DIALOGUES AND

ANALYTICAL PAPERS

Virtually every Philosophy course offered through the Division of Distance Education has a major written component.  In some of these courses I insist that students write a formal analytical paper, in others I encourage them to write original philosophical dialogues.  Although these assignments are discussed in the video-lectures, many of you have asked to have some general guidelines and suggestions posted to the web.  So here goes.

GENERAL SUGGESTIONS

(FOR ANY TYPE OF WRITING)

1.    Have a clear thesis in mind.  Whether it is a dialogue or an analytical paper, you should have some philosophical point in mind that you are trying to communicate to your reader.

2.    Have a outline.  This doesn't have to be fancy or elaborate.  But have a game plan of how your dialogue or paper is going to be structured.

3.    Assume the "voice" of the expert, and of the teacher.  Pretend that your reader is not your professor, but someone who is smart, a college graduate, but knows nothing about academic philosophy or the specific issue you are writing about.  This requires that you inform your reader of what the issue is, what arguments are presented for and against your position, and why you take the stand that you do.  Don't be condescending, but assume your reader needs a lot of the background filled in.

4.    Your paper or dialogue will need "recognized academic" sources.  Unless it is explicitly stated otherwise in the course you are taking, there should be a minimum of four or five sources.  Required reading material for the course itself is acceptable, as are hard copy books and academic articles.  Where things get tricky is when you use internet sources.  Not everything on the web is genuinely "academic."  I strongly urge you to check with me about web sources.

SUGGESTIONS FOR DIALOGUES

1.    Again, have a thesis.  What position are you communicating to you reader through your dialogue? 

2.    Typically you should use three characters.  One should represent the position taken by one of you academic sources.  Another character should represent another academic source with a contrasting stand on the issue.  The third should be a stand in for you.

3.    I think it works best when all of your characters speak in colloquial voices, rather than trying to sound "academic."  Feel free to be a little creative, here, but always remember that demonstrating your knowledge of the philosophical controversy is your primary responsibility.  That being said, though, I really hope that you will have a good time with the dialogue format and experiment a bit.

4.    I strongly suggest that you format your dialogue as a "script."  Here's an example.

JOE:      Kant's argument from retribution provides the strongest argument for capital punishment.

JANE:    I can't buy that at all.  The only possible defense would be in utilitarian terms.  And       when we try that ...

SUGGESTED OUTLINE FOR ANALYTICAL PAPERS

1.    Very brief introduction.  Outline the philosophical debate, and perhaps state the position you intend to defend.

2.    The first major section should explain (teach) your reader how Scholar A has argued for her position.  (Obviously, this will be one of your academic sources.)

3.    The second major section should explain (teach) your reader how Scholar B has argued for his position.  (Obviously, this will also be one of your academic sources.)

4.    In the third major section, you will defend your stand on the issue.  This might be as simple as defending your judgment as to whether Scholar A or Scholar B has presented the stronger case.  Even here, however, you will want to present your arguments about the issue.  You are also free to advocate for a compromise between the two sources, or present a different analysis of this issue altogether.  Here, again, the quality of your argument will be a key to the success of this section.

5.    Very brief conclusion.