Hello, I'm Dr. Anadale from Mount St. Mary's University in Emmitsburg, Maryland
and today I want to review a sample philosophy paper that was put online by
Angela Mendelovici of the University of Western Ontario in 2010. I think
Mendelovici gives some good advice for philosophy student papers and I want to
review some of it with you right now. Scrolling down we see the paper that she
put online begins with a title. The title, she says, should be nothing fancy, no need
to be cute, just a title and I can second this and recommend that you not try to
be witty or make a pun in your title. Simply make the title a clear statement
of exactly what you're trying to do in the paper. Beneath that all required
information: if the professor wants a particular format or word count or
student number be sure to include that. That's just elementary direction
following. And the introduction to the paper: again nothing fancy, tell the
reader what the paper's about, provide a roadmap, and conclude with your thesis.
It's never a bad idea for a beginning philosophy student to begin a paper by
stating, "In this paper I will argue that..." and follow it up with the conclusion you
intend to argue for. Scrolling down further we see that
in the second paragraph Mendelovici begins to set the context and background
that's necessary for understanding her argument. She actually spends the first
third of the paper doing this. This can be hard--you need to be
selective about what to include and the way you express yourself about the
material will help to establish for the reader, for the professor, that you know
the area that you're talking about so that your thesis can make some sense.
She does include a quote. It's important not to quote too much at length in this
initial part of the paper. You want to both quote and give examples and
paraphrase the author. Express the context and meaning of what you need to
get on the table in your own words.
Farther down Mendelovici is still advancing towards her thesis and she
brings us down, here she notes "I'm still explaining Frege's view," but she's
road mapping now. She mentions at the end of this paragraph on the second page,
"I'm not going to address all of Frege's arguments... instead I will examine this
argument." This is the writer's way of signaling to the reader that the reader
can expect certain things from what's to come. Looking further down the paper now
Frege's argument is represented, even though she disagrees with it, with
clarity and fairness. She tries to give the strongest possible statement of this
argument without pulling any punches or distorting anything. She does use an
example to explain it and goes on to explain the example.
And then at the top of the next page trying to explain Frege's argument
explicitly she does write it down in premise-premise-conclusion form.
As she notes this can be overkill although you can always do this in your notes when
you're preparing to write a paper. This does allow her though to say that she's
not going to disagree with premise one or with the validity of the argument
that connects the premises to the conclusion. Instead she says explicitly
"my disagreement will be with premise number two." This tells the reader exactly
where the disagreement between Mendelovici (the author) and Frege
(the philosopher she's engaging) will come. And it's only at this point, more than
halfway through the paper, that we get the beginning of the actual argument
that the student is presenting for her thesis. She's trying to use clear
controlled language and examples. Take a look at the way the sentences of this
paragraph work out. "This line of reasoning is mistaken..." she says.
"I'll accept P1... I will disagree with P2... I claim that even if senses were private etc...
This is because..." Then she gives an explanation of this claim she is making
and she follows it up with an example: "Suppose you..." She goes on to explain the
example and to consider the example in the context of her initial claim.
She's using this to try to communicate her claim again with more examples to the
reader. She comes at the end of this long argumentative paragraph to restate her
conclusion "Therefore because of what I have said Premise 2 is false..." and she
states what she takes that to mean: "Successful communication and joint
scientific pursuits do not require public senses and because Premise 2 is
false Frege's argument fails." And then she says "I assess the overall damage to
Frege's position." This is another way of setting limits around the thesis that
she has established. She notes that her argument does not establish that senses
are in fact ideas but only that one of Frege's arguments against that point of
view has not succeeded. She then goes on to raise and consider a
possible objection to her argument. This is an important thing to do in a
philosophy paper. Notice the structure of this paragraph: "Frege might respond that...
My response is that..." And she actually... if you look at the content of this
you'll see that Mendelovici actually is engaging with the
substance of this hypothetical objection that she is raising to her paper and she
tries to show that it is not an effective response to her argument.
Her conclusion is a paragraph of only three lines, short and sweet as she says.
I think that's good advice. It simply states "I have argued that..." This parallels
the opening claim in the introduction, "In this paper I will argue that..." and it
brings home to the reader again the conclusion: that the strongest of Frege's
arguments against this claim will fail. At that the paper comes to an end.
She does note that at the end you should make sure you format the bibliography in
the way that your professor calls for. Some professors don't care but some do--
make sure you follow the directions in that regard. So that is Angela Mendelovici's
paper on Frege which she presents as a sample philosophy paper.
I hope that you found her analysis of it and my review of that analysis helpful.
Thanks for watching today; goodbye.