Mechanical Details

A paper proposal (a page or so) is due before you leave for Spring Break (i.e. no later than Friday, March 10). This should indicate the thesis you hope to defend, outline your main arguments, and indicate what primary and secondary sources you will mainly rely on. I will return it to you with some comments.

If you would like me to comment on a draft of the paper (highly encouraged), you should get the draft to me no later than Monday, April 3.

The paper is due on Monday, April 17.

The paper should be typed, double-spaced, with one-inch margins, a reasonable font (e.g. Times) and a reasonable point size (e.g. 12 point). (Actually, I’d prefer an electronic copy to a hard copy – you can attach the paper to an email message.)

The paper should be approximately 4,000 - 5,000 words. (This is in the ballpark of 15 - 20  pages, depending on font size, etc.) Longer is OK if you need the space.

Requirements

1. Thesis. The paper should have a thesis or main point. There are three main possibilities here. (a) interpretive essay: the thesis might concern the interpretation of one of the thinkers we have studied (e.g. how exactly does Descartes try to prove the existence of God, or what does he mean by clear and distinct perception). (b) comparative essay: the thesis might concern the relation between two or more thinkers on a particular point (e.g. how does Descartes’ understanding of God differ from Spinoza’s, or what is the relation between Descartes’ reasons for thinking that external physical objects exist, and Locke’s reasons for the same view). (c) evaluative essay: the thesis might provide an evaluation of one or more of the theses or arguments employed by our philosophers (e.g. does Descartes’ proof of God’s existence work; does Locke’s distinction between primary and secondary qualities hold water; is Hume right to think that we have no reason to believe in the existence of a substantial self). These three categories are not mutually exclusive. In all likelihood, the paper will involve both interpretation and evaluation to some degree: one way of defending an interpretation of a philosopher’s argument is to argue that it is less vulnerable to criticism than alternative interpretations; conversely, criticisms of a philosopher’s arguments are of little interest unless you show that your interpretation of the argument you are criticizing is plausible.

2. Argument. Your paper needs to be more than an autobiographical account of your experience in reading the material. You need to offer reasons for your position or against the one you are attacking. One very good strategy students often do not use enough is to think of possible objections to your view and respond to them. In addition, if you are criticizing someone else’s work, it is a very good idea to discuss how you think the writer would defend his or her position against your criticisms. This helps to deepen your argument. Contrary to what some students fear, it also makes your argument more persuasive. People sometimes worry that raising objections to their own view, or supplying responses an opponent might make, just needlessly makes trouble for their thesis. But a sophisticated reader will be thinking of objections to your view while reading your paper; such a reader will be helped if you show how you would deal with these objections. (It may also help to keep in mind that the goal of these papers is to work out a position as carefully and completely as you can; it is more a search for the truth than an attempt to persuade. The more objections you consider and respond to, and the more fair you are to your opposition, the more cogent and thoughtful your own view is likely to be.)

3. Clarity. This is vitally important: you need to write carefully and organize your paper very explicitly. If necessary, you should ruthlessly sacrifice elegance of style in favor of glaringly obvious signposting: for example, "Berkeley's second criticism of the primary-secondary quality distinction is that ideas of primary qualities cannot resemble qualities of material objects." That's not a great sentence, but it gets the point across clearly. Part of writing clearly, especially in a paper of this length, is organizing the paper clearly: it should be clear from the outset where the paper is going and how it will get there. Dividing the paper into titled sections, and perhaps even subsections, can be a helpful organizational tool.

4. Concreteness, detail, focus. Try to avoid vague generalities and empty abstractions. Your points should be made concrete by illustrating them with examples. References to the primary texts, or to secondary sources, should be specific and should include page references. Don’t just say “Spinoza says that it is good to live in a community,” specify exactly where he says this. (Not only does this provide your reader with needed information, it also helps to keep you honest; you may find yourself reevaluating your view of what the philosopher says as you search for evidence that he says what you thought he did!)

5. Primary Sources. I expect the paper to make appropriate, detailed use of the available textual evidence. The primary evidence for an interpretation of the philosophers we have read is the works discussed in class. However, you should also seek out other writings of the philosopher that may cast light on the issues you discuss. For example, any discussion of Descartes’ Meditations should look at the related portions of the Objections and Replies, and perhaps such other sources as the correspondence and the Discourse on the Method. (Scholarly editions of the writings of the modern philosophers usually have very helpful indexes. In some cases there may also be electronic versions available on the web or in the library, making it possible to search the text for any word or phrase you are interested in.)

6. Secondary Sources. In addition to the primary texts, you should make appropriate use of the secondary. literature. (Obviously this will be easier if you write on a topic related to your literature review!) This includes journal literature on your topic as well as reference works such as the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and the Dictionary of the History of Ideas, and such standard histories of philosophy as those of Frederick Copleston and W. T. Jones.

7. Not a Research Paper. Do keep in mind, though, that the paper is not primarily a research paper! Its goal is not to present a description or summary of what a number of sources say about a topic. The goal is for you to work out your own view about a matter that interests you, and to argue for that view as persuasively as you can. The secondary literature is valuable primarily in suggesting interpretations and arguments that you may want to consider and either defend or criticize, and also in pointing you to relevant primary sources. It is of no interest that expert X says that Hume believed Y; what may be of interest is the evidence and arguments that X marshals to support this assertion.

8. Academic Integrity. Academic integrity is taken very seriously at Trinity (as elsewhere). Make certain that you are familiar with Trinity’s policy on academic integrity, available in the student handbook (and also on the web). Be very careful not to plagiarize, not to treat someone else's words or ideas as your own. Make sure you don’t inadvertently violate Trinity’s policy. Copying an entire paper of course is plagiarism--but so is copying or closely paraphrasing a single sentence. If someone else makes a point in a particularly elegant or entertaining way it is all right to make use of their words, but only if you enclose them in quotation marks and give a complete reference indicating where they came from. If I discover that a paper has been plagiarized in whole or part, I must, according to University policy, give the paper a failing grade, reduce the course grade by a letter grade, or give the student a failing grade in the course; notify the student in writing; and send copies of this notification to my chairman, the Dean of Humanities and Arts, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs. I will follow this policy if I find evidence of a violation of the policy.