Philosophy papers are an unusual beast. By all appearances, they pass for typical humanities essays. But underneath lies a highly technical structure and a heavy reliance on logic and formal argument. They may feel foreign at first, but writing a philosophy paper is a fantastic way to explore what makes arguments solid—a skill that can be readily applied to other disciplines.
In some ways, the process of tutoring philosophy papers is easy because it molds immediately to the Socratic style of tutoring. The papers themselves actually mimic the back-and-forth of conversation, and asking probing questions is crucial. And because the subjects are so highly conceptual, anyone can tutor them.
On the other hand, the highly conceptual nature of the topics can seem scary to someone who has no background. Not to mention that the technical demands (many of which are left unsaid in assignments) feel awkward at first, and first-time writers and tutors often don’t know what they need to do in order to be successful.
Fortunately, these problems are all easily overcome. With the typical caveat that this model does not apply to all cases and the tutor should always defer to the specifics of the assignment, here’s a breakdown of the typical structure of a philosophy paper:
1. Reconstruction. In beginning essays, this part can actually consume up to two-thirds of the length of the essay, and is where the majority of points are won or lost. The goal is to “reconstruct,” in your own words, the argument of the philosopher at hand. This is intended to be the place to demonstrate your deep understanding of the argument—a crucial step before criticizing. It also allows the writer to structure the argument in such a way that she can pinpoint where the argument goes wrong (later in the essay). To tutor this section effectively, use your naiveté to your advantage and ask lots and lots of questions! The best reconstructions demonstrate thorough knowledge of the argument, so don’t hesitate to be a little pushy. Putting the argument in a formal, numbered format can also be helpful.
2. Objections and replies. This is the fun section, especially for tutors. Here, the author attempts to point out flaws in the philosopher’s argument, and then imagine what the philosopher might say in response. The strongest objections tend to be structured like conversations, sometimes literally going back and forth in a, “She would say, I would say” format. To tutor this section, play the other part! Say things like, “What problems do you see here?” “What might Descartes say in response? Does he address that elsewhere in the argument?” “Do you think that makes sense? What problems do you see in his reply?” “Do you think this objection is substantial enough to undermine the whole argument, or just pose an interesting problem?” But be sure to wait until the reconstruction is solid before entering the critical stage.
And when all else fails, consider: What would Plato do? Good luck out there, fellow philosophers.
