In-class essay, revisited

Now that everyone has had an opportunity to pick up their essays and go over the comments that Kijin and I made, I think it would be useful to go over some of the common issues that came up, as well as post some thoughts you may want to consider for the next essay. As I mentioned in the last post, the essays were generally well done. The class average came in a little higher than expected, but I genuinely believe the grades were well-deserved. If your grade was lower than you were expecting, don't despair. In the grand scheme of the course, this essay is worth a relatively small percentage of your grade. The vast majority of the lower grades that I gave out were mainly due to structural problems with the essay, as opposed to their content. Structuring a philosophy essay is a skill that you will likely find yourself developing fairly quickly, so there is certainly lots of room for improvement on your next attempt. Hopefully some of the comments in this posting will help with that.


Thesis Statements and Introductions
My first comment is on thesis statements, and introductions in general. Probably the single most important element of a philosophy paper is your introduction (which includes your thesis statement), because it tells the reader exactly what your idea is, and how you are going to go about proving it. Don't shy away from saying something like:

"In this essay, I will argue that apples are the best fruit, because they are more delicious, more nutritious, and one a day keeps the doctor away. To support this thesis I will first need to define the terms 'delicious' and 'nutritious', as well as make the assumption that, generally speaking, people do not want to visit the doctor."

So, you are setting up exactly what it is you want to prove in the essay, how you are going to prove it, and any definitions and background assumptions you will be making. Without a strong thesis, you are setting yourself up for a very difficult task. A good number of the in-class essays started off by saying something like, "I believe Diotima's/Aristophanes's account of love is correct, because it is more realistic." Consider for a moment just what this thesis statement entails for the rest of your essay. Either, a) you will have to develop your own account of just what the nature of love is in "reality", and then compare your favoured account to it, or b) you will argue it is realistic because you see your favoured account of love unfolding around you in society today.

Well, let's look at these two possibilities. If you choose to go the direction of a), then you have already set out for yourself an enormous task! The question of 'what is love' is a great one to consider, but are you really going to put together a strong case for what you believe love to be in a 50-minute in-class essay? Then have the time to compare one of the accounts in the Symposium to your idea? Likely not. As far as I know, only one student even attempted a), and she ended up doing an admirable job of concisely stating what she believed to be the defining features of love. It is, however, a difficult task for a full length essay you would write at home, let alone a couple of handwritten pages done in 50 minutes.

So, what if you chose b) and argued that Diotima's/Aristophanes's account is more realistic because it is what you see love to be in "society today"? Here is where many people ran into serious problems. If you do not give an account of just what "love is in society today" as you would have in a), then all you are saying is that it is more realistic because you are convinced that is what love is. But the essay question asked, "why are you more convinced?" See the problem? Your answer ends up essentially being, "I find Diotima's account more convincing, because I find it more convincing." From this point, some people did a better or worse job of analyzing their favoured account of love, but just by setting up your thesis as, "I find it more convincing, because it is more realistic" you have left yourself behind the 8-ball in terms of putting together a convincing argument. Assuming your conclusion as one of your premises is called 'begging the question', and it makes for an unpersuasive, and unacceptable, argument. I think Kijin or I will devote an entire posting to 'begging the question' at some point on this blog. It's the poison pill for a philosophy essay, and you need to avoid it at all costs.


Analysis
Another point that came up often in the essay was the degree to which the points that were being made were actually analytical. It's fine to say something like, "Diotima argues that love eventually transcends love for the individual, however, Aristophanes's idea that love is directed essentially towards the individual is more convincing.". But why? This statement shows that you have read the text (it was, after all, with you in the exam), but it does not show any degree of analysis of the arguments. Your intuition that one side is correct is a good starting point, but keep in mind that is is only a starting point. Philosophy is about disciplined and structured analysis of these intuitions, in order to see if they are correct or need revision. The best answers to essay questions will draw out interesting conclusions from the analysis, and present the implications of these conclusions. If you are able to show that one account results in absurd implications for the nature of love, then you will have gone a long way in showing why you are convinced by the opposing account.

This point was actually demonstrated very well in class today. The question arising from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics was, 'does your aversion to performing virtuous acts show a lack of virtue, or does your performance of virtuous acts in the face of this aversion display a virtuous character?' I am willing to bet most of you had some intuition as to which is the case, and many of you voiced your opinions. But that is only the first step. Saying, "I believe that it shows a virtuous character" necessitates the follow up question of, well.. why do you believe that? We'll see a great example of why we should believe one account from the king of philosophical analyticity himself, Emmanuel Kant, next semester. In the mean time, when you find yourself having an intuition about a philosophical question, always ask yourself why you feel that way.


Extraneous Information
Finally, just a quick word on extraneous information. Flowery introductions will not score you extra marks, believe me. Telling your audience that, "Questions regarding the nature of love have persisted throughout the ages. Plato is one of many authors in the western tradition to consider this important question--a question that I will consider in this paper today." etc etc etc, does not help. Especially when you have a time, page, or word limit, which you almost always will. Until you are writing your own book anyways. You also do not need to recapitulate the arguments you are about to discuss in their entirety. Use your judgment on this point. If you are referencing an obscure work that you are using to support an argument, then you may want to explain it. If you have a time or word limit and the question is focusing on one text, then your reader will certainly know the arguments you are referring to.


That's all from me, Kijin may have more that he would like to say a bit later. Overall, great work on the essays, and I'll be looking forward to reading more from you this year. See you on Friday!

JSY