Philosophy of Human Nature

Essay Writing SuggestionsEssay Writing Suggestions
These essay topics are built around weighty philosophical and scientific positions, followed by a handful of weighty questions. The questions are posed in such a way that you will need to think about them carefully, then take a stand on them, then explain your stand and defend it with your best well-reasoned arguments.
There isn’t a one-size-fits-all formula for writing philosophy essays. There is plenty of room for individual variation, and plenty of room for finding your voice. But please don’t be too creative: no plays, dialogues, stream-of-consciousness reports, or short stories. If you are having difficulty, or are new to writing philosophy essays, here are some suggestions you might wish to consider.
These essay topics are built around weighty philosophical and scientific positions, followed by a handful of weighty questions. The questions are posed in such a way that you will need to think about them carefully, then take a stand on them, then explain your stand and defend it with your best well-reasoned arguments.
There isn’t a one-size-fits-all formula for writing philosophy essays. There is plenty of room for individual variation, and plenty of room for finding your voice. But please don’t be too creative: no plays, dialogues, stream-of-consciousness reports, or short stories. If you are having difficulty, or are new to writing philosophy essays, here are some suggestions you might wish to consider.

One way to start out the essay is to combine careful exposition and analysis of the philosophical/scientific position or idea you are addressing, at least insofar as it is relevant to the main question/s. What exactly is so-and-so saying? Why is he/she saying it? What does he/she mean? Following that section will be your answer to the question/s. How much exposition and analysis? Consider making the exposition-analysis section about 40-50% of the paper. It should be focused only on that part of the philosophical/scientific position or idea that is relevant to the question at hand; there is no need to cover everything (e.g., all aspects of Sartre’s philosophy or all of Pinker’s popular science writings).
Make sure you read the entire text carefully, and that you understand it. It is an all-too-common occurrence for essays to stray miles away from the text they are addressing, to omit important parts of it, or to interpret the text in ways that are not plausible or supportable.
Of course, make sure your exposition is accurate and fair; steer clear of the strawman strategy; steer clear of absolutizing; steer clear of paraphrasing other peoples’ work (it’s boring – we want to hear your own thoughts); and don’t assume that a question that is rhetorically posed (e.g. “Who could possibly believe that?”) counts as an argument with any weight. It isn’t and it doesn’t.
One way to start out the essay is to combine careful exposition and analysis of the philosophical/scientific position or idea you are addressing, at least insofar as it is relevant to the main question/s. What exactly is so-and-so saying? Why is he/she saying it? What does he/she mean? Following that section will be your answer to the question/s. How much exposition and analysis? Consider making the exposition-analysis section about 40-50% of the paper. It should be focused only on that part of the philosophical/scientific position or idea that is relevant to the question at hand; there is no need to cover everything (e.g., all aspects of Sartre’s philosophy or all of Pinker’s popular science writings).
Make sure you read the entire text carefully, and that you understand it. It is an all-too-common occurrence for essays to stray miles away from the text they are addressing, to omit important parts of it, or to interpret the text in ways that are not plausible or supportable.
Of course, make sure your exposition is accurate and fair; steer clear of the strawman strategy; steer clear of absolutizing; steer clear of paraphrasing other peoples’ work (it’s boring – we want to hear your own thoughts); and don’t assume that a question that is rhetorically posed (e.g. “Who could possibly believe that?”) counts as an argument with any weight. It isn’t and it doesn’t.
The latter part of the essay – say 40-50% – consists of your answer/s to the main question/s, and the arguments you develop to support your answer/s. Consider this analogy. Liken your role to that of a criminal trial lawyer who must argue his/her case in front of a jury and a judge and a courthouse packed with friends and foe alike. You have to win them over. To do so, your argument has to be clear and easy to follow; it has to be streamlined rather than bulky (that is, limited to your 2 or 3 best arguments); it should anticipate objections and address them; it should steer clear of fancy rhetorical devices; it should avoid unnecessary detail and fluff; and it should play fair with the facts (or the text in question).
If you are not a fan of courtroom drama, here is another analogy. Try likening your role to that of a scientist who is presenting his/her new hypothesis to an audience of skeptical scientists at a conference. You have to outline your hypothesis, describe and justify the experiments you have devised to test the hypothesis, interpret and present the evidence, and then come to a conclusion. But your audience is not easily won over, and at each step you are met with questions like “what do you mean by x?” and “why would you do that?”; comments like “I don’t see why this is important,” or “so what?”; and objections like “ok, but your conclusions do not follow,” “there is a much simpler explanation,” “this is counter-intuitive,” and “but Prof. Big Shot’s findings undermine these findings.” As you write your paper, keep this unpleasant audience in mind.
As for citation style, both MLA and APA will work. Footnotes are ok, too, but not pages and pages of them.
Perhaps the most important thing is to keep in mind at all times that the jury and judge – or the scientific audience – who are listening to you are wondering “why should I believe this?” and “what exactly is he/she saying?” And keep in mind at all times one of the most common responses of the jury and judge, or skeptical scientists: “ok, but why?” This last question typically shows up when you make an important move in your argument and instead of defending it, you leave it hanging in mid-air, as if it is so obvious that it needs no further defense. Too many of these mid-air suspension moves and you won’t win your case or defend your hypothesis.
Naturally, a brief introduction in which you state your intentions and goals is helpful. But keep it brief, and avoid trivial statements such as “X was a great/important/pioneering/etc philosopher/scientist who lived and worked in Pigsty University.” A brief conclusion is helpful, consisting of a succinct retrospective. Even a brief prospective account of what is missing in your answer and what needs to be done next (if only you had the time and willpower) might also be helpful. Many scientific papers in respectable scientific journals end with one or two paragraphs on the shortcomings of the findings they have just presented.
Finally, it is entirely up to you whether or not to consult secondary sources. It is not a requirement that you go out and do research on these topics; indeed, you can rely on the text in question, the lectures, and your own thoughts. That is probably how a lot of philosophers (e.g. Sartre) and scientists (e.g. Darwin) intended it to be anyways: they were writing directly to you, the reader, one on one. On the other hand, you should feel free to consult secondary sources, if that’s what you want to do. If you do, however, beware: there are hundreds of books, thousands of journal articles, and hundreds of websites, all professing important insights into Sartre, Darwin, and the latest crop of human origins researchers (such as Henrich, Wrangham, Tomasello, Pinker, and Hrdy). Some are good and some are not; some will say X about Darwin, some will say the very opposite; some will be confusing and some will be clear as a bell. If you use these secondary sources, make sure you cite them in a bibliography.
The latter part of the essay – say 40-50% – consists of your answer/s to the main question/s, and the arguments you develop to support your answer/s. Consider this analogy. Liken your role to that of a criminal trial lawyer who must argue his/her case in front of a jury and a judge and a courthouse packed with friends and foe alike. You have to win them over. To do so, your argument has to be clear and easy to follow; it has to be streamlined rather than bulky (that is, limited to your 2 or 3 best arguments); it should anticipate objections and address them; it should steer clear of fancy rhetorical devices; it should avoid unnecessary detail and fluff; and it should play fair with the facts (or the text in question).
If you are not a fan of courtroom drama, here is another analogy. Try likening your role to that of a scientist who is presenting his/her new hypothesis to an audience of skeptical scientists at a conference. You have to outline your hypothesis, describe and justify the experiments you have devised to test the hypothesis, interpret and present the evidence, and then come to a conclusion. But your audience is not easily won over, and at each step you are met with questions like “what do you mean by x?” and “why would you do that?”; comments like “I don’t see why this is important,” or “so what?”; and objections like “ok, but your conclusions do not follow,” “there is a much simpler explanation,” “this is counter-intuitive,” and “but Prof. Big Shot’s findings undermine these findings.” As you write your paper, keep this unpleasant audience in mind.
As for citation style, both MLA and APA will work. Footnotes are ok, too, but not pages and pages of them.
Perhaps the most important thing is to keep in mind at all times that the jury and judge – or the scientific audience – who are listening to you are wondering “why should I believe this?” and “what exactly is he/she saying?” And keep in mind at all times one of the most common responses of the jury and judge, or skeptical scientists: “ok, but why?” This last question typically shows up when you make an important move in your argument and instead of defending it, you leave it hanging in mid-air, as if it is so obvious that it needs no further defense. Too many of these mid-air suspension moves and you won’t win your case or defend your hypothesis.
Naturally, a brief introduction in which you state your intentions and goals is helpful. But keep it brief, and avoid trivial statements such as “X was a great/important/pioneering/etc philosopher/scientist who lived and worked in Pigsty University.” A brief conclusion is helpful, consisting of a succinct retrospective. Even a brief prospective account of what is missing in your answer and what needs to be done next (if only you had the time and willpower) might also be helpful. Many scientific papers in respectable scientific journals end with one or two paragraphs on the shortcomings of the findings they have just presented.
Finally, it is entirely up to you whether or not to consult secondary sources. It is not a requirement that you go out and do research on these topics; indeed, you can rely on the text in question, the lectures, and your own thoughts. That is probably how a lot of philosophers (e.g. Sartre) and scientists (e.g. Darwin) intended it to be anyways: they were writing directly to you, the reader, one on one. On the other hand, you should feel free to consult secondary sources, if that’s what you want to do. If you do, however, beware: there are hundreds of books, thousands of journal articles, and hundreds of websites, all professing important insights into Sartre, Darwin, and the latest crop of human origins researchers (such as Henrich, Wrangham, Tomasello, Pinker, and Hrdy). Some are good and some are not; some will say X about Darwin, some will say the very opposite; some will be confusing and some will be clear as a bell. If you use these secondary sources, make sure you cite them in a bibliography.
One last bit of advice. Do a spell and grammar check before handing it in. Don’t spell soul as sole, Hume as Hum, or Sartre as Satire. One last bit of advice. Do a spell and grammar check before handing it in. Don’t spell soul as sole, Hume as Hum, or Sartre as Satire.

Last Completed Projects