What are some points to keep in mind when writing for a philosophy class? I just finished a course where every thing I wrote seemed to be wrong.

A. Read James Pryor’s and Peter Horban's very helpful advice on writing philosophy papers at http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html and at http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/writing.htm . B. Follow the general writing advice of the Harvard Writing Center at http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~wricntr/documents/Overvu.html and the Dartmouth Writing Center at http://www.dartmouth.edu/~writing/materials/student/toc.shtml . C. Understand that different professors will have different expectations. Here is the advice that I offer my own students in a handout entitled, "Writing a Philosophy Paper": 1. What to do . Your paper must include: (a) A clear statement of the problem you are trying to solve . Getting a clear statement of the problem is more than half the battle. You may not be able to decide on one solution; if not, say why not. (b) A clear statement of the solution you propose, if you believe that...

Is the study of "ancient philosophy", (i.e., Socrates, Plato, etc..) just a historical endeavor or is it still an important and fruitful field of philosophical study in itself? Seems to me that much philosophy, even pre-1800 or so, has been made irrelevant through relatively recent scientific studies. (I'm thinking about early philosophy on perception, for example.)

The history of philosophy is studied in philosophy departments forthe purpose of understanding whether a particular philosophical claimis true. To this end, historians of philosophy examine the particulararguments that have been offered for views held in the past, becausearguments, if they are good ones, will imply that their conclusions aretrue. This enterprise is different from the discipline often known as“the history of ideas,” because such a history need not focus on andexamine arguments that people provided for their views. Instead, thehistory of ideas often focuses on questions like— How did thisparticular idea help to legitimize the ruling class or patriarchy? Orhow was this sort of idea attractive to a person who suffered physicalabuse at a young age? Or how did Athenian Imperialism lead to anexposure to Egyptian ideas? These questions are interesting to help toexplain why certain people came to hold particular views, but answersto these questions do not take us much closer to understanding...

Why are there so few women philosophers?

Very little gives me more pleasure than a good philosophical fight, andI suspect that the other women panelists on this site feel the sameway. Perhaps we are the exceptions that prove the rule of the womanlycooperative virtues. Yet I also know of many men who have no stomachfor a good philosophical argument, and I've never heard anyone suggestthat we should change our methods so that more men will feelmore "comfortable" in philosophy. More to the point, I'm not sure that I understand the contrast between adversative and cooperative methods of doing philosophy. The most forceful defense of a philosophical position will often be given by a person who believes that it is true, and correspondingly the most telling criticisms of an argument will often be discovered by those who are skeptical of the truth of its conclusion. But such a give and take between philosophical adversaries seems to me to be the best cooperative means of gaining philosophical insight. As Socrates explained to his...

Hello Philosophers! I graduated college not too too long ago and have missed the intellectual discussions I used to have there. Someone alerted me to this site, and it has done more than anything else to bring back the good memories. Thanks to all of you for spending your time on this - it's like having a mini personalized philosophy class - and it's free! I was intrigued by the recent question about philosophy and improving students' characters (posted Sept. 9), responded to by Professor Louise Antony and was wondering if that discussion could be continued a little. In particular, I was unclear on whether Professor Antony was positioning herself as disagreeing with the questioner. Is she saying that it is not philosophy's purpose to improve character, or just that it is un-PC for a professor to state it as a goal of the course? Would, for example, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., (or Socrates, as I think was the example used by the questioner) be considered presumptuous? It was my understanding that...

This conversation reminds me of one that Plato often representsSocrates as having with certain sophists. Socrates asks them just whatin the world they are claiming to teach. They offer an answer that isvery similar to Richard’s: “We teach our students how to think clearlyand well.” Socrates wouldn’t be satisfied. After all, don’t allteachers claim to teach their students how to think well? "About whatsubject matter do philosophers teach us to think well?" Socrates wouldask. The answer, as is evident from this website, is: “A whole lot ofthings.” AsLouise noted in her response to the original question, oneof the things with which philosophers have traditionally been concernedis how one ought to live one’s life. A philosophy department’s offeringswould be seriously lacking if it didn’t include courses in whichstudents were taught to think well about ethical issues. Richard saysthat he doesn't know whether he is an expert on living life well in an effort to explain why it would be inappropriate...

Studying philosophy has brought for me seduction and self love instead of intellectuality and wisdom! After reading some philosophy books and thinking a lot about philosophy of life, Now I've lost all of my life! I think that daily actions of my friends and their thoughts are useless and meaningless in compare with philosophic thoughts. In my idea, it's time wasting to study university lessons and just go around like others. I also see myself in higher degree than my friends and able to understand what they don't catch at all! After all, I have many problems in my daily life, friendship and in university, maybe because of thinking in this way ...

The questions that philosophers consider seem to me to be some of themost important questions there are, and so any answers that we get tothese questions are themselves extremely valuable. Some of the answersand arguments that philosophers have offered in response to thesequestions have themselves been extraordinarily insightful andwonderful, and so for this reason, too, of significant value tous. Besides, it’s just fun to think about philosophical questions. Itdoesn’t, however, follow from these observations that nothing else isof value or even of comparable, if not more significant, value. I thinkthat one of the most important questions that philosophers ask is:“What has value?” However, it seems to me (and to many otherphilosophers) that the best answer to this philosophical question isthat there are many things of very significant value– e.g., otherpeople, their welfare, friendship, nature, understanding ofnon-philosophical matters, beauty–none of which philosophy by itselfprovides. I would bet...

A few years ago I completed a masters degree; however, since that time I have been employed at a job that tends not to incorporate masters (and indeed undergrad) level philosophy. As a result, perhaps, of this I have found myself reading less and less intellectual work (and spending less and less time with literature in general). I long to get back into an intellectual mindset, but am having difficulty 'reading'. I have tried various different approaches - from attempting to get through Russell's History of Western Philosophy , to simply trying to read at least one text by each of the 'greats', but each time I find myself glancing at the texts for about half an hour and then losing concentration. Ideas that I would once understand quite quickly have become hieroglyphs that I cannot translate. Put simply, I am having trouble reading philosophy philosophically. I am not looking for a 'quick fix' solution to this problem (as I do not think that there exist such things) - however, do you have any...

I’d approach the problem in a completely different way. I suspect thatthe problem that you are facing is that none of the philosophical worksthat you are now attempting to read has obvious relevance to your lifeas you now live it– to your career, to your personal relationships, toyour choices about what and where to eat, to your investmentstrategies, to your vacation plans, to your commute, to your life inyour community, etc. Ifso, it's not surprising that it’s hard to maintain interest. Iwould begin, not with philosophy, but with some interesting non-fictionthat is more obviously related to what your life is all about. Ipredict that you will find--such is the nature of philosophy-- that itwill raise interesting philosophical questions that you will feelcompelled to explore. Let me offer just one example. I just finished reading Barry Schwartz’s recent The Paradox of Choice: Why Less is More .Schwartz is a psychology professor at Swarthmore, not a philosopher.But this book raises all sorts...

It seems that philosophers have reduced philosophy to nothing more than theories of knowledge, and are asserting epistemologies that prevent anyone from philosophizing. I understand the power of doubt, and that we cannot describe morality in “indubitable” or absolute terms. But, speculation and wonder are what make philosophy interesting to me. Why won’t you construct philosophy from the basis of wonder? Is it so terrible to view your profession as art instead of science?

According to Plato’s dialogues, the philosopher Socrates was a masterat inducing wonder in the minds of others. Before they met Socrates,most people believed that they had a good grasp of matters of someimportance. After he asked them a few questions, it became clear tothem that matters weren’t as simple as they had supposed and that theyreally didn’t know what they were talking about. Having had theirignorance exposed, they began to wonder what in the world they shouldbelieve. Some might take Socrates to be a skeptic. However, Socratesseemed not to agree. He maintained that the wonder that he induced wasthe first step toward acquiring wisdom. I know that there area lot of people who love wonder for its own sake, who revel in themysteries of the world, and who would like the world a whole lot lessif it were less mysterious or puzzling. I myself don’t think that thisattitude is particularly philosophical. Aristotle, who pretty muchdefined the discipline of philosophy as it is known in the West...

This is a follow-up to the question "What is the difference between analytical and continental philosophy?". Even if the distinction should be retired, it still gets used, and those of us outside the profession don't have a sense of what the terms mean. It would still be useful to give us a sense of what the (stereotyped, misleading) distinction is supposed to be. What is the flavor of the rhetorical differences between the two? Do the two address different sorts of question? (This is the characterization I've gotten from philosopher friends: continental figures make up grand sweeping theories about everything, whereas analytic figures try to answer one small question at a time, more like the method of contemporary science.) Who are some of the major figures claimed by either side?

Like others, I believe that this popular dichotomy is in many ways morepernicious than helpful. Nonetheless, it might be helpful to make thefollowing observations. The Western philosophical tradition has itsroots in Ancient Greece. After the European rediscovery of Aristotleduring the Crusades, this tradition continued in Europe and eventuallyin the United States and Europe's other former colonies. In the early twentiethcentury, this tradition broke into two distinct styles of approachingphilosophical questions: the so-called Analytic or Anglo-Americantradition (influenced by philosophers Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein,Moore, Carnap, and Quine, some of whom, as has already been observed,are neither Anglo nor American) and the so-called Continental traditionthat continued in continental Europe (whose foundational figure is the19th century German philosopher Hegel, and which also includes suchphilosophers as Kierkegaard, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre).

Is it possible to philosophize about the human condition from a lofty philosophical viewpoint rather than gleaning humble wisdom through the experience of engaging with the messy experience of meeting, befriending and loving the mass of mere humanity?

No. Or, at least, not well. Philosophers, like everyone else, are trying to make sense of it all. But how could you make sense of a phenomenon with which you not familiar in its full complexity and messiness? How could you even know what questions need to be answered?

Pages