Ready to write a paper.
I have now written nine entries on the metaphysics of personal identity. I had a brainstorm last night that gave me enough information to write a proper paper on the subject now. When I am finished, I shall supply a link to it from this blog.
I have written an outline for the paper. I wanted to get a concept of what word length people would expect from a work of this nature. I would imagine that there would be a maximum of ten thousand words for the paper, but a thousand words seems a little short. That's as much space as I would devote to a single blog entry. I did a Google search on "philosophical paper word length". The top-ranked page belonged to the University of South Carolina College of Liberal Arts Department of Philosophy. It was a list of tips for writing a short philosophy paper, and it merely said that:
Well, this is certainly a good issue. I also consider that, as long as I restrict myself to the type/token issue, it is tractable. It will rapidly become intractable once I start to deal with specific issues of what makes a type of person the same type over time. The issues with what makes a token of person the same token over time will be similarly harrowing. But if I deal solely with the issues of types and tokens themselves, then I will be all right.
Well, I have read all those tips, and I noted tip 1:
I know of absolutely no one else who has written anything like what I have written. I have no "alternative" views to consider.
Then this will have to be a 0.x paper. Write it as one, and then present it to whomever will give you some examples of authors who have written opposing views. I know that a philosophical paper cannot be "merely" an opinion paper. You must demonstrate a good and thoughtful coverage of alternatives. I also think that if you give it some thought, you will come up with a list of reasonable alternatives.
I suppose. But if that is the case, then my first draft will be purely my opinion, without reference to anything other than the basic issues as they were taught me in my introductory class. I can layer from there as I see fit.
I have written an outline for the paper. I wanted to get a concept of what word length people would expect from a work of this nature. I would imagine that there would be a maximum of ten thousand words for the paper, but a thousand words seems a little short. That's as much space as I would devote to a single blog entry. I did a Google search on "philosophical paper word length". The top-ranked page belonged to the University of South Carolina College of Liberal Arts Department of Philosophy. It was a list of tips for writing a short philosophy paper, and it merely said that:
Length should not be a problem if you choose a good (and tractable) issue that interests you and compels you to explore what it involves.
Well, this is certainly a good issue. I also consider that, as long as I restrict myself to the type/token issue, it is tractable. It will rapidly become intractable once I start to deal with specific issues of what makes a type of person the same type over time. The issues with what makes a token of person the same token over time will be similarly harrowing. But if I deal solely with the issues of types and tokens themselves, then I will be all right.
Well, I have read all those tips, and I noted tip 1:
Do not write a mere "opinion" paper. You need to state more than your own views, brilliant as they may be. Lay out arguments of the authors you are discussing, and offer counterarguments of your own—see Tip 6. A decent paper would devote substantial space to fairly and clearly presenting the author's views (claims made, arguments in favor of those claims, examples and illustrations, etc.), and then substantial space to presenting possible counterclaims, counterarguments, and counterexamples. Both of these tasks require imagination and discipline.
I know of absolutely no one else who has written anything like what I have written. I have no "alternative" views to consider.
Then this will have to be a 0.x paper. Write it as one, and then present it to whomever will give you some examples of authors who have written opposing views. I know that a philosophical paper cannot be "merely" an opinion paper. You must demonstrate a good and thoughtful coverage of alternatives. I also think that if you give it some thought, you will come up with a list of reasonable alternatives.
I suppose. But if that is the case, then my first draft will be purely my opinion, without reference to anything other than the basic issues as they were taught me in my introductory class. I can layer from there as I see fit.
Comments