At the University Center for Writing-based Learning (UCWbL), you may have a writer come in that is intimidated because they have to draft a paper that provides objections to an argument made by René Descartes—scientist, mathematician, and philosopher—or Sigmund Freud—neurologist, father of the psychoanalytic technique, and philosopher. How can we build confidence in the writer when they are comparing themselves to individuals with such weighty ethos? The great thing about philosophical argument is that the writer’s credibility relies solely on a sound logical argument. The writer should guide the reader down a path of obvious truthful premises that lead to a not-so-obvious conclusion; with that said, logos IS their ethos! Easy enough!
Before I get into the steps describing how to build a philosophical argument, let us first distinguish logic from typical rhetorical appeals, as well as some typical philosophical conventions. Although Aristotle created the rhetorical appeals, logic should be approached in a different manner. The rhetorical appeals are aimed at effective persuasion, while logic is solely aimed at rational persuasion. Using the first-person voice is common in philosophical arguments; it typically acts as “road signs” telling the reader exactly where the argument is going. Lastly, always tell the writer to avoid using direct quotes. The goal is not to explain the meaning of the sentences within the text, but rather the meaning of the argument. By effectively explaining the philosopher’s argument, the writer has shown their credibility by establishing that they understand fully the points being made.
Now let’s build that argument!
STEP 1: Come Up With a Precise Thesis
Is the writer arguing to support the philosopher’s argument? Are they providing objections or defending the argument against potential objections?
It is important to be clear, concise, and avoid playing both sides or devil’s advocate. Make the assertion and stick with it!
STEP 2: Build the Argument
Almost every philosophical argument follows the same equation: premise 1 + premise 2. . .(and so on) = conclusion.
There are three main flavors of reasoning when it comes to philosophical arguments: deductive, inductive, and abductive. Deductive reasoning says that if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Inductive reasoning relies more on inference, in that the conclusion is likely to be true based on true premises. And finally, abductive reasoning draws conclusions, not from true premises, but from available evidence.
STEP 3: Avoid Logical Fallacies
It is important to note that in logical arguments, appealing to emotion, or pathos, is considered a fallacy and should be avoided.
In the attached handout below, I go over the three big logical fallacies that I have experienced from tutoring at the UCWbL.
STEP 4: Answering Counterarguments and Conclusions
Raise and reply to any possible objections and conclude by stating the argument you just made.
Collaboration among peers—e.g. coming into the UCWbL—is the easiest and fastest way for a writer to come up with possible objections if they are stumped. It’s important to remember that philosophy pushes writers into a realm of interpretive writing that is done by examining difficult texts, and it can be quite frustrating. However, knowing how to logically argue in this discipline leads to better problem solving skills overall. The writer will immediately become more convincing inside and outside the classroom because they know how to present their own ideas and thoughts through well-constructed and systematic arguments. And that is ultimately our goal at the UCWbL: to build better writers, not just better writing.
In closing, I formulated a handy, dandy reference guide to aid in this process: