|
Writing Guide for Philosophy |
I. Identifying
a philosophical problem
II. Organizing
ideas
III. Defining
concepts
IV.
Analyzing arguments
V. Comparing
and contrasting
VI.
Giving examples
VII. Applying
theory to practice
VIII. Testing hypotheses
Forms of Philosophical Writing
Philosophy is a problem solving enterprise. Part of what one
learns in becoming a philosopher is to find problems and then to use all the
skills at one's disposal to solve them. A philosophy paper without a problem is
very much like a body without a head, or perhaps a more accurate metaphor would
be a body without DNA -- that is a body whose organizing principle is missing.
So,
what is a problem, and particularly a philosophical problem? One answer is that
a problem is a question not easily answered. If I ask you "What time is
it?" - there is a question which is usually easily answered. You look at
your watch and give me the answer. If we start wondering what justice or beauty
is, or if we have free will, we may find that these questions are not at all
easy to answer. If our goal is to say what justice is, and there are
difficulties preventing us from giving an adequate answer, then we have a
problem. Some problems are so intractable that they last for centuries -- the problem
of evil, the mind/body problem and the problem of induction are some notable
examples. Some problems are such that a good philosopher can think them through
in an afternoon.
In
one sense problems are pretty easy to come by in philosophy. Whenever people
hold opposing positions, we are likely to have the problem of determining who
has the strongest position. "People have free will." "No!
People's actions are completely determined. Free will is an illusion!" Who
is right? Well, at this point we need to look at the arguments on behalf of the
positions, and we need to evaluate the strength and weakness of the competing
positions. What if we find, as is likely the case in the free will debate, that
all of the positions have serious weaknesses? That represents a problem on a
new level. Now we have to try to determine if there are insoluble difficulties
as opposed to solvable difficulties. We need to start modifying positions to
make them stronger.
If
you find two commentators seriously disagreeing about how to construe or
evaluate an argument in Plato or Hobbes, Rawls or Singer, they cannot both be
right. So, your problem then becomes, which of the two commentators has the
strongest evidence supporting his interpretation.
One
important benefit of acquiring a problem is that it will largely dictate what
the parts of your paper are going to be. If you are trying to decide which of
two commentators has the right interpretation of an argument, then you are
going to have to explain each of their views, in what way they disagree, what
the crucial point is for resolving the disagreement, and the philosophical
moral to be drawn from the resolution. When you start, you may very well not be
entirely sure what the crucial point is, or how you are going to resolve it.
Still, without knowing that, you can determine that all of the parts listed
above will need to be there in your paper. You can then start working your way
from the things which are more easily done - like giving the argument about
which the commentators disagree, stating the view of the two commentators, and
explaining what is at stake. By doing all this, you may find that you have
grasped the treads you need to figure out the solution to the problem. This is
where philosophical and reasoning skills as well as creativity come into play.
One of the
things you need to learn is how to find a problem that is manageable given the
length of the paper you are writing. Problems vary in scope. Questions about
justice, free will, causality, personal identity and so forth are very large in
scope. These are things about which books are written. To deal with large
problems like these, we have to look to see if they have parts, and then look
for parts of those parts until we get down to some manageable size. One then
deals with the parts and puts them together and until one finally gets the
analysis of the large problem one began with.
Generally,
in writing a philosophy paper, you will be dealing with much more narrow and
specific topics than justice or free will, and with correspondingly narrowed
and specific problems. If you find yourself writing a five page paper about six
proofs for the existence of God, something is probably wrong. To deal with a
single proof you need to explain what the proof for the existence of God is,
what the problem is with it that your propose to consider, what the
difficulties are, and your proposed solution to those difficulties. Usually you
need to narrow the scope. Instead of looking at the problem of free will, you
want to look at a particular argument offered by a particular person, and then
it may well be possible to narrow the scope even farther. Very likely there is
a single premise in that argument which is the crucial premise.
In the sample
research paper in this manual the problem is to determine which view of human
nature, that expressed by Kao Tzu, Mencius or Hsun Tzu is the strongest. To do
this the author must tell us what the three positions are, compare and contrast
to try to get at what the significant differences are between the positions,
and probe for the weakness and strengths of the competing positions.
Problems can be
either important or unimportant, they can be huge in scope or very narrowly
focused, they can be easily solvable or completely intractable. The best papers
will find an interesting and important problem, which is sufficiently focused
so that the discussion of it is not superficial, and which presents real and
interesting difficulties with which the student grapples. The best papers will
have a problem which is convincingly solved. Still, it is sometimes the case
that at the end of the day one finds that the one simply cannot solve the
problem posed. In cases like this a thorough and convincing discussion of the
difficulties may well be more acceptable than some unconvincing and weak
gesture at a solution.
If you are
writing a very short paper it may be clear what the parts are and how they
should fit together. Longer papers very likely will require more thought and
effort. Once you have a problem or a thesis, what some of the major parts of
your paper need to be may well be clear. Now what you should do is consider
what these parts are and how they are going to relate to one another. In other
words, you need to decide on the organization of your paper.
You
might begin by considering some typical organizational schemes and how the
parts you have identified fit into such a scheme. As Jay Rosenberg notes in The
Practice of Philosophy (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall), two common forms are the
adjudicatory essay and the problem-solving essay.
In
an adjudicatory essay, the author acts as a third party to a dispute
between two parties. The purpose of the article is to evaluate the strengths
and weaknesses of the competing positions. The structure is often:
I.
Formulation
of the issue/the dispute
II.
Exposition
of position I
III.
Evaluation
of position I
IV.
Exposition
of position 2
V.
Evaluation
of position 2
VI.
Resolution
In a problem-solving
essay, the author detects or constructs a problem and then proposes a
solution. The structure is often:
I.
Formulation
and analysis of the problem
II.
Development
of criteria of adequacy for a solution
III.
Exploration
of inadequate possible solutions
IV.
Exposition
of the proposed solution
V.
Assessment
of the adequacy of the proposed solutions
VI.
Replies to
anticipated criticisms
Depending on
the length of the article and the sophistication of the author, III and VI can
be missing wholly or in part.
Still such an
outline may not determine how the parts of your paper are going to fit
together. If these sample organizational schemes do not suit your needs, you
might begin by listing the major parts and asking how they are going to
function. The major parts might, for example, have a logical connection. If
they can be structured as a simple logical argument then it will be clear how
the parts relate.
Once
you know how the major parts are going to relate to one another, you can turn
to a consideration of the structure of each part and ask what they need to
achieve the function you have decided they should have.
Once
you have reached this point you can very likely start writing an outline. There
are a variety of virtues to writing an outline. An outline makes clear what
each part is supposed to do and what is supposed to be in it to achieve this
purpose. Given this, you can begin by writing the parts which are the easiest,
and determine which you need to do research to write and so on. You can use your
outline to chart your progress towards the completion of this project.
One great
conversation stopper is to ask someone to define a term. Defining turns out to
be a difficult activity for a number of reasons. Many terms seem to defy any
attempt to state precisely how and when they will apply to things. For example,
how would you define "chair" given the inordinately large number of
things which might count as a chair? Though hard, defining is extremely
important because how we define terms influences the way we experience and
understand the world. For instance, think of how your definition of
"violence" affects what you think about certain acts.
Many
modem philosophers explore definitions. They believe that if you can
restructure the definition of a term or concept, you can begin to restructure
the practices and beliefs associated with those terms.
There
are many kinds of definitions. A reportive or lexical definition relates
the way a term is ordinarily used. Dictionaries contain such definitions. A stipulative
definition provides meaning to a new term. For example, it was stipulated
that the offspring of a male tiger and a female lion be called a
"tigon." A persuasive definition is used to alter your
attitude towards the object usually associated with the term. For instance,
"liberal" might be persuasively defined by some as "drippy-eyed
do gooder" and by others as "genuine humanitarian committed to equal
opportunity for all." Philosophers consider such persuasive definitions
illegitimate.
Professors
will seldom ask for the three kinds of definitions just listed.
However,
professors will often ask for an analytical definition. This kind of
definition shows what the conceptual parts of the term are and how these parts
are related to one another. This kind of definition attempts to lay out the
conditions under which a term or concept applies to the thing in question. An
example is "bachelor" means "adult, unmarried male."
Analytical definitions are usually offered with a specific purpose in mind.
They attempt to reform ordinary usage of a term. Such reforms can be precising
or expansive. An example of a precising definition is Kant's definition of
experience as a combination of sense perceptions and certain operations of the
mind. In this sense, his use of the term is more specific than the usual sense
of "sense perceptions." An example of an expansive definition is when
"rights" is used to cover "animal rights." This is expansive
because, on traditional theories, only humans were thought to have rights.
An analytical
definition can tell us what features are common to all things of a particular
class, and it can tell us what features are unique to that class of things.
Sometimes, an analytical definition can do both at the same time. In this way,
a definition provides a precise description.
Why
would we want to know which features are common and which are unique? If we
wish to say that something is, say, a house, it is important to know what is
common and what is unique to different houses. If we include a feature not
unique to only houses, we may have to call something a house even thought we do
not want to. For instance, if we define house as 'shelter,' a cave would
qualify as a house. Most people would not agree, considering our definition too
expansive.
To construct an
analytical definition, you must search for the necessary and sufficient
conditions of a concept. A "necessary" condition is one without which
something cannot be what it is. For example, if something is not a living
creature, it cannot be a mammal. So being a living thing is a necessary
condition for being a mammal. A "sufficient" condition specifies one
way of being that thing. For example, "having the flu" is a
sufficient condition for "feeling miserable." If you want to feel
miserable, having the flu will do the job.
The
most rigorous definitions give both necessary and sufficient conditions for
being whatever is being defined. Such definitions may be found in logic and
mathematics, and in some of the most developed sciences like physics and
chemistry.
Some
terms seem to defy definition in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions.
For these terms a definition is a listing of the family resemblance among
objects referred to by the term. The idea is that one member of a family will
have the same nose as another member, but not the same eyes or mouth, while
some other member will have the same mouth, but not the same eyes or nose. Thus,
there is no single (necessary) feature which can be found in all of the family
members.
Throughout
history, philosophers have labored to understand what counts as a good
definition. The above only scratches the surface of the historical conversation
about definitions.
For
example, the philosopher John Locke recognizes that there are a variety of
competing definitions of the word 'man,' in the ordinary usage of his time.
Some might think that a man is an intelligent being who can reason and talk. Or
some might think that being a man has to do with having the physical structure
of a man. Locke gives a variety of interesting arguments to analyze the
definition of 'man.' Would we call an intelligent talking parrot that can
reason and discourse a man? Would we refuse to call something which clearly has
a man's form but does not talk or reason a man? Locke thinks we would not call
the parrot a man and we would call the creature with a man's form a man. Thus
Locke is giving arguments to show that a living animal with a particular shape
provides both necessary and sufficient conditions for being a man. Thus Locke
is fixing the loose usage of these terms, reforming our language, using
philosophical arguments to do so.
A good
definition is neither too broad nor too narrow. An example of a definition that
is too broad is "a human is a featherless biped." Defined in this
way, human would include too much (for example, plucked chickens). An example
of a definition that is too narrow is "a human is a rational
creature." This excludes many beings whom we would want to call human (for
example, babies).
How
does one tell if the definition is too broad or too narrow? This is not easy,
particularly with concepts that display family resemblances rather than
rigorous necessary and sufficient conditions. Also, broadness or narrowness may
vary with the context. What I call a 'house' may be fine for my purposes but
not for census takers. In any case, philosophers love to point out that
conditions which we have heretofore regarded as necessary and/or sufficient
really, truly are not.
An argument
involves offering reasons for holding that some controversial claim is true.
The giving and analyzing of arguments is an activity which occurs in many
academic disciplines and in many walks of life, but it is particularly
important in philosophy. This is because philosophers are almost always dealing
with controversial matters where reasons need to be offered for claims which
many would reject -- "Free will is an illusion," "God
exists," "justice is not the interest of the stronger." Thus it
is difficult to overstate the importance of giving and being able to analyze
arguments in philosophy.
While
the basic account of what an argument is is fairly simple, there is so much to
be said about the different kinds of argument and the evaluation of arguments,
that an entire branch of the philosophical enterprise--logic--is devoted to
this subject.
In
this section of our handbook we can only give the most rudimentary features of
analyzing arguments. We urge you to take logic or critical thinking classes
which will improve your skills in giving and analyzing arguments. This is one
important way in which you can develop your skills in reasoning and thus in
writing philosophy.
To
analyze something is to break it up into its constituent parts in order
to understand it. An analytic chemist may take an unknown substance and figure
out what it is by breaking it up into elements. A political analyst studies the
details of an election to explain who voted for what and why. A logical analyst
divides an argument into its parts in order to gain a better understanding of
the argument as a whole. The skill of argument analysis thus involves a careful
and thorough examination of a philosophical concept or of specific writings,
and a thoughtful exposition of the material.
Argument
analysis is a four-step process that leads to an understanding of an argument.
These are the steps:
Who wrote this?
Why did the author bother? What was at stake? What difference does it make? Who
listened? Who cared? The first step of argument analysis is to address
questions like these by identifying what is at issue in the argument.
The issue is the single point in question or matter in dispute. In an argument
analysis, the issue should always be stated as a question. "Has the
economic status of women deteriorated over the last decades more than the
economic status of men?" is an example of an issue.
Notice
that an issue is not the same as a topic. A topic is usually a noun or a noun
phrase: "The economic status of women." "The drinking age."
"Abortion." "Pepsi." Stating the topic may delineate the
area of discussion, but it does not focus attention on the precise question to
be resolved by the argument.
The second step
of argument analysis is to identify the claim that is defended. That claim is
called the conclusion. Once you have identified the issue, finding the
conclusion of an argument is a straightforward step; the conclusion is the
answer to the question raised as the issue of the argument. The conclusion is
what the writer wants the audience to come to believe, some claim about what is
true or what is right or what is to be done.
For
example, consider the following passage written in 1958 in Clinton, Tennessee
by a schoolteacher whose newly integrated classroom had just been destroyed by
dynamite:
Integration
will work. It is already working in many places. It will continue to work
because it is just and right and long overdue.
The issue,
"will integration ever work?" was an issue of great urgency and
greater doubt. The teacher's answer: Yes, integration will work. This is her
conclusion, what she is trying to make the reader believe. The other statements
tell her reasons for believing that the conclusion is true.
Unhappily,
it is not always this easy to identify the conclusion of an argument. A variety
of strategies can be used to find the conclusion of an argument when the
argument itself does not make its conclusion clear. First, look at the first
and last statements in a passage. Most often, but emphatically not always, the
conclusion is one of these. Second, look for words that function as signposts.
Some words and phases such as therefore, thus, hence, for this reason,
consequently, and it follows that exist for the sole purpose of
calling attention to conclusions. Third, in the absence of such clues you can
probably identify the conclusion by looking for the most controversial
statement. It makes sense that a statement generally accepted as true will be
used most effectively as a premise and that the conclusion will be the
statement most in need of support.
The third step
in argument analysis is to identify the statements that give reasons for
believing that the claim is true. The supporting statements, the reasons, are
called premises. In a well-written passage, the premises will be marked by
signposts that make clear the supporting job done by the statements. Words such
as since, because, and for tell the reader that the sentences
that follow are intended to serve as premises. When signpost words are missing,
the argument analysis is more difficult because the reader faces the tasks of
looking carefully for those statements that provide reasons for thinking the
conclusion is true and untangling them from the sentences that are not part of
the argument.
A variety of
metaphors expresses the relationship among the statements in an argument. Some
say that the premises "lead to" the conclusion or that the conclusion
"follows from" the premises. Others say that a conclusion "rests
on" the premises. Many of the metaphors are architectural: The premises
"support" the conclusion. The premises provide a
"foundation" or a "base" for the conclusion.
What
is meant is that the premises are related to the conclusion in such a way that
the premises provide good reasons for believing that the conclusion is true.
Invoking the architectural metaphor, this relationship between the statements
of an argument may be called the logical structure of the argument.
There are a variety of ways to represent the structure of an argument. The
technique recommended here is called "standard form." An argument is
in standard form when its premises are numbered and stacked on top of a
horizonal line; the order of the premises does not matter. The conclusion is
written beneath the line and is preceded by three dots in the shape of a
pyramid, the symbol for therefore.
Logicians
draw a clear distinction between the content of an argument and its structure.
The content has to do with the truth of the premises. Is it true that morality
requires free will? If not, then any argument which uses the claim that
morality requires free will as a premise to support some other conclusion, will
not be a good argument. The form or structure of an argument is also important.
The form of a deductive argument can tell us if the conclusion really follows
from the premises. If the form is one which logicians have determined is truth
preserving, then all is well (at least if the premises are true). If not then
there is good reason to hold that the argument is defective. One good reason to
study logic is to learn the difference between good and bad argument forms.
But
even without studying logic it can be very useful to sort out the parts of an
argument and to try to determine what the relation of those parts are to one
another.
Consider, for
example, this argument:
Her team of
lawyers has decided that it will not be possible for Rita Collins to argue
successfully that she killed her husband in self-defense. Her husband beat her,
kicked her in the stomach, threatened her with a knife, not once, but over a
period of twenty years. But she shot him while he slept, and the standard
principle in the law of self-defense is that the danger must be immanent,
leaving no reasonable alternative to lethal defensive force.
If the argument
is analyzed and represented in standard form, it becomes much clearer. In this
clearer form, the student can more reliably assess the truth of its content and
the validity of its form.
1. If a killing is an act of self-defense,
then it must take place when death is immanent and there is no other
alternative.
2. Rita's act of killing did not take place
under these conditions
...
Rita's act is not an act of self-defense.
Now
that we see what the argument consists of, we can start asking questions: Did Rita
really have reasonable alternatives? Is this the proper definition of
self-defense? Does the conclusion follow from the premises?
Many features
of philosophical thought invite comparison and contrast. A writing assignment may
ask you to compare and contrast:
·
The ideas
of specific philosophers; or
·
Philosophical
traditions; or
·
Ideas of
philosophers in a single philosophic tradition; or
·
Different
interpretations of a philosophic concept, such as justice.
Any assignment
that requires you to "compare and contrast" is concerned with
recognizing similarities and differences in important philosophical concepts or
philosophers, and illustrating the significance of both what is common and what
is different.
An excellent
example of a compare-and-contrast method is the research paper on p. 82 of this
handbook. The four steps described above are clearly present:
Page 26
1. The author
has done sufficient background research in ancient Chinese philosophy so that
an informed comparison of the views of three philosophers on human nature can
be developed.
2. The author
illustrates the specific disputes of these philosophers as to whether human
beings are inherently good, evil, or neutral.
3. The author
describes the general questions that each philosopher is addressing. That is,
there is agreement on the issues at stake, even though answers may differ.
4. The author
continually unfolds the comparison through tracing the evolution of the
philosophical dispute.
An example is a
specific instance of a general principle or abstract concept, often drawn from
a student's own experience. The example provides an accessible, understandable
instance of a general idea that may be hard to understand in the abstract.
An example can
be used to clarify a principle, to answer a question, to give substance to an
abstract concept. In addition, examples can demonstrate understanding: if you
can give an example, you probably understand the concept. Examples are a way
that students can link the abstract notions of philosophy to their own
experiences.
John Stuart
Mill says that "the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually
or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their
number, is self-protection.... His own good, either physical or moral, is not a
sufficient warrant." Give examples to show what the principle means.
Suppose that
your teammate decides to bash you with a baseball bat. You are entitled to
interfere with your teammate's freedom of movement in order to protect
yourself, or you may call in the police to protect you, by (say) taking away
the bat or handcuffing the teammate to a fence. This is an example of a case in
which people may interfere with another's freedom because their own safety is
threatened.
Suppose,
however, that you decide to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, a particularly
stupid and dangerous decision. Suppose also that riding without a helmet
doesn't risk harming anyone but you, although it does pose a substantial risk
to your skull. According to Mill, the State of Oregon 's police force may not
interfere with your decision, even for your own good. This is a case in which a
person's own good does not justify interference.
The two
examples are "on point," that is, each is relevant and illustrative
of a specific part of Mill's principle. The examples are instructive in that
they expand on details of the principle. The examples do demonstrate an
understanding of a general principle. That handcuffing a teammate to a fence is
an instance of "interfering with the liberty or action" of a person
really shows an understanding of what Mill means by that phrase. Of course,
whether any understanding is the strongest interpretation is a matter open to
discussion. Yet when students ably demonstrate how they understand a claim or
principle, there is value in their work.
In philosophy,
using an example well involves three steps:
A common
view about human nature has it that people are essentially self-interested;
that is, everything we do is motivated to gain some benefit for ourselves. This
view is commonly known as Philosophical Egoism. I disagree with this view. Some
things that people do are not done in order to receive a benefit at all. Take
for example, procrastination. Obviously we do not always act in our own
self-interest. So Philosophical Egoism is wrong.
An example of a
behavior that is claimed to be not self-interested is given here,
procrastination. But the lack of explanation makes the example unclear and
unconnected from the point. As writers, we cannot expect that our readers will
understand what we do not tell them. The author of the above proceeds as if
every reader will just get the relevance of the example. Compare this to an
instance that does provide a thoughtful explanation of the example.
A common
view about human nature has it that people are essentially self interested;
that is, everything we do is motivated to gain some benefit for ourselves. This
view is commonly known as Philosophical Egoism. I disagree with this view. Some
things that people do are not done in order to receive a benefit at all. In
fact, I think a strong tendency in people is to act in ways precisely designed
to do ourselves harm. For example, most of us have some experience with
procrastination. Suppose Shelly has a reading assignment due in her history
class. She sits down to get started and suddenly decides that her desk is too
messy. So she sets about cleaning up the mess. Next come the desk drawers with
papers, bills, letters, and who knows what to be sorted out for re-filing or
the trash. Soon the trash can needs to be taken out. This reminds Shelly that
tomorrow is trash day, so she gets busy sorting out the recycling and getting
the trash in order. This leads to cleaning the kitchen, bedroom, and living
room. At last when all this is done, it is late and Shelly is tired and so
gives herself a break with a glass of white wine and Favorite TV show that just
happens to be starting just now. Three hours later, Shelly is ready for bed.
With a guilty glance at the history text, she sighs, "Guess I'll just have
to get up early to do it "
In this
example, Shelly avoids reading the history text by a complex strategy of
procrastination. The main thing to notice is this. Shelly did not clean up the
house because she enjoyed doing so. In fact it is clear that Shelly does not
find cleaning up enjoyable at all. Rather it is part of a pattern of
procrastination. She replaced one unpleasant activity with another --- with the
net result being of negative value to her. Shelly wants to do well in the
course and so wants to keep up on the readings (even though she finds them
unpleasant to read ) Shelly's procrastination did not benefit her and was not
designed to. The sole purpose of the procrastinating behavior was to avoid
reading the text which she knows is not in her best interest. Shelly acted in a
way that was designed to act against her interest. I think this happens often
to people in a variety of ways. Our propensity to self-sabotage (against one 's
own self-interest) is as complex and strong as is our selfish and
self-interested behavior.
This author
focuses sharply on the details of procrastination that make it a valuable
example here. As a result, this use of example stands as a well- reasoned
position. The effective use of examples brings power to writing, but only if
the author makes the effort to show how the example is to be understood.
Philosophy does
not occur in a vacuum. It examines problems and issues encountered in everyday
experience. Philosophers develop models or theories to address these
perplexities of life. A theory presents generalizations for the purpose of
clarification, criticism, explanation, justification or decision making. The
question of whether a given philosophical theory is complete or adequate can be
resolved by the skill of testing hypotheses (see next section). The skill of
"application" is required when a theory is connected to real life
situations. The application of theory to practice is a fundamental way by which
philosophical ideas matter in the practical world.
The purpose of
applying theory to practice is to come to some decision about what to believe
or do in a real-life situation, a decision that is based on careful thought
about the concepts that underlie the practice.
A successful
application of theory to practice has these characteristics:
At Oregon
State University, students are required to dissect live rabbits as part of an
animal physiology lab.
A
student objected to the practice, saying that to engage in the dissection
violated her moral beliefs against inflicting pain on innocent beings.
Descartes's
theory of animal minds posits that animals have no consciousness. They are
automatons whose bodies work like clocks. They have no capacity for feeling
pain or suffering.
Given
this theory, the student's objection has no force. We might agree that it is wrong
to inflict suffering, but, on Descartes' view, the rabbits will not experience
pain, and so there is no ground for objection. The student will need to put
forward an alternative theory of animal consciousness to make her argument
work. Until she does that, the dissections should go forward.
Hypothetical
reasoning typically comes into play in order to solve a problem. We want to
explain something, or to successfully predict what will happen. Hypothetical
reasoning can sometimes give us a good explanation, and the ability to
successfully predict what is going to happen. This kind of reasoning (the
hypothetical-deductive method) is a useful tool in philosophy.
Hypothetical
reasoning involves deriving and testing the consequences of some supposition --
that is, a claim supposed to be true for the purposes of the inquiry. The basic
idea is to test the truth of the supposition by seeing whether consequences
which follow it turn out to be true or false.
In
order to employ this method of reasoning the consequences must follow from the
hypothesis and they must be testable. This means there must be some way to
determine that the consequences are either true or false. This requires that
the consequences be clear, and specific. (Note the differences between
"The Martians will land somewhere, some time." and "The Martians
will land in the middle of the Corvallis court house lawn at 2:00 P.M. on
Monday, December 4, 1995." One reason for carrying out experiments in
science is to try to determine if the predictions of a particular hypothesis
are confirmed or not. Experiment, in this case, is a form of hypothesis
testing.
If
the consequences of the supposition turn out to be false, then the supposition
itself must be either false or incomplete. If the consequences turn out to be
true we have a weak confirmation of the truth of the hypothesis being tested.
You must be
able to:
We will take a
philosophical theory like Act Utilitarianism and treat it as an hypothesis. Act
Utilitarianism claims that one's acts are right if they produce the greatest
good for the greatest number of people. So, we are going to apply this theory
to a particular act. The hypothesis predicts that if the act is one done for
the greatest good of the greatest number of people we will count it as right.
Albert,
young, healthy, happy and innocent, has checked into the hospital for a routine
though extensive check up. Down in the E.R., a whole convoy of ambulances
arrive with a series of accident victims from a giant freeway pile up. It turns
out that many of the victims could be saved by the replacement of a single
organ. Unfortunately none of these organs are available. The E.R. doctor, as it
turns out, is an Act Utilitarian, and he thinks of Albert. He thinks, "I
could go upstairs and cut up Albert and give his healthy organs to a number of
these accident victims. If I do cut Albert up, one will die and (if all goes
well) six will live." So cutting Albert up conforms to the principle of
the greatest good for the greatest number. The E.R. doctor is deriving
consequences for this particular case from the theory or hypothesis of Act Utilitarianism.
Now, if you are convinced (as almost all of us are) that were the doctor to go
up and cut up Albert, he would be committing a murder, and hold the judgement
that this is wrong act; there is something wrong with the theory which says
that to act morally is to do whatever act causes the greatest good for the
greatest number.
©
William Uzgalis. Used by permission.
The
point is to illustrate how one can refute a philosophical theory by considering
the consequences which follow from it. To see this, just consider what you
would say about the theory if the doctor's reasoning turned out to be exactly
right -- cutting up Albert does produce the greatest good for the greatest
number. You would have to say that this theory treats murder in this case as moral.
But we are convinced that killing Albert is murder, and that murder,
particularly in this case, is immoral. So the theory is giving the wrong
decision in this case. So, the theory must be false or in need of serious
modification.
Here
is another, more extended example.
In The Republic a dialogue by Plato,
Socrates begins a discussion with several people at a party about what they
believe "justice" is. He gets several answers, the first of which
comes from the party host, Cephalus. Cephalus gives a long answer citing his
honesty and wise management of money. Socrates interprets this answer to mean
that justice is "to speak the truth and to pay your debts." That is,
if you are honest in dealing with others and pay back what you owe, then you
are a just person. Cephalus agrees that this is his meaning.
Socrates
rejects this theory, arguing that speaking the truth and repaying debts cannot
be all there is to justice. I agree, There are certainly situations in which
honesty in word and deed are not enough to make you a just person.
Consider,
for example, the slave owners of the American South in the 19th century. Many
of these may have dealt with one another honorably in business and other
matters. Some of them may have been entirely truthful and scrupulous in
repaying all debts. Such a person may think, according to Cephalus' theory of
justice that they were very just indeed. But they were also slave owners. They
denied millions of people the most basic rights a human has. They destroyed
families by selling off children as objects of profit. Slavery is an entirely
unjust institution. It harms the slave in innumerable ways, physically, morally
and spiritually. No human being with a sense of self-worth, including the slave
owners, would choose to live as a southern plantation slave. By forcibly
subjecting people to a condition of living they themselves would not choose,
the slave owners show the deep injustice in their characters. No amount of
truth telling or debt repaying can change that. So I conclude that the slave
owners were unjust even if they satisfied the conditions of Cephalus' theory.
To
emphasize the point that honesty alone cannot guarantee justice, consider the
case of Huckleberry Finn by
Mark Twain. The book's main character, a boy named Huck, runs away from home
with an escaped slave, Jim. While floating down the Mississippi river on a
raft, a group of men pass by in a boat and call out to Huck, "Is there
anyone else on board?" they ask. Huck realizes that if he answers
truthfully, they will capture Jim and return him to slavery. His conscience
bothers him, though, for he realizes that under the law Jim is another person's
property. If he were to follow Cephalus' theory of justice, he would tell the
truth and return the property to its owner. But Huck does not. He lies and says
that Jim is a white man. The boat goes on its way searching for other escaped
slaves.
In
this case it is clear that following Cephalus' theory would not result in
justice. It would only return Jim to an unjust situation, slavery. According to
that theory we will have to say that Huck is unjust. He lies and fails to
return property. But in reading this story, that is not the judgement it is
natural to make. It seems clear that Huck has done the right thing. He
prevented an injustice. As Socrates points out, Cephalus is wrong. Justice is
not simply truth telling and debt-repaying.
©
Jon Dorbolo. Used by permission.
For a
general account of hypothetical reasoning you can visit the Hypothetical
Reasoning section of Phl. 201 Interquest Odyssey.
For
an additional example of the application of this method to interpreting a
central and important concept in a classic philosophy text, you can visit Socratic
Wisdom: an exercise in interpretation.
Forms of Philosophical Writing
Self-discovery
writing occurs when a writer treats herself or himself as the subject of
inquiry.
The purpose of
this form of writing is to develop new insights into oneself. These insights
may involve attempts to identify, clarify, connect and account for beliefs.
Successful self-discovery writing may also result in new questions about
oneself. Sometimes simply recognizing that your own beliefs raise difficulties
that were not apparent is a sign of intellectual progress. Earnest
self-reflection is among the most difficult of philosophical tasks, hence this
form of writing is very demanding. Key to successful self-discovery is mastery
of the craft of forming meaningful questions.
At a basic and
novice level, self-discovery writing is intended to increase an individual's
self-awareness. A successful effort will demonstrate in writing the students'
attempts to identify their own beliefs, discern assumptions underlying those
beliefs, and pose substantive questions to themselves. A common response to
such writing is "I never thought about this before," and the students
who demonstrate that they are now thinking about it have satisfied a basic aim.
Note that an earnest effort to discover why I hold a certain belief need not
result in a defense of it. Moreover, novice self-discovery writers may not have
an explicit recognition of the process they are participating in. Assignments
of this sort will be instructor-directed and connected to specific course
topics.
Intermediate-level
self-discovery writing involves a sustained effort to identify and explore
successive levels of one's own beliefs. The writer is able to show how
different beliefs are connected and draw some conclusions from that
observation. Whereas novice writers may satisfy the task by simply performing
the process of self-reflection, the intermediate writer is expected to draw
conclusions from this process as well.
The
advanced self-discovery writer provides a sustained path of self examination.
Themes will be self-consciously developed with recognition of the reflective
process. Advanced self-discovery writing provides readers with explicit
direction as to the purpose of the writing. Attention is paid to the analysis
of key concepts and arguments. Hypothetical alternatives are explored and
evaluated. Assignments may be prompted by course topics and texts, but the
basic problem is produced by the writer.
The Maclaren
River
It
was eleven o'clock at night in Alaska, toward the end of June. The sun was in
my eyes and the sky was an enormous bronze globe that arched hard and high
above my head.
I
had to hold myself together because the clarity of the air made me buoyant and
if I hadn't been careful, my arms would have risen to the sky in exultation,
and all the air would have left my lungs, and maybe I would have caught my
breath and bounded toward the beauty like a dog wagging its whole backside with
recognition and joy. But the truth is, I'm always a little bit careful, holding
something in reserve, remembering from college psychology that hypersensitivity
to one's surroundings can be a sign of mental abnormality.
I
obviously have mixed feelings about this. Sometimes, on dark February mornings
in town, when I can hardly force myself to get dressed for work, I worry about
that warning from college psychology. But most of the time it makes me angry. I
think, fine: if it's abnormal for a person 's emotions to be tossed around by
the weather, then I'll be abnormal. I'll cry at breakfast on the rainiest days,
cry so hard I can't chew, and on the first warm day of spring I will drive all
over town with the windows open, singing along with the Beach Boys. Who's to
say that's not all right? Who's to say that the healthiest people aren't the
ones who are open to the landscape, responsive to the weather, in tune? I think
it's good to change with the seasons and resonate with atmospheric pressure,
deep and dark, like a cello. I think the most pitiful person on earth is the
one who wrote the textbook on normality, the poor climate controlled soul who
thinks mental health can be disconnected from the wind.
Excerpted
from Kathleen Dean Moore, Riverwalking (NY: Lyons and Burford, 1995).
Journals have a
long and influential tradition in philosophical writing, as illustrated by the
writings of the Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius, the Christian theologian
Augustine, and the Danish existentialist Soren Kierkegaard. In keeping with
this tradition, in some classes you may be asked to compile a class journal. A
journal is a method of thinking out loud or talking to yourself through
writing. Entries express what the student has noticed, felt, thought, and
experienced in a journey of self-discovery. Entries also can carry a student
deeper into the reading, to a more sophisticated understanding. Journal writing
may encompass an entire course, the reading of a text, or performing a specific
course activity.
A journal can
be a way to:
The most
important feature of a summary is that it is short, almost always fewer than
250 words. It is a piece of writing about another piece of writing. Its purpose
is to condense a long piece of writing into a concise summation of its meaning.
There are (at least) two different types of summary to be used for different
purposes and in different contexts--the argument summary and the outline.
An argument
summary if a concise statement of the main points in an argumentative passage.
It leaves out all the extraneous material that does not advance the argument,
organizes the information for clarity, and paraphrases the language used by the
author. Where the original argumentative passage may have been wandering,
thick, or abstruse, the argument summary is clear and directly to the point. It
reports--without criticism--the claim advanced in the argument and the reasons
that back it up. That is all.
The
first step in writing an argument summary is to analyze the argument,
identifying the conclusion and the premises. Then, put the argument back
together, this time clearly and succinctly: First, report the claim that is
defended. Use phrases like "the author argues that . . . " to label
the statement's role in the argument. Then, one by one, report the reasons offered
in defense of the claim and any essential supporting information. Be sure to
frame each claim and each reason with sign posting phrases ("the reason is
that," "because," "To support this claim, she notes that .
. .") that clearly identify the role each statement plays in the argument
as a whole.
The purpose of
an argument summary is to clarify and communicate the central argument in a
piece of argumentative or persuasive prose.
A good argument
summary-
1.
Is an accurate
representation of the original argument.
2.
Clearly
states the essential content of the argument.
3.
Makes the
form of the argument clear.
4.
Omits all
extraneous material.
This example
provides an argument summary for the position paper, "Should Relatively
Affluent People Help the Poor?" That paper can be found on page 68 of this
manual.
In
the position paper, "Should Relatively Affluent People Help the
Poor?" the author argues that the rich of the world have a moral obligation
to give a portion of their wealth to help people who are living in absolute
poverty. He refutes the claim that helping the poor would only create
more misery through overpopulation, pointing out that aid to the poor could
include the sorts of aid that would encourage population control. In support
of his central claim, the author makes two primary arguments. The first is
based on the premise that people, no matter how poor, have a right to a
standard of living at least equal to that of animals. The second is based on
his view that it is morally wrong to allow people to die, when saving their
lives is easily within the means of the rich.
An outline is a
structural skeleton of the main points of the material as they appear in chronological,
rather than logical, order.
An outline
displays, in structural form, an article's major point(s) and the details that
support those points. It enables the reader to distinguish clearly between more
and less important ideas.
An
outline is often preparatory to analyzing an argument, or writing position
papers, research papers, and many other forms of writing.
To outline,
first preview the article. If there are headings supplied, note them. Then,
read the article. Note how each section relates to the headings. If there are
no headings, read for content and to get a sense of the major divisions in the
article.
Now,
locate the thesis statement. It announces what is being argued in the article.
Write it down at the top of a page.
Take
your notes from reading the article and see how the ideas you jotted down
relate to the thesis. Is paragraph A defending the thesis? Criticizing it?
Pointing out difficulties in the thesis? This process should give you a rough
idea of the article's major divisions.
Now,
choose the style of outline. A topic outline uses a noun or noun phrase for
each heading. A sentence outline uses one sentence for each.
A
paragraph or section outline gives only a summary sentence of each paragraph or
section.
The
amount of information contained in an outline will be shaped by the purpose for
making the outline. For instance, if the article is recommended rather than
required, a summary that indicates major topics (as phrases, sentences or
summary sentences) may be all that is needed. After finishing, check your work.
Above all, an outline should follow the structure given in the essay.
The research
paper reproduced in this handbook (see p. 82) is an adjudication of competing
accounts of human nature offered by three Chinese philosophers. The outline
below is a sentence outline of moderate detail.
IS HUMAN
NATURE GOOD OR EVIL?: AN ANCIENT CHINESE DEBATE
Thesis:
An examination of competing accounts of human nature offered by Kao Tzu,
Mencius and Hsün Tzu shows Kao Tzu's to be the most reasonable.
i.
People
are not born with feelings of righteousness.
ii.
People
do not become righteous solely through external pressures.
Note
how the outline here differs from an argument analysis (see p. 21). The outline
simply reproduces the order of ideas in the essay; an analysis orders those
ideas as claims, premises, evidence and conclusions.
A good outline
shows the development of the topic as it occurs in the article or paper. It
shows the relative importance of ideas and the relationship among these ideas.
In
addition, a good outline:
1. uses a consistent method for numbering
and identifying major headings;
2. is logical, clear and consistent. There
are no single headings or subheadings. For every 1, there is a 11; for every A,
there is a B; etc.;
3. does not use vague headings such as
"Introduction," "Body," "Conclusion";
4. uses parallel grammatical construction
for all items. This is perhaps most important in topic outlines, but it is also
important in sentence and paragraph outlines. Sentences with similar style help
display the relationship among the items in the outline.
Case studies
are a common method of philosophical analysis in such areas as critical
thinking, applied ethics, and legal reasoning. The "case" presents a
compressed version of a scenario, hypothetical or actual, that exemplifies
certain issues, decision procedures, or value conflicts. A case study analysis
develops these issues or conflicts at greater length, typically through inviting
readers to decide what they would do if they were decision makers in the case.
In any method
of case study analysis, attention should be given to both
"problem-seeing," or determination of the problem, and
"problem-solving," or using modes of reasoning, integrating values,
and standards of assessment to suggest a resolution to the identified problem.
The
case study and assessment below were developed by a student following a
conversation with a local health care provider.
Is it Right
to Prescribe Death ?
Dr.
A is a family practice physician who has been seeing F as a patient over a
period of six to seven years. On the initial visit, F was extremely ill,
fighting the effects of the AIDS virus that he carried. F recovered from this
initial bout of sickness, but as the disease continued to run its course, F's
condition went through cycles of relapse and recovery. Since conventional care
was not providing him with sufficient help, F explored many different avenues:
specialists, herbalists, hypnotherapists, chiropractors and crystal therapy. He
also considered many different religious groups that emphasized meditation to
see if that practice could relieve his symptoms. None of these methods,
however, provided F relief from his pain and suffering.
This
continuing cycle of seeking, but not finding, respite from his condition left F
in a state of deep depression. Dr. A was able to treat the depression
successfully at times, but these were outweighed by long stretches of despair.
F's symptoms eventually left him bedridden at home and unable to take care of
any of his needs. He had a constant high fever, diarrhea, was unable to keep
any food down, and was going blind. F experienced constant pain and asked Dr. A
to prescribe pain medication that could be used to take his life and end his
misery. Dr. A believed that F's condition was irreversible, and that F's
previous struggles with depression made it unlikely that he would change his
mind. Still, acceding to F's request would mean Dr. A would perform an act
that, at the time, was illegal and could possibly jeopardize his professional
standing and ethics. What should Dr. A do?
There are a
series of common steps used in developing an ethical analysis of a case study.
These steps reflect the interests in both problem-seeing and problem-solving.
The steps are presented in the ethics assessment below formulated by the
student.
Step
1: Identify the major ethical problem in the case. What has to be decided and who the
decision makers are; and who the stakeholders are, that is, people who have a
stake in the decision, but are not decision makers.
After
a close examination of the ethical issues in this case study, the major
question is evident: "Is it right for a physician to prescribe medication
with the knowledge that his or her patient is planning to use the medication to
commit suicide?" Dr. A is the primary decision maker with respect to
writing the prescription, while F has the right to determine how and when he
end his life. Ideally, this will be a joint and mutual decision.
There
are other stakeholders, although the case description does not directly
identify them. F may have family or friends, including persons from his
religious affiliations, that will be concerned about his care at the end of
life. In most circumstances, Dr. A will need to rely on a cooperative
pharmacist to dispense the prescription. Depending on his practice, other
professional stakeholders might include Dr. A's peers and colleagues, the
hospital, and the medical licensing board.
Step
2: Assess the factual information.
Examine
whether the information presented is reliable (is it "fact,"
"hearsay," or "opinion." Determine what information is not
known that should be known before a decision can be made, and how that information
can be attained.
Given
his symptoms, it seems evident that F's diagnosis of AIDS is valid F has lived
with the infection for 6-7 years, so Dr. A. has made a professional judgment
that the condition is "irreversible." In addition, Dr. A. has made a
diagnosis of "depression." In order to ensure adequate care and to
avoid causing a premature death, both of these judgments should be confirmed by
a second opinion.
If
F is deemed clinically depressed, then a further issue will have to be
addressed: Is his request for a prescription to end his life based on an
informed, voluntary, and competent decision-making process. Dr. A's years of
caring for F place him in a good position to evaluate F's consistency in his
values over time, but a referral to a consulting psychiatrist may be in order.
Finally,
is Dr A. technically competent to provide a lethal medication? His training has
not prepared him for these scenarios, and many cases of a botched suicide have
been reported due to the wrong medication, or the wrong dosage, being
prescribed.
Step
3: Propose realistic alternatives
available to the decision makers that address the central question identified
in Step 1. Identify the basic goals and objectives of the decision makers, and
the benefits and disadvantages of the possible alternatives.
Dr.
A is faced with a dilemma regarding how he could effectively treat his patient
F. His goals include respecting F's autonomous choices, providing compassionate
palliative care, and maintaining his professional integrity. We suggest a few
alternatives/solutions to this dilemma:
3. This alternative doesn't allow for
procedural safeguards, including a second opinion on prognosis, assessment of
other modes of pain relief, or a competence assessment. Dr. A can have
difficulty squaring this alternative with the moral commitments of his
profession. Moreover, if he is absent when F takes the medication, and
something should go wrong, he will have abandoned his patient at an extremely
vital time.
Step 4:
Identify the relevant and priority ethical values important to proposing an ethically
defensible recommendation.
1. Non-harm is a vital value because a doctor
has made a professional commitment to respect all human life.
2. Confidentiality is crucial in any
doctor-patient relationship, but even more so in this case, because of F's
condition. AIDS is a disease that elicits much discrimination from society. If
Dr. A seeks outside care for F, he needs to be sure he can absolutely trust
those with whom he shares information about F's condition.
3. The potential legal ramifications of Dr. A's
decision make justice an important value.
4. Respect for personal autonomy is vitally
important, as patients should be able to make informed decisions about the
health care they receive.
5. The value of human dignity has a major role
in this case, since F has to rely totally on the care of others.
6. The principle of beneficence is relevant,
because of F's pain's and suffering, and Dr. A's professional commitment to
alleviate pain and suffering.
Step 5:
Determine the ethically preferable alternative for this case by applying the
priority values for this case.
My
ethics assessment leads me to support alternative 2 [Dr. A prescribes life-ending
medication to F] because it is the alternative that best respects the patient's
wishes. It also satisfies the values of confidentiality and human dignity best,
as no one else has been informed of F's condition, and he would be able to die
with some dignity intact. With respect to the other values, I've come to the
conclusion that a terminal illness such as AIDS requires rethinking my usual
ethical values. In particular, although intuitively death seems like the
ultimate harm, with respect to the value of non-harm, this alternative releases
F from the pain and suffering caused by AIDS. The doctor must not, in any
circumstance, abandon the patient at the time when he needs friendship the
most.
Page 74
Step 6:
Moral Closure: Develop
a plan for implementing this alternative
©
Paul Eakin, Fall 1995. Reprinted with permission of author.
There are
several criteria by which a case study analysis is evaluated:
1. Discernment: How well did you see the
problem(s) at issue?
2. Comprehensiveness: Did you work through all
the steps in the
analysis
method?
3. Integration: Did you bring the relevant
values into your analysis, so they give you direction on how to resolve the
issue?
4. Creativity: Did you ask the right questions
and think of imaginative, though realistic, ways "out" of the dilemma
posed in the case?
5. Closure: Did your resolution answer your
question or problem about the case? Is your resolution supported by the values
you've identified as important in the case?
In some
classes, you may be asked to develop your own case study, based on your
personal experience, and provide a collective or personal ethical analysis of
the case. In writing your own case:
1. Spend time thinking over a situation in your
life in which a difficult ethical choice was presented. The context might be
within:
Your family
life, e.g., you promised to be home at 11:00, but when that time came, you
wanted to stay out longer.
a.
Preserving a friendship, e.g., a good friend comes to you and asks you
to keep a secret that involves another friend.
b.
A school situation, e.g., you wonder whether you should report the use
of illegal drugs to a counselor, or cheating on an exam to a professor or you
face harassment of some kind from other students or a teacher.
c.
A work place situation, e.g., a fellow employee is coming in late,
leaving early, taking long breaks, etc.
d.
Everyday life, e.g., a stranger approaches you as you walk down the street
and asks for some money for lunch.
2. Once you've determined your situation, then
write the essential details down. Some guidelines are:
3. Be as brief as you can but include details
important to the situation;
4. Write down the topic of situation, e.g.,
friendship, drug use, cheating;
5. Write down two or three basic features of
the situation, e.g., what circumstances led up to the dilemma; what needed to
be decided, who were the decision makers, etc.
Have
the situation reach a decision-point and end your description, asking
"what should be done?" Preserve confidentiality by changing all names
or identifying information in the situation.
Dialogue has
been one of the great genres of philosophical writing since the classical
Greeks. In fact, Plato's dialogues (in which, for the most part, Socrates is
the chief interlocutor) are still the most sophisticated representatives of the
genre. Still, dialogues by Berkeley, Hume and other philosophers (as well as
scientists such as Galileo) are of considerable philosophical interest and
literary value. Because they require a clear grasp of the philosophical
positions involved, excellent reasoning skills, psychological insight, and
literary ability, dialogues are one of the most difficult writing genres in
philosophy.
A dialogue is
usually a conversation between two or more persons holding different
philosophical views. A dialogue allows a dramatic representation of the
strengths and weakness of a philosophical positions to be revealed in the
course of a conversation between persons holding those views. In Plato's
dialogues there is often an attempt to show someone that they do not know what
they think they know. Such dialogues often end in aporia or puzzlement. Other
Platonic dialogues have the function of stating positive philosophical theses
in the face of opposition. For example, in the Gorgias, Plato defends the
radical moral thesis that it is better to suffer injustice than to do it
against the sophists and politicians who utterly reject this doctrine.
Occasionally philosophers will write dialogues between abstractions, .i.e. a
dialogue between Faith, Reason and Truth -- but this is much less frequent than
dialogues between people.
At the
introductory level we would expect that a student would write a short dialogue
adequately and fairly representing a single specific claim or simple
philosophical position which she attacks or defends in the course of the
dialogue using arguments, analogies, hypotheses, explanations or other
philosophical forms of persuasion. It is worth noting here, that adequately and
fairly representing a position which one intends to refute requires that one
give the strongest statement of the position which one can, and that in
reasoning against it one avoid fallacies such as the straw argument, ad hominem
and other forms of poor reasoning. On an intermediate level we would expect a
longer dialogue, showing the exposition, and critical examination of a position,
again using the appropriate philosophical skills, and displaying good
organization. On an advanced level, such projects would be more ambitious and
display some literary skills as well in the development of character and the
presentation of the argument.
Page 78
In Berkeley's
Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous we can find some classic examples
of a position being refuted in the course of a dialogue and see the strategy
employed to do so. In the first dialogue, for example, Berkeley aims to show
that there is no such thing as matter existing independently of the mind. He
does this because he believed that the belief in matter leads to skepticism and
atheism.
He
begins with a character ("Hylas" which means "matter" in
Greek) who thinks that all properties, i.e. color, taste, sound, and smell as
well as extension, motion and rest, solidity and texture, exist independently
of the mind. Berkeley lived in a philosophical age which sharply distinguished
between mind dependent properties (like pleasure and pain, color and taste)
which were called secondary qualities and mind independent properties (like
extension, solidity, motion and rest) which were called primary qualities. So
Hylas is very much behind the times. His position is the Aristotelian position
rejected by the "modern" philosophers who Berkeley is attacking.
Berkeley's spokesperson in the dialogue "Philonous" or "lover of
mind" develops the arguments of these modern philosophers to show that
color, taste, smell and sound are properties which depend for their existence
on a perceiving mind. This might seem like a waste of time. But it is not, for
reasons that we will see shortly. Having gone through many such arguments in
some detail, Berkeley then comes to the crucial distinction between primary and
secondary qualities:
HYLAS:
I frankly own, Philonous, that it is in vain to stand out any longer. Colours,
sounds, tastes, in a word, all those termed secondary qualities, have certainly
no existence without the mind. But by this acknowledgement I must not be
supposed to derogate any thing from the reality of matter or external objects,
seeing it is no more than several philosophers maintain, who nevertheless are
the furtherest from denying matter. For the clearer understanding of this, you
must know sensible qualities are by philosophers divided into primary and
secondary. The former are extension, gravity, motion and rest. And these they
hold exist really in bodies. The latter are those above enumerated; or briefly
all sensible qualities beside the primary, which they assert are only so many
sensations or ideas existing nowhere but in the mind. But all this, I doubt
not, you are already apprised of. For my part, I have been a long time sensible
there was such an opinion current among philosophers, but was never thoroughly
convinced of its truth until now.
Here
we have the position or claim Berkeley plans to refute stated simply and
clearly. Philonous then proceeds to offer arguments which are just like the arguments
which he has used to show that color and taste are mind dependent, to show that
extension, motion and rest and the other primary qualities are also mind
dependent. To the degree that these arguments are simple and effective, they
offer a spectacular attack on the distinction between primary and secondary
qualities.
What
is extraordinarily clever about the way in which Berkeley has structured this
dialogue, is that by giving the arguments of the modern philosophers to show
that color and taste are mind dependent, he has established what sorts of
arguments his opponents will accept for this conclusion. When he then applies
arguments of exactly these same kinds to show that the properties which his
opponents hold are mind independent are not, he has already firmly established
that they will accept arguments like these as conclusive. (This is a strategy
which Plato often uses in writing dialogues as well. Socrates will give an
analogous argument about some topic which parallels the crucial issue to be
decided. This analogous argument then serves as a model. This allows the
pattern of reasoning to be worked out on a topic less contentious than the
crucial topic at issue in the dialogue. Then, when that same pattern of
reasoning is applied, it is much more effective in persuading.) Returning to
Berkeley, we find Philonous making just this point to Hylas.
Thus,
Philonous says to Hylas:
Phil:
You are still then of the opinion, that extension and figures are inherent in
external unthinking substances?
Hyl:
I am.
Phil:
But what if the same arguments which are brought against secondary qualities,
will hold proof against these also?
Hyl:
Why then I shall be obliged to say that they exist only in the mind also.
Philonous
then proceeds to give Hylas arguments of the same kind as he had deployed to
show that the secondary qualities are mind dependent to show that extension and
figure and the rest of the primary qualities are mind dependent. One such
argument goes like this:
Phil:
Again, have you not acknowledged that no real inherent property of any object
can be changed, without some change in the thing itself?
Hyl:
I have.
Phil:
But as we approach or recede from an object, the visible extension varies,
being at one time ten or a hundred times greater than at another. Doth it not
follow from hence, likewise, that it is not really inherent in the object?
Hyl:
I own I am at a loss about what to think.
The
point of this argument is that the size of an object we see varies dramatically
with the distance we are from it. Since it seems large from up close and small
from far away, it cannot be that we are immediately sensing a real property,
for the size of an object cannot be both large and small, for the thing itself
has not changed -- as Philonous has carefully gotten Hylas to acknowledge.
Part
of what makes Berkeley's achievement so impressive is the number and detailed
character of the arguments he offers. He takes on the position he is attacking
from every angle. It is an assault on all fronts. But for a student who is
learning the craft, far smaller and less ambitious goals are to be preferred.
To give an argument such as that just presented, with the parts properly
organized would be an impressive achievement all by itself.
How can this
example help you write a dialogue? You may not understand why Berkeley is
trying to show that matter does not exist or what the distinction is between
primary and secondary qualities or why Berkeley is trying to show that this
distinction cannot be maintained. For present purposes, all of this is largely
irrelevant. What you need to grasp from this example are some simple points:
1.
A dialogue
is a conversation between persons who hold differing philosophical positions.
So, the first point is that you need to understand the philosophical positions
which each side is presenting, and very likely you need to understand the
strengths and weaknesses of these positions as well. This is one of the
requirements which make writing dialogues so difficult. Historians of
philosophy still debate about how well Berkeley understood the position he was
refuting, but there is no doubt that he is refuting one plausible
interpretation of his opponents views.
2.
The aim of
a philosophical conversation is to try to determine which position is the strongest,
that is which has the best evidence and arguments supporting it. So, not only
must you thoroughly understand the various philosophical positions you are
writing about, but you must give the strongest interpretations of views which
you are trying to refute, and use the best kinds of reasoning skills in doing
the refutation. That is, the use of fallacies such as straw arguments, and
arguments against the person is not acceptable practice.
Historians
of philosophy are still debating whether Berkeley attacked the strongest
version of the position he was refuting. The are good arguments to show that he
did. The level of Berkeley's reasoning is first rate. The tone which Philonous
adopts with Hylas is patient, not abusive. Philonous is willing to deal with an
enormous variety of objections. He is willing to let Hylas change his position,
and so forth. It is clear that Berkeley is engaged in a serious critique of the
position he is trying to refute, not after a quick and cheap victory.
3.
One of the
most crucial points in writing a dialogue in which you are attacking a
philosophical position is that you need to consider what kinds of arguments the
proponents of that position would accept.
As
noted above Berkeley wants to argue that all qualities are mind dependent, his
opponents hold that only some arguments are mind dependent. Berkeley begins by
giving his opponents arguments for the mind dependence of some qualities, and
then applies the same kind of argument to the qualities which they think are
not mind dependent.
Plato
often does much the same as Berkeley, only he will have Socrates present an
argument about a different and more neutral subject which has the same
structure as the argument which will refute the position he aims to refute. Thus
he gets his interlocutor to agree that the reasoning in the neutral case is
good and then applies it to the controversial case.
In
any philosophy writing that uses information from other sources, the source of
the borrowed information must be clearly documented. This enables the reader of
your paper to re-create your research and writing process. To borrow
information from another without proper acknowledgment is a form of dishonesty
known as plagiarism. OSU Academic Regulation 15 requires honesty in academic
work.
Honesty
in Academic Work (Academic Regulation 15):
The
administration of the classroom rests with the instructor. When evidence of
academic dishonesty comes to the instructor's attention, the instructor should
(a) document the incident, (b) permit the accused student to provide an
explanation, (c) advise the student of possible penalties, and (d) take action.
The instructor may impose any academic penalty up to and including an "F"
grade in the course after consulting with his or her department chair and
informing the student of the action taken. Using the standard form, the
instructor must report the incident and the action taken to his or her
department chair, who, in turn, shall forward the report to his or her dean.
There
are two primary methods of documentation in the writing patterns of philosophy:
the MLA in-text citation style, and footnotes or endnotes. You
should ask your professors which style they prefer, if their paper instructions
are not explicit.
In-text Citations
The
MLA (Modern Language Association) style of documentation recommends in-text
citations that refer readers to a list of works cited. An in-text citation
combines:
·
A phrase
that names the author of the source, and
·
A
reference that includes at least a page number.
For example,
suppose in your paper you quote the following sentence from a book by Marcus J.
Borg: "Two key words enable us to glimpse what was most central to Jesus:
spirit and compassion." Your in-text citation would look like this: (Borg
46). The reader then knows to turn to the list of "Works Cited" at
the conclusion of the paper where more detailed information about the book by
Borg can be found: Borg, Marcus J. Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time.
New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1994.
In
MLA style, a bibliography is compiled at the end of the paper under the
heading, "Works Cited." The "Works Cited" section will
include the books and articles referenced by the citations within the body of
the paper and may also include resource material consulted but not cited.
"Works Cited" lists sources alphabetically according to the author's
last name. A listing consists of three elements:
a.
Author's
name
b.
Title
c.
Publication
Information
Footnotes
or Endnotes
A
more traditional citation format is to use footnotes (located at the bottom of
the page on which the reference is cited) or endnotes (located at the end of
the paper). Footnotes and endnotes are signified by the use of superscript type
and a successive numbering system. In either form, notes require complete
publishing information as do in-text citations:
·
Elements
of Documentation (first reference should be fully documented):
a.
Author's
name
b.
Title
c.
Publication
information
d.
Page
reference
·
Second and
Subsequent references:
a.
) Last
name of author
b.
Title, if
more than one work of an author is cited in the paper
c.
Page
reference
Page 95
·
Citation
Formats:
The format for citation
using footnotes or endnotes largely follows the same style as the formats for
in-text citations. However, there are two important differences:
1.
The
author's first name comes first in the citation, i.e., Kathleen D. Moore,
rather than Moore, Kathleen D., and the last name is followed by a comma rather
than a period.
2.
The
publication information--place of publication, publisher, and year of
publication--is enclosed within a parentheses.
The original
example used to illustrate in-text citation would look like this in a footnote
or endnote system:
1.
Marcus J. Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time (New York: Harper
Collins Publishers, 1994) 46.
Whether you use
the MLA In-text citation style or the more common Endnotes and Footnotes style,
you will need to compile a list of sources used and put it at the end of your
paper. The MLA calls this section "Works Cited"; otherwise it is
called a "Bibliography." Here is how you should list the sources you
consult:
|
1. General
Form of Book Citations Authors Name:
Last name, comma, fist name, period. Title
Full title, italicized or underlined, period. Include subtitles. Publication
Information: a.
Editor
or Translator's Name: First name, last name, preceded by Ed. or Trans.,
followed by period. b.
Edition:
2nd ed., 3rd ed., etc. c.
Volume
number d.
Publisher:
city, state, colon, publishing company, comma, year of publication. e.
Page
numbers: Used only when a specialized part of a book is cited, such as a
preface or appendix. 2. General
Form of Periodical Citations Author's
Name: Last name, comma, first name, period. Title:
Enclosed in quotation marks. Period precedes closing quotation. Publication
Information: a.
Name of
book or periodical: Italicized or underlined, period. b.
Volume and
Issue number: c.
Publication
Date and page numbers: Year of publication in parentheses, colon, page
numbers of article, period. |
Book:
Hamington, Maurice. Hail Mary? The Struggle for Ultimate Woman hood in
Catholicism. New York: Routledge, 1995.
Two or Three Authors:
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Four or More Authors:
Bouma, Hessel, III, et al. Christian Faith, Health and Medical Practice.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989.
Editor:
List, Peter C., Ed. Radical Environmentalism: Philosophy and Tactics.
Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993.
Author with an Editor:
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Ed. Samuel Gorovitz. Indianapolis:
The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1971.
Translation:
Kant, Immanuel. Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. Lewis
White Beck. Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing, 1969
Two or More Works By the Same Author:
Borg, Marcus J. Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. New York: Harper
San Francisco, 1994.
.
Jesus: A New Vision. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987.
Second or Subsequent Edition:
Moore, Kathleen Dean. Inductive Arguments: Developing Critical Thinking
Skills. 3rd ed. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 1995.
Multivolume Work:
Kierkegaard, Soren. Either/Or. 2 vols. Garden City, New York: Doubleday
Company, Inc., 1959.
Work in an Anthology:
Roberts, Lani. "Duty, Virtue, and the Victim's Voice." Ed. Courtney
S. Campbell and B. Andrew Lustig, Duties to Others. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer, 1989. 109-121.
Article
in a Journal Paginated by Issue:
Leibowitz, Flo. "Pornography and Persuasion." Philosophy and
Literature 18:1 (1994): 118-123.
Article in a Journal Paginated by Volume:
Uzgalis, William L. "The Anti-Essential Locke and Natural Kinds." The
Philosophical Quarterly 38 (1988): 330-340.
Article in a Newspaper:
Pacheco, Manuel. "Mexico's Problems Go Beyond the Peso." The
Oregonian 11 August 1994: B12.
Article in a Weekly Magazine:
Borg, Marcus. "Death as the Teacher of Wisdom." The Christian
Century 26 February 1986: 203-206.
Article in a Monthly Magazine:
Moore, Kathleen Dean. "The Willamette River." The North American
Review March/April 1994: 8-10.
Review:
Scanlan, Michael. Rev. of Bertrand Russell: The Origins, by A.
Garciadiego. Modern Logic 5:4 (1995): 428-434
Editorial:
"No License to Kill." Editorial. The Oregonian 20 October
1994: D8.
Letter to the Editor:
Campbell, Courtney S. Letter. The Oregonian 27 October 1993: D6.
Pamphlet
or Government Publication:
Association of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics. Clarion
Calling: A Guidebook for Forest Service Employees. Eugene, Oregon. 1995.
Personal Interview:
Nelson, Carrie. Personal Interview. 20 October 1995.
Film:
North by Northwest. Dir. Alfred Hitchcock. MGM, 1959.
Television Program:
"Do Unto Others." Ethics in America. Narr. Fred Friendly. PBS,
WGBH Boston. 7 Aug. 1988.
Credits
Philosophy
Department
Oregon State
University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
Office Phone (541)737-5650
copyright 1997 by Department of Philosophy, Oregon State University. Reprinted with permission.