I'm currently in 1A03 and I've done ok on the three essays. The final is an essay as well.

The thing is, I really don't know how I've done ok on those essays. Sounds ridiculous, I'm aware. Does anyone have tips on how to approach the questions to provide a solid response? I did go to my TAs office hours however did not get a lot of useful information from those meetings.

Thanks for reading/sharing.

Can you provide a bit of info on the topics for your exam?

In general, make sure you outline the arguments of philosophers clearly, concisely, and perhaps most importantly, accurately. Make sure you actually put some effort into thinking about their argument. If you agree with their argument, examine potential objections one could come up with and refute them. If you disagree, show why their argument is flawed. So one basic structure of a paper could be intro, summary of arguments, reflection.

Writing a dialectical essay is one of the most effective ways of writing a philosophy paper. It will provide you with a solid argument and impress your TAs/professor. A dialectic essay basically involves your thesis, followed by the contrary position, followed by your counterargument. First you state your position (for instance, that it is unreasonable to believe miracles have occurred), then providing the best argument you can against your position (i.e. a good argument(s) for why it is reasonable to believe miracles have occurred). Then, you provide a counterargument to that position. That is, you elaborate on your thesis (provide the best argument(s) for why it is unreasonable to believe miracles have occurred, stating specifically why the argument in favour of miracles is false).


I found this link somewhat useful last year. It helped me with philosophy papers in general: http://www.claremontmckenna. edu/pa...1s/writing.htm

That's all I can think of right now.

There are 3 on the study guide -- I think this is the one I'm going to write.

"Compare and contrast Nietzsche and either Epicurus or Epictetus. Identify and describe agreements and differences, and discuss their significance."

And thank you, so much, already!

Another question on the study guide:
"1. Nietzsche, “Morality as Anti-Nature” §6: “Morality . . . is a specific error for which one should have no sympathy, an idiosyncracy of degenerates which has done an unspeakable amount of harm!” (1107b)
(1) What error is he speaking of?
(2) Why does Nietzsche think it is an error?
(3) Why should one have no sympathy for such an error?
(4) What is the harm of the error?
(5) Does Nietzsche think there an alternative to the error?"

I'm waffling between this question and the one in the previous post. I need to choose. Argh!

Originally Posted by jackiemac

There are 3 on the study guide -- I think this is the one I'm going to write.

"Compare and contrast Nietzsche and either Epicurus or Epictetus. Identify and describe agreements and differences, and discuss their significance."

And thank you, so much, already!

I think my biggest mistake in first year was never taking 1A03, ha ha. I'm not sure of the specific content regarding Nietzsche's similarities and differences with Epicurus and Epictetus, but I think you could structure your essay this way:
- Intro
- Agreements/Differences (whichever you think is less important; essentially, compare their views on issues)
- Agreements/Differences (if you talked about their agreements last paragraph, talk about differences, and vice versa. This is the main paragraph for your thesis)
- Explain why their philosophies are compatible/incompatible
- Conclusion

Thesis: are Nietzsche's and Epicurus/Epictetus' views more similar than different, or more different than similar? Whichever one, you can say something like "While their views on [issue] are [similar/different], their perspective of [issues] are [similar/different, whichever you didn't use before], indicating their views are more [compatible/incompatible, whichever is appropriate] than previously thought." Or something like that.

I don't know the details of the issue, but that's what I could come up with.

Originally Posted by jackiemac

Another question on the study guide:
"1. Nietzsche, “Morality as Anti-Nature” §6: “Morality . . . is a specific error for which one should have no sympathy, an idiosyncracy of degenerates which has done an unspeakable amount of harm!” (1107b)
(1) What error is he speaking of?
(2) Why does Nietzsche think it is an error?
(3) Why should one have no sympathy for such an error?
(4) What is the harm of the error?
(5) Does Nietzsche think there an alternative to the error?"

I'm waffling between this question and the one in the previous post. I need to choose. Argh!

Well this question pretty much provides structure for your essay. For your thesis, perhaps you can either agree with him that morality is an error, or disagree. Elaborate on your thesis after you've answered each of these subquestions, though.

What you suggested is similar to where I was headed. "All you could come up with" was awesome. Thank you for providing a second opinion. I think my biggest problem all semester was not being more confident in what I was writing so I held back.

I can do this. (new mantra)

In philosophy, what matters most is your arguments. Avoid redundancies (like "football players play football,") avoid arguments that loop (like "God is real because the bible says so, and the bible's true because God wrote it, and God wouldn't lie because the bible says God wouldn't lie,") avoid abstract concepts or anything you can't easily explain (like quantum physics,) avoid using loopholes are arguments (like "it's okay to lie if it doesn't hurt anyone," - in fact, try and avoid "if" unless you're describing the premise of your argument,) and don't assume that any part of your argument is flawless - everything you say can and will be questioned.
Set up your arguments, never waver in your dedication that your arguments are fact, and if you know of any flaws in your arguments, don't point them out! Instead, provide an additional sentence elaborating on your point that defends your argument against its flaw. (i.e.: "... since 1 is not a prime number. Prime numbers are divisible by two integers, 1 and themselves, but since the number 1 is only divisible by 1 integer, itself, it is not a prime number.") If you can't find a way to defuse the counterpoint, simply don't acknowledge it, since acknowledging it is saying "I don't know how to support my arguments."
Final piece of advice is about format.
Start with an introduction, where you state your thesis in a single sentence ("Plato was a better philosopher than Socrates.") Your thesis should be straight forward, and should be stated with absolute confidence. Never add conditions in your thesis!
In addition to your thesis, your introduction should contain a brief list of arguments that prove your thesis. This brief list should be one sentence. The exception is if you categorize your arguments, in which case, you can have two to three sentences, one for each category. ("Plato was better able to argue his points, he produced more written works, his written works were of a higher quality, and his works on physics and metaphysics provided the foundation for all the physical sciences.") Every one of these points is a paragraph, so you don't need to go into any further detail in your introduction. If you want, you can start your introduction off with a hook, or a sentence that attracts the readers attention by generally introducing the topic in an interesting way, but that's not necessary. ("Which is better? That question has been asked countless times in countless scenarios: dogs or cats, Macs or PCs, Liberals or Conservatives, soup or salad; usually there is no answer, but when the question is applied to the ancient Greek philosophers, Socrates and Plato, the answer is painfully obvious." And then the thesis: "Plato was a better philosopher than Socrates.")
In the body paragraphs, first, restate the point that the paragraph is about ("Plato's ability to defend his arguments was far superior that Socrates's"). The entire paragraph is you trying to prove this argument, using logic, hypothetical and anecdotal examples, data, quotes, or anything else you can think of that confirms your statement. When you finish the paragraph, write a concluding sentence that restates the point of the paragraph. You can also introduce the next paragraph in this sentence, but only if it makes sense. ("Although Socrates was terrible at defending his arguments, Plato somehow overcame his mentors inabilities, providing infallible defenses to his every arguments." or "Not only was Plato far superior to Socrates in his ability to defend his arguments, but Plato also greatly surpassed Socrates in the number of arguments that he published.")
The final paragraph is the conclusion. The conclusion should restate the thesis, re-list the arguments, and provide a final word to your essay. Just like how, if you're comfortable with it, you can start your introduction with a hook, you can end your conclusion with a thought provoking statement. ("The true success of a teacher is how superior their pupil is to them. Plato may have bested Socrates in the field of Philosophy, but Socrates did not fail as a philosopher. Socrates had one unsurpassed success in his career: Plato. As Plato's teacher, Socrates taught Plato everything he knew, and Plato built on Socrates's lessons. If Plato was not a superior philosopher to Socrates, it would have been Socrates's worst failure; instead, Plato was Socrates's greatest success. If we are superior in any way to the generation that follows us, we have failed as teachers.")

[Note: if you found any of my examples controversial or offensive, please keep in mind that they are just examples, and unless you point out exactly why they're offensive or controversial, most people will not even notice them. Please avoid offending the masses and starting a flame war by understanding that I am not trying to push any kind of agenda, and the examples are nothing more than examples. If you disagree with anything I said, please explain why you think my essay writing advice is wrong. If you think the examples I gave do not sufficiently reinforce my point, feel free to give an example that better fits my point. If you have a problem with the content of the example, keep in mind that any attempted censorship or criticism of the content of my examples may be considered trolling.]

Originally Posted by Schleifer_1

[Note: if you found any of my examples controversial or offensive, please keep in mind that they are just examples, and unless you point out exactly why they're offensive or controversial, most people will not even notice them. Please avoid offending the masses and starting a flame war by understanding that I am not trying to push any kind of agenda, and the examples are nothing more than examples. If you disagree with anything I said, please explain why you think my essay writing advice is wrong. If you think the examples I gave do not sufficiently reinforce my point, feel free to give an example that better fits my point. If you have a problem with the content of the example, keep in mind that any attempted censorship or criticism of the content of my examples may be considered trolling.]

Post of the year. Pretty much sums up what any philosophy essay should seek to embody.

Originally Posted by Schleifer_1

In philosophy, what matters most is your arguments. Avoid redundancies (like "football players play football,") avoid arguments that loop (like "God is real because the bible says so, and the bible's true because God wrote it, and God wouldn't lie because the bible says God wouldn't lie,") avoid abstract concepts ...

For your explicit examples and detailed suggestions, thank you. I suggested in my course eval that this course needs a "How a philosophy essay is different from research essays" segment, I sincerely hope "they" listen. I've never written so explicitly about what I think based only on one selected writing. Everything I've done prior has been researched based and it's felt like a struggle all semester.

Between you and cygnusX1, I'm feeling so much better heading into the final exam.