Reference no: EM131272551

I need a philosphy paper done whithin 5 hours, has to be 5 pages, & I don't want the paper to sound more intellectually advanced than it should be if that makes sense.

Topic: Kant's objection to Anselm's Ontological Argument is that existence in reality is not a great-making quality because it is not a quality at all. Explain Kant's objection, explain Rowe's critique of Kant's objection, and then defend Kant against Rowe.

has to meet these guidelines :Introduction to Knowledge and Reality

Paper Guidelines

These guidelines are drawn and adapted from James Pryor's "Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper" (https://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html).

General Stuff

A philosophy paper consists of the reasoned defense of some claim. Your paper must offer an argument. It can't consist in the mere report of your opinions, nor in a mere report of the opinions of the philosophers we discuss. You have to defend the claims you make. You have to offer reasons to believe them.

There are a variety of things a philosophy paper can aim to accomplish. It usually begins by putting some thesis or argument on the table for consideration. Then it goes on to do one or two of the following:

Criticize that argument; or show that certain arguments for the thesis are no good

Defend the argument or thesis against someone else's criticism

Offer reasons to believe the thesis

Offer counter-examples to the thesis

Contrast the strengths and weaknesses of two opposing views about the thesis

Give examples that help explain the thesis, or which help to make the thesis more plausible

Argue that certain philosophers are committed to the thesis by their other views, though they do not come out and explicitly endorse the thesis

Discuss what consequences the thesis would have, if it were true

Revise the thesis, in the light of some objection

No matter which of these aims you set for yourself, you have to explicitly present reasons for the claims you make. Students often feel that since it's clear to them that some claim is true, it does not need much argument. But it's very easy to overestimate the strength of your own position. After all, you already accept it. You should assume that your audience does not already accept your position; and you should treat your paper as an attempt to persuade such an audience. Hence, don't start with assumptions that your opponents are sure to reject. If you're to have any chance of persuading people, you have to start from common assumptions you all agree to.

Modest Aims and Originality

A good philosophy paper is modest and makes a small point; but it makes that point clearly and straightforwardly, and it offers good reasons in support of it. People very often attempt to accomplish too much in a philosophy paper. The usual result of this is a paper that's hard to read, and which is full of inadequately defended and poorly explained claims. So don't be over-ambitious. Don't try to establish any earth-shattering conclusions in your 5-page paper. Done properly, philosophy moves at a slow pace.

The aim of these papers is for you to show that you understand the material and that you're able to think critically about it. To do this, your paper does have to show some independent thinking. That doesn't mean you have to come up with your own theory, or that you have to make a completely original contribution to human thought. There will be plenty of time for that later on. An ideal paper will be clear and straightforward, will be accurate when it attributes views to other philosophers, and will contain thoughtful critical responses to the texts we read. It need not always break completely new ground. But you should try to come up with your own arguments, or your own way of elaborating or criticizing or defending some argument we looked at in class. Merely summarizing what others have said won't be enough.

The Outline

Before you begin writing a draft, you should think about the questions: In what order should I explain the various terms and positions I'll be discussing? At what point should I present my opponent's position or argument? In what order should I offer my criticisms of my opponent? Do any of the points I'm making presuppose that I've already discussed some other point, first? And so on.

The overall clarity of your paper will greatly depend on its structure. That is why it is important to think about these questions before you begin to write.

You should make an outline of your paper, and of the arguments you'll be presenting, before you begin to write. This lets you organize the points you want to make in your paper and get a sense for how they are going to fit together. It also helps ensure that you're in a position to say what your main argument or criticism is, before you sit down to write a full draft of your paper. When students get stuck writing, it's often because they haven't yet figured out what they're trying to say.

Your outline should be fairly detailed. In many cases, making the outline is at least 80% of the work of writing a good philosophy paper. If you have a good outline, the rest of the writing process will go much more smoothly.
Writing the Paper

Don't shoot for literary elegance. Use simple, straightforward prose. These issues are deep and difficult enough without your having to muddy them up with pretentious or verbose language. In your philosophy classes, you will sometimes encounter philosophers whose writing is obscure and complicated. Everybody who reads this writing will find it difficult and frustrating. The authors in question are philosophically important despite their poor writing, not because of it. So, do not try to emulate their writing styles.

You should make the structure of your paper obvious to the reader. Your reader shouldn't have to exert any effort to figure it out. One way you can help make the structure of your paper obvious is by telling the reader what you've done so far and what you're going to do next. You can't make the structure of your paper obvious if you don't know what the structure of your paper is, or if your paper has no structure. That's why making an outline is so important.

Be concise. Don't ramble on about everything you know about a given topic. Nothing should go into your paper that does not directly address the problem you are concerned with. Prune out everything else. It is always better to concentrate on one or two points and develop them in depth than to try to cram in too much. One or two well-mapped paths are better than an impenetrable jungle. Formulate the central problem or question you wish to address at the beginning of your paper, and keep it in mind at all times. Make it clear what the problem is, and why it is a problem. Be sure that everything you write is relevant to that central problem. In addition, be sure to say in the paper how it is relevant. Don't make your reader guess.

Pretend that your reader has not read the material you're discussing, and has not given the topic much thought in advance. This will of course not be true. But if you write as if it were true, it will force you to explain any technical terms, to illustrate strange or obscure distinctions, and to be as explicit as possible when you summarize what some other philosopher said.

Try to anticipate objections to your view and respond to them. For instance, if you object to some philosopher's view, don't assume she would immediately admit defeat. Imagine what her comeback might be. How would you handle that comeback?

Don't be afraid of mentioning objections to your own thesis. It is better to bring up an objection yourself than to hope your reader won't think of it. Explain how you think these objections can be countered or overcome. Of course, there's often no way to deal with all the objections someone might raise; so concentrate on the ones that seem strongest or most pressing.

Examples and Definitions

It is very important to use examples in a philosophy paper. Many of the claims philosophers make are very abstract and hard to understand, and examples are the best way to make those claims clearer.

Examples are also useful for explaining the notions that play a central role in your argument. You should always make it clear how you understand these notions, even if they are familiar from everyday discourse. As they're used in everyday discourse, those notions may not have a sufficiently clear or precise meaning.

Use technical philosophical terms only where you need them. You should explain any technical terms you use which bear on the specific topic you're discussing. So, for instance, if you use any specialized or technical expressions like "necessary" or "contingent", you should explain what these mean. Different people sometimes use this special vocabulary in different ways, so it's important to make sure that you and your readers are all giving these words the same meaning. Pretend that your readers have never heard them before.

The Words and Ideas of Others

When a passage from a text is particularly useful in supporting your interpretation of some philosopher's views, it may be helpful to quote the passage directly. (Be sure to specify where the passage can be found.) However, direct quotations should be used sparingly. It is seldom necessary to quote more than a few sentences. Often it will be more appropriate to paraphrase what X says, rather than to quote him directly. When you are paraphrasing what somebody else said, be sure to say so. (And here too, cite the pages you're referring to.) Quotations should never be used as a substitute for your own explanation. And when you do quote an author, you still have to explain what the quotation says in your own words. If the quoted passage contains an argument, reconstruct the argument in more explicit, straightforward terms. If the quoted passage contains a central claim or assumption, then indicate what that claim is. You may want to give some examples to illustrate the author's point. If necessary, you may want to distinguish the author's claim from other claims with which it might be confused.

Outside Readings and Mechanics

You shouldn't need to use any readings in addition to those assigned when writing your papers. The point of the papers is to teach you how to engage a philosophical issue, and present your own arguments for or against some conclusion. The problems we'll be considering in class are plenty hard enough to deserve your full attention, all by themselves.

Please double-space your paper, number the pages, and include margins.