wp home > junior year writing > sourcebook for instructors > boutelle
A Student Paper from English 297H: Tutoring Writing
R. J. Boutelle’s essay, “Writing for a Philosophical World,” was written in response to the following assignment from English 297H: Tutoring Writing in the Fall 2006. The course was taught by Haivan Hoang.
Essay #3: Rhetorical Analysis: Writing in a Discipline
The first two essays for this class focused on your own writing experience and your idea of collaboration. We’re turning, in the next two essays, to an examination of writing that pushes us beyond our own experiences. Essay 3 asks you to examine the strategies employed by writers in a specific discipline. Your assignment is to write a rhetorical analysis of a specific discipline’s writing. As a collective, you and your classmates can pool your resources in order to learn about writing in literature, philosophy, business, nutrition, and more.
As you write, focus on these questions: What are the conventions for writing in this discipline? AND WHY does this discipline adopt such conventions? Together, these questions ask: what does it mean to be a member of this disciplinary community?
This academic essay should include detailed references to specific essays as well as interpretations of those details. Again, you should remember that analysis means to take apart, so you must have sufficient details in order to even begin your rhetorical explanations. Finally, one challenge will be to decide how you’ll focus your essay—as opposed to randomly listing features of writing in a particular discipline. See my email message for brainstorming tips.
Mark These Dates
Draft and email me two analysis paragraphs by Friday, November 3, 2006. Identify a convention and analyze it in depth. I’ll respond in an email message.
Revise and extend your draft for class Wednesday, November 8, 2006. We’ll talk about these drafts in class.
OPTIONAL: If you found it helpful to talk with me about your last essay, email or talk to me to schedule an individual conference this week.
Revise again, and bring your draft for another Writing Workshop on Wednesday, November 15, 2006.
Make final revisions. Email me the final draft, and turn in your portfolio of drafts.
Nitty-gritty details
At least four double-spaced pages
MLA format with bolded title, headers after first page (last name and page #), 1” margins, and standard 11-12 point font
Grading criteria
A: The essay asserts a surprising and insightful argument about why your specific discipline writes in the way that it does. This focused argument not only puts forth a detailed and nuanced explanation of writing choices in that discipline but does so through interpretations of specific examples.
B: The essay asserts a solid analysis of writing strategies used in that discipline but may need more explanation about WHY the discipline adopts those conventions. The argument is clear and well-organized.
C: The essay satisfactorily addresses the assignment and proposes a basic description about how writers in that discipline write essays. This analysis could be complicated—perhaps with more details from writing or more explanation of WHY the discipline adopts such conventions.
D/F: The essay does not meet the assignment criteria. For instance, the essay does not address the assignment. AND/OR one or more elements of the writing process are incomplete.
Writing for a Philosophical World
By R. J. Boutelle
The field of philosophy is often regarded as one of the most abstract and intangible courses of study that one can undertake. Philosophers are typically accused of being intellectuals without application and envisioned as hermits who seek unattainable knowledge (e.g. the meaning of life). In reality, the discipline explores a whole range of topics including morality, knowledge, existence, logic, language, science and society. A philosophy degree offers just as many professional opportunities as the topics addressed are very difficult to articulate in concrete terms and examples, and require vigorous analysis. As a result of this abstract nature, philosophical writing uses very specific and somewhat intimidating conventions. However, if one can overcome these initial rhetorical differences, the field can be very rewarding. As the University of Massachusetts - Amherst Philosophy Department advertises, “One of the things philosophy does is to prepare you for this most important activity of living for and with yourself. This does not mean that it teaches you a selfish activity; rather that it helps to instill self-understanding. Philosophy helps you to learn by doing, by actively doing analysis, questioning, reflecting, and understanding” (http://www.umass.edu/philosophy/undergrad_program/undergrad-program-main.htm.)
One convention of philosophical writing is the use of ‘possible worlds.’ Possible worlds are thought experiments used by philosophers to further arguments by appealing to a hypothetical version of the world. Joshua Hoffman and Gary S. Rosencrantz employ the use of possible worlds in their book The Divine Attributes. In an attempt to demonstrate the conflict between divine omniscience and free will, they write,
“Suppose in the actual world, Jones is in C and Jones freely chooses to attend the lecture this Friday. Yet, there is a possible world, W*, in which there is a person, Jones*, such that: (i) Jones* in W* is other than Jones in the actual world; (ii) Jones* in W* and Jones in the actual world are qualitatively indistinguishable from one another in their intrinsic properties up to this Friday; and (iii) in W*, Jones* is in C but Jones* freely chooses to refrain from attending the lecture this Friday” (Joshua Hoffman and Gary S. Rosenkrantz, The Divine Attributes [Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2002], 123.)
The dilemma posed here between the contrasting notions of free will and a God who is omniscient would be difficult to express without appealing to the hypothetical notion of a possible world. This argument is one of the more simple arguments because it utilizes mainstream ideas (free will and omniscience) and only a single alternative world. More complex arguments can utilize several possible worlds as well as much more difficult topic matter.
This argument not only sufficiently expresses the complexity inherent in philosophical writing, but also its purpose: furthering an argument that the author is trying to defend. This usually involves entering a conversation on a given topic and exploring it in more depth or from a different angle. By entering into a conversation it becomes important to have a firm grasp of the content explored by previous philosophers. This, combined with the often strictly theoretical nature of philosophical writing creates the need for a very specific and concise vocabulary, as it is very important for different authors to possess the same frame of reference in regard to theories, movements, and ideas used in philosophical texts. As a result of this, there are entire dictionaries devoted to defining philosophical theories, movements and methods. This specificity applies to many commonplace adjectives, especially words that one would usually use to describe inquisitive theories. For example, in George Berkeley’s Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous has the express purpose of “admit[ing] the opinion for true, which upon examination shall appear most agreeable to common sense, and remote from skepticism?” (George Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge/Three Dialogues edited by Roger Woolhouse [New York, NY: Penguin, 1988], 122.) Here, the use of the word ‘skepticism’ could mean, “a doubting or questioning attitude” (American Heritage Dictionary Fourth Edition, s.v. “skepticism”). However, in the strict philosophical sense it describes, “the view that nothing can be known with certainty; that at best there can be some private probable opinion” (Penguin Reference Dictionary of Philosophy, s.v. “skepticism”). It is very clear that this is an important distinction to make. According to the traditional definition to be ‘skeptical’ is to be a philosopher! The very nature of the field requires a “doubting or questioning attitude.” However, to call a philosopher a skeptic is a severe accusation that can be very offensive if not properly grounded or defined.
This same need for very precise language arises with other nondescript words such as “valid,” “sound,” and “circular.” While each of these words can be used in a plethora of different contexts in other writing disciplines, each can be used with but a singular meaning in philosophical texts. The words “valid” and “sound” are both utilized in describing the effectiveness of an argument. “Valid” refers to an argument whose conclusion must be true if all the premises are true. “Sound” refers to an argument whose premises and conclusion are all true. Claiming an argument to be “valid” or “sound” according to different definitions than these could destroy not only the reputability of an argument but that of the entire paper. This shows the reader that the writer does not even have a grasp of basic philosophical principles and therefore cannot take the paper seriously.
The word “circular” also plays a large role in philosophical writing. This word refers to an argument or definition that defines itself. For example, a circular definition would be to describe something ‘beautiful’ as ‘having beauty.’ The use of this word becomes very important in one of the major conventions of philosophical writing: refuting opposing arguments.
Arguments in philosophical writing are usually presented immediately and then sometimes not again until the end of the paper. The main body of the text is comprised of a series of smaller arguments that the author will either endorse or refute. In many cases, the author will actually interrupt the text to present an argument. Hoffman and Rosenkrantz frequently interrupt the flow of their text by inserting arguments amidst the paragraphs. In their chapter, “Eternality” for example, the authors are exploring the question of whether God exists in time or out of time. They present five different arguments that stand alone between paragraphs, including:
(Premise A1) Necessarily, if God is temporal, then he has temporal parts.
(Premise A2) Necessarily, if God exists, then he does not have parts.
Therefore, necessarily, if God exists, the he is atemporal.
(Joshua Hoffman and Gary S. Rosenkrantz, The Divine Attributes [Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2002], 100.)
Here, the disruption of flow is of little concern because the clarification of the argument being presented takes greater precedence. This is the result of the very theoretical language often used in such philosophical texts that can often make the reader feel overwhelmed. By the writer taking a brief second to elucidate an argument, the reader has a much better chance of grasping the material.
Writers in philosophy not only grapple with the problem of properly presenting arguments, but of addressing objections to them. Because of the conversation-oriented nature of the discipline, every argument presented is open to discussion and critique. In this sense, philosophy is much like debate: the arguments being presented are important, but not nearly as important as the debater’s ability to address and refute the arguments of the opponent. This is another defining characteristic of that is not found in other disciplines.
One common method employed to address this convention is the use of dialogues. Here, the author will assume the voice of a character who is discussing the arguments with one or more people. This allows the author to seamlessly raise and refute objections to their own arguments. The most famous example of this would be the writings of Plato. Here, Plato uses Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own beliefs and engages him in a variety of conversations with those who impugn his beliefs. Plato will then have Socrates systemically reveal the flaws in the opposing argument and often leave the opponent embracing his the Socratic view.
Another method of refuting objections to an argument is by using very clear phrases that would seem out of place in other disciplines. These phrases, often referred to as “signposts,” include seemingly obvious statements like, “My argument is…” or “I will now show that this objection to the argument is ineffective.” For example, in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, John Locke starts the book by explicitly stating, “my purpose [is] to inquire into the original, certainty, and extent of human knowledge; together with the grounds and degrees of belief, opinion, and assent” (John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. Kenneth P. Winkler [Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1996], 4). These signposts, although somewhat patronizing to the reader, can be very effective in philosophical writing in that they help the reader to better understand the exact claims being made or arguments being formed. It also helps the reader to distinguish which views the author holds and which views are being criticized.
The deviations of philosophical writing from the conventions of standard writing can be attributed largely to the abstract content and highly conceptual descriptions of the problems and arguments being addressed. This engenders the need for a unique approach, making clarity and organization become infinitely more important. As a result of the scrupulous attention to detail inherent in the discipline, writing about philosophy can be very frustrating. It almost seems foolish to write a paper with the foreknowledge that every person who reads it is looking for a logically fallacy or misuse of a term. But while this may be very upsetting to philosophers, it can also be very rewarding. If the proper time is taken and research completed, then an argument can be presented that will earn the respect of the entire community, a challenge not easily met. It is obvious that no philosophical writing will ever be exempt from scrutiny or even sensible objections. However, by furthering the conversations and delving deeper into the arguments presented, even if only to criticize, will at least provide the philosophical (and general academic) community with a better understanding of the ever important issues the discipline addresses.
Works Cited
George Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge/Three Dialogues edited by Roger Woolhouse. New York, NY: Penguin, 1988.
Joshua Hoffman and Gary S. Rosenkrantz, The Divine Attributes. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2002.
John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. Kenneth P. Winkler. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1996.
R.J. Boutelle is originally from Winchendon, MA. He is entering into his third year at the University of Massachusetts and is currently pursuing knowledge in the fields of English and Philosophy. After graduation, he intends to enroll in a doctoral program in American Literature.
