Your position paper can be a reasoned defense or a critique of a philosophical thesis. It should not be done as a research paper or a collection and arrangement of diverse sources. Instead, your paper should exhibit two central characteristics:
The expression of your opinion or feelings, although important in its own right, must be supported by rational argument or justification (with supporting details) acceptable to a reasonable person. Your position paper should consist of the following parts:
Your completed position paper should have the following features:
Richard T. De George in his The Philosopher's Guide to Sources, Research Tools, Professional Life, and Related Fields, (Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas, 1980) has given many useful suggestions for the construction of a philosophy paper from which the following checklist is adapted.
Situation | Possible Paper |
1. There are conflicts of assumptions, theories, or approaches to a subject. | You explain the conflict and then show which solution is adequate. |
2. The author and some other writer with whom you are personally acquainted give different conclusions on the same subject. | You contrast them and show which one has a stronger position. |
3. Two different disciplines approach the same topic using different methods. | You explain the different methods and describe the respective insights into the topics according to the method used. |
4. The language used to explain something is uncertain, and the explanations are no more than rationalizations. | You analyze the language and explanations. Then, you finish the reasoning. |
5. Conclusions are offered, but no supporting arguments are given. | If you agree, give detailed supporting reasons; if you disagree, give your reasoning. |
6. Different parts of the text seem contradictory or in opposition. | You can reconcile the difference or explain the intellectual development of the text or show that the opposition cannot be reconciled. |
7. New facts, discoveries, or ideas demand that the text be modified or supplemented. | You explain the new developments and show how the text can be modified. |
8. You are sure that the author is mistaken or the author upsets you. | Reconstruct your own point of view and evaluate it with respect to the author's point of view. |
Name | Grade | ||
Title | |||
Poor | Fair | Good | Excellent |
Presenting the Subject
1. Appropriateness of title | ||||
2. Precision of objective | ||||
3. Over-all grasp of problems | ||||
4. Statement of findings | ||||
5. Logical summation | ||||
6. Organization of the whole |
Research Material
7. Quantity |
||||
8. Quality-Primary | ||||
9. Quality-Secondary |
Adaptation
10. By reference |
||||
11. By quotation | ||||
12. By paraphrase |
Evaluation of Data
13. Clarity of interpretation | ||||
14. Individuality | ||||
15. Critical analysis |
Paragraphs
16. Unity | ||||
17. Logical development | ||||
18. Transitions |
Sentences
19. Structure | ||||
20. Punctuation |
Words
21. Diction (word choice) | ||||
22. Spelling |
Form
23. Footnotes | ||||
24. Bibliography | ||||
25. Appearance of paper |