. I don’t know what has been published on the
topic, because the reading list I have been given covers only a
small proportion of the literature. So these thoughts must already
have been published somewhere, and if I include them in my essay
without acknowledging a published source, I will be accused of
plagiarism. Therefore I shall play safe, and restrict myself to what I
have found, and can give references to, in the works on my reading
list.’
It is ironic that the efforts of universities to ensure that students’
work is entirely their own could have the effect of discouraging
some students from thinking for themselves. So we need to show
what is wrong with the above reasoning.
The point is that, at undergraduate level, there is no expectation
that your thinking will be original in the sense that no-one has
ever had the same thought before. It does sometimes happen – but
it is a bonus rather than the norm. You need to distinguish between
originality and independent thinking – and it is independent
thinking we are looking for in undergraduate philosophy. To give
an example, suppose you are studying mathematics rather than
philosophy. Your teacher might set you the task of proving
Pythagoras’ theorem, giving you some clues so as to make the task
manageable. If you come up with the required proof, your work

will not be original, because Pythagoras got there first; but it will be
the product of your independent thinking. On the other hand, if
you go to a textbook, look up Pythagoras’ theorem, and copy out
the proof, then the only skill you demonstrate is that of copying,
not of thinking.
This example is relevant in another way as well. When you are
set a problem in mathematics, you do not just give the answer,
but you write out the steps by which you arrive at the answer. You
may get the answer wrong because of a slip in calculation, but
you will still get high marks if the method is right. The same is
true in philosophy. Do not just present an idea, because the idea
could have come from anywhere, and your examiner has no
means of knowing whether or not it was the product of your own
thinking. Instead, you should show how you arrived at the idea. It
might not be infallible evidence that you went through those
steps yourself, but it is an essential way of indicating that your work
is yours.
Using quotations and paraphrasing

Where the issue might get confusing is where you paraphrase, or
translate a text into your own words. It is essential to realize that it
makes no difference whether you use an author’s actual words, or
rephrase them – it is like translating something from a foreign
language. If you do it without acknowledgment, it is plagiarism;
and even if you do acknowledge the source, your work is wholly
derivative. In fact there is rarely any point in paraphrasing, except to
show that you understand a difficult piece of writing. There is more
point to summarizing someone’s position, especially if their writing
is verbose – but again, if you do this you must give a reference just as
meticulously as if you were quoting directly.
Collaboration and collusion

So far we have considered your use of published literature and
course materials. Another potential source of information and ideas
is your fellow students. Departments vary in the extent to which
they encourage you to work together. Some are concerned that
your writing should be an individual product, so much so that they
discourage you from letting your fellow students see your work,
and if a student plagiarizes from you, you are deemed as guilty as

they are. Other departments take the view that you can learn as
much from each other as you learn from your teachers, and that
your learning will be greatly improved if you are encouraged and
helped to work together informally. Most universities make a dis-
tinction between collaboration and collusion. Collaboration is a
good thing, where students help each other to learn, but then go
their separate ways when it comes to writing up their assignments.
Collusion is a bad thing, where students pretend that they have
produced their own work, but in fact one or more students have
copied someone else’s work. This is plagiarism, because passing off
a fellow student’s work as your own is no different from passing
off the work of a published author as your own. The best policy is
to behave like established academics. Your teachers discuss their
work with fellow researchers before submitting it for publication,
and they acknowledge the help they have received. If you do the
same, you will get credit for your professional conduct, and you will
not lose marks if you are honest about your sources.
Using sources effectively

So the key to avoiding plagiarism is to be honest about your sources
and to maximize instances of your own thinking. If you have not
done much independent thinking, then your honesty will make it
obvious that your essay is little more than re-hashed lecture notes
and passages cobbled together from secondary sources. So how do
you find a balance between making use of course materials and
secondary literature, and demonstrating your own thinking? The
answer is to write in such a way that, instead of using the writings of
others as a substitute for your own thinking, you use them as the
raw material on which you exercise your thinking.
If you merely quote an author, or describe what the author says,
you are taking up space which you could otherwise use for impress-
ing the reader with your philosophical ability. So the golden rule is
not to quote unless you are going to discuss the author’s precise
words. For example, you might argue about how a passage is to be
interpreted, or you might give arguments for or against the position
you find in it. Again, if you simply quote from a secondary text,
you are borrowing someone else’s interpretations or criticisms; but
your examiners want to assess your reasoning skills. So you need to
use such texts as material for comment. You might give reasons for
agreeing or disagreeing with what is said, or you might identify
two or more secondary texts which disagree with each other, and
say which you prefer and why. This way, your essay will be argu-
mentative through and through, and it will be evident to the reader
that it is all your own work.
Let us look at an example. Suppose you included the following in
an essay on Leibniz:
Leibniz defined a ‘necessary’ truth as one which could not have been
otherwise, in that its opposite would imply a contradiction. So, it is necessary
that a triangle has three sides, since the idea of a non-three-sided, three-sided
figure is self-contradictory. By a ‘contingent’ truth, he meant one that could
have been otherwise, in that its opposite would be non-contradictory, or
logically possible.
This would be plagiarism, since it is an unacknowledged, word-
for-word copy of a paragraph on p. 59 of G. MacDonald Ross
(1984), Leibniz. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Suppose then that
you add a reference:
Leibniz defined a ‘necessary’ truth as one which could not have been
otherwise, in that its opposite would imply a contradiction. So, it is necessary
that a triangle has three sides, since the idea of a non-three-sided, three-sided
figure is self-contradictory. By a ‘contingent’ truth, he meant one that could
have been otherwise, in that its opposite would be non-contradictory, or
logically possible. (MacDonald Ross (1984), p.59).
This is still inadequate, since you have not specified which are
MacDonald Ross’s actual words. Suppose you paraphrased the
passage:
Leibniz’s definition of a ‘necessary’ proposition was one which could not
have been false, because its negation would involve a logical impossibility. So
it is a necessary proposition that a triangle has three angles, because the
concept of a three-angled figure which doesn’t have three angles is a logical
impossibility. By a ‘contingent’ proposition Leibniz meant one that could
have been false, since its falsehood wouldn’t involve a contradiction or logical
impossibility.
This would be no better, because unacknowledged paraphrasing
still counts as plagiarism. What you need to do is to specify precisely
which words are MacDonald Ross’s by using quotation marks or

indentation:
According to MacDonald Ross (1984, p.59): “Leibniz defined a ‘neces-
sary’ truth as one which could not have been otherwise, in that its opposite
would imply a contradiction. So, it is necessary that a triangle has three sides,
since the idea of a non-three-sided, three-sided figure is self-contradictory.
By a ‘contingent’ truth, he meant one that could have been otherwise, in
that its opposite would be non-contradictory, or logically possible.”
It is still derivative to quote MacDonald Ross instead of finding a
passage in Leibniz’s own writings which makes it clear how he
defines a necessary truth. But you could enhance your discussion by
criticizing MacDonald Ross’s interpretation – for example by con-
trasting it with a passage from a commentator who believes that
Leibniz defined necessity as truth in all possible worlds.
Writing your essay

Style
Note the following about style in philosophy:
• Philosophers use the first person singular, ‘I’, ‘me’, ‘my’ etc.
much more than in other disciplines, where it is often
frowned upon. Do not be afraid to use it yourself.
• Philosophers use active verbs more often than other dis-
ciplines, where passive forms tend to be preferred. For
example, use ‘I believe that’ rather than ‘it is believed that’.
Again, writing in this way is encouraged and gives a more
direct and concise turn of phrase.
• In some philosophical writing, you will find fewer direct quo-
tations than in other disciplines, or other areas of philosophy.
This is because arguments can be summarized rather than
having to be quoted. However, we have already noted
that literary considerations are also a factor in European phil-
osophy, in which texts and quotations are more prevalent.
Pay attention to materials you are reading to determine the
best practice for your course.
If you have been studying logic, or there is a logic component in
your module, you may feel that use of symbolism to support your
argument can be helpful. Take care to ensure that the use of logic
is appropriate and to ensure that it does indeed add clarity. There is
no point in labouring to get this aspect of your work right if it does
not aid your argument. On the other hand, it can sometimes go a
long way to making your main line of thought crystal clear for the
reader, where a paragraph of prose does not.
Writing clearly is very important because you want your tutor
to be able to understand what your arguments are and how they
fit together to support your conclusion. Do not use long words or
convoluted sentence structure just because you think it will make
you sound more like a professional philosopher. While some classic
texts in philosophy you read will be hard to understand and have
very complicated syntax, remember that they are classics in spite of
their lack of clarity, not because of it. Reading your essay aloud can
help you to identify any passages that sound awkward, so that you
can rewrite them.
It is also worth noting that because philosophers are very specific
in terms of how language is used, you should take particular care
over your grammar and spelling. There are many good essay
writing guides for the humanities that will help you with general
issues over spelling, grammar and general style. See Chapter 6 for
some suggestions.
Content
To begin with, it is important to make it clear that you understand
the meaning of key terms, and to clear up any ambiguities about
how you will be using them in your essay. You may hear philo-
sophers say at the start of a discussion or paper, ‘We must define our
terms’, and this is an important point. If you study any philosophy
of language you will come across different ideas about meaning and
reference, and philosophers often question what people mean when
they use a particular term, or how we can know that we refer to the
same thing as someone else when we use a word.
Having said this, it can be tempting to start an essay with a
dictionary definition of the key term in the question. However,
you should be wary of starting all your essays with the phrase, ‘The
Oxford English Dictionary defines [insert relevant term] as . . .’.
Rather than demonstrate your understanding of the issues at hand
and your critical engagement with them, this merely demonstrates
that you know how to use a dictionary. Striving for clarity and a
shared understanding of the meaning of specific terms is very dif-
ferent from dusting off the OED every time you start writing an
essay.
If you have done your planning carefully, the central body of the
essay should involve your putting some flesh on your skeleton
argument. The work of demonstrating your own philosophical skill
goes on here. This is demonstrated in more depth in the essay
writing examples further on in this chapter. The philosophical tools
of argument construction and analysis do not differ from those we
have already explored.
Establishing what counts as ‘sufficient depth’ of analysis is per-
haps one of the key challenges in writing philosophy. As a rule of
thumb, seek to explain the ideas in enough detail for them to be
comprehensible to someone who has no previous knowledge of
the subject. This will become easier to judge as you practise your
skills of philosophical argument.
You will always need to be selective in your discussion, focusing
only on relevant issues; but your assignment should be designed so
that you can tackle the topic adequately within the time and word
limit available. If word limits prevent you from discussing additional
issues, then ‘signpost’ these if you wish. This shows that you are
aware of wider considerations, but have differentiated between
major and minor points for the purposes of the essay question being
addressed.
Once you have outlined the initial argument that you consider
to form the basis of your discussion of the topic, you can then
look at arguments against this position, then think of more ways to
defend the original position against this attack, and so on. Playing
devil’s advocate in this way is a key to writing a good philosophy
essay. The ability to make a point, to give reasons why that point is
relevant and why it backs up your main argument, then to look at
counter-arguments, and so on, is very important. When you are
writing your essay, think about what someone who disagreed with
your argument would say, and then what you would say in response
to them. Good philosophical arguing is like an extended rally in a
tennis match.
After the first draft

When you have finished writing and editing your first draft, make
sure you have not exceeded the word limit, and look again at the
marking criteria to ensure that you have done what you have been
asked to do. Try to put yourself in your tutor’s shoes and think
about whether you have demonstrated your understanding and
critical engagement, and, most importantly, whether you have
answered the question. As noted earlier, simply writing everything
you know about a certain topic is not what your tutor wants.
Rather, they want to see that you understand the key concepts
raised by a certain topic and what you think about these issues,
backed up by your reasons for holding a particular opinion. If you
have demonstrated this effectively, your essay should receive a
good mark.
As you go through your essay, make sure that you use the skills
of rigorous critical thinking that you have been practising while
reading philosophy written by other people. If something is not
clear to you on re-reading, it will not be clear to your tutor or
examiner. If you find it hard to understand a particular passage or
line of argument, try explaining it to someone else, either a fellow
philosophy student or one of your other friends. If you can explain
a concept to a lay person in a way that they can understand, then
this is a good indicator that you have a satisfactory grasp of the
subject. In explaining it to someone else you may also come to
a better understanding yourself, which you can then use when
revising your essay.
Example essay questions

Let us now look at some typical essay questions, and apply to
them some of the principal methods we have covered so far,
to give you some ideas about how to tackle such assignments
effectively.
The following examples demonstrate varied approaches to the
task of writing an essay or paper. No one way is right or wrong,
and the examples given here are not intended to show model essay
answers, but rather to illustrate some strategies for how you
might begin to address a question and build your own piece of
philosophical writing.
Because of this, we have not provided examples of a first-class

essay, an upper-second-class essay, and so on – as we saw earlier, the
criteria for assessing your work will be specific to your university
department (and perhaps even to the particular philosophy course
you are studying).
The examples are real essay questions set in undergraduate
courses. Because of this, they inevitably cover actual philosophical
topics that you may or may not be familiar with. We have sought to
explain the content in sufficient depth for you to be able to under-
stand the examples. Our focus, though, is on the methods of
philosophical writing, rather than the body of knowledge of the
philosophical area or topic under discussion. The aim is to explore
how the methods being used to unpack and discuss the examples
here could be applied to any question.
Example essay A
‘Critically assess the claim that euthanasia is morally wrong’
What type of question is it?

The question is an evaluative one, as it is asking us to consider
a particular claim, that euthanasia is morally wrong, and make a
critical assessment of the arguments for and against this position.
Expressing your own opinion in making your critical assessment is
very important, but remember that backing up your thoughts with
reasons is essential.
Background knowledge
The reading list for a course in which euthanasia is covered might
include the following texts:
• Peter Singer (1979), Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
• Helga Kuhse (1991), ‘Euthanasia’, in Peter Singer (ed.) (1991),
A Companion to Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
• Philippa Foot (1994), ‘Killing and Letting Die’, in B. Stein-
bock and A. Norcross (1994), Killing and Letting Die. New
York: Fordham University Press.
• James Rachels (1986), ‘Active and Passive Euthanasia’, in Peter

Singer (ed.) (1986), Applied Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
• Brad Hooker (1997), ‘Rule Utilitarianism and Euthanasia’,
in Hugh LaFollette (ed.) (1997), Ethics in Practice. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
• Tom Beauchamp (1997), ‘Justifying Physician-Assisted
Death’, in Hugh LaFollette (ed.) (1997), Ethics in Practice.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Remembering our discussion of reading lists in Chapter 2, we can
already see that nearly all of these items are papers or chapters
within books of collected works. This makes things slightly easier;
rather than having to read through a whole book trying to find the
relevant parts, your tutor has done some of the work for you and
pointed you towards the most appropriate pieces of writing.
Helpfully, even the one whole book listed, Practical Ethics, has a
clearly titled chapter, ‘Taking life; euthanasia’.
So, we now have all the information we need in order to start
planning and writing our essay.
Planning your essay

Assuming that you will have done some reading around the topic
already, having covered euthanasia as part of a module or course,
you will be aware of the main ideas that arise. For example, if you
have read Chapter 7 of Peter Singer’s Practical Ethics in preparation
for discussion in a tutorial, you will know that there are different
types of euthanasia; voluntary, involuntary and nonvoluntary.
Distinctions are also made between active and passive euthanasia –
between killing and letting die. You will have discussed various
scenarios and examples with your tutor and fellow students, and
examined the justifications given for particular courses of action or
inaction, as well as arguments against euthanasia, such as the slippery
slope argument.
Even if you have not already done any of the recommended
reading, a quick read through a classic text such as Singer, or an
encyclopaedia of philosophy, should give you enough infor-
mation to start thinking about how you want to answer the
question.
1,500 words are not very many for a large topic such as eutha-
nasia. This means you will need not only to be concise, but to
decide which parts of the issue to concentrate on. It is inevitable
with large topics and small word limits that some issues will have
to be left out, but as long as you justify your choices for inclusion
and exclusion it is perfectly legitimate to focus in depth on one
particular issue, and this is often preferable to a broad but shallow
discussion of a topic. Perhaps you decide that you are particularly
interested in the distinction between active and passive euthanasia,
and this is what you will focus on in your essay. This is fine, but
make sure you explain your reasons for choosing to focus on one
area rather than another, and acknowledge that there are potentially
relevant issues that you will be putting aside because of the word
limit.
Having read the relevant literature and thought about your own
views on the topic, you can begin to plan your essay. Let us assume
that you have chosen to focus on the distinction between active
and passive euthanasia, and have decided that you want to argue that
euthanasia is not morally wrong.
An essay plan for the question above might look something like
this:
Critically assess the claim that euthanasia is

morally wrong
Essay plan
Intro:
• Define euthanasia
• Focus will be on active/passive euthanasia (explain choice)
• Will be arguing euthanasia is not morally wrong
Body:
• Look at different types of euthanasia:

• passive – failing to act to prevent the death of a person,
knowing that they will die
• active – intentionally acting to cause the death of a person
• Legal issues – in brief, passive euthanasia allowed, active not,
don’t focus on this though
• Detailed arguments around acts/omissions doctrine: the claim

there’s an important moral distinction between performing an
act that has certain consequences & omitting to do something
that has the same consequences – see Singer, Practical
Ethics
• E.g. ok to let someone die by withholding treatment if they’re
suffering from a terminal illness and in great pain ← generally
accepted by medical profession & in law
• But letting die can cause more suffering than e.g. giving lethal
injection – see Rachels’ argument re Down’s syndrome babies,
p30
• Look at R’s argument in detail: that active euthanasia effects
consequences we want (diminished suffering) in more humane
way than passive does, morally wrong to watch someone die
slow painful death when you could help them, see Singer’s ref
to diff between humans and animals – wouldn’t leave e.g. a
horse to die slowly & painfully – so argue killing in certain
circumstances no worse than letting die, can consider them
morally equivalent
• Look at Foot’s argument against re positive & negative rights
– killing is morally distinct from letting die because we have
‘a strict duty to prevent harm to others’ p285 – cover in more
detail
• Question F’s argument – if it’s having certain rights that gives
rise to the distinction between killing and letting die discuss
whether we have the right not to suffer by being left to die if
we want to be killed/euthanized
• Mention slippery slope argument – look at reasons for/against
Conclusion:
• Sum up main args for/against

• Explain how they lead to conclusion
As you can see, you may have less detail at the end of your plan
than the beginning, but you can develop your line of argument
as you write. Having a basic outline means that you can start
expanding your plan into a full essay – you could think about
writing your essay as filling in the gaps of your essay plan.
Writing your essay

In the context of what you have decided you want to argue for here
– that euthanasia is morally acceptable – a brief explanation of what
you take the term to mean can be helpful. This is because the term
‘euthanasia’ is a combination of two Greek words, eu and thanatos,
which mean ‘a good death’. So, you might wish to start your essay
with this fact, and explain how the term is generally understood
today – as the bringing about of a good death for those with an
incurable illness who are in great pain and distress. You might
follow this up by setting out which areas of the topic you will be
focusing on – the distinction between active and passive euthanasia.
You could then explain that you will look at arguments for and
against these types of euthanasia, before concluding that euthanasia
is not morally wrong. As mentioned above, if your reading list and
class discussions have covered any areas of the topic that you do not
feel able to discuss in such a short essay you may wish to explain
why you have chosen to exclude them from the scope of your essay.
For example, while Beauchamp’s article is an interesting one, it
introduces an additional topic, utilitarianism, which you may feel
there is not enough space to cover in adequate detail to justify its
inclusion.
Now you have set the stage with the introduction, you can
move on to the main body of your essay. Working from your essay
plan you need to provide a brief summary of what is meant by
active and passive euthanasia. You may want to use quotations
from texts you have read, but try to keep the amount of quoted
material short. After all, the point of writing the essay is to demon-
strate your understanding and critical engagement with the
topic, not your ability to copy out large chunks of textbooks. If
you use the material of other authors too much, the mixture of
your style and theirs will be confusing for the reader. When
you do use a quotation remember to reference it properly.
However, using your own words is the best way to show your
understanding, and to ensure your writing is not awkward or
convoluted.
Having clarified that passive euthanasia refers to withholding
treatment in order to let a patient die, and that active euthanasia
refers to deliberate action taken to end a patient’s life, you can get
on with critically assessing the arguments surrounding these ideas.
For example, the acts and omissions doctrine offers great scope for
discussing the idea that passive euthanasia is morally acceptable, but
active euthanasia is not. However, this can also be criticized with
further counter-arguments. Ideally, your evidence of critical
thought should be several layers deep.
While there are many examples of philosophers arguing for and
against the acts and omissions doctrine, this is a prime opportunity
for you to express your own opinion, backed up with reasons of
course. You might think that you have nothing new to add to the
debate. After all, professional philosophers have been writing about
and discussing these issues for thousands of years, so what could
you say that has not been said before? While it is true that you may
find it hard to come up with an entirely new argument for (or
against) the acts and omissions doctrine, there are many ways that
you can demonstrate originality in your writing. For example, an
essay about euthanasia provides an opportunity to create your own
examples and scenarios. So, just as Philippa Foot makes up an
example about Rescue 1 and Rescue 2 in an attempt to demon-
strate that killing and letting die are morally distinct, you could
embellish her examples to argue that they are not distinct after all,
or make up a completely new scenario.
So you should now have ‘filled in’ quite a lot of the gaps in
your original essay plan, and expanded on the points you wanted
to make. Keeping the points above in mind when expanding
your initial thoughts should help you to write critically and
clearly.
When you have expanded all the points in your original essay
plan you can write the conclusion. Remember that the conclusion
should be a brief recapitulation of the main points you have made
in the body of your essay, and how they back up your main thesis.
There should be nothing in your conclusion that would surprise
the reader – your arguments in the essay body should all support
and lead up to your conclusion.
Example essay B
Let us look at a slightly more difficult example. There is a great deal
of discussion in all areas of our lives about the kinds of responsi-
bilities we have towards the environment, so here is a question that
has direct relevance to our thinking about these issues.
‘Pollution is an evil, and by reducing or eliminating it, govern-

ments make people’s lives “go better”. No doubt the benefits
of reduced levels of pollution can be achieved only if the mem-
bers of a society constrain activities which they would other-
wise wish to pursue; there are, that is to say, social costs
which will have to be paid . . . How, though, will the benefits of
programmes intended to prevent pollution and protect the
environment be distributed among those affected?’ 2
Should governments and individuals be concerned about
the interests of future generations? Explain your answer.
(2,000 words)
This is a real problem for us now. How should we think about the
moral or political interests of all people in relation to their needs
and wants? And how should we consider the interests of those
who do not yet exist when we have our current real needs and
environment to consider? It would be easy to answer a question like
this with opinion that appealed to emotive factors about future
children; or to base our response on news reports about globaliza-
tion and multinationals, biodiversity and conservation, and the
interests of the developing world. However, a good philosophical
essay will require clear analysis of the issues and questions that
underpin this quotation and question. This essay requires you to
show your skill in analysing the philosophical problems that are
present in these current political debates.
It would be inappropriate to begin with just your opinions, for
instance:
Future generations are our children and grandchildren. Even

though they may not have been born yet, we naturally feel a sense
of care for them. We all think that pollution is bad and science
shows us why. Therefore we should try to avoid poisoning our
environments for the sake of our children and other descendants.
That way they can enjoy the same standard of life as we do.
Appealing as this may be as an approach, it is philosophically

inadequate. What we need to do is to separate out the different
aspects of philosophical concern contained in the quotation and the
question. Here making a few notes will help us. Before we even
begin to write and think about what we ought to have read, we can
tease out lots of different questions:
1. Is pollution an evil? What does this mean?
2. Is it the duty of governments or individuals to ‘constrain’
people’s lives? What about liberty? What are the social costs?
What are the global costs?
3. How are social and environmental benefits currently
distributed among people alive today? Is the distribution
just?
4. Who else has an interest?
5. We usually assume that future interests should be considered.
But should they? How do non-existent people have interests
at all? How many future people are we considering? At what
point in time?
6. The interests and material needs of past generations were
different from our own and they could not have guessed
what our needs are. What standard of life should future people
be bequeathed? How can we possibly know their interests
and needs? If they have interests, what is our obligation to
them? Should we feel obliged to curtail our own activity for
them?
Clearly, each of these points could be an essay topic in itself. Some-
times this can be a problem when looking at essay questions. We
have to find the central question. In this case it is not too difficult,
since we have one stated question after the given quotation and it is
the aim of the question-setter that we focus our attention on it.
This means we have to look in more depth at points 4, 5 and 6
above.
However, some consideration of the other points will help us to
work out a more rounded answer, so we do not want to discard
them completely. We will need to decide which we will include.
First, let us consider the basic claim that pollution makes lives worse.
Ask yourself: in itself, does this claim need to be explained in any
great detail for this essay? The answer is: probably not, since we have
not been asked what pollution is. We can say something about what
the author means by something being an evil, in a short sentence.
Second, the point about governmental responsibility is also not a
key concern, but we should make the reader of our essay aware that
we know it is a component or premise of the argument and needs to
be recognized. Third, in noting that governments have to balance
interests we are beginning to touch on the key topics to be
addressed, so we also need to show awareness of this as an important
part of the discussion.
Examine the following paragraph and see how some of the other
lesser points have been addressed and how the focus has been
shifted to the main topic:
Let us assume that the author means pollution makes people’s

lives worse overall, individually and collectively, when he says it is
an evil: it is not a good. Liberty is also usually taken to be a good.
So we need to assume, for this discussion, that when governments
legislate to protect the environment by curtailing activities that
cause or increase pollution they are aware that there is a balance to
be struck between the value of liberty and bringing about the good
of reduced pollution. However, there are other factors to balance.
As with other goods, governments are concerned with how they
are distributed across societies, and globally between developed
and developing nations. But with questions about the environ-
ment, and natural resources generally, it is often assumed that
future generations should be taken into consideration. Future
generations do not exist and have unknown needs and interests.
How we answer the other questions of balance will depend on
whose interests count and how. Therefore, being able to under-
stand how we should treat future generations will help us to clarify
how all these issues could be addressed, because we will be able
to see whether there are reasonable and justifiable criteria that can
be used in discussion of environmental interests and benefits more
generally.
We have taken the quotation and unpacked it a little showing

that we understand why the question set is crucial to the deeper
issues. Next we would need to look in more detail at the three issues
already alluded to: can non-existent people have any interests? What
interests can we assume for people whose needs are unknown?
And, even if they have interests, what are our obligations to them?
Each of these needs to be addressed as a separate issue. At this stage,
you will need to look at the reading for the course in which this
question is embedded. How are interests to be measured and
determined? Are there already existent criteria you can appeal to
in the literature of your course that can be quoted (with correct
references)?
What you should see with this essay example is how important it
can be to break down the different questions that could be part of
the main question. Writing out as many of the questions as you can
in the form of notes, before beginning, is a good way of showing
yourself that you need to keep each line of argument clear and to
treat each point as needing support and analysis in some way.
Remember that each of the main points you identify will be acting
as a premise in the argument which forms your essay, leading to the
final conclusion. If the premises are not strong, the conclusion you
reach will not be strong either.
Example essay C
‘Compare and contrast the views of Descartes and Locke with

regard to innate ideas. Which is the more defensible account?
Give reasons for your answer.’
This question is in some ways more difficult than those we have

previously considered. It demands specific knowledge of the
theories of two philosophers, and so cannot be answered simply
by thinking (however rigorously) about the issues in question –
unlike, for example, our earlier discussion of euthanasia. The
topic is also relatively technical – again, in contrast to the issue of
euthanasia, the problem of innate ideas is not widely discussed
outside philosophy, and so is more likely to present an unfamiliar
challenge.
For these reasons, you are unlikely to face a question like this at
the beginning of your philosophical studies; it requires some prior
knowledge of philosophy, so it is more probable that you will tackle

such issues towards the end of your first year, or in later stages of
your degree study. However, sooner or later you are likely to be
asked to grapple with such questions, so it will be worthwhile
to explore how you might go about addressing these more
challenging tasks.
You will be set an assignment such as this only if you have previ-
ously studied the topic in question – so here is an (incomplete)
introduction to the question of innate ideas:
Innate ideas
How can we be sure that what we believe is true? Philosophers
of the seventeenth century were particularly concerned with this
question – seeking to move beyond unquestioning trust in the
education provided by the church of the time, to provide an inde-
pendently secure foundation for human knowledge. Descartes, in
particular, grappled with sceptical doubts: that nothing could be
known for certain.
Innate ideas were investigated as a possible solution to this

problem – if there are some foundational truths that we know
innately (that is, that are contained within us in some way when we
are born), then perhaps these could provide the required secure
basis upon which we can ground the rest of our knowledge of the
world.
How do we tackle this assignment? Note that this question is

quite detailed; you may instead be presented simply with the first
sentence as an essay title – ‘Compare and contrast x and y views’.
However, as we have already discussed, more is expected of you
in a philosophy degree than simply to re-describe x and y views;
you will also be expected to analyse them critically. In our
sample question this requirement has been made explicit in the
subsequent sentences; but even if this were not stated, it would be
implied.
Let us begin by identifying precisely what this question is asking
of us, and thus what we need to say in order to answer it:
• Compare and contrast the views of Descartes and

Locke with regard to innate ideas. This gives us a clear
focus for our essay:
• Topic: innate ideas
• Key thinkers: Descartes, Locke
It also suggests a structure for the essay – we are asked to
‘compare and contrast’, so we need to identify similarities and
differences between the two views. In order to do this, we will
first need to describe their views, and then to analyse how
they are alike or different.
• Which is the more defensible account? Give reasons for
your answer. This reminds us that we also need to offer our
own evaluation of the respective merits of the two positions –
which do we think is a better theory, and why?
Perhaps you have already formed a view, during your lectures

and seminars, as to whether Descartes or Locke provides a better
theory of innate ideas; but perhaps you have not thought about this
directly before, or perhaps you are not yet sure what to conclude
about this. It is perfectly possible to tackle this question without
knowing in advance what your answer will be; however, bear in
mind that you will need to come to a conclusion regarding your
own answer to the question by the time you complete your essay.
First, let us gather together what we already know about
Descartes’ and Locke’s views about innate ideas, by sifting through
our lecture, seminar and reading notes on these philosophers
to filter out details of their thinking on this particular topic.
Remember that this information should be relevant to the essay
title: spending a large proportion of the word count on biographies
of the two thinkers, for instance, will not earn any marks if it does
not help to answer the question.
It is advisable to start with a definition of your key terms: in this
case, what is an innate idea? If you do not already possess a good
definition, then this will be a good place to start further research.
The dictionary definition of ‘innate’ is ‘something we are born
with’. Is this precise enough for philosophical purposes? Checking
our notes, or a philosophical dictionary, should help us to clarify
that the key feature of innate ideas is that they are inborn in us
rather than being the product of experience. Is this precise enough?
It is important to get this right – if we misunderstand innate ideas,

then our entire discussion will be misguided. So we will note this
down for now, and come back to it later to check whether we need
to refine our definition.
This understanding of innate ideas can now help us to shape the
rest of our essay – we need to look for Descartes’ and Locke’s views
on whether our ideas are the result of experience, or whether they
are already in our minds independently of any experience. We can
perhaps already predict that their views might differ in a number of
respects – for example: Which ideas (if any) are innate? Why (not)?
What is special about them – why does it matter whether ideas are
innate or not?
You may find it helpful to summarize and organize your infor-
mation as you go along – for instance, in preparing this essay, it may
be useful to note down the key ideas of the two thinkers in adjacent
columns, in order to aid our comparison. So our preliminary notes
for this essay might look something like this:
Notes for essay

Essay title: Compare & contrast the views of Descartes & Locke
with regard to innate ideas
Innate ideas = inborn, not the product of experience
Descartes Locke
Ideas from experience not Rejects Descartes’ account – no
always reliable – ‘method of innate ideas
doubt’:
His counter-arguments:
• Can’t reliably distinguish • ‘Innate’ ideas (e.g. God,
dreams and waking?
maths, logic, morals) not held
• So, can’t tell if there is a reality by everyone – what about
distinct from our ‘dreaming’ of
infants? learning
it?
disabled? + other
→ innate ideas needed to societies have different
underpin knowledge ethical rules
E.g.s of innate ideas • Unconscious knowledge of
• Cogito: ‘I think, therefore I am’ innate ideas rejected as ‘near
a contradiction’
• God
• Mathematical principles
So, mind is a ‘blank slate’ – all

ideas are developed from
experience
• Of the outside world
(sensation), or
• Of our own minds (reflection)
Altho’ we have innate capacities
to acquire ideas (e.g. thro’
reason → idea of God)
Let us now take stock of progress so far. How does this informa-
tion help us to answer the essay question? Do we have enough to
complete the assignment, or does more work need to be done?
At this point, it may be helpful to draft an outline of our essay. Let
us go back to the essay title, sketch out the different sections of our
argument, and identify where the information we have gathered so
far will fit – and whether there are any gaps remaining:
Compare and contrast the views of Descartes

and Locke with regard to innate ideas.
Which is the more defensible account?
Give reasons for your answer.
Essay outline
Intro
• Define innate ideas: = inborn, not a product of experience
• Summarize D & L’s views: D defends innate ideas, L rejects them.
• Summarize which I think is best & why: [have we reached a
conclusion here yet?]
Describe D’s account

• Innate ideas are foundation for knowledge
• This is because ideas from experience are untrustworthy
(method of doubt)
• Most fundamental innate idea: cogito (I think therefore I am)
• Idea of God also innate
• God guarantees truth of clear and distinct ideas →
• Other innate ideas, e.g. principles of maths
Describe L’s account. What are the similarities & diffs cf. D’s?
• L rejects D’s account [So what are the similarities? Are there
any?]
• Diffs: no innate ideas.
• This is because counter-examples can be provided for all so-
called innate ideas:
Maths, logic – infants & learning disabled don’t have these
ideas
God, moral rights/wrongs – different societies have different
ideas about these
• And L rejects suggestion that we can have innate ideas
unconsciously
• → mind is ‘blank slate’. We have innate capacities, e.g. reason,
but all ideas are built on experience
Evaluate strengths and weaknesses of D’s & L’s account.

Which is better? Why?
• [not much to go here yet!]
Conclusion
This shows that, so far, we have a reasonably substantial outline of

the descriptive component of the essay – we have identified what
Descartes and Locke thought about innate ideas, and what their
reasons were for these beliefs; and we also have a natural line of
argument for presenting their respective views (because Locke was
responding to a Cartesian approach). We do, however, need to do
some more work to unpack what, if anything, Descartes and Locke
had in common – we have focused only on their differences. It is
also clear that we do not yet have much material for the evaluative
component – so we need to do some more critical thinking, and
perhaps some further research too.
Let us examine the two positions to try to find some common
ground. So far we have focused quite narrowly on the details of the
two thinkers’ accounts of innate ideas; but we have not stepped
back to ask why they discussed innate ideas in the first place. Think
back to the questions we identified earlier as possible respects in
which Descartes and Locke might differ: ‘Which ideas (if any) are
innate? Why (not)? What is special about them – why does it
matter whether ideas are innate or not?’ So far we have tackled the
first two, but largely ignored the third.
If we consult our notes about this bigger question, then we will
readily discover that Descartes and Locke shared concerns about
the status of knowledge, and the need to provide justification for
what counts as true knowledge. It is in the context of this common
enquiry that both thinkers explore the concept of innate ideas to
see whether, and how, these might contribute to knowledge. So
we could argue that they share common ground regarding why
the question of innate ideas is important. (There may be other
similarities too – are there common assumptions which underlie
both accounts, for example?)
Now we need to apply our skills of critical analysis to the task of
evaluating the two accounts in more depth. Are there supporting
arguments for every claim that Descartes and Locke make? How
strong are these? What objections could be raised against each view
– and what arguments could be offered in response to these? Many
of Locke’s arguments present objections to Descartes’ account –
but if our essay is to present a balanced account, we need also to
explore possible objections to Locke’s own view.
Let us look again at our summary of Locke’s account. He
criticizes, in turn, many of the ideas which have been proposed as
‘innate’, providing opposing evidence in each case: for example,
infants and people with learning disabilities have no innate idea of
logical or mathematical principles; different cultures do not share
our ‘innate’ sense of what counts as right and wrong, or our idea of
God. He concludes that there are no innate ideas. But is this con-
clusion too hasty? It relies on Locke’s assertion of the impossibility
of holding innate ideas unconsciously – otherwise, his opponents
could argue that (for example) infants do have the innate idea of the
logical principle of non-contradiction; they simply are not in a
position to bring that notion to consciousness. But what is Locke’s
argument for rejecting the notion of unconscious knowledge? Can
you spot any other problems with his line of reasoning?
We also need to establish what we conclude from our arguments.
Perhaps we are convinced by Locke’s criticisms of Descartes, and
therefore wish to argue that his account is to be preferred – if so, we
need to be able to offer a defence of his account against objections
such as the one we have just raised; or at least to provide reasoned
arguments for considering such objections to be less damning than

those levelled against Descartes’ account. It is legitimate to acknow-
ledge that not all the problems of philosophy have been solved;
however, you will get little credit merely for stating that ‘philo-
sophers continue to debate this issue’ – you need to offer your own
reasoned account of the respective merits of the theories in
question.
Having thus completed the skeleton argument for our essay, we
now need to put flesh on the bones by writing a complete draft of
the assignment. As you write, you may find that some sections
require further clarification; or that working out the details of
one section of the argument prompts you to change your under-
standing and thus to revise another aspect of your account – so it is
important to allow yourself plenty of time to complete this stage.
As we noted earlier, though, herein also lies the value of writing
your own philosophy – sometimes it is only when we try to express
our ideas on the page that we become truly clear about an issue.
To demonstrate this, let us write in full the concluding para-
graphs of our essay – the annotations in the right hand column
indicate where challenges have become apparent only at this stage:
Conclusion of essay – annotated
. . . Locke thus provides some powerful

criticisms of Descartes’ account of Take care – is Locke’s
innate ideas; however, his own account argument definitely a
is not unassailable, as further analysis complete refutation, not
shows. His use of counter-examples to just a partial objection?
refute the classification of ideas such as
logical principles as ‘innate’ relies upon Try to identify the
the premise that, if an idea is not underlying
consciously known by an individual, then assumption(s)
s/he does not have that idea – that supporting Locke’s
counter-examples . . .
unconscious knowledge is impossible
(or, as he puts it, ‘near a contradiction’).
However, innate knowledge need not be . . . and then further
understood in this way. For example, research to identify an
Leibniz subsequently argues that innate alternative approach.
ideas should instead be understood as
‘dispositions and attitudes’; and if this is
so, then it is no longer a ‘contradiction’

to suggest that infants may have innate
ideas of logical principles (for example),
even if they do not ‘know’ such
principles in the sense that Locke
assumes.
Notwithstanding these concerns, I
consider that Locke’s position is Additional arguments
needed to support this
ultimately more defensible than that of
conclusion.
Descartes. The notion of unconscious
knowledge, although perhaps not as
obviously wrong as Locke seems to
judge, is still problematic – it is difficult to
understand in what sense an infant ‘has’
the idea of the principle of non-
contradiction (for example) when s/he
has no way of accessing or expressing it.
Also, Locke grants that the mind has
innate capacities to acquire ideas – so it
would perhaps be open to him to argue
that logical principles and the like are
reached through the exercise of reason,
rather than being innately given.
In conclusion: I have reviewed
Descartes’ arguments for the existence
of innate ideas (knowable independently
of experience), such as one’s own
existence, God, and logical and
mathematical principles. I have
contrasted these with Locke’s claim
that the mind is a ‘blank slate’, and
that all our ideas are derived from
experience. I have argued that Locke’s
objections to the innateness of ideas are
compelling, and that counter-arguments
which rely upon the controversial notion
of unconscious knowledge are
insufficiently strong to warrant rejecting
his account. I therefore conclude that
Locke was right to argue that there are
no innate ideas.
Example essay D
‘God inclines our soul without necessitating it . . . it must not

be asked why Judas sins, since this free act is contained in his
notion, but only why Judas the sinner is admitted to existence’
(Leibniz). Discuss.
At first glance, this question looks quite challenging – the language

used in the quotation is rather obscure, and it is perhaps not
immediately obvious what philosophical questions are at issue here.
We need to look for the ‘key words’ in this quotation – but as it is
likely that these issues will have been raised in your lectures and
seminars, they should not be too difficult to pinpoint.
Although initially the ‘key words’ might seem to be ‘God’ and
‘sin’, if we look again we notice that ‘Judas the sinner’ is being used
only as an example; and that the true focus of the discussion, which
the example is being used to illustrate, is on notions of freedom and
necessity. The problem of free will is a key topic of philosophical
debate: namely that, if I cannot choose to act otherwise, it is
questionable whether my act is the product of my free will. So we
can see that the focus of the quotation, and therefore of our essay, is
the question of whether we have free will.
The essay question posed here is much more open-ended than
other assignments we have considered – so the first task is to analyse
what would count as a good answer to it. What sort of ‘discussion’
is required here? If you are accustomed to writing literature essays,
the form of this question may look familiar – but it is important
to remember that this is a philosophy assignment: the focus needs to
be on philosophical ideas and arguments, not on literary criticism.
By the same token, we should avoid getting sidetracked into
religious debates about sin.
So we need to focus on the distinctively philosophical issues of
free will and necessity raised by this quotation. However, there
remains more than one way of tackling this topic in response to the
question – for instance:
• Should we focus on Leibniz’s account of free will and

necessity?
• Should we discuss the challenges raised by seeking to balance

free will and necessity, using the Leibniz quotation as an
example, but also exploring other approaches?
It is worthwhile to check whether a particular approach is pre-
ferred by your course tutor. For instance, if this assignment is part of
a course on modern philosophy, then it is likely to be expected that
your essay will focus on exegesis and critical analysis of Leibniz’s
particular theory.3 If, however, it is part of a more general ‘problems
in philosophy’ course, then it may be equally acceptable to compare
and contrast the quoted approach with others in the philosophical
literature. If appropriate, seek clarification – remember that your
essay will be graded on how well you answer the question, so it is
crucial not to misinterpret it. If this does not determine for you
which interpretation you should adopt, then it is a good idea to
state in your introduction how you intend to approach the question
– an explanation of your understanding of the problem will help
your reader to see precisely how your subsequent argument
answers the question.
Another factor to bear in mind is your word limit: if this is a short
essay, then it may be possible only to analyse Leibniz’s view in
sufficient depth. You will always need to make difficult decisions
about what to include, and what to leave out, and it can be useful to
make this process explicit. For example, this particular assignment
might prompt you to say, ‘Leibniz’s position also raises interesting
philosophical questions about the nature of sin – whether it is
inevitable, and whether it is even in some sense ultimately desirable
– but this lies beyond the scope of this essay’.
Let us assume, for the time being, that we will focus on Leibniz’s
account in the first instance, and see how far this takes us – perhaps
we can come back to other theories if we have time and space
remaining. We have clarified the topic of our essay, but we still need
to identify the structure of the argument needed to answer the
question.
The essay title includes the quotation for a reason, so let us start
with this, and apply to it our philosophical reading skills. This
should help us to identify the core components of our argument,
and how these might fit together:
Skeleton argument
1. What does the quotation mean?
a. What are the key ideas discussed (provide definitions if
necessary)?
b. How do they relate to each other – what is the structure of
the argument?
2. What are the reasons for saying this?
a. What are the supporting arguments (if they are not included
in the quotation itself)?
b. Why is this question important?
3. What follows from it?
a. Is this position successful? Are the premises true? Does the
conclusion follow?
b. What are the consequences of this view?
c. Does it raise any problems?
d. Can these problems be overcome? How?
These questions provide an argument structure which we can

use as the basis for our essay. It now remains to fill in the content.
Let us explore how we might do this for the first section,
interpreting and analysing the title quotation:
‘God inclines our soul without necessitating it . . . it must
not be asked why Judas sins, since this free act is contained
in his notion, but only why Judas the sinner is admitted to
existence.’
What is Leibniz saying here? We seem to have three key claims,
plus two supplementary claims which support or qualify the main
points:
1. God inclines our soul
a. [but] without necessitating it
2. It must not be asked why Judas sins . . .
a. [because] this free act is contained in his notion
3. . . . but [we can ask] why Judas the sinner is admitted to
existence
It seems clear that Leibniz is defending the notion that we have free
will – statements (1a) and (2a) above refer explicitly to the absence
of necessity and ‘free acts’. The rest of Leibniz’s argument is
more difficult – what does it mean to ‘incline our soul’ (1)? to be
‘admitted to existence’ (3)? for something to be ‘contained in one’s
notion’ (2a)? – and we probably need to go back to our notes, or do
some more research, to understand these fully. Here we can begin
to see that the first two sections of our skeleton argument – ‘what
does the quotation mean?’ and ‘what are the reasons for saying it?’ –
may blur into one another: we need to discover some of Leibniz’s
supporting claims in order to analyse the details of the quotation
itself.
With the aid of some research, we can establish other relevant
principles of Leibniz’s thought – for instance, that each human
being is a unity who has a complete concept, a ‘script’ of all that can
be said to be true of him/her.4 This helps us to interpret statement
(2) – Judas’s actions (including his sin) are part of this ‘script’ and
thus are ‘contained in his notion’; and so it makes no sense to
‘ask why Judas sins’ because, for Leibniz, this is part of who he is. If
he did not commit his sin, then he would not be Judas. We also
discover that Leibniz believed God to be the creator of the best of
all possible worlds – which helps us to interpret statement (3) as:
it makes sense to ask why God allows Judas (given his nature as a
sinner) to exist as part of such a world.
We could say more about the meaning of this quotation – but
we already have enough material to anticipate some of the issues
that will need tackling in the third section of our essay, where we
critically evaluate the implications of the quotation. On the one
hand, Leibniz talks of ‘free acts’; on the other, he claims that such
acts are ‘contained in [the] notion’ of Judas (or any other individual)
– which implies that he would not be Judas if he had done other-
wise. How do we reconcile these claims? How can Judas’s act be
free if he could not have done otherwise? How could he have done
otherwise if this act is ‘contained in his notion’? It is implausible to
suggest that Leibniz is advancing an obviously self-contradictory
claim (if this were the case, we would not still be studying his
arguments three centuries later), so we need to do some more
precise analysis of these ideas in order to establish how Leibniz seeks
to resolve this tension – and whether he is successful.
This is a good example of how philosophical argument can
require us to use language in very precise ways in order to make our

point clear – so let us explore how we might develop a full draft of
this section of the essay:
Draft for essay

At first reading, this statement seems to
make two conflicting claims:
• On the one hand, Judas’s sin is a ‘free This is a re-presentation

act’ – which implies that he could of the analysis we
have chosen to do otherwise. explored above – using
the same phrase, could
• On the other hand, Judas’s sin is
have ‘done otherwise’
‘contained in his notion’ – which, in
each time, to make
Leibniz’s philosophy, means that clear how the two parts
Judas’s sin is part of the complete of the statement
concept of Judas: and thus if he had conflict.
done otherwise, he would not have
been Judas.
Surely Judas either could have done
otherwise, or he could not – how can
we reconcile these two claims to avoid
a direct contradiction?
In order to defend the logic of Leibniz’s
statement, we need to differentiate Here begins our appeal
to more philosophically
between two different senses of the
precise use of language.
claim that Judas ‘could have done
otherwise’. Leibniz does this by
distinguishing between absolute and
hypothetical necessity: Could we make an
equivalent distinction
• Absolute necessity: the opposite is without appealing to
self-contradictory. Leibniz’s own theory?
Does the technical
• Hypothetical necessity: relies on the language help or
truth of additional premises: hinder? Would logical
God exists; notation be useful?
God created the best of all
possible worlds;
X is part of the best of all possible
worlds.
Given the truth of these premises, it
follows necessarily that X.
Judas’s sin is not absolutely Explain how the theory

necessary – it is not self-contradictory to described in the
suggest that he did not sin – so in this previous paragraph
sense he could have done otherwise. applies to the example
under discussion.
However, the existence of Judas the
sinner is hypothetically necessary – it is
part of this ‘best of all possible worlds’ –
so in this sense he could not have done
otherwise.
This removes the contradiction
between the two claims, and so renders Include own analysis of
the argument – does
the argument sound: Our actions, and
conclusion follow from
those of Judas, are not (absolutely) premises?
necessary, but the world is such that it
follows necessarily that Judas will
choose to sin. As Leibniz writes Does this additional
example add anything
elsewhere, ‘the reasons of these
new to our argument?
contingent truths incline without (Resist the temptation
necessitating. It is true then that I could to add quotations
fail to go on this journey, but it is certain purely to demonstrate
that I shall go.’ (Correspondence with your reading.) Does it
need more explanation?
Arnauld)
However, it is arguable that the

freedom offered here is very limited. If the argument is
sound, but we wish to
Even if our actions are not absolutely
reject its conclusion,
necessary, are we truly free if ‘it is certain then we need to find a
that’ I will do X – if it is ‘contained in [my] flaw in one of the
notion’ that I do so? It could be argued premises – in this
that this is no more than an illusion of example: that the
required notion of
freedom – from my perspective, it seems
‘could have done
that I could have chosen otherwise, but otherwise’ is inadequate.
from a ‘God’s-eye view’ it follows
necessarily that I do X. It is of little
comfort to believe that I could have failed Language here needs to
be really precise. Is this
to do X in a different possible world, if
an accurate re-
necessarily I ‘choose to’ do X in this one. presentation of the
argument, or has the
meaning been altered?
Is ‘necessary’ being
used carefully enough?
This illustrates, at least in part, how we might move from an analysis

of the essay question to a fully worked-out argument.
Example essay E
Read the following passage, then answer all the questions:
It is often taken to be obvious that the existence of evil is at

least evidence against the existence of God. Even if other,
stronger considerations vote “Yes” regarding God’s existence,
it is claimed that evil obviously votes “No” in that election. I
take this to be false. The existence of evil is evidence against
the existence of God only if there is some sound valid
argument in which There is evil is an essential premise (one
without which the argument is invalid) and God does not exist
is the conclusion. (Yandell (1999) p. 125) 5
(a) What does the author mean by ‘the problem of evil’ in this
context? (5)
(b) What is a ‘sound valid argument’? Use examples to illus-
trate your answer. (10)
(c) Construct an argument of the kind described explaining
why each premise is needed and how the argument works.
(15)
(d) Give reasons for why an argument of this kind can be
questioned. (20)
Your answers should not be more than 1,500 words in

total.
To set the stage for those not familiar with the philosophical issue
here, there is a traditional form to the problem of evil, which is
being questioned by Yandell.
The premises, derived from mainstream thinking about God, are
that God is:
• all-knowing
• all-powerful
• all-loving
• perfect in all ways
But taken together these seem to exclude the possibility that he

could have created a world that contains suffering and harm for
any beings capable of so suffering; therefore, it is argued, God, as
traditionally conceived, does not exist. So the approaches to the
problem of evil are either to find a way of questioning the premises,
or to find a flaw in the argument, or to accept the problem as a
critical one for anyone claiming that God exists.
This is what is known as a structured question. All questions have
structure; as do all answers. However, in some contexts you will find
that you are presented with a question that guides your approach.
This can be very helpful and useful if you use the opportunity to
understand the logic of the argument you are constructing. We will
work through an example here.
This kind of structured question can be used in essays in the
early part of a course or in an exam. It is similar in form to
the kinds of questions you might have encountered if you have
studied philosophy before. Despite this similarity, we need to ensure
that we answer at a depth that is appropriate for university work,
demonstrating a critical awareness of the open nature of the debates
that underlie the points being made.
The numbers after the parts of the question indicate the
maximum marks that could be awarded to your answers. This helps
us to plan the distribution of the allowed word count and gives us
an idea of the level of analysis of the answer. It is worth noting
that simply dividing the word count in proportion to the marks is
not always appropriate – if that part of the question requires some
exegesis of an argument, for example, then by necessity it will
require a certain number of words. However, it is the analytical parts
of the question that will earn you the most marks, even if they
can be answered in fewer words, for example by using logical
notation.
The question requires us to have some knowledge in the phil-
osophy of religion, but clearly the author and the question setter are
also looking for how well we understand arguments themselves.
This question could be taken from a critical thinking course that
had looked at the problem of evil as an example, or an introductory
course in the philosophy of religion. Let us assume the former, so
we will concentrate on arguments and their form, but also draw on
some knowledge of the context in which this issue arises.
So we need to check out the source of the quotation, if a

reference is given as it is here, and see what else the author has to
say. We also need to look at the materials we have studied that
explore the nature of arguments, some aspects of which we have
touched on already in this book. It is not adequate for us just to
write down what we think – we need to give considered, scholarly
and, where appropriate, referenced and supported answers.
Read through all the parts of the question and look for the
overall structure. It is worth noting before we begin that there is
a unity to the question overall: we are asked for some definitional
and expositional material at first, we are then asked to construct
an argument of our own, and finally to examine that argument
critically. It is also worth thinking about longer essays in this way
too. If you struggle thinking of an essay with just one question or
central point in terms of a purely logical structure, try breaking it
down into a series of smaller points in this way. But in doing so,
never forget the cardinal strategy in essay writing is to answer the
question set, not the one you would like to answer.
It is highly unlikely that you will be expected to use the same
argument, evidence or theory in more than one part of your answer.
If you find yourself thinking that maybe you should, you probably
need to look again at the source material and the relative impor-
tance of the marks allocated to each part, and to pay attention to the
general direction of the questions. In our example it is clear that
the questions are asking us to focus on the form of the argument at
least as much as the content. We need to show that we are aware of
this.
Part (a) seems to ask for a fairly short straightforward account of
the problem of evil. But we have to earn ten per cent of our marks
here, so one sentence will not be adequate. Let us begin with a first
draft based on a distinction we might think is relevant:
‘Evil’ is often taken to be problematic for those who believe in the

existence of a perfectly benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowing god.
The problem can be posed in a series of questions addressed to
those who believe in such a god: ‘How can a loving god allow evil
to exist? If he exists and is opposed to evil, how can there be a
world with evil in it?’ If these questions cannot be answered then
this counts against the existence of God, since the existence of evil
is incompatible with his existence and his having the properties he
is supposed to. (99 words)
This might seem reasonably good as an answer, but let us look more
closely. Have we answered the question? Arguably not, because the
question made reference to the author, Yandell, and even asked us
to look at the context: we have not done so. As always, we do need
to address the question. We need to go back to the source. In
particular, think about why the paragraph of text has been given.
It suggests that we need to pay as much attention to the way the
author goes about looking at the problem of evil as we do to the
details. As the given text indicates, he is concerned to find philo-
sophically robust ways of expressing the problem. Additionally, if
we look at the source, we discover that he makes a distinction
between what he calls the pastoral problem of evil, that is, the
problem of what we should do in the face of evil; the theological
construction of a theodicy, that is, an account of why God permits
there to be evil; and the philosophical problem of God’s very
existence, given a supposed contradiction between his nature and a
world containing evil. He also goes on to argue that there are some
possible solutions to the problem that involve limiting God’s
powers, that are not available to us if we wish to deal with a god that
fulfils the criteria set out in traditional accounts of his nature. As
the chapter from which the given text is taken proceeds, the author
explores different forms of argument with alternative premises and
conclusions, exploring the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Having said all that, let us try our answer again:
Although the problem of evil appears to be easy to state, it is not.

Yandell approaches it as a philosophical issue that should be sep-
arated from questions about how we face evil (a pastoral issue)
and the theological examination of the nature of evil (a theodicy).
As the passage shows, he is concerned to find a logically accept-
able way of both expressing and exploring arguments that show
the existence of evil is in conflict with God’s existence. He does not
think it is obvious that such an argument can be readily con-
structed. He considers a simple consistency argument first. The
statements ‘God exists’ and ‘there is evil’ are not, by themselves,

logically inconsistent and further premises are required. What
these extra premises are, and how they should be used, is what
makes the problem of evil interesting to philosophers. (139 words)
There are improvements still to be made to this, that turn on

developing a more concise style, but we have made a very decent
attempt.
Let us turn to (b). In the paragraph the author says that only a
‘sound valid argument’ will work to express the problem of evil. We
have now been asked to say more explicitly what this means. In (a)
we focused on showing our understanding of the author’s use of
terms. Here we are asked to give an answer, without explicitly being
told to do so in the context of philosophy of religion. As we have
seen already, arguments are central to philosophy, so sound and
valid arguments are a characteristic of good philosophy. So we need
to check we know and can show three things:
• what arguments are;

• what valid arguments are;
• what sound arguments are.
Only then can we show we understand how these all fit together.
Again, you need to check your notes and the recommended
reading carefully. Can we use a good quotation perhaps, taking care
not to plagiarize either the course notes or textbooks?
We already know that an argument involves our stating an infer-
ence of some kind; it involves our showing how we move from one
statement of fact (a declarative statement) to a conclusion as another
statement of fact. And there is a basic way of stating what one form
of valid argument is: it is one where the premises cannot be true and
the conclusion then be false. But, if we have been paying attention
to our course on critical thinking and logic we will at this point
have to note that this is a definition for a deductively valid argument.
It does not matter too much if you do not know what this
means at the moment. The point is that we are in a position to
demonstrate our understanding to the reader by showing that the
author is not being specific enough in what he says. We are making
a small critical point that really gets to the core of what is meant.
Being able to do so is a very valuable way of both writing a better

essay and conveying our real engagement with the issue, so we need
to make sure that we state this in our answer.
Soundness is a property of arguments that we have already
examined in Chapter 2, ‘Reading philosophy’. An argument may
well be valid, but if one or more of its premises are actually false, no
matter how good the argument is, we cannot rely on the conclusion
to be true. A sound argument not only has a valid form, but it also
has true premises, and therefore, a true conclusion.
So we are in a position to begin with a straightforward definition.
However, the question asks us to use examples to illustrate our
answer. This may seem to be a problem, in that we have to do more
work to construct them. However, examples are perfect ways for
clarifying a point, to ourselves as well as others, and we should view
them as an opportunity to engage further and demonstrate our
knowledge.
Below is a sample of what an answer to (b) might look like:
An argument is an inference from a set of declarative statements,

the premises, to a further declarative statement, the conclusion.
There are different forms of argument. Two basic forms are recog-
nized in logic, deductive and inductive. Although Yandell does
not say so, in the context of the problem of evil he is looking for
deductively valid and sound arguments. A valid argument cannot
have true premises and a false conclusion. A sound argument is
one where the premises are satisfied by a state of affairs in the
world, i.e. they can be taken to be true. Thus, a sound valid
(deductive) argument will be one that states an inference from true
premises to a true conclusion that follows from the form of the
argument itself. We can illustrate these ideas as follows:
‘Is it Tuesday?’ and ‘Look out!’ cannot be part of an argument
because they are not declarative statements. ‘Martin Shaw is an
actor’, ‘Smoking causes cancer’ and ‘God does not exist’ can be,
and they could be true or false depending on how things are in
reality.
A valid argument:
Premise 1: All daleks are compassionate.
Premise 2: Sec is a dalek.
Conclusion: Therefore, Sec is compassionate.

This is valid because, if the premises are taken to be true, the
conclusion must be so also. It is valid because of its form, not
because of whether the premises are in fact true.
The following argument is valid and sound because the premises
are true, and therefore the conclusion is:
Premise 1: Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of the
UK from 1979 until 1990.
Premise 2: The Prime Minister of the UK is also First Lord
of the Treasury.
Conclusion: Therefore, Margaret Thatcher was First Lord
of the Treasury from 1979 until 1990.
(298 words)
Even if you did not start out seeing the bigger picture, by now
you should appreciate the general trend of our answers. Yandell
wants to explore the problem of evil in a clear and logical way. We
have answered (a) and (b) and have begun to explore the problem
itself and what the form of the problem could be for Yandell. We
now turn to (c) which asks us to apply ideas from (a) and (b) to
make up good arguments that fulfil Yandell’s criteria. We shall not
present a sample answer here. It is good for you to think about how
you would do so for yourself. Again, the basic rules apply. Some-
thing a little more in-depth is needed compared with what we have
written so far, since there are more marks available. We also need to
check back on our reading and notes to see what we have already
encountered that can be helpful. So what might you write? It is
worth bearing in mind that you are asked to critique the argument
you construct in (c) as your answer in (d); what you say in (c) must
be capable of further analysis, but you do not want to write any of
the critical side of the argument yet.
(d) asks you to assess critically the success of your work in (c).
Effectively you are being asked to present the pros and cons of a
form of the problem of evil argument, using the ideas already
explored.
We have seen that there is a skill to getting the right kind of
information in a short structured series of answers. They are not
straightforward, but often offer an opportunity to focus on specific
parts of a philosophical argument or theory. And the strategies we

have explored here apply in many contexts in writing philosophy
generally.
Assessment and feedback

The purpose of assessment
Since most of the essays and papers you will write will be for the
purpose of assessment, it is useful to consider what assessment in
philosophy is for. Most of this chapter has explored ways in which
you can maximize your performance in terms of what others think
about your writing, but you should not forget the role of writing in
understanding and critically examining your work for yourself.
Assessing your own work is as important as having others do it for
you, if you want to make the best of your writing time and effort.
Assessment can be more than getting a mark to pass a part of the
course. In fact it is possible to divide it into two basic sorts:
• formative assessment: looking at work and ideas as you

develop, providing feedback on how you may improve in the
future;
• summative assessment: judgements on your performance
and more often than not giving you a mark to indicate your
level of success.
You can probably see that these are not mutually exclusive: summa-
tive assessment can sometimes provide you with useful feedback.
Indeed, it will be crucial to your academic development that you
learn how to build on what you have already accomplished in your
written work to improve your philosophical skills, so in this sense,
everything you write before your final exams or assignments,
whether it is to be assessed or not, could be considered formative.
If this is to be the case, however, you need to think carefully about
what you do with written work when you get it back from your
tutor.
Why bother with feedback?

So you have completed your first assignment and handed it in for
assessment. Some time later, your tutor returns your essay to you.
What do you do with it?
It is tempting just to read the grade you have been awarded, and
then cast the essay aside. After all, that piece of work is finished –
what more is needed? Surely there is little point in re-reading the
essay – especially if your grade is lower than you had hoped.
This is a common, but misguided, response. It overlooks the fact
that your completed and assessed assignments are, in turn, another
resource you can use for your future study. As well as grading your
essay, your tutor will have provided written comments to give
you feedback on how to improve your work in the future. If you
disregard these, you are wasting your tutor’s time and missing a
valuable source of guidance for your own learning. It is foolish to
tackle your next assignment without having learnt as much as you
can from your previous experience – especially if your grade is lower
than you had hoped.
Even so, you might think there is little to be learned from your
previous assignment – it was probably on a completely different
topic from your next essay, and what help is feedback on your
interpretation of Descartes’ theory of the mind when you are try-
ing to prepare a critique of Kant’s ethics? Admittedly, a better
understanding of Descartes’ theory may not be of direct assistance,
but it may benefit you in your end of year exams, or in future
philosophy courses. Furthermore, as we emphasize throughout this
book, philosophy is not only about understanding important theor-
ies; it is also about developing your own skills of critical analysis –
and these can be applied equally well to any area of philosophy. So
you may have much to learn from your tutor’s feedback on your
philosophical skills, which can be applied in your next assignment.
It is worthwhile to obtain as much feedback as you can on the
strengths and weaknesses of your philosophical efforts to date, so
that you can learn from this to continue to improve in the future.
In the next sections, we will consider how you can obtain useful
feedback on your work, and how to make best use of what you
discover from it.
Sources of feedback
Perhaps the most obvious source of feedback is your tutor’s com-
ment on your written work; and we will focus our attention on
this, as it is expressly designed for the purpose of providing you
with formative feedback. It also has the advantage of being a formal,
written record which you can consult whenever appropriate. How-

ever, it is important to remember that there are a number of other
ways in which to gather feedback, which are perhaps less formal but
no less valuable.
As we discussed in the previous chapter, seminars are a key
opportunity to test your philosophical thinking. When you raise a
point in discussion, how do your fellow seminar participants
respond? Do they understand your point? Do they agree with it?
What reasons do they give for their response? Are they good ones?
This is providing you with useful feedback on how effectively you
are learning to develop and express your ideas.
It is important to bear in mind that feedback from your fellow
students is just as useful as feedback from your tutor. It is often only
when we try to explain an issue to someone else, that we gain a true
understanding of how well we grasp it ourselves – and, of course,
developing this understanding is precisely the aim of completing
your philosophy assignments. So, if you have the opportunity – if
you have a willing friend, for instance – it is a useful exercise to ask a
fellow student to read your draft assignment (and if she is studying
a different subject, this can be an even more effective test). If she
does not understand your argument, this is probably a good indica-
tor that you need to unpack it more carefully.
Be creative in seeking feedback. Below are a few suggestions –
can you think of any other sources, or methods, for obtaining
feedback on your work?
Who?
Tutors Students
Written • Assignment grades • Comments on draft

and comments essays (but see below)
• Discussion on email, • Discussion on email,
blogs, etc. blogs, etc.
How?
Verbal • Seminar discussion • Seminar discussion
• Individual tutorials • Study groups
(see your tutor in his/
her ‘office hours’)
A note of caution, though: be careful how you obtain and use

detailed feedback on your work. It is permissible – indeed, valuable
– to compare notes with your fellow students on draft assignments;
however, it is not permissible to use another student’s ideas and
present them as if they are your own – this constitutes cheating
(collusion or plagiarism). For more detailed guidance on this, see
the earlier section of this chapter ‘How to avoid plagiarism’; your
department will also be able to provide advice on your university’s
particular guidelines and regulations on this.
Understanding your feedback

‘So . . . now I have the feedback . . . what am I to do with it?’6 This
is not always as obvious as we might think or hope, so we will
explore the issue in more detail.
Much of the guidance offered below can be summarized in the
phrase: Treat your feedback as you would any other resource in
philosophy. That is to say, you need to analyse it in order to be able
to use it most effectively. The general comments below are an
elucidation of how this might be applied to feedback in particular,
identifying some common areas for consideration.
Calibration: how does it compare to what you expected?

It is a useful exercise to assess your work yourself, independently of
(and ideally before) any formal feedback from your peers or tutor.
Do you think it is a good piece of philosophy? What are its best and
worst aspects, and why? What grade do you think it merits?
Now compare this to what you have been told by others. Were
you surprised (pleasantly or otherwise) by your tutor’s feedback?
How did it differ from your own assessment?
This exercise helps you to analyse your own understanding of
what is expected of you. If there are significant gaps between your
assessment and that of your tutor, then you can use this feedback
to help you calibrate, or fine-tune, your own understanding of what
is required of you in philosophy; and this in turn should help you to
ensure that you focus and develop your philosophical work more
effectively in the future.
Some examples might help to clarify this:
• Did you think you had understood a particular idea quite
readily, only to find that your tutor corrected your interpret-
ation? (Alternatively, did you feel that you had struggled to

grasp an idea, but your tutor commended your account?) This
may help you to get a feel for whether you have identified
the appropriate level of argument analysis, both in your read-
ing and in your writing.
• Does your tutor praise one aspect of your essay – leading you
to expect a high grade – but award a lower grade and criticize
what you have not said? (Common examples of this might
be that you have provided a good explanatory account of a
theory, but not enough analysis of your own – or vice versa.)
This will help you to develop a sense of the relative impor-
tance of descriptive explanation and critical evaluation in
philosophy, for instance. This can be particularly important if
you are used to writing essays for other subjects – what counts
as a good essay in English or psychology may not do so in
philosophy; and vice versa.
• Do you feel your tutor has misinterpreted your work? If
this is the case, then the onus is on you to explain your ideas
more clearly and unambiguously. Your tutor may indeed have
failed to grasp your meaning – and this will not be a wilful
misreading, but rather an indication that your exposition was
not as clear as you thought. Your assignment needs to demon-
strate your understanding; your tutor should not need to fill
in the gaps on your behalf, so nothing should be taken for
granted. Try to identify the source of the misunderstanding –
for example, have you omitted some background infor-
mation? Were your ideas less precisely expressed than you
thought? This should help you to develop a clearer sense of
what you need to do in order to communicate your ideas
more effectively in future.
Identifying strengths and weaknesses

It is often easy – for you and for your tutor – to focus on what has
gone wrong. Mistakes tend to ‘jump out’ at you and demand your
attention, whereas that which does not pose a problem can fade
into the background; mistakes also demand your attention in
another sense, insofar as you need to do or change something to put
them right, whereas often no action is needed for what is already
right.
This analysis helps us to understand why feedback often focuses

on the negative aspects of your work. You may still find it hard to
respond constructively – criticism is difficult to receive, so we try to
avoid it; and if we do receive it, we can be left feeling disempowered
rather than motivated to improve.
For these reasons, it is important to devote effort to identifying
strengths as well as weaknesses in your work. What did you do right
– what earned you the marks you gained? Sometimes this will be
spelt out for you – did your tutor note that your work was ‘well
organized’, or ‘thoroughly researched’, for example? At other times,
it will be implicit. What aspects of your assignment merited a tick,
but no comment? This may indicate that your tutor felt there was
nothing further to add, because you had already demonstrated the
key philosophical points she was looking for.
It is easy to overlook this step, but it is important to note your
strengths, so that you can ensure that you continue to build on
them. Only against this backdrop can you effectively address your
weaknesses – otherwise you risk changing your approach to correct
your errors, only to find that in doing so you have also undermined
your philosophical strengths. For example, it will benefit you little if
you respond to a comment to ‘say more about your own thinking’,
if in doing so you neglect the ‘good summary of complex material’
which is also a key criterion for your philosophy assignment, and
which earned you a respectable grade in the first place.
Be aware that some tutors tend to give more feedback to those
students who have engaged more thoroughly with the task. If your
work is already at a high level, they may engage with your ideas in
more critical depth. This is because they want you to continue to
improve, and so are responding to your work in a way that they
might well respond to the paper of an academic colleague. So if you
feel that your carefully crafted arguments are being systematically
dismantled rather unsympathetically by your tutor, this might be a
sign of respect, rather than that you are not hitting the right level.
(Of course, this is only true if you are also awarded a high mark!)
You may find it helpful to categorize your feedback systematic-
ally into positive and negative comments; and to compare different
sets of feedback – this will help you to identify any patterns of
strength and weakness. Your department may use a standard ‘feed-
back form’ – if so, then this task will be made easier for you, as the
form will have been designed specifically to categorize the feed-

back into key areas, and you can directly compare your feedback in,
say, the ‘presentation’ category for each assignment. There are also
various general tools available to help you analyse your feedback –
see Chapter 6, ‘Resources’, for some suggestions.
For example: perhaps both your ethics tutor, and the comments
on your Descartes essay, suggest that you make some good indi-
vidual points, but that it can be difficult to follow your line of
argument – this might suggest that you are doing some good
philosophical work in identifying issues, but that you would benefit
from developing further your skills in organizing your ideas into a
clear and consistent structure.
Tackling areas of uncertainty

These suggestions all rely upon one crucial assumption – that you
understand the feedback you have received. Unfortunately, this
may not always be the case. Written comments on your assign-
ments, in particular, tend to be very brief – you may even find that
one of your statements has been annotated simply with a ‘?’. Or
perhaps you struggle to decipher your tutor’s handwriting?
The golden rule, as always, is: If you do not understand – ask. If
you prefer, consult fellow students first – have they received similar
feedback, and do they understand its significance? Do not be afraid
to approach your tutor – she made the comment because she
wanted you to learn from it; and to seek clarification is to engage in
academic dialogue, which is a key part of university life in general,
and philosophy in particular.
Using your feedback

This analytical work should help you to build up a picture of your
current strengths and weaknesses. But this picture will not alone
transform those strengths and weaknesses overnight (or to put it in
terms favoured by philosophers, this understanding is necessary but
not sufficient to ensure your improvement) – you will need also to
act on it.
In this context, talk of ‘feedback’ is misleading – the emphasis
should be on looking forward, not back. How can you use the
insights you have gained in order to inform and enhance your
future learning?
The focus here will naturally be on responding to the critical

comments you receive. Positive feedback will also identify action
points, in terms of aspects you wish to continue to practise. Again,
in this context the term ‘criticism’ can be seen as a misnomer – the
focus of such feedback is not to criticize you, but to provide you
with pointers for improvement: it is intended to help you, not to
hurt you. Your task is to respond to it positively, and to address the
weaknesses identified by your feedback.
Sometimes the action needed will already be implicit in the
feedback itself. If your tutor’s comments include ‘digression’ or
‘not relevant’, take steps that help you to focus more sharply on the
question set. For example, write the essay title at the top of every
page, and for every paragraph you write, stop and ask yourself how
this contributes towards answering the question. If appropriate,
identify additional tools that will help you to take the action needed
– for example, do you need to find out more about referencing
procedures in order to meet your tutor’s recommendations about
improving your academic writing? Where can you find these?
Chapter 6 on ‘Resources’ should provide a good starting point.
If you are not clear what action is needed, then seek further
advice from your tutor or study skills centre – it is inadvisable
to disregard feedback simply because you do not know how
to respond to it. However, it will sometimes be appropriate to
prioritize your efforts:
• Which areas of weakness are most frequently identified in
your feedback?
• Which weaknesses are having the most significant effect on
your performance?
Often this will be obvious – to take an extreme example: occa-
sional spelling errors will often be corrected by your tutor, but will
not seriously reduce your grade; however, failure to reference your
sources properly could result in your assignment being failed for
plagiarism. Another factor to consider when prioritizing your
response to feedback could also be ‘how much work is required to
correct the weakness?’ – in which context spelling mistakes con-
stitute a good action point, as they are relatively simple to address.
Sometimes the significance of an issue is less obvious – for instance,
grammatical weaknesses vary from the trivial to those that seriously
undermine the clarity of your argument. Again, if you remain

unclear where to start in responding to feedback, it is wise to seek
further guidance.
Summary
This chapter has given an overview of what it means to write
philosophically, building on the skills you have already been practis-
ing through reading, taking notes and engaging in discussion. It has
shown you how you can build your own arguments and create
your own philosophical work that sits within the context of an
established body of philosophical writing.
You have also been presented with various example methods for
the task of writing essays and papers, and for applying the tech-
niques of philosophical criticism and argument analysis to your
own writing, so that you can improve your philosophical skills
incrementally with every assignment that you complete. In taking
part in this continuous learning process, you are well on the way to
becoming a philosopher.
Notes
1 www.leeds.ac.uk/arts/studyskills/learningandteachingatuniversity/
media/AssCode%20Marking%20criteria%20%20descriptors.doc
2 Gower, Barry S., ‘The environment and justice for future generations’
in Cooper, David E. and Palmer, Joy A. (eds) (1995), Just Environments,
Intergenerational, International and Interspecies Issues. London: Routledge,
p. 49
3 ‘Exegesis’ is a technical academic term which you are likely to
encounter – it means, roughly, the interpretation and explanation of a
text.
4 This is inevitably a very incomplete account of Leibniz’s theory. As
always, you will need to do your own research to augment your under-
standing – this is a sketch for an essay, not a fully developed argument.
5 Yandell, Keith E. (1999), Philosophy of Religion. London: Routledge,
p. 125.
6 This is a direct quotation from a first-year student, cited in Burke,
Deirdre (2007), ‘Engaging students in personal development planning:
profiles, skills development and acting on feedback’. Discourse vol. 6,
no. 2, p. 124.
6 Resources
As students at university you will have access to a huge range of

resources. In this chapter we will look at the kind of resources you
will be expected to use, and how to get the most out of them.
The two most obvious starting places when looking for resources
are the library and the internet. In addition, there are various kinds
of support systems in universities that will also help you to make the
most of your time spent studying for your degree.
This chapter ends with a brief section on some useful philo-
sophical terms that you will probably come across during the
course of your studies.
Library resources
Your university’s libraries will host a wide range of resources, both
hard-copy books and journals, and electronic resources such as
CD-ROMs, subscriber-only databases and on-line material. The
library website will probably give you a good idea of what is avail-
able. It is likely that there will also be specialist librarians dedicated
to your subject, who will be able to point you to the most appro-
priate resources for whichever topic you are researching, and could
save you hours in searching for specific resources.
It is a good idea to familiarize yourself with the library as soon
as you arrive at university, as you will need to spend a fair amount
of time there if you are to do well in your degree. Most libraries
will run induction courses for new students, explaining how to use
the catalogue and where books and journals for your subject are
held, and we advise that you attend any such sessions offered at your
institution.
RESOURCES 167
Books
The library will probably hold a good selection of philosophy
books, and it is very unlikely that there will be texts on your reading
lists that are not stocked; your lecturers will have checked that the
library holds the relevant texts before recommending them, and if
they anticipate that there will be high demand for a particular book,
it is likely that it will be placed in a short-loan or high-demand
section, so that all students will have access to it.
If you do have trouble getting hold of a particular book, most
libraries offer a document supply service. This means that if you
have the reference details of a particular book or article, but your
university library does not stock it, they will often be able to order a
copy of it for you. This can be expensive, and while most libraries
will subsidize the cost of obtaining such items you may be required
to pay a small fee.
An alternative approach is to find out if there are other university
libraries you can visit (near your own university, or perhaps near
your home), and if so, to enquire whether you are able to use their
facilities – many university libraries offer reciprocal arrangements
which enable students and staff from other institutions to access
their resources. Your university librarians will be able to offer more
detailed advice about this.
Apart from the books on your reading lists, we recommend the
books below as useful, no matter which specific philosophers and
topics your course covers.
Specialist philosophy dictionaries and encyclopaedias

These can be useful for getting an overview of a topic, and
often provide suggestions of classic texts in the area and further
reading:
• Audi, R. (ed.) (1995), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Blackburn, S. (2005), The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy.
• Craig, E. (ed.) (1998): Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
London, New York: Routledge.
• Flew, A. (ed.) (1984), A Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd rev. edn).
London: Pan in association with the Macmillan Press.
• Honderich, T. (ed.) (2005), The Oxford Companion to

Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Mautner, T. (ed.) (1998), The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd.
See ‘Internet resources’ below for on-line encyclopaedias of
philosophy.
Introductions to the subject of philosophy

If you are still unsure about whether you want to study philosophy
at degree level, this kind of book can provide more information
about the topics you might cover:
• Blackburn, S. (1999), Think: A Compelling Introduction to
Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hollis, M. (1985), Invitation to Philosophy. Oxford:
Blackwell
• Nagel, T. (1987), What Does It All Mean? A Very Short Introduc-
tion to Philosophy. London and New York: Oxford University
Press.
• Warburton, N. (1999), Philosophy: The Basics (3rd edn).
London: Routledge.
Philosophy study guides

There are some guides that aim to cover specific areas of studying
philosophy in more depth:
• Guttenplan, S., Hornsby, J. and Janaway, C. (2002), Reading

Philosophy: An Introductory Text with Readers. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.
• Martinich, A. P. (1997), Philosophical Writing: An Introduction.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Books about critical thinking and logic

Many students find logic more challenging than some other areas of
philosophy, but there are several books available that can help to
make the topic more accessible:
• Fisher, A. (1998), The Logic of Real Arguments. Cambridge:
• Tomassi, P. (1999), Logic. London: Routledge.
RESOURCES 169
• Walton, D. (1989), Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical

Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Weston, A. (2001), A Rulebook for Arguments. Indianapolis:
Hackett Publishing Co.
Generic study skills books

While there are many aspects of studying for a degree in philosophy
that we believe require subject-specific advice (hence this book),
here are some more general books about the kinds of study skills
you need to develop while at university:
• Chambers, E. and Northedge, A. (1997), The Arts Good Study
Guide. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Race, P. (1998), How to Get a Good Degree. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Journals
The library will probably subscribe to various philosophy journals.
This means that when a new edition of a particular journal is pub-
lished they will receive a hard copy, or if the journal is electronic,
on-line access will be granted, usually through a username and pass-
word system.
Many of the items on your reading lists are likely to be journal
articles, and some may have been reprinted in anthologies. If you
have trouble getting hold of an anthology containing an article
you need, try finding the journal in which it was originally
published.
As mentioned above, some journals are available on-line as well
as in hard copy, and your library will be able to give you more
information about which on-line services they subscribe to and
how to access them. Again, if there is an item that your library does
not hold you may be able to request it through the document
supply service.
Some journals aimed specifically at undergraduates are:
• The Richmond Journal of Philosophy: www.rutc.ac.uk/rjp/
• The British Journal of Undergraduate Philosophy: www.bups.org/
pages/bjup.shtml
There are many journals in philosophy published each year, and
you may be wondering how you should go about finding articles
that are relevant to your topic if they are not already on your
reading list. One way is to look through the contents pages (either
hard copy or on-line) of journals relevant to the topic you are
researching. If you are not sure which journals to look at in the first
place, there are several databases that can help you to find what you
need. Consult your university library about how to access these.
Databases
With so many books, journals and articles about philosophy
available, databases are an essential tool. Listed here are the major
databases used by those working in philosophy.
The Philosopher’s Index

This is a key philosophy database, regularly updated, containing
bibliographic information and author-written abstracts about a
vast array of journal articles and books published worldwide since
1940.
The Web of Science

This database provides access to a range of multidisciplinary papers
and books. It searches the Science Citation Index (1900–present),
Social Science Citation Index (1956–present) and Arts and
Humanities Citation Index (1975–present), and each database is
updated weekly.
The British Humanities Index

This database indexes over 320 journals in the humanities, as well as
weekly magazines and quality newspapers. It covers publications
from the UK and other English-speaking countries, and is updated
monthly.
Copyright
As a student, you have an interest in copyright from two points
of view: the copyright of the authors you read, and the copyright of
your own work. Copyright means the right of the owner of a text
to prevent anyone else from reproducing it. Copyright laws
came into being to protect authors who lost money because
unscrupulous publishers would print pirate editions of their works
without paying them any royalties.
Infringing the copyright of an author may seem like plagiarism,
RESOURCES 171
but there is the essential difference that you can be guilty of

infringing copyright even if you acknowledge your source, and you
can be guilty of plagiarism even if the source is out of copyright.
This is because there are stringent limits on the amount of material
you can copy. You are allowed to quote copyright material in order
to comment on it, but there is an understanding (not enshrined in
law) that you can quote no more than 400 words. It is extremely
unlikely that you would want to quote more than this in a
philosophy essay. As we pointed out in Chapter 5, ‘Writing
philosophy’, your aim is to demonstrate your analysis and
argumentation skills, not just copy out text.
As for your own writings, the default position is that you own
the copyright of your work unless you have signed a document
which explicitly transfers your copyright to your university.
Normally, when you submit an essay or an exam script, you give
the university the material piece of paper on which you have
written, but the intellectual property remains yours.
Referencing
Different lecturers and departments have different referencing
requirements. If information about which referencing system to use
is not provided in your course or module documentation, you
should check with your lecturer or tutor which system they prefer.
Below are details about how to use the main types of referencing.
Harvard referencing
When using Harvard referencing you should list all the sources you
cite in your essay alphabetically by author in the bibliography.
When you use a quotation or refer to one of your sources in the
main body of the essay you make a note just after it in brackets of
the author’s surname, year the source was published, and the page
you refer to.
For example, in an essay on moral theory the following sentence
might appear:
Simon Blackburn claims that ‘we should not theorize about morality and
ethics as if they are in the business of describing aspects of the world’
(Blackburn, 1996, 83).
In the bibliography the full reference would look like this:
Blackburn, Simon, (1996), ‘Securing the nots: moral epistemology

for the quasi-realist’, in Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter and Timmons,
Mark, Moral Knowledge: New Readings in Moral Epistemology. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Footnote referencing
With this system, footnotes contain the full reference information.
So, the example above would look like this:
Simon Blackburn claims that ‘we should not theorize about morality and
ethics as if they are in the business of describing aspects of the world’.1
1
Blackburn, Simon, ‘Securing the nots: moral epistemology for the quasi-realist’,
in Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter and Timmons, Mark, Moral Knowledge: New Readings
in Moral Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 83.
When using this system of referencing, once you have given the
first full reference, and if you quote from no other source by the
same author in your essay, you can use just the author’s surname
and the relevant page for any further references from that text. For
example, a reference later in the same essay would look like this:
As Blackburn points out, the correct response to the relativistic threat is
to consider the external standpoint that the objector asks us to occupy
(Blackburn, p. 89).
If you do use more than one source by the same author in your
essay, you should also include the title of the work (although this
can be in a shortened form when the reference is repeated if the
title is a long one, as long as it is obvious which source you are
referring to).
If you access a journal on-line that is also printed in hard copy
you should reference it as you would the hard copy. If the journal is
only published on-line you should reference it as you would for a
hard-copy journal article but ensure you add the URL and date
you accessed the article.
Internet resources
The internet contains a vast amount of freely accessible informa-
tion. (There are other on-line resources such as databases and
RESOURCES 173
on-line journals, but these are not usually free to members of the
public, and often require you to log in using your university or
library username and password. These are covered in the section on
library resources.) New students may not know where to start look-
ing for useful, high quality philosophy resources. You may be
tempted to use general resources such as Wikipedia, and while the
articles written for this type of site can be informative, you should
not rely on them as definitive sources. It can be difficult to know
which sites contain reliable information, and which are of less high
quality. If you use a search engine to find resources on a particular
topic there are several checks you can make to ensure that the sites
you use are reliable:
• Does it tell you when the page was created, by whom, and
the last time it was updated?
• If an individual has created the page,
do they have relevant qualifications or experience that
make them an expert in the particular field?
Do they work for a Higher Education Institution (HEI), or
other reputable educational organization?
• If there is no individual author listed, but the page is owned by
an organization, what sort of organization is it?
Is it a university or other educational institution? If so,
look at their web page; is it a reputable institution? For
example, are they funded by the government or by some
other means? If you use a search engine to find informa-
tion about them does their website come near the top of
the list of results?
If the page owner is not an HEI, are they:
• a government organization?
• a commercial organization?
• a non-profit organization?
• a charity?
• an individual?
• What qualifies the author or owner of the source as expert in
the field you are researching?
• Is the information presented in a balanced way?
• Is the content of the page grammatically correct?
• Are any sources used cited and referenced properly?
If you do use an internet resource while writing an essay you

must reference it just as you would if you use hard-copy resources.
There are different ways you can do this, and you should check
with your department which they prefer. There are two points that
you should always remember; (1) include the full URL, and (2)
include the date on which you viewed the page.
While there are many reliable and useful resources on-line, we do
not list many of them here. This is because the fast pace of change of
the internet means that pages can go out of date quickly, or disap-
pear altogether. However, those listed here are long-standing sites
that are well known for their high quality and regular updates,
which we believe will still be relevant in years to come. They also
provide gateways to many more useful resources.
EpistemeLinks www.epistemelinks.com
This is a very well-established website that has been in development
since 1997. It categorizes links to philosophy resources on the inter-
net by philosopher, topic, and type of resource, as well as hosting
resources of its own.
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.
edu
The SEP is an on-line encyclopaedia that has been available since
1995. The entries in it are maintained and kept up to date by
experts whose work is refereed by an editorial board. This means
that the content of the SEP is of a high quality, and many lecturers
recommend it to their students as a useful supplement to hard-copy
books.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy www.utm.edu/research/
iep
The IEP is similar to the SEP in that it contains original articles by
specialists in philosophy, which are also of a high quality.
Intute www.intute.ac.uk
Intute is a publicly funded service that employs subject specialists
to catalogue on-line resources in various different subjects. There are
useful entries on philosophy in the arts and humanities section of
the site.
RESOURCES 175
Google Scholar scholar.google.com

This is a useful resource for searching for peer-reviewed papers,
theses, books, abstracts and articles, from academic publishers,
professional societies, preprint repositories, universities and other
scholarly organizations. You can search by keyword or sentences.
The site allows detailed multiple search criteria, and has some very
useful features such as ‘Cited by . . .’, and ‘Related articles’.
Support systems
Student centres
Many HEIs have centres that support students in their study skills,
frequently called student centres, study skills centres, skills centres
and various other names. Such centres typically offer short courses,
documentation and one-to-one help with aspects of study that you
find problematic. They often have websites with information about
how to improve your study skills, and where to get more help.
Careers centres
Your university will almost certainly have a careers centre, where
you can access a range of services. Most careers centres will offer
events, modules, workshops, talks, advice and guidance around all
aspects of deciding on and starting out in the career you want.
There will be information available about career development
and planning, for example, resources covering what is involved in
different jobs, and workshops on CV-writing or how to do well
in interviews. There will be information about work experience
opportunities, and talks by businesses and other employers in the
region. The careers centre will also run graduate recruitment fairs
at various points during the year.
Disability services
If you have a specific disability, for example, you are dyslexic, visu-
ally- or hearing- or mobility-impaired, your university disability
service will be able to provide information, guidance and support.
These can include specialist software, extra exam time, note-taking,
transcription (for example, lecture notes in Braille) and audio
services. While some people are disinclined to use support services
because of some perceived stigma attached to needing ‘help’, they
are there to be used, and you should make the most of the services
your institution offers. You should contact the disability service at
your institution to find out more about the specific support offered.
Philosophy societies
Many departments have student philosophy societies. These are
groups run by and for students, and can be a good way to get to
know fellow philosophers. They often run social events, lectures
and even conferences, and provide a focus for those particularly
interested in the subject to meet like-minded people.
Subject associations
The British Undergraduate Philosophy Society www.bups.org
This society was founded in 2005 to provide a link for philosophy
students studying at different institutions. It runs quarterly con-
ferences, publishes a journal of undergraduate essays and papers
presented at the conferences, and provides support for philosophy
societies in institutions. It is run by and for students, and maintains
email discussion lists for philosophy students across the UK.
The British Postgraduate Philosophy Association

www.bppa-on-line.org/community
This is a volunteer organization originally formed in 1997 to pro-
mote quality postgraduate philosophy; it expanded in 2005 to cover
all traditions in philosophy, and to support prospective and recent
as well as current postgraduate students. It organizes an annual con-
ference and biannual masterclasses, and also provides an on-line
discussion forum.
The British Philosophical Association www.britphil.ac.uk

This association, restructured and re-branded in 2003 from its pre-
vious incarnation as the National Committee for Philosophy
(NCP), serves as the main professional body for philosophy within
British higher education. Its membership is open to individual
professional philosophers, to philosophy departments (or their
equivalents) in HE institutions, and to philosophical learned
societies.
RESOURCES 177
Some useful philosophical terms

The following list is intended to be a basic beginner’s guide to some
of the terms you may come across in philosophy texts. You will
not be surprised to learn that the meaning of these terms is often
the subject of philosophical discussion and debate. You are strongly
encouraged to compare the definitions given with other, more
comprehensive philosophical dictionaries and how you see the
words used in the texts you are asked to read.
Metaphysical terms
These are words that are used to say something about the way
the world is, or could possibly be, as opposed to what we may
know about the world or how we may use language to refer to that
world.
Essence and accident

This is a distinction about the kinds of properties something has.
Consider a taxi. It has many properties, such as having four wheels,
being a certain colour, having a steering wheel in the driver’s cab,
having seats, having certain dimensions and so on. Metaphysicians
also think about its relative properties, that is, properties it has in
relation to other parts of the world, such as being a certain distance
from the pavement, being between two trees, being the fifth in a
row of other taxis. Now we can ask whether any of these properties
are definitive for its being a taxi – are there any properties we could
not change without changing this thing from being a taxi to being
something else entirely? For example, a taxi in London is usually
black, but one in New York is yellow, so being a particular colour is
an accidental property. An accident, when we are talking about
properties, is something that could change in an object without the
object ceasing to be what it is. An essential property, on the other
hand, is one that an object must possess to be that thing. A taxi
could not be a taxi without being material (made of matter) or
without being capable of carrying passengers at all. Properties of
this sort comprise the taxi’s essence.
What makes up an essence for a thing of a certain sort is another
thorny question that philosophers have struggled with over the
years. Take water for example. Is its essence that its molecules are
H2O? Or does its essence reside in other properties? What do you

think?
Necessary and contingent

A property, object or event is described as being necessary if it
could not be otherwise. That is, if it is impossible for it be different.
For example, is it possible that 2 + 2 = 5 and ‘2’, ‘+’, ‘=’ and ‘5’ mean
what they do? It is surely the case that 2 + 2 = 4 and nothing else
and that it is impossible for this to be otherwise. On the other hand,
it is possible that any specific cup on my desk could have been blue
instead of white. Nothing impossible is implied by that. So this
condition of the world, the colour of the cup, is said to be con-
tingent. Philosophers have also debated this distinction over the
years and have tried to understand what we mean when we say
something is possible or impossible, and when something is
necessary or contingent. Are there any necessarily existent beings?
Is God a candidate? You will come across this distinction in lots of
different philosophical contexts and discussions.
Notice some crossover between essence and necessity here, but
a distinction too. We could say that water need not necessarily exist
(so it is contingent), but that where it does exist, it is essentially H2O.
Check that you understand this difference, by using a philosophical
dictionary and by looking at readings that use these terms in this
way.
Epistemological terms
These are words and terms that are used to help us to understand
something about knowledge – what knowledge is and what the
limits of our knowledge might be.
A priori and a posteriori

To know something a priori (pronounced ‘A-pry-or-eye’) is to
know something by reason alone without having to check that the
way things are matches. For example, although we initially learn to
count by looking at the number of things there are (counting
buttons say), we can, as users of numbers, work out calculations that
we have never encountered before, based on reason alone. We can
be confident that we have knowledge that 865,734 + 3,780,007 =
4,645,741 even though we have never counted this number of
RESOURCES 179
objects. The rules of mathematics and reason give us the know-

ledge. Similarly, we know a priori that all the squares there are (or
could be) have four sides and four angles – we do not need to check
them all: indeed, working from the rules about geometry we know,
we do not need to check any at all. Some philosophers, such as
Descartes whom we have already encountered, go further and make
much stronger claims about what we can know a priori and there
has been a great deal of contention about the status of a priori
knowledge. Some philosophers have claimed that moral principles
or the existence of God can be known a priori. There is no doubt
that you will encounter and be asked to engage with the a priori in
your studies.
To know something a posteriori (pronounced ‘A-poss-tee-ree-
or-eye’) is to know something primarily from experience. For
example, we know that it is sunny today because we can see that it is
through the window. We also know that when sodium is burnt it
burns with a yellow flame and this is known through observation
and experiment. Hume argues that all knowledge of any value is
ultimately of this nature. Again, there is a long debate about the
place of a posteriori knowledge in our accounts of the world. What
are your own thoughts?
This is a major philosophical distinction and one that occurs
again and again in the literature. It is worth making sure that you
thoroughly understand it and are able to engage with discussion
about it when you encounter it.
Semantic/logical terms
These terms are about a third way of looking at the relationship
between the world and ourselves that is concerned with the
language we use to talk about the world. So far we have discussed
how the world is or could be and how we could know about it.
These are words about how language and meaning work.
Analytic and synthetic

These terms apply to statements, sentences or propositions (claims
that can be true or false – contrast them with an exclamation or a
question). If you think about truth as something that tells you about
sentences then the distinction is about how that truth is to be
determined. The way the world is, is neither true nor false in itself;
it just is how things are. What we say about the world can be true or
false: it is the case that Christopher Eccleston has played the Doctor
in Doctor Who, which makes the sentence ‘Christopher Eccleston has
played the Doctor in Doctor Who’ true.
Analytic truths are ones that we can say are true based purely on
the meaning of the words. The classic example used in many texts is
‘all bachelors are unmarried men’ – the truth of this statement rests
in the fact that ‘bachelor’ means ‘unmarried man’. Synthetic truths
(remember this is about language not the world) have that status
because they match the way the world is, not just the way words
have meaning. For example, ‘David Tennant has played the Doctor
in Doctor Who’ is also true because it matches the world: it is a
synthetic truth. Just like the a priori/a posteriori distinction there is
a great deal of discussion and debate about this. Can you think of
ambiguous statements that could be hard to place as either analytic
or synthetic?
Index
abstract ideas 30–4 bibliography 25, 72, 171

active learning 88 see also, referencing
aesthetics 7 Blackburn, Simon 13n, 167–8,
ambiguity 56–8, 60–5 171–2
a priori and a posteriori 57, books 167
178–9 see also, texts
analytic truth buzz groups 97
see truth
annotating 79, 82 case study 4
argument clarity 101, 112, 123–4
analysing 27–9, 37–44 collaboration 119–20
finding 34–7 collusion 85, 102, 119–20, 160
soundness 37, 46 see also, plagiarism
validity 37, 46 comparative questions
see also, logic see types of question
Aristotle 19, 43, 53, 66n, 67n, conclusions
103, 105 see argument, analysing
excerpt from Ethics 43 also essay structure
assignments contested subjects 88–9
sample titles 102–3 Cooper, Glenda 102–3, 165
otherwise see chapter how to write copyright 170–1
107–65 critical analysis 71, 141–5, 158
assessment 95
and feedback 157–63
databases 170
formative 157
definitions
summative 157
see philosophical terms
Descartes, Rene 38–42, 53–4, 57,
background knowledge 41, 59, 67n, 106, 135–43, 158,
60 163, 179
and preparation 109, 110 excerpt from Principles 59
when planning an essay 126–7 descriptive questions
Beauchamp, Tom 127, 130 see types of question
182 INDEX
dialogue 31, 79, 89–90, 91, 96, see also Virtual Learning
163 Environment
dictionary 52, 58, 123–4 interpreting
list of dictionaries 167–8 texts 28, 62
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor 103–4 essay questions 145–6
empiricism 51, 60 journals

encyclopaedias 24, 167–8 see texts
online 25, 174
epistemology 6–7
Kant, Immanuel 22–4, 53, 57–8,
essays
63–5, 66n, 67n
content 123–5
excerpt from The Critique 63
examples 125–57
introductions 113–14
planning 127–9 lectures
structure 113–15 notes 77–8
style 122 slides 80–1
otherwise see chapter how to Leibniz, Gottfried 53, 90,
write 107–65 121–2, 142, 144–9,
ethics 7 165n
reading list 16–17 library 23–4
essay titles 102–3 library resources 166–73
example essays 126–35 logic 8, 37, 38,
evaluating material 71 using logic 44–8
evaluative questions
see types of question MacDonald Ross, George
67–8n, 121–2
Foot, Philippa 126, 129, 131 excerpt from Leibniz 121
free will 144–5 marking criteria 111–12
metaphysics 5–6
Midgley, Mary 13n, 84–5
Hobbes, Thomas 53–7, 62, 67n,
excerpt from philosophical
90
plumbing 84
excerpt from Leviathan 54
Hume, David 49–51, 53, 67n,
75–7, 90, 103, 105, 179 Nagel, Thomas 32–4, 66n, 67n,
excerpt from Enquiry 49, 76 168
excerpt from what is it like to be a
innate ideas 135, 136–43 bat? 32
intellectual imagination 88, 90
internet 25, 166 Oxford English Dictionary
resources 172–5 54–6, 123, 124
INDEX 183
paraphrasing 119 footnote 172

see also, quotations see also plagiarism
philosophical problems
identifying 29
analysing 132 Sartre, Jean-Paul 52–3
philosophical terms 177–80 scepticism 6
metaphysical 177–8 scope
epistemological 178–9 of words 58–9
semantic/logical 179–80 of essays 113, 130, 145
philosophy of language 8, seminars 2, 77, 90–8
123 Singer, Peter 126–7, 129
plagiarism 115–22 Socrates 89–91
see also referencing Socratic dialogue
Plato 53, 66n, 86, 89–90 see dialogue
Platonic model of philosophy sources
90 of feedback 158–60
premises recording 72
hidden/suppressed see also referencing
see argument, analysing using 120
preparation 91–4, 110 structured questions
collaborative 93–4 see types of question
essay 26, 107, 110 structured reading 28–9
seminar 25 study guides 168–9
solo 92–3 study skills books 169
subject associations 176
summarizing material 70–1
Quine, W.V.O 51, 60, 67n
support systems 175–6
excerpt from Two Dogmas of
synthetic truth
Empiricism 51
see truth
questions
analysis of 109–10
essay question list 102–3 technical language 49–53,
types of 105–6 148
underlying 4 texts
quotations types of 19–25
in notes 72, 73 anthologies 20, 169
in essays 119, 122, 130 articles 20, 21, 169–70
see also, plagiarism and referencing internet articles 173–5
journals 20, 169–70
reading lists 2 15–19 historical texts 19, 53–66
example 16 primary texts 19, 63
referencing secondary texts 20, 63
Harvard 171 textbooks 19
184 INDEX
time management 109, 110–11 underlying questions

translation 19 see questions
problems 56–66 utilitarianism 66n, 114
truth
analytic and synthetic 51, Virtual Learning Environment
179–80 99
conditions 47
tutorials Wikipedia 173
see seminars Wittgenstein, Ludwig 90, 116
types of information 74
types of question Yandell, Keith E 150, 153, 155–6,
see questions 165n

Philo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doing Philosophy

This page intentionally left blank

Clare Saunders, David Mossley,

© Clare Saunders, David Mossley, George MacDonald Ross,

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

ISBN: HB: 978-0-8264-9872-4

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk

Find ways to relate different pieces of information 74

The purpose of assessment 157

In compiling this book, we have relied not only on our own

The aim of this book is to provide a practical guide to studying

Why is this claim relevant, and what difference should it make to

An example such as this might be discussed in a number of uni-

• In law, you might explore whether Liz’s kleptomania should

What philosophers think about

societies, a metaphysician looks at the fundamental concepts and

What can be known?

scratched, getting to grips with epistemological issues can be

How should a life be lived?

What is good reasoning?

have in common? Is rationality something fixed in our brains? Is

Why study philosophy?

contain hidden assumptions or gaps which might lead us to jump to

reason; or if you believe that our will is completely determined by

What does studying philosophy involve?

however, it is worth being explicit about what to expect, as many

about their respective merits. Often there are no perfect solutions to

thrive on, these kinds of uncertainty will certainly help you to

4 Some independent evidence in support of the claim that philosophy

Philosophy, in common with most humanities subjects, is a very

The reading list

Introduction to Ethics – Reading List

Mill, J.S. (1861), Utilitarianism. Repr. in J.S. Mill and J. Bentham

Jamieson, D. (1991), ‘Method and moral theory’, in P. Singer (ed.)

Korsgaard, C.M. (1989), ‘Kant’s analysis of obligation: the argument

Understanding the reading list

Each book entry on this reading list tells you:

Author surname, initials. (Date of publication), Title of book

Rachels, J. (2007), The

Urmson, J.O. (1988),

The last item is an article in a journal. It tells you:

Author surname, initials. (Date of publication), ‘Title of article’

As with book details on a reading list, the precise format of the

Other types of text

Prioritizing your reading

Follow your lecturer’s advice

Do not be afraid to ask for more guidance

Identify the core texts for your course

Consult the library

Aim for a representative sample of texts

No single author can be completely impartial; and in many (if

How much should I read?

Follow your lecturer’s advice

Depth is more important than breadth

Proportion your efforts to the course requirements

Trust your instincts

• Interpreting the overall meaning – understanding the con-