what is a thesis in philosophy

How to Write a Philosophy Paper

• Develop a Thesis
• Formulate an Argument
• Structure & Outline
• Grammar & Style

Developing Your Thesis

What is a Thesis?

The thesis is the most important part of your paper; it tells the reader what your stance is on a particular topic and offers reasons for that stance.

Since the rest of your paper will be spent defending your thesis--offering support for the thesis and reasons why criticism of the thesis may not be valid--it's crucial that you develop a strong thesis.

A strong thesis will:

• Answer a question;
• Be engaging;  it can be challenged or opposed, thus also defended;
• Pass the "so what? why should I care?" test;
• Be supported by your paper;
• Not be too broad nor too vague.

Source: Writing Guide for Philosophy. George Mason University.

Image source:  Sergui Bacioiu.  Ripple effect on water.  CC BY 2.0.  Wikimedia Commons.

Thesis Resources

• Developing Your Thesis An overview of writing a thesis statement with guided questions for evaluating the quality of your statement. Everettcc.
• How to Write a Thesis Statement Emphasizes the characteristics of a well-developed thesis statement. Indiana University.
• Thesis Statements "...describes what a thesis statement is, how thesis statements work in your writing, and how you can discover or refine one..." University of North Carolina.
• << Previous: Begin
• Next: Formulate an Argument >>
• Last Updated: Jan 22, 2024 10:48 AM
• URL: https://libguides.lvc.edu/philosophypaper

• Writing & Research Conference
• UW Course Descriptions
• Support the Writing Program

University Writing Program

Columbian College of Arts & Sciences

• Conference Program Spring 2024
• News Archive
• Events Archive
• Funding Transparency & Restrictions
• WID Graduate Assistants and Peer Writing Preceptors
• WID Course Guidelines for Faculty
• WID Teaching Resources for Faculty
• WID GA Workshops & Practicum
• Writing Center
• UW 1020 Writing Template for Faculty
• Student Resources
• Julian Clement Chase Prizes
• Eckles Prize for Research Excellence
• WID Teaching Awards

A Guide to Writing Philosophy Papers

In some respects, writing an undergraduate-level philosophy paper is not unlike writing an undergraduate-level paper in any of the other humanities or social sciences.  In fact, one could argue that philosophical writing should act as a model for writing in other disciplines.  This is because one of the central aims of western philosophy, since its inception in Ancient Greece, almost two and a half millennia ago, has been to lay bare the structure of all forms of argument, and most undergraduate writing, in any subject, requires the use of argument to defend claims.  However, there are also important differences between the writing styles appropriate to philosophical papers and papers in other subjects.  Most notably, philosophy papers usually focus more on logical structure than on content: the point is not to synopsize exhaustive literature reviews, but, rather, to focus as much as possible on relatively narrow sets of claims, and investigate their logical inter-relations.  Philosophers are less interested in exhaustive cataloging of the latest information on a topic, than in the relations of logical, argumentative support that well-established claims bear to each other, and to certain enduring, controversial claims, like the claim that God exists.

In the following, I provide a four-part guide to writing an undergraduate-level philosophy paper.  First, I explain what philosophical  arguments  are, and how they can be evaluated.  The point of any philosophy paper is to formulate and/or evaluate philosophical arguments, so this brief, rudimentary discussion is essential as a starting point.  Second, I explain the structure and style appropriate for a philosophy paper.  Third, I give students some ideas about how to choose a topic and formulate a writing plan appropriate to a philosophy paper.  Fourth, and finally, I provide a short primer on logic, which can help students formulate and evaluate philosophical arguments.

Before proceeding, let me remark about the scope of this guide.  Although it is intended as a guide to writing philosophy papers for any philosophy WID class, many philosophy instructors would disagree with at least some part of what follows.  Western philosophy has been dominated by two divergent traditions for the last two hundred years or so: the “continental” tradition and the “analytic” or “Anglo-American” tradition.  The former is associated primarily with philosophers from continental Europe, especially Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre and Foucault.  The latter is associated primarily with philosophers who worked in the UK and the US (though many of its most prominent representatives are German natives).  Frege, Russell, Carnap, Austin, Grice, Strawson, and Quine, are among the most famous figures associated with this tradition.  Although it is difficult to briefly characterize the difference between these two traditions, roughly speaking, while the analytic tradition takes logic, mathematics, and science as models for doing philosophy, the continental tradition is more literary and impressionistic in its approach to philosophical problems.  I am trained in the analytic tradition, and the following writing guidelines reflect this.  Thus, before using this as a guide to your philosophical writing, make sure that your class and instructor are in the analytic tradition.  Although much of the advice I offer below is, I hope, relevant to classes in the continental tradition, it might also seriously misrepresent philosophical writing as understood from the continental perspective.

Even within the analytic tradition, there can be substantive disagreements about student writing.  For example, a colleague who works in the analytic tradition read an earlier draft of this guide and was, for the most part, impressed; however, he disagreed with my view that external sources are better paraphrased than directly cited.  Although I think most instructors working in the analytic tradition would agree with most of the guidelines I provide below, you should have your instructor skim them to make sure that he or she does not take exception to any of them.  As a guide to an initial, rough, paper draft, the following is, I think, an invaluable resource.  Subsequent drafts should incorporate specific comments from the instructor whose class you are taking.  

1. Philosophical Arguments

Understanding Arguments

The point of a philosophical paper is to make and evaluate philosophical arguments.  ‘Argument’ is a term of art in philosophy.  It means more than a mere dispute.  An argument, as philosophers use this term, is a set of claims, that is, a set of declarative sentences (sentences which can be true or false).  One of the claims is the conclusion of the argument: that which the argument attempts to prove.  The other claims are the premises of the argument: the reasons that are given in support of the conclusion.  The conclusion is a relatively controversial claim that the author aims to establish on the basis of relatively uncontroversial premises.  For example, St. Thomas Aquinas, the great medieval philosopher and theologian, famously provides five ways to prove the existence of God.  The conclusion of Aquinas’s arguments is that God exists – a controversial claim.  He tries to establish this conclusion on the basis of less controversial premises, e.g., that objects are in motion, that anything in motion must have been put in motion by a different thing already in motion, and that this chain of causes must begin at some point.

Because the construction and evaluation of arguments is the point of a philosophy paper, clarity, precision, and organization are of paramount importance.  One cannot determine whether or not some set of premises supports a conclusion unless both premises and conclusion are formulated clearly and precisely.  For example, consider the following argument: “Laws can be repealed by the legislature.  Gravity is a law.  Therefore, gravity can be repealed by the legislature.”   On one level, this argument appears to make sense: it appears to have the same form as many sound arguments, like, “Beverages can be warmed in the microwave.  Tea is a beverage.  Therefore, tea can be warmed in the microwave.”  However, there is obviously something wrong with the first argument.  The problem is that the world “law” is used in two different senses: in the first premise and the conclusion, it means roughly the same as “social rule enacted by political means”, while in the second premise, it means roughly the same as “natural law”.  Because the word “law”, as it is used in the second premise, means something entirely different from its use in the conclusion, the premise is of no relevance to the conclusion, and so, provides no logical support for it.  This shows why it is so important to be as precise and clear as possible in philosophical writing.  Words often mean different things in different contexts, and, unless their meaning is made as clear and precise as possible, it is impossible to tell whether or not the claims words are used to formulate support each other.

Organization is important to make clear the complex logical relations that different claims bear to each other.  Consider Aquinas’s First Way to prove the existence of God, to which I allude above.  The conclusion is that God exists.  The premises are that objects are in motion, that objects can be put in motion only by other objects already in motion, that there is a chain of causes extending into the past, and that if this chain of causes were infinite then there would be no motion.  But how, exactly, do these premises conspire to establish the conclusion that God exists?  The key to answering this question is appreciating the structure or organization of the argument.  The structure of philosophical arguments can often be captured in a kind of flow-chart diagram.  Each ‘node’ is a claim (premise or conclusion), and links between nodes represent logical support.  So, for example, in Aquinas’s First Way, the node which represents the premise that objects are in motion does not link directly to the node which represents the conclusion: how can the claim that objects are in motion, alone, give sufficient logical support for the claim that God exists?  After all, atheists acknowledge that objects are in motion, yet deny that God exists.

The structure of Aquinas’s First Way to prove the existence of God is approximated in the following diagram.

Note that the claim that objects are in motion (premise 1) must be joined with the claim that objects in motion are put in motion by other objects already in motion (premise 2), in order to support the claim that there is a causal chain of objects in motion extending into the past (premise 3), which constitutes the “sub-conclusion” of this “sub-argument”.  Premise 3 must then be joined with premise 5 – the claim that this causal chain begins at some point – in order to support the claim that there is a first cause responsible for all the motion in the world, identified by Aquinas as God (premise 6).  But premise 5 is not obvious on its own.  It needs support from still other premises.  For example, Aquinas claims that if there were no start to this chain of causes, none of the subsequent causes would occur (premise 4).  Together with premise 1, premise 4 then supports premise 5, which, together with premises 3 and 6, supports the claim that there must be a first cause, namely, God (C).  So premise 5 is another “sub-conclusion” of a “sub-argument”, which supports the ultimate conclusion (C).

The lesson from this example is that different claims have complicated relations of support to each other.  Some premises support the conclusion only when conjoined with other premises.  And other premises are like “sub-conclusions”, which must be supported by still other premises in “sub-arguments”, before they can be used to help establish the ultimate conclusion.  Since the goal of writing an undergraduate philosophy paper is to formulate and evaluate arguments, organization is crucial.  The author must make clear for the reader not just what the different premises and conclusions claim, but, also, how they relate to each other, that is, in what way they support each other.

Evaluating Arguments

There are only two ways that any argument can go wrong.  An argument is good when its premises count as good reasons for its conclusion.  What makes a premise a good reason for a conclusion?  First, the premise must be true, or at least more plausible than the conclusion.  For example, suppose I argue for the conclusion that Washington DC is likely the next home of the Stanley Cup champions on the basis of the following premises: the Bruins are likely the next Stanley Cup Champions, and they are based in Washington DC.  This argument fails because at least one of its premises is false: the Bruins are based in Boston, not Washington DC.  However, sometimes even true premises fail to qualify as good reasons for a conclusion.  For example, suppose I argue for the conclusion that Washington DC is likely the next home of the Stanley Cup champions on the basis of the following premises: the Redskins are likely the next Superbowl Champions, and they are based in Washington DC.  Here, the latter premise is true, and the previous premise may very well be true.  However, the argument is still bad.  The reason is that, even if these premises are true, they do not support the conclusion.  The claims that the Redskins are likely the next Superbowl Champions and that the Redskins are based in Washington DC, are  irrelevant  to the conclusion: the claim that Washington DC is likely the next home of the Stanley Cup champions.  So, there are two ways any argument can go wrong: either the premises it offers in support of its conclusion are false or implausible, or, even if they are true, they fail to support the conclusion because, for example, they are irrelevant to the conclusion.

Any philosophical writer must constantly keep these two potential pitfalls of argumentation in mind, both in formulating her own arguments and in evaluating the arguments of others.  Undergraduate philosophy papers are often devoted exclusively to evaluating the arguments of well-known philosophers.  Such critical papers must be guided by four basic questions: (1) What, precisely, do the premises and conclusion claim? (2) How, precisely, are the premises supposed to support the conclusion, i.e., what is the organization/structure of the argument? (3) Are the premises true/plausible? (4) Do the premises provide adequate support for the conclusion?  Note that philosophical critiques of arguments seldom attack the conclusion directly.  Rather, the conclusion is undermined by showing the premises to be false or implausible, or by showing that the premises, even if true, do not provide adequate support for the conclusion.  Conclusions are attacked directly only on the grounds of imprecision or lack of clarity.

Despite the fact that arguments can be criticized on the grounds that their premises are false or implausible, most philosophical writing is focused not on determining the truth of premises, but, rather, on determining whether or not premises provide strong enough support for conclusions.  There are three reasons for this.  First, the most enduring philosophical arguments take as little for granted as possible: they rely on premises that are maximally uncontroversial – likely to be accepted by everyone – in order to prove conclusions that are controversial.  Second, most philosophers have a strong background in logic.  Logic is the science of argument: it aims to identify what all good arguments have in common and what all bad arguments have in common.  But logic can be used only to evaluate the support that premises provide for a conclusion, never the truth or plausibility of the premises themselves.  Any argument must take some claims as unargued starting points; otherwise, the argument could never get off the ground, as any premise would require a prior argument to be established.  But logic can evaluate only arguments, so it cannot be used to evaluate the unargued starting premises with which any argument must begin.  Third, the premises upon which many arguments depend often depend on observation, either in everyday life, or in specialized, scientific contexts such as experiments.  But philosophers are not, for the most part, trained in experimental methodologies.  They are trained in determining what follows logically from experimental results established in science or from common, everyday observations.

I discuss strategies for evaluating and formulating philosophical arguments in more detail below, in section 4.  Now I turn to the structure and style appropriate for a philosophy paper.  

2. Appropriate Structure and Style for a Philosophy Paper

Organizing the Paper

Although the philosophical canon includes a wide variety of styles and structures, including argumentative essays, axiomatically-organized systems of propositions, dialogs, confessions, meditations, historical narratives, and collections of aphorisms, most of these styles and structures are inappropriate for the novice, undergraduate, philosophical writer.  Because the main concern of undergraduate philosophical writing is the formulation and evaluation of arguments, style and structure must be chosen with these goals in mind.  As we have seen, precision, clarity, and organization are key to the understanding, formulation, and evaluation of arguments.  If one’s language is not clear and precise, it is impossible to know what claims are being made, and therefore, impossible to determine their logical inter-relations.  If one’s arguments are not clearly organized, it is difficult to determine how the different premises of an argument conspire to support its conclusion.  As we saw above, with the example of Aquinas’ First Way to prove the existence of God, arguments are often composed of “sub-arguments” defending “sub-conclusions” that constitute premises in overall arguments.  Unless such logical structure is perspicuously represented in a philosophy paper, the reader will lose track of the relevance that different claims bear to each other, and the paper will fail to enlighten the reader.

The best way to impose clarity and structure on a philosophy paper is to begin with a brief, clear, and concise introduction, outlining the organization of the rest of the paper.  This introduction should be treated as a “map” of the rest of the paper that will prepare the reader for what is to follow.  Alternatively, one may think of it as a “contract” with the reader: the author promises to discuss such and such related claims, in such and such an order.  The introduction should make clear the logical inter-relations between the different claims that the paper will defend, and the order in which the claims will be discussed.  With such an outline in hand, the writer can then organize the rest of the paper into numbered, sub-titled sub-sections, each devoted to the different parts of her argument, in the order outlined in the introduction.  This helps maintain focus and clarity throughout the paper for the reader.

One of the greatest pitfalls in philosophical writing is distraction by tangential topics.  Philosophical themes are extremely broad, and many of them are relevant to almost anything.  So it is very tempting for a novice philosophical writer (and even for seasoned veterans) to stray from her original topic in the course of writing the paper.  This throws the writer’s main goal – that of clearly articulating an argument capable of convincing a reader – into jeopardy; however, this danger can be avoided if the writer makes clear in the introduction exactly what components of a topic, and in what order, she intends to discuss and why, and then uses this to organize the rest of the paper.  If the writer does this, readers should know exactly “where they are” in the overall argument, at any point in the paper, simply by noting the number and title of the sub-section they are reading, and referring to the introduction to understand its role in the paper’s overall argument.

A good introduction to a 10-page philosophy paper should take up no more than two-thirds of a page.  It should accomplish three main objectives: (1) setting up the context for the paper, i.e., which philosophical debate or topic is the focus, (2) expressing the thesis of the paper, i.e., the conclusion it aims to defend, and (3) explaining, in broad terms, how the paper aims to defend this conclusion, i.e., what are the components of the argument, and in what order they will be discussed.  The first objective, setting up the context, often requires reference to historically important philosophers known for defending claims related to the thesis of the paper.  The components of the argument might include, first, an overview of how others have argued for or against the thesis, then a few sections on different assumptions made in these arguments, then a section in which the author provides her own argument for the thesis, and then a conclusion.

Consider the following example of an introduction to a paper about Aquinas’ First Way to prove the existence of God.

Aquinas, famously, provides five arguments for the existence of God.  In the following, I focus on his First Way to prove the existence of God: the argument from motion.  The claim that there can be no causal chains extending infinitely into the past plays a crucial role in this argument.  In this paper, I argue against this claim, thereby undermining Aquinas’s First Way to prove the existence of God.  First, I explain Aquinas’s argument, and the role that the claim about infinite causal chains plays in it.  Second, I explain Aquinas’s defense of this claim.  Third, I raise three objections to this defense.  I conclude by drawing some broader lessons for the question of God’s existence.

Notice that, despite its brevity, this introduction is very specific and clear regarding what the author intends to accomplish in the paper.  The thesis is stated clearly and concisely.  Brief reference to Aquinas, his five proofs for the existence of God, and the specific proof on which the paper focuses provide necessary context.  Specificity and clarity are aided further with the use of numbering.  The reader knows to expect four sections following the introduction, and she knows exactly what each section will try to accomplish, and its role in the overall project of the paper.  She knows to expect three objections to the argument that is the main target of the paper, in the third section after the introduction.  And the writer can now easily structure the paper into five, numbered sub-sections (including the introduction), with appropriate titles, meant to periodically remind the reader of where she is in the overall argument.

When the writer starts with such a well-defined structure, it is relatively easy to avoid the pitfall of tangential distractions.  Beginning with such an introduction is not meant to be unreasonably constraining.  In the course of writing the paper, an author might revise her thinking about the topic, and be forced to reconceptualize the paper.  She would then have to begin by revising the introduction, and, consequently, the organization of the paper.  This is a natural part of paper revision.  So, the introduction should not be treated as though it were written in stone.  In early drafts, the introduction should serve as a provisional source of constraint for organizing one’s thoughts about the topic.  As one’s thoughts evolve, the introduction can be rewritten, and the paper reorganized, to reflect this.  But beginning with an introduction that specifies the organization of the paper in substantial detail serves as an important constraint on one’s writing and thinking, insuring that one’s topic is investigated systematically.

1. Plain Language for a Non-Specialist Audience: Much canonical philosophy is opaque and difficult to understand for the novice.  A common reaction to this in undergraduate writing is the use of obscure “academic-sounding” language, of which students have only minimal mastery, in an attempt to sound intelligent and equal to the task of explaining and criticizing canonical philosophical arguments.  This must be avoided at all costs.  Good philosophy papers must employ clear,  plain  language, in short sentences and short, well-organized paragraphs.  It is impossible to evaluate the cogency of arguments unless they are expressed in terms that are easily understood.  Students must not assume that instructors know in what senses they intend esoteric, philosophical vocabulary, nor what lessons they have drawn from the sources they have been reading.  Unless a student can express and defend claims using words with which they, and any educated layperson are familiar, it is doubtful that they fully understand these claims.  Students should write for an imagined audience composed of family members, friends and acquaintances.  They should use words that any educated, non-specialist would understand in order to explain the more opaque canonical arguments their papers discuss, and in order to formulate their own responses to these arguments.  This attitude both insures that the language students use is clear and precise, and shows the instructor the degree to which students have understood the more opaque canonical arguments they discuss.

2. Illustration with Examples: One of the most important components of a good undergraduate philosophy paper is the copious use of concrete, everyday examples to illustrate abstract and sometimes obscure philosophical points.  For example, the claim that a moving object must be put in motion by a different object already in motion is one of the key assumptions of Aquinas’s first argument for the existence of God.  But this is a fairly abstract and potentially confusing way of expressing a familiar fact.  Such abstract and potentially obscure means of expression are inevitable in philosophy because philosophers aim to defend maximally general conclusions: claims that are true in all circumstances, everywhere and always.  In order to defend such general claims, familiar observations must be couched in the most general terms possible, and this often invites obscurity.  Undergraduate philosophical writers must clarify such potentially confusing language by appeal to concrete, everyday examples.

For example, Aquinas’ claim about the causes of motion is actually a claim about the causes of  any  change in any object, including what we typically call “motion,” like a rolling ball, and other changes, like the rising temperature in a heated pan of water.  A student should make this clear by illustrating Aquinas’s claim with such everyday examples.  For example, one might write something like, “Aquinas claims that every moving or changing object is caused to move or change by a different object that is already in motion or changing.  For example, a rolling ball is caused to move by a kick from a swinging foot, or a boiling pan of water is caused to boil by a flame giving off heat.”  Such illustration of abstract philosophical principles with concrete, everyday examples serves two extremely important functions.  First, it makes one’s exposition and evaluation of others’ arguments clear and tangible for the reader.  Second, it shows one’s instructor that one has understood obscure yet crucial philosophical assumptions in one’s own terms.

3. The Principle of Charity: The point of any work of philosophy, from the most canonical treatise to the humblest undergraduate effort, is to determine which claims are supported by the best reasons.  The point is not to persuade some particular audience of some claim using rhetoric.  Philosophers always aim at identifying the best possible reasons to believe some claim.  For this reason, when criticizing the arguments of others, philosophical writers should adhere to a principle of extreme charity.  They should interpret arguments with which they disagree in the most favorable terms possible.  Only then can they be sure that they have done their utmost to identify the truth of the matter.  Criticism is inevitable in an undergraduate philosophy paper.  In order to responsibly defend some conclusion, the student must give a thorough overview of what others have said about it, criticizing those with whom she disagrees.  But students must bend over backwards to insure that these criticisms are fair.  Since her goal is to arrive at the truth of the matter, a student author must not stack the deck against those with whom she disagrees.  She must empathize with her antagonists; appreciating as deeply as possible the reasons why they disagree with the conclusion she defends.  This puts the student author in a position to criticize those with whom she disagrees fairly and responsibly.

Consider, once more, Aquinas’s First Way to prove the existence of God.  It is relatively easy to criticize this argument by appeal to modern physics.  Aquinas assumes that every object in motion must have been put into motion by another object already in motion.  But he was working with pre-Newtonian physics.  According to post-Newtonian physics, an object can be in uniform motion without being acted upon by an outside force.  So, technically, Aquinas’s premise is false.  However, this is a nit-picky point that is unfair to Aquinas, and misses the spirit of his argument.  Aquinas’s argument from motion can easily be rephrased as an argument from acceleration to make it compatible with post-Newtonian physics.  Even if uniform motion does not require an external force, acceleration does, and once Aquinas’ premise is rephrased to respect this, the rest of the argument proceeds as before.  Anyone seeking to criticize Aquinas’s argument is well served by considering the most charitable possible interpretation.  If fatal flaws remain even after one has bent over backwards to accommodate Aquinas’s ignorance of later developments in physics, etc., one’s critique of his argument is more effective.

4. Self-Criticism: There is another implication of the philosopher’s commitment to discovering the claims that are supported by the best reasons, as opposed to just winning arguments.  Works of philosophy must include self-criticism.  The responsible philosophical author is always cognizant of potential pitfalls in her own arguments, and possible responses by antagonists she criticizes.  In the course of criticizing an opposing view on some matter, a philosophical writer must always consider how her target might respond.  In the course of defending some claim, a philosophical writer must always anticipate and respond to possible objections.  Papers by professional philosophers often include whole sections devoted entirely to possible objections to the theses they defend.  It is a good idea for undergraduate philosophical writers to follow this example: often, it is useful for the penultimate section of a paper to address possible criticisms of or responses to the arguments provided earlier in the paper.  Not only does this constitute a fair and responsible way of writing philosophy, it helps the student think about her own views critically, improving the final product.

5. Undermining an Argument Vs. Criticizing a Conclusion: Suppose I raise some insurmountable problems for Aquinas’s first argument for the existence of God.  It is important to keep in mind that this is not the same as arguing against the existence of God.  Just because one argument for the existence of God fails, does not mean that there are not other arguments for the existence of God that succeed.  Students should not think that criticizing an argument requires disagreeing with its conclusion.  Some of the greatest critics of certain arguments for the existence of God were themselves theists.  In fact, if you agree with the conclusion of a bad argument, it makes sense to criticize the argument, showing where it is weak; this can help you construct an alternative argument that avoids this problem.    Criticizing an argument is never the same as arguing against its conclusion.  To criticize an argument is to show that its premises do not provide adequate support for its conclusion, not to show that its conclusion is false.  In order to do the latter, one must provide a new argument that supports the claim that the conclusion is false.  For example, in order to show that God does not exist, it is not enough to show that no arguments for God’s existence are sound; one must also provide positive reasons to deny God’s existence.

An analogy to criminal trials makes this distinction clear.  The goal of the prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove that the defendant is guilty.  They must construct an argument that provides good reasons for this conclusion.  However, the goal of the defense in a criminal trial is  not  to prove that the defendant is innocent.  Rather, the defense aims to criticize the prosecution’s argument, to show that the reasons provided by the prosecution for the conclusion that the defendant is guilty are not strong enough to support this conclusion, because there remains a reasonable doubt that this conclusion is true.  The difference between the tasks of the prosecution and the defense in a criminal trial parallels the distinction between arguing against (or for) a conclusion, and merely criticizing an argument for a conclusion.  Students should keep this distinction in mind when writing philosophy papers.  When they are defending any conclusion, e.g., that God exists or that God does not exist, they must provide arguments for this conclusion, much as the prosecution must provide evidence and reasons that prove the defendant guilty.  When students are criticizing an argument, they are not defending the denial of the argument’s conclusion.  Rather, like the defense in a criminal trial, they are merely undermining the reasons given for the conclusion.

6. References: Undergraduate philosophy papers must be grounded in relevant and reputable philosophical literature.  Attributing claims to others, including canonical philosophers or discussions of them in the secondary literature, must be supported by references to appropriate sources.  However, direct quotation should, on balance, be avoided.  Instructors are interested in whether or not students understand difficult philosophical concepts and claims in their own terms.  For this reason, paraphrase is usually the best way to cite a source.  Using one’s own words to express a point one has read elsewhere, however, does not excuse one from referring to one’s source.  Any time a substantial claim is attributed to another person, whether or not one uses the person’s own words, the source should be referenced.  There are occasions when direct quotations are appropriate, for example, when one is defending a controversial interpretation of some philosopher’s argument, and the precise wording of her claims is important.

It is important for a student author to get a sense of what the recent philosophical conversation about a specific topic has been.  Otherwise, she has no way of knowing how to contribute to it. There are many ways for a student to explore the philosophical literature relevant to a topic she has chosen.  It is advisable to begin with readings assigned for class.  Textbooks, most recent philosophical journal articles, and recent secondary literature usually include detailed lists of references, which provide a useful guide to the relevant literature.  Works cited in multiple places are particularly good sources for students to consult. The Philosopher’s Index and the Stanford Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy are good on-line starting points for exploring the philosophical literature. These sources provide references to recent articles written about most philosophical topics.  Students may also want to explore less specialized internet-based resources, like Google Scholar.  However, one must be careful with on-line content.  Many web-based resources are not subject to appropriate professional review, and are therefore unreliable. Students must insure that the claims they make are supported by recent, reputable philosophical literature.  Simply asking one’s instructor can assuage any worries about whether or not a paper draft meets this standard.

As for citation format, philosophers are generally flexible: some journals require Chicago Style formatting, while others require MLA style.  Most instructors will accept any style as long as it is used correctly and consistently.  So students should consult their instructors about which citation format to follow.  Non-standard sources like websites and lecture notes should also be cited in a format that instructors approve.

7. The First Person Pronoun: In high school composition classes, students are often taught to avoid using the first-person pronoun, “I”.  The reasoning behind this is that use of “I” tends to encourage the expression of subjective opinions, whereas the goal of much essay writing is to provide an objective defense of some thesis.  However, this rule of thumb is an overly blunt instrument.  Certain uses of the “I” are typical of academic, philosophical writing.  For example, authors often express their plans for a paper, e.g., the thesis they intend to defend, using the first-person pronoun, as I did in the sample introduction provided above.  As long as the “I” is used in the context of laying out one’s intended plan for the paper, or circumscribing the scope of one’s claims, it is entirely appropriate.  For example, it is entirely legitimate to write, “In the following,  I  defend Aquinas’s Fifth Way to prove the existence of God against a common criticism.  However, space limitations preclude  me  from considering every version of this criticism, so  I  focus exclusively on Hume’s.”  The spirit behind the “anti-‘I’” rule must, however, be respected.  Students must avoid expressing subjective opinions.  Expressions like “I feel that …”, or “It seems to me that …”, or “In my experience…” should be avoided.  The point of a philosophy paper is to defend a thesis by appeal to objective reasons, that is, reasons that  any  reasonable person should accept.

8. The Present Tense: Another stylistic feature that is typical of philosophical writing is the almost exclusive use of the present tense.  Tense consistency is often a challenge for undergraduate writers: often past, present, and future tenses are used within the same sentence or paragraph.  This must be avoided.  In philosophy papers, the rule of thumb is: always use the present tense, even when discussing arguments proposed by philosophers in the past.  The fact that some argument, for the existence of God for example, was first proposed in the past is irrelevant for philosophical purposes.  Arguments are treated as timeless contributions to the philosophical conversation, and students should treat canonical arguments as though they still constitute persuasive reasons for believing some claim.  Thus, in the introduction provided as an example above, I write, “Aquinas, famously,  provides  five arguments for the existence of God.”  The present tense should always be used when explaining any philosopher’s argument, any reason he or she provides for accepting some conclusion.  This simple rule also insures tense consistency.  In the rare circumstance in which some kind of historical context must be provided, e.g., a discussion of Descartes’ education by Jesuits, the past tense may be appropriate.  But such circumstances are exceptional because philosophy papers focus on the timeless arguments that have been provided in defense of claims that are still controversial, not on the historical details or biographies that led particular philosophers to formulate these arguments.

9. Repeating Words vs. Using Synonyms: Another rule-of-thumb often promulgated in high school composition classes prescribes the use of synonyms over repetition of the same word.  The motivation for this is clear: when students are forced to avoid repeating words, they must search for synonyms and this helps expand their vocabulary.  However, by the time a student enrolls in a University-level philosophy course, her vocabulary should be sufficiently developed.  Philosophy instructors value  clarity  and  precision  far above conspicuous displays of vocabulary.  This is because, as we saw above, the soundness of an argument often depends on the precise meanings of the terms with which it is expressed.  The meanings of so-called “synonyms” often vary in very subtle, nuanced ways.  And these variations in meaning are often very significant in the context of philosophical arguments.  Consider for example the words “liberty” and “freedom”.  In some contexts, these words are interchangeable; they constitute synonyms.  However, there are many philosophical contexts in which these words are not interchangeable.  For example, the question of whether or not our decisions are free, or determined by our genetic endowment and environmental influences is a perennial philosophical puzzle.  However, “freedom of the will” cannot be paraphrased as “liberty of the will”.  The reason is that “liberty” has certain connotations which restrict its use to political contexts, while “freedom” can be used to characterize both political freedom, and freedom from natural constraints, like one’s genetic endowment, as well.  Substituting the word “freedom” with the word “liberty” in a philosophy paper would only compromise clarity: the reader would not know whether freedom from political or from natural constraints was at issue.  For this reason, it is best to repeat precisely the same terms for the same key concepts throughout a philosophy paper.  

3. Strategies for Choosing a Topic and Formulating Arguments

Philosophical creativity and imagination, like their scientific or artistic counterparts, are mysterious.  It is difficult to formulate rules for coming up with topics and arguments for philosophy papers.  Different individuals will succeed at this task in different ways.  Here, I discuss three broad strategies for conceiving and composing an undergraduate philosophy paper; however, this list is not meant to be exhaustive.  Philosophy papers can be characterized as (1) narrow focus papers, (2) broad focus papers, and (3) application papers.

Narrow Focus Papers

The narrow focus strategy is perhaps the most straightforward strategy for composing a philosophy paper.  The point of such a paper is to focus as much as possible on a specific argument by a specific philosopher and to discuss the strengths and weakness of this specific argument.  One begins by correctly explaining the target argument.  Then one raises objections, either by showing that one or more of the premises is false or implausible, or by showing that the premises, even if true, fail to support the conclusion.  One then considers how the author of argument might respond to these criticisms, and ends by replying to these responses.  In the course of writing such a focused, critical analysis, the student should include a survey of other criticisms that have been raised, and make clear how her criticism is unique.

Such papers can be extremely narrow.  For example, they might focus on just one premise, or sub-argument of a larger argument.  The introduction provided as an example above focuses just on Aquinas’ argument that there can be no causal chains extending infinitely into the past.  The focus is on just one crucial sub-argument of one of Aquinas’s five arguments for the existence of God.  Another possibility is to look at some historical debate about a particular premise of some canonical argument, and contribute to it.  For example, one might consider one objection of an early critic of Aquinas’s arguments, imagine how Aquinas might reply to this objection, and then raise an improved objection of one’s own, for which this reply does not work.  Or one might look at a classic criticism of some premise Aquinas uses in an argument, and offer a novel response on behalf of Aquinas.

Another kind of narrow focus paper concerns philosophical definitions.  One of the principal projects of canonical philosophy, since Plato, has been the attempt to define philosophically important concepts, such as TRUTH, JUSTICE, and KNOWLEDGE.  This has given rise to an important kind of philosophical debate.  Philosophical definitions provide necessary and sufficient conditions for something to count as an example of some concept.  For example, one classical definition of knowledge states that for a person to know some claim, the person must believe the claim; she must have good reasons for believing it, and the claim must be true.  This definition claims that belief, truth and justification are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for knowledge.  However, one of the classic papers of Twentieth Century philosophy raises a counterexample to this definition: an example of a justified true belief that, intuitively, should not count as knowledge.  This counterexample shows that belief, truth and justification are not sufficient for knowledge, contrary to the classical definition.  This has spawned a cottage industry, involving attempts to modify the definition of knowledge to accommodate the counterexample, followed by new counterexamples to these new definitions.  Such give-and-take about the meanings of important philosophical concepts is typical of much academic philosophy.  It also constitutes a great strategy for composing a narrow focus, undergraduate philosophy paper: identify some classic philosophical definition of a philosophically important concept, raise a counter-example to the definition, and then consider ways the definition might be modified to accommodate the counter-example.  This cycle can be repeated through numerous iterations, including new counter-examples to new definitions, followed by newer definitions accommodating these counter-examples, etc.

Narrow focus papers are mainly critical: they aim to undermine particular arguments, assumptions, or definitions proposed by specific philosophers.  For this reason, it is useful for a student writing a narrow focus paper to think of her role as analogous to that of a defense attorney in a criminal trial.  Her goal is not to prove that the conclusion to some argument is false.  Rather, her role is to show that the reasons some philosopher has provided for a specific conclusion are insufficient to establish that conclusion.

Broad Focus Papers

Unlike narrow focus papers, broad focus papers do not restrict their scope to particular arguments, assumptions, or definitions made by particular philosophers.  Instead, such papers identify a broad topic that has been discussed by many philosophers throughout history, identify different positions that have been taken on this topic, sketch the different kinds of arguments that have been provided for these different positions, and then take a stand on the topic by defending one of these arguments as superior to the others, or providing a new argument.  For example, rather than focusing on just one assumption in one of Aquinas’s arguments for the existence of God, a student may choose to treat the question of the existence of God more broadly, sketching the different positions on this topic, and some of the classical arguments that support them.  The student may then defend theism or atheism by offering an improved version of one of these arguments that avoids some of the classic criticisms of it, or by providing an argument of her own.

Broad focus papers are, in general, more challenging than narrow focus papers.  Undergraduates are rarely asked to draft papers longer than 15 pages.  However, it is extremely difficult to do justice to a broad topic in philosophy in so little space.  Philosophical questions and claims tend to ramify: they tend to open cans of worms – other questions and claims that are equally if not more difficult to resolve.  For this reason, the best advice for undergraduate philosophical writing is to focus on as narrow a topic as possible.  It is possible to write a decent broad focus undergraduate paper.  However, it is very difficult, and students who focus as much as possible on specific claims and arguments make life much easier for themselves.

Application Papers

Perhaps the most interesting strategy for composing an undergraduate philosophy paper – the strategy that allows the most scope for individual creativity – is to illustrate some philosophical concept, claim or argument with a concrete example drawn from art, film, fiction, popular culture, science, or one’s own experience.  For example, a classic dispute in epistemology – the philosophical study of knowledge – concerns our justification for believing the testimony of others.  On one view, this justification is derived from our own observation that people are, for the most part, reliable.  On the opposing view, trusting testimony is justified in itself, not in virtue of observing that people are typically reliable.  A classic argument for this opposing view is that young children could never learn anything from adults if they had to wait to observe that people tend to be reliable before trusting their testimony.  This argument makes substantial assumptions about how young children learn.  It therefore suggests an interesting topic for an application paper: see whether the latest literature in developmental psychology supports this assumption.

Often, showing how some common experience, drawn from everyday life, fiction, film, or popular culture, illustrates some philosophical principle, argument, or claim is very useful.  Not only does this help clarify the philosophical principle, argument, or claim; if the common experience is sufficiently vivid and compelling, it might even provide some support for the philosophical principle, argument, or claim.  For example, consider the classical philosophical definition of knowledge mentioned above, in the discussion about philosophical definitions.  According to this definition, a person knows some claim just in case she believes it; she is justified in believing it, and it is true.  The counterexamples that philosophers have raised to this definition have been fairly abstract and contrived.  However, it is possible to illustrate the problems with the definition by more plausible, real world examples.  For example, consider the claim that the sun moves.  We know this to be true today.  But what about people who lived prior to Copernicus?  Copernicus proposed that, contrary to the assumptions of astronomers that lived before him, the earth moves around the sun rather than vice versa.  So pre-Copernican astronomers believed that the sun moves around the earth.  This means that they also believed that the sun moves.  Since we know the sun moves, this belief of theirs was true.  Furthermore, they had good reasons for this belief, and were therefore justified in believing that the sun moves.  Copernicus had not yet formulated an alternative hypothesis and all the evidence seemed to support their view.  So pre-Copernican astronomers had a true justified belief that the sun moves.  But, arguably, they did not know this, since the reason they thought the sun moves – that it circles the earth – is not the true reason it moves – that, like any star, it is caught up in the motion of the galaxy of which it is a part.  This concrete historical example illustrates what is wrong with the classical definition of knowledge.

Working through such a concrete example from the history of science not only clarifies a philosophical point, it also provides some support for this point by showing that it is easily illustrated with concrete examples from the history of human knowledge.  Furthermore, it immediately suggests how a paper focused on this example can be further extended.  For example, one might imagine how a defender of the classical definition of knowledge would reinterpret this case in a way that vindicates the classical definition.  One could then respond to this reinterpretation.  In general, application papers can be based on very clear and simple argumentative structures: they argue that some concrete example illustrates a philosophical thesis, and then they consider how those who deny the thesis might deal with the example.  

4. A Short Primer on Logic

As we saw above, in section 2, although philosophical arguments can go wrong in two ways – either the premises are false or implausible, or they fail to support the conclusion – philosophers tend to focus on detecting and avoiding failures of the latter kind.  Here, I provide a short primer on the various ways that premises in philosophical arguments succeed and fail to support their conclusions.

Kinds of Support

There are broadly two kinds of support that premises provide for conclusions of arguments.  First, in  deductively valid  arguments, the premises  guarantee  the conclusion, i.e., if we assume the premises are true, we cannot, at the same time, deny the conclusion.  Here is a classic example: All humans are mortal.  Socrates is a human.  Therefore, Socrates is mortal.  If we accept the premises, we cannot, at the same time, deny the conclusion.  So, this is the strongest kind of support that premises can provide for a conclusion.  Notice that, when determining whether or not an argument is deductively valid, it is not necessary to establish whether or not the premises are true.  Validity is a matter of the support the premises provide the conclusion, not their truth.  The question is: if the premises were true, would the conclusion also have to be true?  So, for example, the following argument is deductively valid, despite its questionable premises:  All George Washington University students are Dalmatian.  Barack Obama is a George Washington University student.  Therefore, Barack Obama is Dalmatian.  Note that this argument has the same logical form as the previous argument about Socrates: “humans” has been substituted with “George Washington University students”; “mortal” has been substituted with “Dalmatian”, and “Socrates” has been substituted with “Barack Obama”.  Despite the fact that the second argument’s premises and conclusion are false, it is a deductively valid argument because the premises guarantee the conclusion.  That is,  if  the premises were true, the conclusion would also have to be true.

In deductively valid arguments, the premises supply the strongest possible support for the conclusion.  One can refute an argument claiming to be deductively valid by showing that even if the premises were true, the conclusion could still be false, i.e., there is still at least a slight probability that the premises are true and the conclusion is false.  For example, the following argument, though plausible, is not deductively valid: Every morning I’ve lived, the sun has risen.  Therefore, tomorrow morning, the sun will rise.  As we’ll see next, this is an inductively strong argument: the premise provides strong support for the conclusion.  But the argument is not deductively valid because the premise does not  guarantee  the conclusion: it is possible that the premise is true but the conclusion is false, e.g., if the sun explodes tonight, it won’t rise tomorrow morning.

The second kind of support that premises can provide conclusions is evident in  inductively strong  arguments.  In such arguments, though the premises do not guarantee the conclusion, as they do in deductively valid arguments, they  make the conclusion more likely .  Such arguments are common in science and politics.  Most arguments in which the conclusion is based on a public opinion poll are inductive arguments.  For example, suppose you do a blind taste test comparing Coke to Pepsi with 5% of the GWU student population, finding that 60% of this sample prefers Coke to Pepsi.  If you then generalize, concluding that 60% of the GWU student population prefers Coke to Pepsi, you are making an inductive argument: the premise is the result of the poll, and the conclusion is the generalization from the 5% sample to the whole GWU student population.  The strength of the support this premise provides this conclusion depends on the size of the sample, and how it is obtained.  Sometimes, for example, such arguments rely on samples that are not obtained randomly, and therefore contain biases relative to the population to which they generalize.  This is one way of criticizing an inductive argument: if the sample is biased, the argument is inductively weak.

In another sort of inductive argument, the premises express certain observations that need to be explained, while the conclusion is a plausible explanation of those observations.  Such forms of inductive argument are common in criminal trials.  The prosecution presents the jury with facts, e.g., the defendant’s alleged motives, her presence at the crime scene at around the estimated time of the crime as testified to by a reliable witness, etc.  They then conclude that the best explanation of all these facts is that the defendant committed the crime of which she is accused.  However, such premises never guarantee the conclusion, since there may always be alternative explanations for the evidence.  The defendant may have been at the crime scene by coincidence, or the witness may be lying, or the prosecution may be trying to frame the defendant, etc.  This is why, in such arguments, the premises never guarantee the conclusion, as they do in deductively valid arguments.  At best, they provide defeasibly strong reasons to accept the explanation that constitutes the conclusion.  But such arguments can always be criticized by providing an alternative explanation of the evidence that is just as good or better.

A classic philosophical argument of this type is the argument for the claim that nature is the product of intelligent design. Proponents of this argument begin with a list of facts about nature, e.g., that it is orderly, complex, goal-directed, and dependent on highly unlikely background conditions.  They then argue that the best explanation for these facts is that nature was designed by a supernatural intelligence.  However, as with the case of arguments made in court, these facts do not guarantee this conclusion.  There may be alternative explanations of these facts that are just as good or better.  For example, Darwin argues that many such facts can be explained by his theory of evolution by natural selection, with no appeal to intelligent design.

Argument types in which the premises do not support the conclusion are called “fallacies”.  Philosophers have studied the ways that arguments can go wrong for millennia, and they have identified dozens of fallacies.  Here are five common fallacies that it is useful to keep in mind when evaluating or formulating arguments in a philosophy paper.

• Begging the Question: Arguments that commit this fallacy are also known as circular arguments.  Such arguments assume what they are trying to prove.  Recall that the point of philosophical, and, indeed, any argumentation, is to try to prove a controversial conclusion on the basis of less controversial premises.  For example, as we saw above, Aquinas tries to prove the controversial claim that God exists on the basis of uncontroversial premises, like the claim that objects are in motion.  But sometimes the premises of an argument are equally or more controversial than the conclusion.  In fact, sometimes the premises of an argument covertly assume the conclusion they are trying to prove.  Consider the following argument for the existence of God, for example.  “God wrote the Bible.  Therefore, everything the Bible says is true.  The Bible says God exists.  Therefore, God exists.”  This argument is circular, or begs the question, because it assumes what it is trying to prove.  For God to write the Bible, he has to exist.  So, in this argument, the premises provide no independent justification for the conclusion: they are just as controversial as the conclusion because they covertly assume the conclusion’s truth.
• False Alternatives: Arguments that commit this fallacy rely on at least one premise that claims that there are fewer alternatives than there actually are.  Consider the following example: “Either France supports the United States or France supports the terrorists.  France does not support the United States.  Therefore, France supports the terrorists.”  This argument is fallacious because the first premise is a false alternative.  France might not support either the United States or the terrorists.
• Unjustified Appeal to Authority: Arguments that commit this fallacy rely on premises that appeal to an authority with no justification.  Consider the following example: “There are passages in the Bible that prohibit homosexuality.  Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.”  The conclusion is not supported by the premise because the argument fails to establish that the Bible is a legitimate authority on moral matters.
• Ad Hominem: The name of this fallacy is a Latin term meaning the same as “to (or against) the man”.  Such fallacies are often committed in the course of critiquing another argument.  For example, suppose an Evangelical Christian has just finished arguing that abortion is immoral, and a critic responds not by identifying any weaknesses in the argument but, rather, by pointing out the arguer’s religious beliefs as a reason for dismissing the argument.  The critic may say something like, “Clearly we cannot accept the reasoning of someone with such superstitious convictions!”  This is an example of the Ad Hominem fallacy: instead of criticizing the argument, the critic is attacking the person who presents the argument.  In logic and philosophy, we are interested in whether or not the premises of an argument support its conclusion.  The identity of the person making the argument is irrelevant to this.  People with whom one disagrees on many matters can nonetheless produce sound arguments.  A person’s personal convictions or personality are irrelevant to the strength of her arguments.
• Straw Man: This is another fallacy that often arises in the course of criticizing someone else’s argument.  It occurs when the critic misrepresents the argument she is criticizing, formulating a version of it that is easier to refute.  This is where the fallacy gets its name: a “straw man” is easier to knock down than a “real man”.  Consider the following example.  Suppose a person defends abortion rights on the grounds that no law regulating a person’s control over her own reproductive decisions is equitably enforceable.  If someone were to criticize this argument on the grounds that (1) it claims killing a fetus is morally unobjectionable, and (2) this assumption is false, then the critic would be guilty of a Straw Man fallacy.  The argument makes no claims about whether or not killing a fetus is morally unobjectionable.  The critic has burdened her target with a difficult to defend assumption that she never made.  In terms discussed above, such a critic does not respect the principle of charity that guides all good philosophical writing.  Philosophical writers have an obligation to present their antagonists’ arguments in as favorable a light as possible before criticizing them.  Only then can they be sure that they are seeking to establish claims that are supported by the best reasons, rather than merely scoring rhetorical points.  

Undergraduate philosophical writing is about evaluating and constructing arguments.  A good argument is one in which strong reasons are provided in support of some claim.  In order to evaluate and construct arguments, the claims that comprise them must be expressed in clear and precise language.  In addition, these claims must be perspicuously organized, such that the complex relations of support they bear to each other are apparent to any educated reader.  The goal of philosophical writing should be discovering which claims are supported by the best reasons, not scoring cheap rhetorical points.  For this reason, philosophical writing must be guided by a principle of extreme charity: views antagonistic to the author’s must be considered carefully and fairly, and presented with the utmost sympathy.  The author must anticipate likely criticisms of her own views and respond to them.  Undergraduate philosophical writers must master the art of conveying abstruse philosophical concepts in clear, plain language, writing for an imagined audience of educated non-specialists, like family and friends.  This makes undergraduate writing clearer, and demonstrates to the instructor that the student has understood difficult concepts in her own terms.  The use, as much as possible, of concrete examples to illustrate abstract philosophical concepts is strongly recommended.

Finally, the best undergraduate philosophy papers focus on relatively narrow and specific topics, e.g., a specific argument or assumption made by a specific philosopher.  One cannot establish an ambitious philosophical claim in the 10-15 pages usually allotted for undergraduate philosophy papers.  Thousands of years and pages have been devoted to determining whether or not God exists, for example.  Yet the question remains controversial.  Do not assume that you can accomplish, in 10-15 pages, something that professional philosophers have failed to accomplish in thousands of years.  Philosophical arguments tend to open cans of worms because they invariably make assumptions or raise difficult issues that go beyond the topic on which they focus.  The art of writing philosophy consists in avoiding such potential digressions, and contributing to specific, constrained debates.

The foregoing is a good guide to composing an initial rough draft of a term paper for an undergraduate philosophy class.  Different instructors might not agree with all of my recommendations; however, most will agree with most of them.  Once a student receives feedback from her instructor on a rough draft, she will be able to fine-tune the paper to the instructor’s particular preferences.  Although the foregoing should help students make a good start on a philosophy paper, there is no substitute for frequent consultation with one’s instructor.  Do not fear “bothering” your instructors about helping with paper drafts.  As long as you follow the relevant instructions on their syllabi and give them plenty of time, they are obligated to help you with your writing.  The persistent pursuit of detailed feedback from one’s instructor is the best resource you have for succeeding at undergraduate philosophical writing.  This guide provides a solid foundation from which to start.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples

How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples

Published on January 11, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on August 15, 2023 by Eoghan Ryan.

A thesis statement is a sentence that sums up the central point of your paper or essay . It usually comes near the end of your introduction .

Your thesis will look a bit different depending on the type of essay you’re writing. But the thesis statement should always clearly state the main idea you want to get across. Everything else in your essay should relate back to this idea.

You can write your thesis statement by following four simple steps:

• Start with a question
• Write your initial answer
• Develop your answer
• Refine your thesis statement

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is a thesis statement, placement of the thesis statement, step 1: start with a question, step 2: write your initial answer, step 3: develop your answer, step 4: refine your thesis statement, types of thesis statements, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about thesis statements.

A thesis statement summarizes the central points of your essay. It is a signpost telling the reader what the essay will argue and why.

The best thesis statements are:

• Concise: A good thesis statement is short and sweet—don’t use more words than necessary. State your point clearly and directly in one or two sentences.
• Contentious: Your thesis shouldn’t be a simple statement of fact that everyone already knows. A good thesis statement is a claim that requires further evidence or analysis to back it up.
• Coherent: Everything mentioned in your thesis statement must be supported and explained in the rest of your paper.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

The thesis statement generally appears at the end of your essay introduction or research paper introduction .

The spread of the internet has had a world-changing effect, not least on the world of education. The use of the internet in academic contexts and among young people more generally is hotly debated. For many who did not grow up with this technology, its effects seem alarming and potentially harmful. This concern, while understandable, is misguided. The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its many benefits for education: the internet facilitates easier access to information, exposure to different perspectives, and a flexible learning environment for both students and teachers.

You should come up with an initial thesis, sometimes called a working thesis , early in the writing process . As soon as you’ve decided on your essay topic , you need to work out what you want to say about it—a clear thesis will give your essay direction and structure.

You might already have a question in your assignment, but if not, try to come up with your own. What would you like to find out or decide about your topic?

For example, you might ask:

After some initial research, you can formulate a tentative answer to this question. At this stage it can be simple, and it should guide the research process and writing process .

Now you need to consider why this is your answer and how you will convince your reader to agree with you. As you read more about your topic and begin writing, your answer should get more detailed.

In your essay about the internet and education, the thesis states your position and sketches out the key arguments you’ll use to support it.

The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its many benefits for education because it facilitates easier access to information.

In your essay about braille, the thesis statement summarizes the key historical development that you’ll explain.

The invention of braille in the 19th century transformed the lives of blind people, allowing them to participate more actively in public life.

A strong thesis statement should tell the reader:

• Why you hold this position
• What they’ll learn from your essay
• The key points of your argument or narrative

The final thesis statement doesn’t just state your position, but summarizes your overall argument or the entire topic you’re going to explain. To strengthen a weak thesis statement, it can help to consider the broader context of your topic.

These examples are more specific and show that you’ll explore your topic in depth.

Your thesis statement should match the goals of your essay, which vary depending on the type of essay you’re writing:

• In an argumentative essay , your thesis statement should take a strong position. Your aim in the essay is to convince your reader of this thesis based on evidence and logical reasoning.
• In an expository essay , you’ll aim to explain the facts of a topic or process. Your thesis statement doesn’t have to include a strong opinion in this case, but it should clearly state the central point you want to make, and mention the key elements you’ll explain.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

• Choosing Essay Topic
• Write a College Essay
• Write a Diversity Essay
• College Essay Format & Structure
• Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

A thesis statement is a sentence that sums up the central point of your paper or essay . Everything else you write should relate to this key idea.

The thesis statement is essential in any academic essay or research paper for two main reasons:

• It gives your writing direction and focus.
• It gives the reader a concise summary of your main point.

Without a clear thesis statement, an essay can end up rambling and unfocused, leaving your reader unsure of exactly what you want to say.

Follow these four steps to come up with a thesis statement :

• Ask a question about your topic .
• Write your initial answer.
• Develop your answer by including reasons.
• Refine your answer, adding more detail and nuance.

The thesis statement should be placed at the end of your essay introduction .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, August 15). How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 4, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/thesis-statement/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write an essay introduction | 4 steps & examples, how to write topic sentences | 4 steps, examples & purpose, academic paragraph structure | step-by-step guide & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Simon Fraser University Engaging the World

Department of philosophy.

• A-Z directory

Writing A Philosophy Paper

Copyright © 1993 by Peter Horban Simon Fraser University

THINGS TO AVOID IN YOUR PHILOSOPHY ESSAY

• Lengthy introductions. These are entirely unnecessary and of no interest to the informed reader. There is no need to point out that your topic is an important one, and one that has interested philosophers for hundreds of years. Introductions should be as brief as possible. In fact, I recommend that you think of your paper as not having an introduction at all. Go directly to your topic.
• Lengthy quotations. Inexperienced writers rely too heavily on quotations and paraphrases. Direct quotation is best restricted to those cases where it is essential to establish another writer's exact selection of words. Even paraphrasing should be kept to a minimum. After all, it is your paper. It is your thoughts that your instructor is concerned with. Keep that in mind, especially when your essay topic requires you to critically assess someone else's views.
• Fence sitting. Do not present a number of positions in your paper and then end by saying that you are not qualified to settle the matter. In particular, do not close by saying that philosophers have been divided over this issue for as long as humans have been keeping record and you cannot be expected to resolve the dispute in a few short pages. Your instructor knows that. But you can be expected to take a clear stand based on an evaluation of the argument(s) presented. Go out on a limb. If you have argued well, it will support you.
• Cuteness. Good philosophical writing usually has an air of simple dignity about it. Your topic is no joke. No writers whose views you have been asked to read are idiots. (If you think they are, then you have not understood them.) Name calling is inappropriate and could never substitute for careful argumentation anyway.
• Begging the question. You are guilty of begging the question (or circular reasoning) on a particular issue if you somehow presuppose the truth of whatever it is that you are trying to show in the course of arguing for it. Here is a quick example. If Smith argues that abortion is morally wrong on the grounds that it amounts to murder, Smith begs the question. Smith presupposes a particular stand on the moral status of abortion - the stand represented by the conclusion of the argument. To see that this is so, notice that the person who denies the conclusion - that abortion is morally wrong - will not accept Smith's premise that it amounts to murder, since murder is, by definition, morally wrong.
• When arguing against other positions, it is important to realize that you cannot show that your opponents are mistaken just by claiming that their overall conclusions are false. Nor will it do simply to claim that at least one of their premises is false. You must demonstrate these sorts of things, and in a fashion that does not presuppose that your position is correct.

SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR WRITING YOUR PHILOSOPHY PAPER

• Organize carefully. Before you start to write make an outline of how you want to argue. There should be a logical progression of ideas - one that will be easy for the reader to follow. If your paper is well organized, the reader will be led along in what seems a natural way. If you jump about in your essay, the reader will balk. It will take a real effort to follow you, and he or she may feel it not worthwhile. It is a good idea to let your outline simmer for a few days before you write your first draft. Does it still seem to flow smoothly when you come back to it? If not, the best prose in the world will not be enough to make it work.
• Use the right words. Once you have determined your outline, you must select the exact words that will convey your meaning to the reader. A dictionary is almost essential here. Do not settle for a word that (you think) comes close to capturing the sense you have in mind. Notice that "infer" does not mean "imply"; "disinterested" does not mean "uninterested"; and "reference" does not mean either "illusion" or "allusion." Make certain that you can use "its" and "it's" correctly. Notice that certain words such as "therefore," "hence," "since," and "follows from" are strong logical connectives. When you use such expressions you are asserting that certain tight logical relations hold between the claims in question. You had better be right. Finally, check the spelling of any word you are not sure of. There is no excuse for "existance" appearing in any philosophy essay.
• Support your claims. Assume that your reader is constantly asking such questions as "Why should I accept that?" If you presuppose that he or she is at least mildly skeptical of most of your claims, you are more likely to succeed in writing a paper that argues for a position. Most first attempts at writing philosophy essays fall down on this point. Substantiate your claims whenever there is reason to think that your critics would not grant them.
• Give credit. When quoting or paraphrasing, always give some citation. Indicate your indebtedness, whether it is for specific words, general ideas, or a particular line of argument. To use another writer's words, ideas, or arguments as if they were your own is to plagiarize. Plagiarism is against the rules of academic institutions and is dishonest. It can jeopardize or even terminate your academic career. Why run that risk when your paper is improved (it appears stronger not weaker) if you give credit where credit is due? That is because appropriately citing the works of others indicates an awareness of some of the relevant literature on the subject.
• Anticipate objections. If your position is worth arguing for, there are going to be reasons which have led some people to reject it. Such reasons will amount to criticisms of your stand. A good way to demonstrate the strength of your position is to consider one or two of the best of these objections and show how they can be overcome. This amounts to rejecting the grounds for rejecting your case, and is analogous to stealing your enemies' ammunition before they have a chance to fire it at you. The trick here is to anticipate the kinds of objections that your critics would actually raise against you if you did not disarm them first. The other challenge is to come to grips with the criticisms you have cited. You must argue that these criticisms miss the mark as far as your case is concerned, or that they are in some sense ill-conceived despite their plausibility. It takes considerable practice and exposure to philosophical writing to develop this engaging style of argumentation, but it is worth it.
• Edit boldly. I have never met a person whose first draft of a paper could not be improved significantly by rewriting. The secret to good writing is rewriting - often. Of course it will not do just to reproduce the same thing again. Better drafts are almost always shorter drafts - not because ideas have been left out, but because words have been cut out as ideas have been clarified. Every word that is not needed only clutters. Clear sentences do not just happen. They are the result of tough-minded editing.

There is much more that could be said about clear writing. I have not stopped to talk about grammatical and stylistic points. For help in these matters (and we all need reference works in these areas) I recommend a few of the many helpful books available in the campus bookstore. My favorite little book on good writing is The Elements of Style , by William Strunk and E.B. White. Another good book, more general in scope, is William Zinsser's, On Writing Well . Both of these books have gone through several editions. More advanced students might do well to read Philosophical Writing: An Introduction , by A.P. Martinich. Some final words should be added about proofreading. Do it. Again. After that, have someone else read your paper. Is this person able to understand you completely? Can he or she read your entire paper through without getting stuck on a single sentence? If not, go back and smooth it out. In general terms, do not be content simply to get your paper out of your hands. Take pride in it. Clear writing reflects clear thinking; and that, after all, is what you are really trying to show.

Undergraduate

Study philosophy at sfu, department events.

.................

Department News

Horban Award 2024: Nava Karimi June 12, 2024 The Department of Philosophy at Simon Fraser University would like to congratulate Nava Karimi, who...

Horban Award 2023: Danielle Jones July 04, 2023 The Department of Philosophy at Simon Fraser University would like to congratulate Danielle Jones,...

Horban Award 2023: Parmida Saemiyan July 04, 2023 The Department of Philosophy at Simon Fraser University would like to congratulate Parmida...

2023 BC Lower Mainland Ethics Bowl Report March 09, 2023 by Cem Erkli On February 25th, 150 high school students from all across the Lower Mainland met on...

Blended learning: spotlight on SFU’s newest course designation September 21, 2022 Philosophy Chair Evan Tiffany is one of the first faculty members at SFU to design and deliver a...

MA Student Aaron Richardson at Aesthetics For Birds - Accessibility and the Problem of Alt Text September 21, 2022

SFU Philosophy's collection of 'be employable, study philosophy' web content: PHIL IRL on Flipboard

• How It Works
• PhD thesis writing
• Master thesis writing
• Bachelor thesis writing
• Dissertation writing service
• Dissertation abstract writing
• Thesis proposal writing
• Thesis editing service
• Thesis proofreading service
• Thesis formatting service
• Coursework writing service
• Research paper writing service
• Architecture thesis writing
• Computer science thesis writing
• Engineering thesis writing
• History thesis writing
• MBA thesis writing
• Nursing dissertation writing
• Psychology dissertation writing
• Sociology thesis writing
• Statistics dissertation writing
• Buy dissertation online
• Write my dissertation
• Cheap thesis
• Cheap dissertation
• Custom dissertation
• Dissertation help
• Pay for thesis
• Pay for dissertation
• Senior thesis
• Write my thesis

227 Philosophy Thesis Topics To Use Right Now

A philosophy dissertation everyone’s favorite. The long list of philosophers and their allegories or theories is not a subject most students would want to listen to comfortably. However, students still have to write a philosophical thesis in their undergraduate or post-graduate to graduate.

Let us narrow down this elephant in the room for you.

What Is A Philosophical Thesis?

A philosophical paper is not a report of what various scholars have had to say on a particular issue. It is a reasoned defense of a particular thesis. Unlike other papers that present the latest findings of tests or experiments, this paper tries to persuade the reader to give in to a particular point of view together with grounds or justification for its acceptance.

The introduction of a philosophy paper states what the writer is trying to show the reader. When writing a dissertation in philosophy, follow the following simple guidelines for efficiency:

• Very carefully and think about your topic
• Have a rough idea of what you intend to establish
• Determine how you’ll go about convincing the reader that your thesis is correct.

For an outstanding philosophy thesis, ensure that you say what you mean and in a way that minimizes the chances of being misunderstood. It is the general rule thumb for this paper that every student should have at his/her finger-tips.

What To Avoid in a Philosophy Dissertation

Understanding the do’s and don’ts of any paper is essential in ensuring that you stick within the scope of what is required of you. Here are some of the things to avoid in philosophical thesis papers for college:

• Lengthy quotations: It is essential to understand that quotations are an essential part of philosophy papers. However, stating long quotes that run into paragraphs or more does not make your paper sound original. One will only see this as a duplication of another person’s work.
• Circular reasoning: If you presuppose the truth of whatever it is that you are trying to bring out in the course of arguing for it, then you are guilty of begging the question.
• Lengthy introductions: An intro should only serve the purpose of giving the context of your philosophy topic and creating interest in the reader. You can do it in less than four short and precise questions. Overloading your introduction only serves to drain your readers’ energy before they get into the real deal – the body.
• Fence sitting: Most students are guilty of presenting several positions in their papers and then saying they are not qualified to settle the matter. Do not close by saying that philosophers have been divided over a particular issue. That only shows how shallow and scanty you were in your research process.

Always organize your work carefully, using the right words to present your stance without any disputes. The stance should also come out naturally without making the reader feel that you are forcing him/her to ascribe to your particular point of view.

It is also essential to support your arguments with undisputed evidence. Do not assume that your reader may not be skeptical of your arguments. Every reader is skeptical of whatever they read, and if sufficient evidence is not provided, then you might not convince anyone at the end of your 20-page long thesis.

Now, for you to have a strong thesis, ensure that it is:

• Answering a specific question;
• Engaging; one that can be challenged or opposed, thus also defended;
• Passes the “so what? Or why should I care?” test;
• Supported by your paper; and
• Not too broad nor too vague.

To have a strong argument in your philosophical paper, demonstrate these sorts of things that make your opponent’s views false in a fashion that does not presuppose that your position is correct. Your philosophy research topics will play a significant role in supporting this claim.

You can find philosophy research paper topics from:

Early American Imprints of 1639 to 1819 Early English Books Online of 1475 to 1700 Internet archives The War Diaries of Jean-Paul Sartre The Metaphysics of Morals by Emmanuel Kant

And many more sources that are readily available in your college library or online catalogs.

We now advance to our professional philosophy topics list:

Sample Thesis Topics For Philosophy of the Human Sciences

• Critique of mainstream assumptions and practices of human behavior globally
• How are constructions of human nature affect our associations and lineation
• Adopting a human science framework to the problem of racial discrimination in the US
• How to adopt positivism in a world bombarded by negative news all the time
• A rigorous and systematic approach to man’s natural behavior
• The role of the Greek philosophers in shaping human sciences around the 18th century
• How existential phenomenology found its way from Europe
• Cultural and biological dimensions of human science research programs
• The role of qualitative research methods across the discipline of the human sciences
• How humanistic psychology offers more substantive findings in human science tradition
• An evaluation of the colleges and universities dedicated to humanistic/human science philosophy
• Discuss the impact of the American infusionism into the cultures and systems of the world
• Fundamental tenets of Western civilization in developing countries
• An assessment of the ancient nature of human interactions
• Political and cultural standards acceptable to all human interactions

Philosophy Potential Senior Thesis Topics

• A philosophical perspective of evil actions and evil persons
• How the ideology of Darwinism has affected the aspect of natural selection
• Distinguishing the underlying differences between intervention and information
• Psychoanalysis of melancholia in teenagers
• Investigating the use of biology in dealing with human philosophical issues
• The evolution of philosophical writings from the 15th century to the 21st century
• Examine the connection between shame and an immoral piece of art
• How depression relates to natural and interactive children
• What is the logic behind nightmares and madness in dreams?
• An investigation of how man is adapting to the invasion of privacy by new technologies
• The ethical and practical arguments against voluntary euthanasia
• Discuss the relationship between value, dignity, and human virtue in the Modern Virtue Theory
• The evolution of personal and corporate responsibility in the 21st century
• Trends in sex and sexuality as seen in the 21st century
• Why arousal of an emotion in the listener is essential in the delivery of any speech

Undergraduate Philosophy Thesis Topics

• Modern science: Should we employ a monistic or pluralistic model?
• How moral philosophy can help improve our understanding of folk psychology
• Why is it close to impossible to escape mental externalism?
• The emergence of technology and resulting bioethics as seen in the 21st century
• Investigate the willingness to accept punishment after committing a civil crime
• Why artificial intelligence may not be a genuinely creative entity
• Discuss empathy, fiction, and morality in the development of fiction stories and folklores
• The role of sporting activities in developing virtues and morals in the society
• Is voluntary suicide justified for any reason whatsoever?
• Why postmodern philosophical theories and market anarchism are enemies
• Discuss the ultimate goal of humanity in the backdrop of the changing roles
• Give a detailed analysis of the relationship between fate, destiny, and free will
• What is the essence of dreams and visions to man?
• Evaluate the sources of your self-worth in the light of personal attributes
• What is the impact of a person’s name on who they become in the future?

Best-Rated Political Philosophy Thesis Topics

• Consider the dividing line between distributive justice and the family
• Investigate the gendered basis for care and caregiving
• What are the underlying differences between multiculturalism and feminism
• Discuss the liberal versus radical feminist positions on pornography
• How social beings should live together considering the underlying differences
• Following the example of Plato, discuss what it means to have an ideal society
• Given the knowledge and resources available, discuss the best form of society using the US as a case study
• The evolution of democracy in the US presidential election
• How the history of the past several centuries has impacted the role of citizens in participation in democracy
• What is the essence of having a conservative free-market economy in the 21st century?
• The role of the government in regulating the economy
• Should the economy incorporate both capitalist and socialist structures?
• Do we have an economically viable socialist alternative to capitalism?
• Is it worth fighting for an economically viable alternative to capitalism?
• The conservative view of the post-World-War-Two period

Thesis Topics on the Renaissance and Philosophy

• The impact of the renaissance period o man’s view of the world
• Compare and contrast the High Renaissance in Rome as compared to the of Northern Europe
• The impact of the scientific revolution on the renaissance period
• The early renaissance period in Florence and the existence of the Flemish art
• Discuss the contributions of some of the godfathers of the Renaissance
• The perfect interplay between music and painting during the renaissance period
• The humanist intellectual, cultural, and artistic revolution of the Renaissance
• Religious symbolism and naturalistic beauty as exemplified in the renaissance period
• The role of sexuality and eroticism in the works of the 16th-century renaissance art
• How the discoveries of the renaissance period helped shape people’s attitudes towards life
• Identify and explain the role of the Carolingian Renaissance on the Bible
• The impact of the Great migration and economic changes on literature and art
• Discuss how art patronage was conducted in Italy during the Renaissance
• How science has made advancements in renaissance culture and art
• Impacts of the early Renaissance on the medical innovations

Master Thesis Topics in Philosophy

• Discuss the benefits and impacts of the renaissance period on the man
• How the renaissance period played a part in the reformation of the world
• A comparative analysis of philosophy, art, and culture during the Renaissance
• How much influence did the renaissance period have on dressing?
• Conduct a critical analysis of Langston Hughes and the Harlem Renaissance
• The contribution of sculptors of the Italian Renaissance
• Discuss artistic renaissance humanism during 1400 and 1650
• The Renaissance and religion: A case study of the Catholic church
• Artistic revolution as a significant element of the Renaissance
• The role of William Shakespeare in the renaissance period
• Discuss the classical and Renaissance humanities art of the Greco-Roman artists
• The cultural, economic, and political influence of the Renaissance
• The age of revolutionary, Renaissance, and enlightenment period
• The representation of nature in the European renaissance artistic works
• How Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Rafael contributed to the new era of the Renaissance

Introduction to Philosophy Thesis Topics

• Discuss whether people are good or evil by nature
• What are the limitations to free will in making personal decisions?
• What is the impact of the belief in God on a person’s way of life?
• Discuss the compatibility issues between science with religion
• Give a detailed argument for or against utilitarianism
• What is the logic behind psychological and ethical egoism?
• Ascertain the relevance of morals to culture or society
• The role of Aesop’s fables in contributing to human philosophy
• Discuss the history and development of African philosophy
• What are the central tenets of African Sage Philosophy?
• The critical role played by altruism and group selection
• Conduct a detailed analysis of the American Enlightenment Thought
• How does the American Wilderness Philosophy vary from that of today?
• A case study of Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
• Critically evaluate motion and its place in nature
• Discuss association in the philosophy of the mind
• How Bolzano’s mathematical knowledge played a crucial role in human philosophy

Thesis Papers Topics on Buddhist Philosophy

• The view of sin and punishment between the Buddhist and Hindu religions
• Buddhist believe in rebirth, which is determined by the actions one does in daily life.
• Misconceptions about sexuality in the Buddhist religion
• Discuss the relationship between Shinto with China and Buddhism
• Analyze the four noble truths of Buddhism
• The concept of salvation according to the Zen Buddhism religion
• A detailed study of the confluence of Buddhism and Hinduism in India
• An analysis of the faith and practices of Buddhism as a religion in India
• The role of Mahatma Gandhi in advancing the ideologies and practices of Buddhism
• Evaluate the vase of treasure hidden in the Buddhist iconography
• Compare and contrast the various variations between Buddhism and Christianity
• Elements of the Buddhism religion that make it sacred
• Discuss the concept of anger and how to manage it in the Buddhism religion
• Cultural histories and the expansion of the Buddhism religion in China
• Differences in the Japanese versus Chinese Buddhism practices

Types of Philosophy Thesis Topics

• Discuss the role of aesthetics in the study of philosophy
• How epistemology has contributed to the growth in philosophical literature
• Elaborate the role of ethics on the survivability of a society
• How logic has been crucial in making rational decisions in a man
• What are the limitations of metaphysics as a branch of philosophy?
• Analyze the philosophy of mind given the fundamental tenets
• Discuss the major revolutions of the African philosophy
• Why does Eastern philosophy have a lower absorption rate?
• Reasons why Western philosophy has a greater acceptance in the world as compared to others
• Give the unique characteristics of the ancient and classical philosophy
• Why the medieval and post-classical philosophies have a place in the modern world
• The modern and contemporary philosophy in terms of improvements
• Discuss the philosophy of language theories and stances in Europe
• What is the impact of the philosophy of science theories and stances?
• Discuss the epistemological stances of different philosophical schools of thought

Epistemology Paper Topics

• The concept of skepticism among different readers
• Analyze the internalist vs. externalist accounts of knowledge and justification
• Discuss the structure of knowledge and justification
• What contributes to contextualism in epistemology?
• Impacts of the relevant alternative accounts of knowledge
• Discuss the pros and cons of the epistemology of lotteries
• A case study of foundationalism and coherentism
• The impacts of facts and beliefs on people
• Is skepticism doomed to an inevitable defeat?
• Arguments and positions in epistemology in the 21st century
• The pros and cons of different positions in epistemology
• Relevant arguments and principles in epistemology: A case of The Closure Principle
• Critically discuss Shoemaker’s ‘self-blindness’ concept
• How the epistemology of attitudes like the belief is very different from the epistemology of other mental states
• Fundamental flaws in various epistemological theories

High-Quality Philosophy Project Topics

• Discuss the concept of happiness
• Why egoism is a negative trait
• Discuss the motive behind acts of charity
• Is love merely an illusion of the mind?
• Are criminals evil by nature?
• Is the current generation less affectionate?
• Discuss the concept of true friendship
• Is there happiness in achieving nothing?
• Does a perfect life exist?
• Why do people struggle to attain perfectionism?
• The impact of technology of taking away emotions
• Analyze time management among high school versus campus students
• Is obsession replacing true love?
• Is the concept of ‘You Only Live Once’ viable?
• Why are most geniuses’ introverts?

Easy Philosophy Paper Topics

• Discuss the existence of fate in the modern world
• Can we achieve an ideal society?
• Is life meaningful after all?
• Why should people work, yet they will die in the end?
• Is the concept of feminism overhyped?
• Is every human action predetermined?
• Discuss the components of the human consciousness
• Why do people tend to do the bad instead of the good?
• Are atheists deceiving themselves?
• Why is the world changing so fast?
• Is there life after death?
• Why must everyone go to school?
• Who determines what clothes each gender should don?
• The impact of religious beliefs on science
• Does death usher in the new life?

Top Philosophical Topics To Write About

• Will the world ever come to an end?
• Why do people have different religions?
• Does stealing originate from the person’s mind?
• Who is responsible for the rot in the society
• The role of parents in instilling morals
• Why do people believe in revenge?
• What makes man different from animals?
• Why should we care about our neighbors?
• Is humility a virtue for ladies?
• Why are most men aggressive
• Discuss the role of sleeping at night
• Should people eat food after all?
• Is man the biggest threat to himself?
• Is the judicial system serving justice?
• Will robots make the world better?

Good Philosophy Topics

• Do beliefs and superstitions match?
• Is sex necessary?
• Why should people love each other?
• Should a woman head the house also?
• Are other planets mere superstitions?
• Are the stars in the sky fantasies?
• Why bother about planning?
• Do aliens exist?
• Why is man rational?
• What is the effect of finding a purpose in life
• Do shooting stars fall on earth?
• Why do fiction movies move people?
• Does the moon exist?
• Are we living reality or a fantasy?
• Can one love more than two people?

Interesting Philosophy Topics

• Was man made out of clay?
• Do guns protect?
• Does true love exist among teenagers?
• Beauty and morality
• Religion and power
• Memories and love
• Peace and war
• Religion and own belief system
• Angels and demons
• Heaven and earth
• Plastic surgery and ethics
• Character and upbringing
• Dreams and the future
• The rich and the poor
• Is death inevitable

Do you need affordable help with a thesis or a research paper? Contact our thesis help writers now!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment * Error message

Name * Error message

Email * Error message

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

As Putin continues killing civilians, bombing kindergartens, and threatening WWIII, Ukraine fights for the world's peaceful future.

Ukraine Live Updates

Abstracts and Introductions (WritePhilosophy Guide)

Where to start? Writing an introduction or abstract for your philosophy paper can be daunting – and with good reason. The first paragraph of your paper is also the most important. Before those opening lines are through, a reader will have made up their mind about the value, or lack thereof, of your work. While what comes next could sway their opinion (if they give you that chance), changing someone’s mind away from their initial impressions is a significant task. This can be to your detriment or to your advantage, depending on whether your introduction is strong or weak.

There are three things that we see all across student essays which always make an assessor cringe and put you on the defensive from the outset. These are:

Plato was an ancient Greek philosopher, born in around 428BC in Athens, whose work has been extremely influential in Western philosophy.

Unnecessary biography. Unless your paper is in intellectual history, writing about the life, times and influence of Plato (in which case, you’ve come to the wrong place!) this material is irrelevant. It does nothing to defend your thesis, which is the sole aim of your paper. Cut it and nobody will miss it. As for claims that the philosopher whose work you will be discussing is “one of the most important/influential/brilliant minds in philosophical history”, unless your essay will focus on proving this claim, it really shouldn’t be the first thing you say.

The question of who should rule is one of the most important philosophical questions.

Vacuous importance . A rumour has made the rounds that it’s vital to establish that your paper is very important, drawing the reader in by emphasising the vast significance of the topic. Your reader already believes that the topic is important or at least interesting – that’s why they’re reading your paper, or have set you this assignment. While there is merit to establishing the relevance of your contribution to the topic at hand, this needs to be done with specifics, which detail what it is that your paper contributes to this debate. You don’t need to show that the debate itself is important, but if you really feel the need to, simply declaring it so won’t suffice. For that, you’d want specific examples of the real-world significance or impact of the debate.

Last, and definitely least:

Since the dawn of time, man has argued over the question of who should rule.

Lost to history. Having lost count of how many times I have read this phrase in first-year undergraduate essays, I sympathise with the inability to offer specifics. But so vague and inconsequential a phrase has no place in your paper. Rhetorical flourishes might add a little spark to your paper, but should be attended to once the substance of the piece has been thoroughly finalised.

In each of these cases, it’s clear what has happened. Students are often faced with blank page syndrome. A bare Word document and a flickering cursor which demands that you type something – anything. So you type something meaningless, inconsequential, indisputable, just to get you started. That’s all fine, but you must go back and take it all out once you’re in flow. If you really must type something to combat the fear of the void, try this:

In this paper, I will argue that…

It lacks finesse, but this seven-word phrase is everything you need to get your paper going. At the very least, there must be one sentence, somewhere in your first paragraph, which you could add this phrase to, and make perfect sense. Your essay does one thing: it defends your thesis through a single line of argument . Your opening should be the single most important thing in the whole paper: that thesis. You will hardly ever go wrong by opening your paper with your thesis statement. If you want to start with “In this paper, I will argue that…”, then that’s absolutely fine. Plenty of well-written, published academic papers by professional philosophers do exactly that, and their readers likely thank them for it.

The rule is that you want your reader to be in absolutely no doubt what your thesis is before the end of the first paragraph . If you can accomplish that in the first sentence, more’s the better. Admittedly, sometimes your thesis will be a little more specific or convoluted, and you’ll need a sentence or two of preamble so that the thesis itself makes sense to the reader the first time they encounter it. But always get it in before the first paragraph is up. If you really can’t, consider whether you have understood your material and formulated your thesis clearly.

The rest of the abstract

Now that you have one sentence of your abstract nailed down, your thesis statement, what else should you include? The other thing which is ineliminable is a summary of your argument . You should explain in broad strokes how you intend to demonstrate the truth of your thesis to your reader. Before they go beyond that first paragraph, they should have a decent expectation of what lies ahead. What are the key premises in your argument? Which are controversial, which will you spend time defending? Are there any assumptions you will be making?

Related to, but distinct from this is an overview of the structure of the paper itself. In what order do you accomplish these tasks? Is your paper divided into a series of sections? If so, what does each section achieve which adds to the argument you are making? In laying out the structure of your paper, you can largely dispense with anything which is obvious or common across philosophical papers (e.g. there’s no need to explain that you will begin by stating definitions of key terms, or that you will end with a conclusion).

You might not need anything more than that. You have your thesis and your argument, which is everything that really matters in your paper. But you might want to add a little more. Situate the reader in the context of the philosophical literature that informs your work. If your paper responds to or draws upon the arguments of other philosophers, you might want to make that clear, citing that author, at this stage. If they in turn are writing in response to another source, then you can lay out that line of intellectual back-and-forth, until you trace it back to the original question that this line of research is trying to answer.

Beyond that, you may wish to make some form of claim for importance to motivate the reader to value your paper and read on. This must be specific, in two senses. First, it must be about the importance of this work , not the debate in general, couched in terms of how the truth of your thesis impacts on this debate. Second, it should have some specific real-world implications. If this debate informs policy, practice, behaviour or research, then spell out with a clear example a way in which the truth of your thesis would impact that. Your reader wants to know that they (or maybe someone else) will have to change what they think or what they do after they’ve read your paper. That’s what merits a claim to importance. If you can’t think of ways in which the truth of your thesis might have this impact, that’s fine. You don’t have to include this kind of claim, and trying to do so without grounds will ring hollow. You can largely assume that a reader who set an assignment or fished out a paper on this topic is interested enough to go on.

Composing an abstract

The only way to learn to write good abstracts or introductions is to practice. But we can gain some understanding by analysing and dissecting abstracts written by philosophers in published works. Let’s focus on the paper which has been an example running through this guide so far: James Rachels’ celebrated 1975 paper Active and passive euthanasia from the New England Journal of Medicine . Let’s look only at the abstract of this paper.

The traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia requires critical analysis. The conventional doctrine is that there is such an important moral difference between the two that, although the latter is sometimes permissible, the former is always forbidden. This doctrine may be challenged for several reasons. First of all, active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia, Secondly, the conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds. Thirdly, the doctrine rests on a distinction between killing and letting die that itself has no moral importance. Fourthly, the most common arguments in favor of the doctrine are invalid. I therefore suggest that the American Medical Association policy statement that endorses this doctrine is unsound. Rachels, J. (1975) ‘Active and passive euthanasia’, New England Journal of Medicine , 292(2): 78-80.

There’s so much to like here. Within the first sentence, we know what Rachels’ topic is: the distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Though, strictly speaking, we might’ve got that from the title. Rachels then defines the ‘conventional doctrine’ against which he will argue. He systematically lists the arguments he will make against the conventional doctrine – first of all, secondly, thirdly, fourthly. By the end of the abstract, we know exactly what arguments he will make and in what order, which gives us the structure of the paper. Finally, he offers a thesis statement: “ the American Medical Association policy statement that endorses this doctrine is unsound. ” Thesis statement and importance claim rolled into one: not only will he be smashing down a distinction between active and passive euthanasia that is well-used in medical practice and policy, his doing so will invalidate the official policy of the American Medical Association. If you have any interest at all in this topic, you can’t not read this now.

But if we dig a little deeper, we might find some things we could tweak. This actually looks a little more like a draft abstract than the final polished article. With an editorial eye, take a look at that first sentence, the one that gives the crucial first impression:

The traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia requires critical analysis.

This is not a particularly interesting statement. It establishes little more than that some people have drawn a distinction between active and passive euthanasia . It is vague about who (“traditional” is something of a weasel word, enabling the writer to escape specificity). This is a shame, because at least some of the people are the American Medical Association, a massive and influential organisation. “The distinction between active and passive euthanasia upon which the American Medical Association bases its euthanasia policy requires critical analysis” might be a second go at this. Now it’s a more startling and engaging statement, with an underlying threat: if you don’t read this, then you – like the AMA – might be deeply misguided. After all, so major and conscientious an organisation has committed this error.

But “requires critical analysis” is similarly insipid. This phrase doesn’t even specify that the distinction lacks critical analysis, which would add some urgency. Given that Rachels will suggest that the distinction “ has no moral importance “, leading to “ decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds “, it is surprising that he chose such temperate language. Given that his title already told us we’re dealing with the distinction between active and passive euthanasia, he might’ve been able to cut this sentence already, and lead in with the high-impact stuff that comes later.

The second sentence, beginning “The conventional doctrine” again rather buries the lede. This is the doctrine of the American Medical Association and many besides, which only becomes clear in the final sentence. If something is important and widely endorsed, getting that across quickly will get us slavering to know more. Much the same goes for “This doctrine may be challenged for several reasons.” This is a passive voice construction, which does not explicitly say that this paper actually will challenge the conventional doctrine. Moreover, “challenged” is inconclusive. It suggests that he will raise some noisome arguments, but not that he will knock down the distinction so hard that “ the American Medical Association policy statement that endorses this doctrine is unsound “.

Were I Rachels’ editor (and to be clear, this is a superb piece in almost all respects and could benefit little from my attentions beyond this uncharacteristically mild opener), I would offer this advice:

• Put the thesis front and centre. If you have dismantled a widely-used moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia and shown it to have no moral importance, lead with that.
• Make it clear from the outset that this has serious implications for medical practice and policy, with specific reference to the invalidation of the AMA policy.
• Replace some of the filler sentences (“This doctrine may be challenged…”) with a little bit more to explain how the four strands of argumentation come together (which they do) to compel the conclusion, rather than standing alone as four mere potential challenges to the conventional doctrine.

As a last bit of pedantry, I’d suggest that the American Medical Association policy statement is not unsound . Arguments are sound or unsound, valid or invalid. Statements are true or false, correct or incorrect. You can claim that the AMA statement is wrong, or that the arguments for that statement are unsound.

A very useful exercise which I set for all of my philosophy students to improve their abstract writing is to read through Rachels’ paper ( presently freely available here ) and rewrite his abstract accordingly, to foreground the thesis, clarify the structure of the argument (as opposed to argument s ) and emphasise the practical implications of his claim. [As a bonus question: what precisely is Rachels’ thesis? It may not be exactly what he says it is…]

This gives us a few principles for abstract or introduction writing:

1. Lead with your thesis . 2. Explain how your argument will demonstrate the truth of that thesis. 3. Summarise the structure of the paper (ideally, this will be evident from your overview of the argument) . 4. Give a brief precis of the context into which your work fits. 5. (optional) Offer specific examples of the importance of the thesis to this debate and/or to practical matters.

You do not need eloquent turns of phrase or grand claims to achieve this. If anything, they are more likely to detract from that to amplify your claims. Ultimately, the more precisely and concisely you can get all of this done in your introduction, the more space you have, and the more time your reader will have, for the good part: the argument itself.

Let’s look at one more example, from the same topic. Natalie Abrams’ 1978 paper responds to Rachels’ arguments under the selfsame title of Active and Passive Euthanasia . She writes:

This paper is divided into three sections. The first presents some examples of the killing/letting die distinction. The second draws a further distinction between what I call negative and positive cases of acting or refraining. Here I argue that the moral significance of the acting/refraining distinction is different for positive and for negative cases. In the third section I apply the above distinction to euthanasia, and argue that mercy killing should be regarded as analogous to positive rather than negative cases. On the basis of this, I then support active rather than passive euthanasia. Abrams, N. (1978) ‘Active and Passive Euthanasia’, Philosophy , 53(204): 257-63

Abrams’ abstract has no frills, no context, no claims for importance beyond her own endorsement of a particular view. She could equally have cited American Medical Association policy statements, used the Rachels paper to show that this distinction is contentious to the point that some (Rachels) have suggested it should be changed, and noted that her argument would invert that policy. But instead she focuses on her thesis and her argument. It’s not inspiring but it’s clear as glass and leaves us in no doubt at all as to what comes next. The only reason not to read on is if you’re already sold.

But that first impression is ugly. “ This paper is divided into three sections ” is a rough first sentence. If Abrams flipped the running order here, we would have a more compelling opener. With barely any modification, we get:

This paper shows that the moral significance of the acting/refraining distinction is different for positive and for negative cases. On this basis, I argue that euthanasia should be regarded as analogous to positive rather than negative cases, and therefore that active but not passive euthanasia is morally permissible. The paper is divided into three sections. The first presents some examples of the killing/letting die distinction. The second draws the distinction between negative and positive cases of acting or refraining, showing that the moral significance of the acting/refraining distinction is different for positive and for negative cases. In the third section I apply the above distinction to euthanasia, and argue that mercy killing should be regarded as analogous to positive rather than negative cases, supporting active rather than passive euthanasia.

This is a little repetitive. But by leading with the most interesting thing, the thesis and its implications for the euthanasia debate, this turnaround delivers an abstract that can’t be ignored. Layering in some of the significance in terms of the impact on actual policy might elevate it further. Again: it’s a worthwhile exercise to draft your own abstract for this paper, and try it out for other papers which you are reading as a way of summarising the argument for your own reference whilst practicing a pivotal writing skill.

Using your abstract to improve your writing

An introduction or abstract is not only a necessary component of your finished product, it can also help you to improve the structure of your paper. These tips can help you use this tool:

• If you know what you want your paper to achieve, write your abstract as a statement of purpose, laying out what you intend to achieve. Keep it open in a second document on your screen, and refer back to it with each paragraph that you write. Always ask: does this contribute to what my abstract said I’d do? If not, you probably should cut the paragraph. If you don’t keep referring back to your abstract in this way, you risk veering off your topic and expending valuable time on a line of argument that won’t help you to establish your thesis.
• When the body of your essay is written, move your introduction to a separate document and read the paper without it. Now, write a new introduction which summarises exactly what you read. Compare your new and old introduction. Is there anything missing in the new version which was in the old? If so, do you need to add that into your paper? Is there anything in the new version which wasn’t in the old? Has this taken you off on a tangent? Do you need to restate your thesis to make it fit what you’ve actually written? Draw on both versions to find the best phrasing for your abstract.
• Use the sentences of your abstract as a rough guide for the paragraphs of your essay. If you have, say, a five-sentence abstract, you can try to use each sentence as the opening for each paragraph of the body of your text (deleting it or editing it later to prevent direct repetition). This should help ensure you stay on topic, and deliver exactly what is needed for your essay. If you find that you have to add a new paragraph in the midst which isn’t described by your abstract in order to make your paper’s structure work, consider adding a line for it into your abstract.
• If you have the body of your essay in place but still can’t write an introduction which states a clear thesis and summarises the argument, take this as a sign that your paper lacks a clear focus.
• Compare your introduction and your conclusion. The two should match very closely in terms of what is claimed – albeit the conclusion in the past tense. If there is any deviation between the two, this is a sign that your paper has wandered off track. You can either rewrite those sections which have strayed to bring it back to your original thesis, or rewrite your thesis and abstract to match the essay you have actually written.

Latest edit: 13/04/2021 by CJ Blunt

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Related Posts:

1.1 What Is Philosophy?

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Identify sages (early philosophers) across historical traditions.
• Explain the connection between ancient philosophy and the origin of the sciences.
• Describe philosophy as a discipline that makes coherent sense of a whole.
• Summarize the broad and diverse origins of philosophy.

It is difficult to define philosophy. In fact, to do so is itself a philosophical activity, since philosophers are attempting to gain the broadest and most fundamental conception of the world as it exists. The world includes nature, consciousness, morality, beauty, and social organizations. So the content available for philosophy is both broad and deep. Because of its very nature, philosophy considers a range of subjects, and philosophers cannot automatically rule anything out. Whereas other disciplines allow for basic assumptions, philosophers cannot be bound by such assumptions. This open-endedness makes philosophy a somewhat awkward and confusing subject for students. There are no easy answers to the questions of what philosophy studies or how one does philosophy. Nevertheless, in this chapter, we can make some progress on these questions by (1) looking at past examples of philosophers, (2) considering one compelling definition of philosophy, and (3) looking at the way academic philosophers today actually practice philosophy.

Historical Origins of Philosophy

One way to begin to understand philosophy is to look at its history. The historical origins of philosophical thinking and exploration vary around the globe. The word philosophy derives from ancient Greek, in which the philosopher is a lover or pursuer ( philia ) of wisdom ( sophia ). But the earliest Greek philosophers were not known as philosophers; they were simply known as sages . The sage tradition provides an early glimpse of philosophical thought in action. Sages are sometimes associated with mathematical and scientific discoveries and at other times with their political impact. What unites these figures is that they demonstrate a willingness to be skeptical of traditions, a curiosity about the natural world and our place in it, and a commitment to applying reason to understand nature, human nature, and society better. The overview of the sage tradition that follows will give you a taste of philosophy’s broad ambitions as well as its focus on complex relations between different areas of human knowledge. There are some examples of women who made contributions to philosophy and the sage tradition in Greece, India, and China, but these were patriarchal societies that did not provide many opportunities for women to participate in philosophical and political discussions.

The Sages of India, China, Africa, and Greece

In classical Indian philosophy and religion, sages play a central role in both religious mythology and in the practice of passing down teaching and instruction through generations. The Seven Sages, or Saptarishi (seven rishis in the Sanskrit language), play an important role in sanatana dharma , the eternal duties that have come to be identified with Hinduism but that predate the establishment of the religion. The Seven Sages are partially considered wise men and are said to be the authors of the ancient Indian texts known as the Vedas . But they are partly mythic figures as well, who are said to have descended from the gods and whose reincarnation marks the passing of each age of Manu (age of man or epoch of humanity). The rishis tended to live monastic lives, and together they are thought of as the spiritual and practical forerunners of Indian gurus or teachers, even up to today. They derive their wisdom, in part, from spiritual forces, but also from tapas , or the meditative, ascetic, and spiritual practices they perform to gain control over their bodies and minds. The stories of the rishis are part of the teachings that constitute spiritual and philosophical practice in contemporary Hinduism.

Figure 1.2 depicts a scene from the Matsya Purana, where Manu, the first man whose succession marks the prehistorical ages of Earth, sits with the Seven Sages in a boat to protect them from a mythic flood that is said to have submerged the world. The king of serpents guides the boat, which is said to have also contained seeds, plants, and animals saved by Manu from the flood.

Despite the fact that classical Indian culture is patriarchal, women figures play an important role in the earliest writings of the Vedic tradition (the classical Indian religious and philosophical tradition). These women figures are partly connected to the Indian conception of the fundamental forces of nature—energy, ability, strength, effort, and power—as feminine. This aspect of God was thought to be present at the creation of the world. The Rig Veda, the oldest Vedic writings, contains hymns that tell the story of Ghosha, a daughter of Rishi Kakshivan, who had a debilitating skin condition (probably leprosy) but devoted herself to spiritual practices to learn how to heal herself and eventually marry. Another woman, Maitreyi, is said to have married the Rishi Yajnavalkya (himself a god who was cast into mortality by a rival) for the purpose of continuing her spiritual training. She was a devoted ascetic and is said to have composed 10 of the hymns in the Rig Veda. Additionally, there is a famous dialogue between Maitreyi and Yajnavalkya in the Upanishads (another early, foundational collection of texts in the Vedic tradition) about attachment to material possessions, which cannot give a person happiness, and the achievement of ultimate bliss through knowledge of the Absolute (God).

Another woman sage named Gargi also participates in a celebrated dialogue with Yajnavalkya on natural philosophy and the fundamental elements and forces of the universe. Gargi is characterized as one of the most knowledgeable sages on the topic, though she ultimately concedes that Yajnavalkya has greater knowledge. In these brief episodes, these ancient Indian texts record instances of key women who attained a level of enlightenment and learning similar to their male counterparts. Unfortunately, this early equality between the sexes did not last. Over time Indian culture became more patriarchal, confining women to a dependent and subservient role. Perhaps the most dramatic and cruel example of the effects of Indian patriarchy was the ritual practice of sati , in which a widow would sometimes immolate herself, partly in recognition of the “fact” that following the death of her husband, her current life on Earth served no further purpose (Rout 2016). Neither a widow’s in-laws nor society recognized her value.

In similar fashion to the Indian tradition, the sage ( sheng ) tradition is important for Chinese philosophy . Confucius , one of the greatest Chinese writers, often refers to ancient sages, emphasizing their importance for their discovery of technical skills essential to human civilization, for their role as rulers and wise leaders, and for their wisdom. This emphasis is in alignment with the Confucian appeal to a well-ordered state under the guidance of a “ philosopher-king .” This point of view can be seen in early sage figures identified by one of the greatest classical authors in the Chinese tradition, as the “Nest Builder” and “Fire Maker” or, in another case, the “Flood Controller.” These names identify wise individuals with early technological discoveries. The Book of Changes , a classical Chinese text, identifies the Five (mythic) Emperors as sages, including Yao and Shun, who are said to have built canoes and oars, attached carts to oxen, built double gates for defense, and fashioned bows and arrows (Cheng 1983). Emperor Shun is also said to have ruled during the time of a great flood, when all of China was submerged. Yü is credited with having saved civilization by building canals and dams.

These figures are praised not only for their political wisdom and long rule, but also for their filial piety and devotion to work. For instance, Mencius, a Confucian philosopher, relates a story of Shun’s care for his blind father and wicked stepmother, while Yü is praised for his selfless devotion to work. In these ways, the Chinese philosophical traditions, such as Confucianism and Mohism, associate key values of their philosophical enterprises with the great sages of their history. Whether the sages were, in fact, actual people or, as many scholars have concluded, mythical forebearers, they possessed the essential human virtue of listening and responding to divine voices. This attribute can be inferred from the Chinese script for sheng , which bears the symbol of an ear as a prominent feature. So the sage is one who listens to insight from the heavens and then is capable of sharing that wisdom or acting upon it to the benefit of his society (Cheng 1983). This idea is similar to one found in the Indian tradition, where the most important texts, the Vedas, are known as shruti , or works that were heard through divine revelation and only later written down.

Although Confucianism is a venerable world philosophy, it is also highly patriarchal and resulted in the widespread subordination of women. The position of women in China began to change only after the Communist Revolution (1945–1952). While some accounts of Confucianism characterize men and women as emblematic of two opposing forces in the natural world, the Yin and Yang, this view of the sexes developed over time and was not consistently applied. Chinese women did see a measure of independence and freedom with the influence of Buddhism and Daoism, each of which had a more liberal view of the role of women (Adler 2006).

A detailed and important study of the sage tradition in Africa is provided by Henry Odera Oruka (1990), who makes the case that prominent folk sages in African tribal history developed complex philosophical ideas. Oruka interviewed tribal Africans identified by their communities as sages, and he recorded their sayings and ideas, confining himself to those sayings that demonstrated “a rational method of inquiry into the real nature of things” (Oruka 1990, 150). He recognized a tension in what made these sages philosophically interesting: they articulated the received wisdom of their tradition and culture while at the same time maintaining a critical distance from that culture, seeking a rational justification for the beliefs held by the culture.

Connections

The chapter on the early history of philosophy covers this topic in greater detail.

Among the ancient Greeks, it is common to identify seven sages. The best-known account is provided by Diogenes Laërtius, whose text Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers is a canonical resource on early Greek philosophy. The first and most important sage is Thales of Miletus . Thales traveled to Egypt to study with the Egyptian priests, where he became one of the first Greeks to learn astronomy. He is known for bringing back to Greece knowledge of the calendar, dividing the year into 365 days, tracking the progress of the sun from solstice to solstice, and—somewhat dramatically—predicting a solar eclipse in 585 BCE. The eclipse occurred on the day of a battle between the Medes and Lydians. It is possible that Thales used knowledge of Babylonian astronomical records to guess the year and location of the eclipse. This mathematical and astronomical feat is one of Thales’s several claims to sagacity. In addition, he is said to have calculated the height of the pyramids using the basic geometry of similar triangles and measuring shadows at a certain time of day. He is also reported to have predicted a particularly good year for olives: he bought up all the olive presses and then made a fortune selling those presses to farmers wanting to turn their olives into oil. Together, these scientific and technical achievements suggest that at least part of Thales’s wisdom can be attributed to a very practical, scientific, and mathematical knowledge of the natural world. If that were all Thales was known for, he might be called the first scientist or engineer. But he also made more basic claims about the nature and composition of the universe; for instance, he claimed that all matter was fundamentally made of up water. He also argued that everything that moved on its own possessed a soul and that the soul itself was immortal. These claims demonstrate a concern about the fundamental nature of reality.

Another of the seven sages was Solon , a famed political leader. He introduced the “Law of Release” to Athens, which cancelled all personal debts and freed indentured servants, or “debt-slaves” who had been consigned to service based on a personal debt they were unable to repay. In addition, he established a constitutional government in Athens with a representative body, a procedure for taxation, and a series of economic reforms. He was widely admired as a political leader but voluntarily stepped down so that he would not become a tyrant. He was finally forced to flee Athens when he was unable to persuade the members of the Assembly (the ruling body) to resist the rising tyranny of one of his relatives, Pisistratus. When he arrived in exile, he was reportedly asked whom he considered to be happy, to which he replied, “One ought to count no man happy until he is dead.” Aristotle interpreted this statement to mean that happiness was not a momentary experience, but a quality reflective of someone’s entire life.

Beginnings of Natural Philosophy

The sage tradition is a largely prehistoric tradition that provides a narrative about how intellect, wisdom, piety, and virtue led to the innovations central to flourishing of ancient civilizations. Particularly in Greece, the sage tradition blends into a period of natural philosophy, where ancient scientists or philosophers try to explain nature using rational methods. Several of the early Greek schools of philosophy were centered on their respective views of nature. Followers of Thales, known as the Milesians , were particularly interested in the underlying causes of natural change. Why does water turn to ice? What happens when winter passes into spring? Why does it seem like the stars and planets orbit Earth in predictable patterns? From Aristotle we know that Thales thought there was a difference between material elements that participate in change and elements that contain their own source of motion. This early use of the term element did not have the same meaning as the scientific meaning of the word today in a field like chemistry. But Thales thought material elements bear some fundamental connection to water in that they have the capacity to move and alter their state. By contrast, other elements had their own internal source of motion, of which he cites the magnet and amber (which exhibits forces of static electricity when rubbed against other materials). He said that these elements have “soul.” This notion of soul, as a principle of internal motion, was influential across ancient and medieval natural philosophy. In fact, the English language words animal and animation are derived from the Latin word for soul ( anima ).

Similarly, early thinkers like Xenophanes began to formulate explanations for natural phenomena. For instance, he explained rainbows, the sun, the moon, and St. Elmo’s fire (luminous, electrical discharges) as apparitions of the clouds. This form of explanation, describing some apparent phenomenon as the result of an underlying mechanism, is paradigmatic of scientific explanation even today. Parmenides, the founder of the Eleatic school of philosophy, used logic to conclude that whatever fundamentally exists must be unchanging because if it ever did change, then at least some aspect of it would cease to exist. But that would imply that what exists could not exist—which seems to defy logic. Parmenides is not saying that there is no change, but that the changes we observe are a kind of illusion. Indeed, this point of view was highly influential, not only for Plato and Aristotle, but also for the early atomists, like Democritus , who held that all perceived qualities are merely human conventions. Underlying all these appearances, Democritus reasoned, are only atomic, unchanging bits of matter flowing through a void. While this ancient Greek view of atoms is quite different from the modern model of atoms, the very idea that every observable phenomenon has a basis in underlying pieces of matter in various configurations clearly connects modern science to the earliest Greek philosophers.

Along these lines, the Pythagoreans provide a very interesting example of a community of philosophers engaged in understanding the natural world and how best to live in it. You may be familiar with Pythagoras from his Pythagorean theorem, a key principle in geometry establishing a relationship between the sides of a right-angled triangle. Specifically, the square formed by the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the two squares formed by the remaining two sides. In the figure below, the area of the square formed by c is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares formed by a and b. The figure represents how Pythagoras would have conceptualized the theorem.

The Pythagoreans were excellent mathematicians, but they were more interested in how mathematics explained the natural world. In particular, Pythagoras recognized relationships between line segments and shapes, such as the Pythagorean theorem describes, but also between numbers and sounds, by virtue of harmonics and the intervals between notes. Similar regularities can be found in astronomy. As a result, Pythagoras reasoned that all of nature is generated according to mathematical regularities. This view led the Pythagoreans to believe that there was a unified, rational structure to the universe, that the planets and stars exhibit harmonic properties and may even produce music, that musical tones and harmonies could have healing powers, that the soul is immortal and continuously reincarnated, and that animals possess souls that ought to be respected and valued. As a result, the Pythagorean community was defined by serious scholarship as well as strict rules about diet, clothing, and behavior.

Additionally, in the early Pythagorean communities, it was possible for women to participate and contribute to philosophical thought and discovery. Pythagoras himself was said to have been inspired to study philosophy by the Delphic priestess Themistoclea. His wife Theano is credited with contributing to important discoveries in the realms of numbers and optics. She is said to have written a treatise, On Piety , which further applies Pythagorean philosophy to various aspects of practical life (Waithe 1987). Myia, the daughter of this illustrious couple, was also an active and productive part of the community. At least one of her letters has survived in which she discusses the application of Pythagorean philosophy to motherhood. The Pythagorean school is an example of how early philosophical and scientific thinking combines with religious, cultural, and ethical beliefs and practices to embrace many different aspects of life.

How It All Hangs Together

Closer to the present day, in 1962, Wilfrid Sellars , a highly influential 20th-century American philosopher, wrote a chapter called “Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man” in Frontiers of Science and Philosophy . He opens the essay with a dramatic and concise description of philosophy: “The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term.” If we spend some time trying to understand what Sellars means by this definition, we will be in a better position to understand the academic discipline of philosophy. First, Sellars emphasizes that philosophy’s goal is to understand a very wide range of topics—in fact, the widest possible range. That is to say, philosophers are committed to understanding everything insofar as it can be understood. This is important because it means that, on principle, philosophers cannot rule out any topic of study. However, for a philosopher not every topic of study deserves equal attention. Some things, like conspiracy theories or paranoid delusions, are not worth studying because they are not real. It may be worth understanding why some people are prone to paranoid delusions or conspiratorial thinking, but the content of these ideas is not worth investigating. Other things may be factually true, such as the daily change in number of the grains of sand on a particular stretch of beach, but they are not worth studying because knowing that information will not teach us about how things hang together. So a philosopher chooses to study things that are informative and interesting—things that provide a better understanding of the world and our place in it.

To make judgments about which areas are interesting or worthy of study, philosophers need to cultivate a special skill. Sellars describes this philosophical skill as a kind of know-how (a practical, engaged type of knowledge, similar to riding a bike or learning to swim). Philosophical know-how, Sellars says, has to do with knowing your way around the world of concepts and being able to understand and think about how concepts connect, link up, support, and rely upon one another—in short, how things hang together. Knowing one’s way around the world of concepts also involves knowing where to look to find interesting discoveries and which places to avoid, much like a good fisherman knows where to cast his line. Sellars acknowledges that other academics and scientists know their way around the concepts in their field of study much like philosophers do. The difference is that these other inquirers confine themselves to a specific field of study or a particular subject matter, while philosophers want to understand the whole. Sellars thinks that this philosophical skill is most clearly demonstrated when we try to understand the connection between the natural world as we experience it directly (the “manifest image”) and the natural world as science explains it (the “scientific image”). He suggests that we gain an understanding of the nature of philosophy by trying to reconcile these two pictures of the world that most people understand independently.

Read Like a Philosopher

“philosophy and the scientific image of man”.

This essay, “ Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man ” by Wilfrid Sellars, has been republished several times and can be found online. Read through the essay with particular focus on the first section. Consider the following study questions:

• What is the difference between knowing how and knowing that? Are these concepts always distinct? What does it mean for philosophical knowledge to be a kind of know-how?
• What do you think Sellars means when he says that philosophers “have turned other special subject-matters to non-philosophers over the past 2500 years”?
• Sellars describes philosophy as “bringing a picture into focus,” but he is also careful to recognize challenges with this metaphor as it relates to the body of human knowledge. What are those challenges? Why is it difficult to imagine all of human knowledge as a picture or image?
• What is the scientific image of man in the world? What is the manifest image of man in the world? How are they different? And why are these two images the primary images that need to be brought into focus so that philosophy may have an eye on the whole?

Unlike other subjects that have clearly defined subject matter boundaries and relatively clear methods of exploration and analysis, philosophy intentionally lacks clear boundaries or methods. For instance, your biology textbook will tell you that biology is the “science of life.” The boundaries of biology are fairly clear: it is an experimental science that studies living things and the associated material necessary for life. Similarly, biology has relatively well-defined methods. Biologists, like other experimental scientists, broadly follow something called the “scientific method.” This is a bit of a misnomer, unfortunately, because there is no single method that all the experimental sciences follow. Nevertheless, biologists have a range of methods and practices, including observation, experimentation, and theory comparison and analysis, that are fairly well established and well known among practitioners. Philosophy doesn’t have such easy prescriptions—and for good reason. Philosophers are interested in gaining the broadest possible understanding of things, whether that be nature, what is possible, morals, aesthetics, political organizations, or any other field or concept.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Nathan Smith
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Philosophy
• Publication date: Jun 15, 2022
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/1-1-what-is-philosophy

© Mar 1, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• USF Research
• USF Libraries

Digital Commons @ USF > College of Arts and Sciences > Philosophy > Theses and Dissertations

Philosophy Theses and Dissertations

Theses/dissertations from 2024 2024.

On the Possibility of Secular Morality , Zachary R. Alonso

An Ecofeminist Ontological Turn: Preparing the Field for a New Ecofeminist Project , M. Laurel-Leigh Meierdiercks

Theses/Dissertations from 2023 2023

Karl Marx on Human Flourishing and Proletarian Ethics , Sam Badger

The Ontological Grounds of Reason: Psychologism, Logicism, and Hermeneutic Phenomenology , Stanford L. Howdyshell

Theses/Dissertations from 2022 2022

Interdisciplinary Communication by Plausible Analogies: the Case of Buddhism and Artificial Intelligence , Michael Cooper

Heidegger and the Origin of Authenticity , John J. Preston

Theses/Dissertations from 2021 2021

Hegel and Schelling: The Emptiness of Emptiness and the Love of the Divine , Sean B. Gleason

Nietzsche on Criminality , Laura N. McAllister

Learning to be Human: Ren 仁, Modernity, and the Philosophers of China's Hundred Days' Reform , Lucien Mathot Monson

Nietzsche and Eternal Recurrence: Methods, Archives, History, and Genesis , William A. B. Parkhurst

Theses/Dissertations from 2020 2020

Orders of Normativity: Nietzsche, Science and Agency , Shane C. Callahan

Humanistic Climate Philosophy: Erich Fromm Revisited , Nicholas Dovellos

This, or Something like It: Socrates and the Problem of Authority , Simon Dutton

Climate Change and Liberation in Latin America , Ernesto O. Hernández

Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia Nervosa as Expressions of Shame in a Post-Feminist , Emily Kearns

Nostalgia and (In)authentic Community: A Bataillean Answer to the Heidegger Controversy , Patrick Miller

Cultivating Virtue: A Thomistic Perspective on the Relationship Between Moral Motivation and Skill , Ashley Potts

Identity, Breakdown, and the Production of Knowledge: Intersectionality, Phenomenology, and the Project of Post-Marxist Standpoint Theory , Zachary James Purdue

Theses/Dissertations from 2019 2019

The Efficacy of Comedy , Mark Anthony Castricone

William of Ockham's Divine Command Theory , Matthew Dee

Heidegger's Will to Power and the Problem of Nietzsche's Nihilism , Megan Flocken

Abelard's Affective Intentionalism , Lillian M. King

Anton Wilhelm Amo's Philosophy and Reception: from the Origins through the Encyclopédie , Dwight Kenneth Lewis Jr.

"The Thought that we Hate": Regulating Race-Related Speech on College Campuses , Michael McGowan

A Historical Approach to Understanding Explanatory Proofs Based on Mathematical Practices , Erika Oshiro

From Meaningful Work to Good Work: Reexamining the Moral Foundation of the Calling Orientation , Garrett W. Potts

Reasoning of the Highest Leibniz and the Moral Quality of Reason , Ryan Quandt

Fear, Death, and Being-a-problem: Understanding and Critiquing Racial Discourse with Heidegger’s Being and Time , Jesús H. Ramírez

The Role of Skepticism in Early Modern Philosophy: A Critique of Popkin's "Sceptical Crisis" and a Study of Descartes and Hume , Raman Sachdev

How the Heart Became Muscle: From René Descartes to Nicholas Steno , Alex Benjamin Shillito

Autonomy, Suffering, and the Practice of Medicine: A Relational Approach , Michael A. Stanfield

The Case for the Green Kant: A Defense and Application of a Kantian Approach to Environmental Ethics , Zachary T. Vereb

Theses/Dissertations from 2018 2018

Augustine's Confessiones : The Battle between Two Conversions , Robert Hunter Craig

The Strategic Naturalism of Sandra Harding's Feminist Standpoint Epistemology: A Path Toward Epistemic Progress , Dahlia Guzman

Hume on the Doctrine of Infinite Divisibility: A Matter of Clarity and Absurdity , Wilson H. Underkuffler

Climate Change: Aristotelian Virtue Theory, the Aidōs Response and Proper Primility , John W. Voelpel

The Fate of Kantian Freedom: the Kant-Reinhold Controversy , John Walsh

Time, Tense, and Ontology: Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Tense, the Phenomenology of Temporality, and the Ontology of Time , Justin Brandt Wisniewski

Theses/Dissertations from 2017 2017

A Phenomenological Approach to Clinical Empathy: Rethinking Empathy Within its Intersubjective and Affective Contexts , Carter Hardy

From Object to Other: Models of Sociality after Idealism in Gadamer, Levinas, Rosenzweig, and Bonhoeffer , Christopher J. King

Humanitarian Military Intervention: A Failed Paradigm , Faruk Rahmanovic

Active Suffering: An Examination of Spinoza's Approach to Tristita , Kathleen Ketring Schenk

Cartesian Method and Experiment , Aaron Spink

An Examination of John Burton’s Method of Conflict Resolution and Its Applicability to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict , John Kenneth Steinmeyer

Speaking of the Self: Theorizing the Dialogical Dimensions of Ethical Agency , Bradley S. Warfield

Changing Changelessness: On the Genesis and Development of the Doctrine of Divine Immutability in the Ancient and Hellenic Period , Milton Wilcox

Theses/Dissertations from 2016 2016

The Statue that Houses the Temple: A Phenomenological Investigation of Western Embodiment Towards the Making of Heidegger's Missing Connection with the Greeks , Michael Arvanitopoulos

An Exploratory Analysis of Media Reporting of Police Involved Shootings in Florida , John L. Brown

Divine Temporality: Bonhoeffer's Theological Appropriation of Heidegger's Existential Analytic of Dasein , Nicholas Byle

Stoicism in Descartes, Pascal, and Spinoza: Examining Neostoicism’s Influence in the Seventeenth Century , Daniel Collette

Phenomenology and the Crisis of Contemporary Psychiatry: Contingency, Naturalism, and Classification , Anthony Vincent Fernandez

A Critique of Charitable Consciousness , Chioke Ianson

writing/trauma , Natasha Noel Liebig

Leibniz's More Fundamental Ontology: from Overshadowed Individuals to Metaphysical Atoms , Marin Lucio Mare

Violence and Disagreement: From the Commonsense View to Political Kinds of Violence and Violent Nonviolence , Gregory Richard Mccreery

Kant's Just War Theory , Steven Charles Starke

A Feminist Contestation of Ableist Assumptions: Implications for Biomedical Ethics, Disability Theory, and Phenomenology , Christine Marie Wieseler

Theses/Dissertations from 2015 2015

Heidegger and the Problem of Modern Moral Philosophy , Megan Emily Altman

The Encultured Mind: From Cognitive Science to Social Epistemology , David Alexander Eck

Weakness of Will: An Inquiry on Value , Michael Funke

Cogs in a Cosmic Machine: A Defense of Free Will Skepticism and its Ethical Implications , Sacha Greer

Thinking Nature, "Pierre Maupertuis and the Charge of Error Against Fermat and Leibniz" , Richard Samuel Lamborn

John Duns Scotus’s Metaphysics of Goodness: Adventures in 13th-Century Metaethics , Jeffrey W. Steele

A Gadamerian Analysis of Roman Catholic Hermeneutics: A Diachronic Analysis of Interpretations of Romans 1:17-2:17 , Steven Floyd Surrency

A Natural Case for Realism: Processes, Structures, and Laws , Andrew Michael Winters

Theses/Dissertations from 2014 2014

Leibniz's Theodicies , Joseph Michael Anderson

Aeschynē in Aristotle's Conception of Human Nature , Melissa Marie Coakley

Ressentiment, Violence, and Colonialism , Jose A. Haro

It's About Time: Dynamics of Inflationary Cosmology as the Source of the Asymmetry of Time , Emre Keskin

Time Wounds All Heels: Human Nature and the Rationality of Just Behavior , Timothy Glenn Slattery

Theses/Dissertations from 2013 2013

Nietzsche and Heidegger on the Cartesian Atomism of Thought , Steven Burgess

Embodying Social Practice: Dynamically Co-Constituting Social Agency , Brian W. Dunst

Subject of Conscience: On the Relation between Freedom and Discrimination in the Thought of Heidegger, Foucault, and Butler , Aret Karademir

Climate, Neo-Spinozism, and the Ecological Worldview , Nancy M. Kettle

Eschatology in a Secular Age: An Examination of the Use of Eschatology in the Philosophies of Heidegger, Berdyaev and Blumenberg , John R. Lup, Jr.

Navigation and Immersion of the American Identity in a Foreign Culture to Emergence as a Culturally Relative Ambassador , Lee H. Rosen

Theses/Dissertations from 2012 2012

A Philosophical Analysis of Intellectual Property: In Defense of Instrumentalism , Michael A. Kanning

A Commentary On Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's Discourse on Metaphysics #19 , Richard Lamborn Samuel Lamborn

Sellars in Context: An Analysis of Wilfrid Sellars's Early Works , Peter Jackson Olen

The New Materialism: Althusser, Badiou, and Zizek , Geoffrey Dennis Pfeifer

Structure and Agency: An Analysis of the Impact of Structure on Group Agents , Elizabeth Kaye Victor

Moral Friction, Moral Phenomenology, and the Improviser , Benjamin Scott Young

Theses/Dissertations from 2011 2011

The Virtuoso Human: A Virtue Ethics Model Based on Care , Frederick Joseph Bennett

The Existential Compromise in the History of the Philosophy of Death , Adam Buben

Philosophical Precursors to the Radical Enlightenment: Vignettes on the Struggle Between Philosophy and Theology From the Greeks to Leibniz With Special Emphasis on Spinoza , Anthony John Desantis

The Problem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions , Edward Matusek

The Persistence of Casuistry: a Neo-premodernist Approach to Moral Reasoning , Richard Arthur Mercadante

Theses/Dissertations from 2010 2010

Dewey's Pragmatism and the Great Community , Philip Schuyler Bishop

Unamuno's Concept of the Tragic , Ernesto O. Hernandez

Rethinking Ethical Naturalism: The Implications of Developmental Systems Theory , Jared J.. Kinggard

From Husserl and the Neo-Kantians to Art: Heidegger's Realist Historicist Answer to the Problem of the Origin of Meaning , William H. Koch

Queering Cognition: Extended Minds and Sociotechnologically Hybridized Gender , Michele Merritt

Hydric Life: A Nietzschean Reading of Postcolonial Communication , Elena F. Ruiz-Aho

Descartes' Bête Machine, the Leibnizian Correction and Religious Influence , John Voelpel

Aretē and Physics: The Lesson of Plato's Timaeus , John R. Wolfe

Theses/Dissertations from 2009 2009

Praxis and Theōria : Heidegger’s “Violent” Interpretation , Megan E. Altman

On the Concept of Evil: An Analysis of Genocide and State Sovereignty , Jason J. Campbell

The Role of Trust in Judgment , Christophe Sage Hudspeth

Truth And Judgment , Jeremy J. Kelly

The concept of action and responsibility in Heidegger's early thought , Christian Hans Pedersen

Advanced Search

• Email Notifications and RSS
• All Collections
• USF Faculty Publications
• Open Access Journals
• Conferences and Events
• Theses and Dissertations
• Textbooks Collection

Useful Links

• Philosophy Department
• Rights Information
• SelectedWorks
• Submit Research

Home | About | Help | My Account | Accessibility Statement | Language and Diversity Statements

Privacy Copyright

Writing an Honors Thesis

An Honors Thesis is a substantial piece of independent research that an undergraduate carries out over two semesters. Students writing Honors Theses take PHIL 691H and 692H, in two different semesters. What follows answers all the most common questions about Honors Theses in Philosophy.

All necessary forms are fillable and downloadable.

Honors Thesis Application

Honors Thesis Contract

Honors Thesis Learning Contract

Who can write an Honors Thesis in Philosophy?

Any Philosophy major who has a total, cumulative GPA of at least 3.3 and a GPA of at least 3.5 (with a maximum of one course with a PS grade) among their PHIL courses can in principle write an Honors Thesis. In addition, students need to satisfy a set of specific pre-requisites, as outlined below.

What are the pre-requisites for an Honors Thesis in Philosophy?

The requirements for writing an Honors Thesis in Philosophy include

• having taken at least five PHIL courses, including two numbered higher than 299;
• having a total PHIL GPA of at least 3.5 (with a maximum of one course with a PS grade); and
• having done one of the following four things:
• taken and passed PHIL 397;
• successfully completed an Honors Contract associated with a PHIL course;
• received an A or A- in a 300-level course in the same area of philosophy as the proposed thesis ; or
• taken and passed a 400-level course in the same area of philosophy as the proposed thesis .

When should I get started?

You should get started with the application process and search for a prospective advisor the semester before you plan to start writing your thesis – that is, the semester before the one in which you want to take PHIL 691H.

Often, though not always, PHIL 691H and 692H are taken in the fall and spring semesters of the senior year, respectively. It is also possible to start earlier and take 691H in the spring semester of the junior year and PHIL 692H in the fall of the senior year. Starting earlier has some important advantages. One is that it means you will finish your thesis in time to use it as a writing sample, should you decide to apply to graduate school. Another is that it avoids a mad rush near the very end of your last semester.

How do I get started?

Step 1: fill out the honors thesis application.

The first thing you need to do is fill out an Honors Thesis Application   and submit it to the Director of Undergraduate Studies (DUS) for their approval.

Step 2: Find an Honors Thesis Advisor with the help of the DUS

Once you have been approved to write an Honors Thesis, you will consult with the DUS about the project that you have in mind and about which faculty member would be an appropriate advisor for your thesis. It is recommended that you reach out informally to prospective advisors to talk about their availability and interest in your project ahead of time, and that you include those suggestions in your application, but it is not until your application has been approved that the DUS will officially invite the faculty member of your choice to serve as your advisor. You will be included in this correspondence and will receive written confirmation from your prospective advisor.

Agreeing to be the advisor for an Honors Thesis is a major commitment, so bear in mind that there is a real possibility that someone asked to be your advisor will say no. Unfortunately, if we cannot find an advisor, you cannot write an Honors Thesis.

Step 3: Fill out the required paperwork needed to register for PHIL 691H

Finally, preferably one or two weeks before the start of classes (or as soon as you have secured the commitment of a faculty advisor), you need to fill out an Honors Thesis Contract  and an Honors Thesis Learning Contract , get them both signed by your advisor, and email them to the DUS.

Once the DUS approves both of these forms, they’ll get you registered for PHIL 691H. All of this should take place no later than the 5th day of classes in any given semester (preferably sooner).

What happens when I take PHIL 691H and PHIL 692H?

PHIL 691H and PHIL 692H are the course numbers that you sign up for to get credit for working on an Honors Thesis. These classes have official meeting times and places. In the case of PHIL 691H , those are a mere formality: You will meet with your advisor at times you both agree upon. But in the case of PHIL 692H , they are not a mere formality: The class will actually meet as a group, at least for the first few weeks of the semester (please see below).

When you take PHIL 691H, you should meet with your advisor during the first 5 days of classes and, if you have not done so already, fill out an Honors Thesis Learning Contract  and turn in to the Director of Undergraduate Studies (DUS) . This Contract will serve as your course syllabus and must be turned in and approved no later than the 5th day of classes in any given semester (preferably sooner). Once the DUS approves your Honors Thesis Learning Contract, they’ll get you registered for PHIL 691H.

Over the course of the semester, you will meet regularly with your advisor. By the last day of classes, you must turn in a 10-page paper on your thesis topic; this can turn out to be part of your final thesis, but it doesn’t have to. In order to continue working on an Honors Thesis the following semester, this paper must show promise of your ability to complete one, in the opinion of your advisor. Your advisor should assign you a grade of “ SP ” at the conclusion of the semester, signifying “satisfactory progress” (so you can move on to PHIL 692H). Please see page 3 of this document for more information.

When you take PHIL 692H, you’ll still need to work with your advisor to fill out an Honors Thesis Learning Contract . This Contract will serve as your course syllabus and must be turned in to and approved by the DUS  no later than the 5th day of classes in any given semester (preferably sooner).

Once the DUS approves your Honors Thesis Learning Contract, they’ll get you registered for PHIL 692H.

At the end of the second semester of senior honors thesis work (PHIL 692H), your advisor should assign you a permanent letter grade. Your advisor should also change your PHIL 691H grade from “ SP ” to a permanent letter grade. Please see page 3 of this document for more information.

The Graduate Course Option

If you and your advisor agree, you may exercise the Graduate Course Option. If you do this, then during the semester when you are enrolled in either PHIL 691H or PHIL 692H, you will attend and do the work for a graduate level PHIL course. (You won’t be officially enrolled in that course.) A paper you write for this course will be the basis for your Honors Thesis. If you exercise this option, then you will be excused from the other requirements of the thesis course (either 691H or 692H) that you are taking that semester.

Who can be my advisor?

Any faculty member on a longer-than-one-year contract in the Department of Philosophy may serve as your honors thesis advisor. You will eventually form a committee of three professors, of which one can be from outside the Department.  But your advisor must have an appointment in the Philosophy Department. Graduate Students are not eligible to advise Honors Theses.

Who should be my advisor?

Any faculty member on a longer-than-one-year contract in the Department of Philosophy may serve as your honors thesis advisor. It makes most sense to ask a professor who already knows you from having had you as a student in a class. In some cases, though, this is either not possible, or else there is someone on the faculty who is an expert on the topic you want to write about, but from whom you have not taken a class. Information about which faculty members are especially qualified to advise thesis projects in particular areas of philosophy can be found  here .

What about the defense?

You and your advisor should compose a committee of three professors (including the advisor) who will examine you and your thesis. Once the committee is composed, you will need to schedule an oral examination, a.k.a. a defense. You should take the initiative here, communicating with all members of your committee in an effort to find a block of time (a little over an hour) when all three of you can meet. The thesis must be defended by a deadline , set by Honors Carolina , which is usually a couple of weeks before the end of classes. Students are required to upload the final version of their thesis to the  Carolina Digital Repository  by the final day of class in the semester in which they complete the thesis course work and thesis defense.

What is an Honors Thesis in Philosophy like?

An Honors Thesis in Philosophy is a piece of writing in the same genre as a typical philosophy journal article. There is no specific length requirement, but 30 pages (double-spaced) is a good guideline. Some examples of successfully defended Honors The easiest way to find theses of past philosophy students is on the web in the Carolina Digital Repository . Some older, hard copies of theses are located on the bookshelf in suite 107 of Caldwell Hall. (You may ask the Director of Undergraduate Studies (DUS) , or anyone else who happens to be handy, to show you where it is!)

How does the Honors Thesis get evaluated?

The honors thesis committee will evaluate the quality and originality of your thesis as well as of your defense and then decides between the following three options:

• they may award only course credit for the thesis work if the thesis is of acceptable quality;
• they may designate that the student graduate with honors if the thesis is of a very strong quality;
• they may  recommend  that the student graduate with highest honors if the thesis is of exceptional quality.

As a matter of best practice, our philosophy department requires that examining committees refer all candidates for highest honors to our Undergraduate Committee chaired by the Director of Undergraduate Studies. This committee evaluates nominated projects and makes the final decision on awarding highest honors. Highest honors should be awarded only to students who have met the most rigorous standards of scholarly excellence.

Library Guides

Dissertations 4: methodology: introduction & philosophy.

• Introduction & Philosophy
• Methodology

Introduction

The methodology introduction is a paragraph that describes both the design of the study and the organization of the chapter. This prepares the reader for what is to follow and provides a framework within which to incorporate the materials. 

This paragraph says to the reader, “This is the methodology chapter, this is how it is organized, and this is the type of design I used.” 

In this introduction, you can also state:  

The objectives of your research and/or 

The research question or hypothesis to be tested 

Research Philosophy

Carrying out your own research for your dissertation means that you are engaging in the creation of knowledge. Research philosophy is an aspect of this. It is belief about the way studies should be conducted, how data should be collected and how it is then analysed and used.  At its deepest level, it includes considerations of what is (ontology), like, is there an objective truth or is it everything subjective, and how to know (epistemology), like, can we know the truth, and how can we get to know it.

Writing about your research philosophy, therefore, involves reflecting on your assumptions and beliefs about data collection to develop, analyse, challenge and evaluate them.  

If you need to have a research philosophy section in your dissertation, the handout attached below provides some guidance.  

• Research Philosophies Offers descriptions of different research philosophies
• << Previous: Structure
• Next: Methods >>
• Last Updated: Sep 14, 2022 12:58 PM
• URL: https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/methodology-for-dissertations

CONNECT WITH US

Online Students

For All Online Programs

International Students

On Campus, need or have Visa

Campus Students

For All Campus Programs

What a Thesis Paper is and How to Write One

From choosing a topic and conducting research to crafting a strong argument, writing a thesis paper can be a rewarding experience.

It can also be a challenging experience. If you've never written a thesis paper before, you may not know where to start. You may not even be sure exactly what a thesis paper is. But don't worry; the right support and resources can help you navigate this writing process.

What is a Thesis Paper?

A thesis paper is a type of academic essay that you might write as a graduation requirement for certain bachelor's, master's or honors programs. Thesis papers present your own original research or analysis on a specific topic related to your field.

“In some ways, a thesis paper can look a lot like a novella,” said Shana Chartier , director of information literacy at Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU). “It’s too short to be a full-length novel, but with the standard size of 40-60 pages (for a bachelor’s) and 60-100 pages (for a master’s), it is a robust exploration of a topic, explaining one’s understanding of a topic based on personal research.”

Chartier has worked in academia for over 13 years and at SNHU for nearly eight. In her role as an instructor and director, Chartier has helped to guide students through the writing process, like editing and providing resources.

Chartier has written and published academic papers such as "Augmented Reality Gamifies the Library: A Ride Through the Technological Frontier" and "Going Beyond the One-Shot: Spiraling Information Literacy Across Four Years." Both of these academic papers required Chartier to have hands-on experience with the subject matter. Like a thesis paper, they also involved hypothesizing and doing original research to come to a conclusion.

“When writing a thesis paper, the importance of staying organized cannot be overstated,” said Chartier. “Mapping out each step of the way, making firm and soft deadlines... and having other pairs of eyes on your work to ensure academic accuracy and clean editing are crucial to writing a successful paper.”

How Do I Choose a Topic For My Thesis Paper?

What your thesis paper is for will determine some of the specific requirements and steps you might take, but the first step is usually the same: Choosing a topic.

“Choosing a topic can be daunting," said Rochelle Attari , a peer tutor at SNHU. "But if (you) stick with a subject (you're) interested in... choosing a topic is much more manageable.”

Similar to a thesis, Attari recently finished the capstone  for her bachelor’s in psychology . Her bachelor’s concentration is in forensics, and her capstone focused on the topic of using a combined therapy model for inmates who experience substance abuse issues to reduce recidivism.

“The hardest part was deciding what I wanted to focus on,” Attari said. “But once I nailed down my topic, each milestone was more straightforward.”

In her own writing experience, Attari said brainstorming was an important step when choosing her topic. She recommends writing down different ideas on a piece of paper and doing some preliminary research on what’s already been written on your topic.

By doing this exercise, you can narrow or broaden your ideas until you’ve found a topic you’re excited about. " Brainstorming is essential when writing a paper and is not a last-minute activity,” Attari said.

How Do I Structure My Thesis Paper?

Thesis papers tend to have a standard format with common sections as the building blocks.

While the structure Attari describes below will work for many theses, it’s important to double-check with your program to see if there are any specific requirements. Writing a thesis for a Master of Fine Arts, for example, might actually look more like a fiction novel.

According to Attari, a thesis paper is often structured with the following major sections:

Introduction

• Literature review
• Methods, results

Now, let’s take a closer look at what each different section should include.

Your introduction is your opportunity to present the topic of your thesis paper. In this section, you can explain why that topic is important. The introduction is also the place to include your thesis statement, which shows your stance in the paper.

Attari said that writing an introduction can be tricky, especially when you're trying to capture your reader’s attention and state your argument.

“I have found that starting with a statement of truth about a topic that pertains to an issue I am writing about typically does the trick,” Attari said. She demonstrated this advice in an example introduction she wrote for a paper on the effects of daylight in Alaska:

In the continental United States, we can always count on the sun rising and setting around the same time each day, but in Alaska, during certain times of the year, the sun rises and does not set for weeks. Research has shown that the sun provides vitamin D and is an essential part of our health, but little is known about how daylight twenty-four hours a day affects the circadian rhythm and sleep.

In the example Attari wrote, she introduces the topic and informs the reader what the paper will cover. Somewhere in her intro, she said she would also include her thesis statement, which might be:

Twenty-four hours of daylight over an extended period does not affect sleep patterns in humans and is not the cause of daytime fatigue in northern Alaska .

Literature Review

In the literature review, you'll look at what information is already out there about your topic. “This is where scholarly articles  about your topic are essential,” said Attari. “These articles will help you find the gap in research that you have identified and will also support your thesis statement."

Telling your reader what research has already been done will help them see how your research fits into the larger conversation. Most university libraries offer databases of scholarly/peer-reviewed articles that can be helpful in your search.

In the methods section of your thesis paper, you get to explain how you learned what you learned. This might include what experiment you conducted as a part of your independent research.

“For instance,” Attari said, “if you are a psychology major and have identified a gap in research on which therapies are effective for anxiety, your methods section would consist of the number of participants, the type of experiment and any other particulars you would use for that experiment.”

In this section, you'll explain the results of your study. For example, building on the psychology example Attari outlined, you might share self-reported anxiety levels for participants trying different kinds of therapies. To help you communicate your results clearly, you might include data, charts, tables or other visualizations.

The discussion section of your thesis paper is where you will analyze and interpret the results you presented in the previous section. This is where you can discuss what your findings really mean or compare them to the research you found in your literature review.

The discussion section is your chance to show why the data you collected matters and how it fits into bigger conversations in your field.

The conclusion of your thesis paper is your opportunity to sum up your argument and leave your reader thinking about why your research matters.

Attari breaks the conclusion down into simple parts. “You restate the original issue and thesis statement, explain the experiment's results and discuss possible next steps for further research,” she said.

Find Your Program

Resources to help write your thesis paper.

While your thesis paper may be based on your independent research, writing it doesn’t have to be a solitary process. Asking for help and using the resources that are available to you can make the process easier.

If you're writing a thesis paper, some resources Chartier encourages you to use are:

• Citation Handbooks: An online citation guide or handbook can help you ensure your citations are correct. APA , MLA and Chicago styles have all published their own guides.
• Citation Generators: There are many citation generator tools that help you to create citations. Some — like RefWorks — even let you directly import citations from library databases as you research.
• Your Library's Website: Many academic and public libraries allow patrons to access resources like databases or FAQs. Some FAQs at the SNHU library that might be helpful in your thesis writing process include “ How do I read a scholarly article? ” or “ What is a research question and how do I develop one? ”

It can also be helpful to check out what coaching or tutoring options are available through your school. At SNHU, for example, the Academic Support Center offers writing and grammar workshops , and students can access 24/7 tutoring and 1:1 sessions with peer tutors, like Attari.

"Students can even submit their papers and receive written feedback... like revisions and editing suggestions," she said.

If you are writing a thesis paper, there are many resources available to you. It's a long paper, but with the right mindset and support, you can successfully navigate the process.

“Pace yourself,” said Chartier. “This is a marathon, not a sprint. Setting smaller goals to get to the big finish line can make the process seem less daunting, and remember to be proud of yourself and celebrate your accomplishment once you’re done. Writing a thesis is no small task, and it’s important work for the scholarly community.”

A degree can change your life. Choose your program  from 200+ SNHU degrees that can take you where you want to go.

Meg Palmer ’18 is a writer and scholar by trade who loves reading, riding her bike and singing in a barbershop quartet. She earned her bachelor’s degree in English, language and literature at Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU) and her master’s degree in writing, rhetoric and discourse at DePaul University (’20). While attending SNHU, she served as the editor-in-chief of the campus student newspaper, The Penmen Press, where she deepened her passion for writing. Meg is an adjunct professor at Johnson and Wales University, where she teaches first year writing, honors composition, and public speaking. Connect with her on LinkedIn .

Explore more content like this article

What is the Difference Between Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees?

Academic Referencing: How to Cite a Research Paper

What is Considered Plagiarism And How to Avoid It

About southern new hampshire university.

SNHU is a nonprofit, accredited university with a mission to make high-quality education more accessible and affordable for everyone.

Founded in 1932, and online since 1995, we’ve helped countless students reach their goals with flexible, career-focused programs . Our 300-acre campus in Manchester, NH is home to over 3,000 students, and we serve over 135,000 students online. Visit our about SNHU  page to learn more about our mission, accreditations, leadership team, national recognitions and awards.

Department of Linguistics and Philosophy

Dissertations.

• Skip to Main
• Bersoff Faculty Fellows
• Administrative Officers
• Job Market Candidates
• Studying Philosophy at NYU
• Declaring the Major or Minor
• Program of Study - Major
• Program of Study - Minor
• Program Requirements
• Course Offerings
• Global Pathways Philosophy Abroad
• Philosophy Forum
• NEO Journal
• Degree Programs
• Philosophy Graduate Handbooks
• Prospective Students
• Graduate Placement Record
• Ancient Philosophy Ph.D. Track
• Certificate Programs
• Fall 2024 Undergraduate Courses
• Fall 2024 Graduate Course Descriptions
• Summer 2024 Undergraduate Courses
• Spring 2024 Undergraduate Courses
• Spring 2024 Graduate Course Descriptions
• Fall 2023 Undergraduate Courses
• Fall 2023 Graduate Course Descriptions
• Summer 2023 Undergraduate Courses
• Spring 2023 Undergraduate Courses
• Spring 2023 Graduate Course Descriptions
• Fall 2022 Undergraduate Courses
• Fall 2022 Graduate Course Descriptions
• General Course Offerings
• Course Description Archive
• Spring 2024
• Spring 2023
• Event Archives
• Issues in Modern Philosophy Conference
• Mala Kamm Memorial Lecture
• Reading Groups
• Diversity and Inclusiveness Statement
• Initiatives
• PhD Application Fee Waiver
• Third Year Review Archive
• Prospectus Archive
• Syllabus Archive
• Big Questions Philosophy Class at NYU
• FAQs from Prospective Visiting Scholars
• FAQs for Prospective Visiting Graduate Students

Guidelines for Writing a Thesis Prospectus

Per rob 9/25/2023, i think all the relevant information is in the handbook, and students should be encouraged to look there. can we just delete the page, what is a thesis prospectus.

By the 10th week of their 6th term in the Department, students will submit to the Director of Graduate Studies a proposal for a thesis and suggestions as to whom they would most prefer as advisors. The Director of Graduate Studies will then appoint a committee, of at least two faculty members, but normally three faculty members, who will meet with the candidate about the proposal. This meeting is the oral thesis prospectus examination. This meeting must take place by the end of the third year in order for the student to maintain Good Standing. Once it takes place, the student remains in Good Standing even though the advisors may require him/her to revise the thesis proposal and meet to discuss it further. The student must pass the examination by the end of the 7th term in the Department.

The prospectus should be between 5 and a strict maximum of 15 pages long (double spaced). It should not be a philosophy paper, but rather a thesis plan that (a) clearly articulates an interesting philosophical problem in a way that (b) displays the student's knowledge of the problem's place in the space of philosophical ideas, and in particular, of the leading attempts to resolve the problem and (c) gives as clear an indication as the student can give at this early stage of how he or she intends to organize the thesis, and of what he or she expects her contribution to be, that is, of what he or she can add to the existing literature. (Students writing a thesis consisting of three linked papers should apply these guidelines to each of their topics.) Although the prospectus defense takes the form of an oral examination, its principal purpose is to reach an agreement with prospective future members of the student's thesis committee as to the shape and substance of the project.

Advice about how to proceed

Early in the third year, you should choose a professor and ask if he or she will be your prospectus advisor. It's a good idea to have a professor that you're working with throughout the whole process, even if you're not sure of your topic. So just make your best educated guess of who would be good to have. You can switch prospectus advisors if you end up choosing a topic for which someone else would be a better advisor. Meet with your prospectus advisor regularly to report on your thoughts and to get feedback on drafts of your prospectus, as well as any other writing you're doing in choosing a topic and formulating an idea for your thesis. It's a good idea to often write up five-page pieces on your latest thoughts. Once you have a prospectus advisor, report to the DGS who it is. Anyone currently in the third year or above who does not have a prospectus advisor should get someone within the next month!

Once you've picked a thesis topic (if not before), you should ask two more people to be the other members of your prospectus committee. These three people will examine you during your prospectus defense.

A word on choosing your thesis topic. Remember that the aim is to pick a thesis topic that genuinely interests you, on which you think you will do good work, and in an area that you think you will continue to want to work in after graduate school. Your thesis need not be the *best* topic for you. This is not the last piece of serious philosophical work you will do, nor is it the best work you'll do. You will be better served by getting to work quickly on a thesis topic that is a *good* topic for you than by spending an extra year trying to figure out what the *best* topic would be. ("Satisfice" in picking your topic; don't aim to maximize.)

A prospectus is a fifteen-page paper that lays out the topic and plan for your dissertation work. The prospectus and the prospectus defense should convince your prospectus committee that you are ready to write a dissertation.

There are different ways a successful prospectus can be written. One kind of prospectus lays out a question that your thesis will address and discusses the positions that have been taken on the question, and makes some points about those positions. You needn't have come to a conclusion about the issue yourself; you are showing that you are ready to work seriously on the question. Another kind of prospectus proceeds by stating the central claim you plan to argue for in your thesis, and roughly what your argument for this claim will be. It should be clear how your claim and your argument relate to what others have said. In writing this kind of prospectus, you aren't committing to do exactly what you say you'll do—but by making a specific plan you're giving yourself a good way to get started doing focused work. Your central claim, and your argument, can change (indeed, they likely will radically change) as your work proceeds.

Advisors will inevitably differ on exactly what they want from a prospectus, and what they think yours needs to be like given your topic and your philosophical habits. Work closely with your advisor and take her advice seriously. And get the other two members of your prospectus committee involved sooner rather than later.

(This document was written by Liz Harman and endorsed by Michael Strevens.)

Thesis Statement Examples

Practical Thesis Statement Examples That Will Transform Your Writing

10 min read

Published on: Sep 3, 2024

Last updated on: Sep 3, 2024

People also read

Writing a strong thesis statement is key to a great essay, but coming up with the perfect one can be tricky. 

No matter if you're working on a personal essay, an argumentative paper, or something else, having clear examples can really help.

In this blog, we’ll explore a variety of thesis statement examples for different types of essays. This will help you understand how to create strong statements that guide your writing and keep your readers engaged. 

Let’s find the right thesis for your next essay!

What Is A Thesis Statement?

A thesis statement is a key part of your essay that tells readers what your essay is about. It’s a clear sentence that sums up the main point or argument you’re going to make. Think of it as a guide that helps your readers understand your main idea and what to expect from your essay.

Your thesis statement usually goes at the end of your introduction. It gives your essay direction and helps keep everything focused on your main point.

Examples Of Thesis Statements By Essay Type

To help you see how to write effective thesis statements, here are thesis statement examples for essays of various types. Each example will give you a clearer picture of how to approach various topics.

Examples Of Thesis Statements For Personal Essays 

A personal essay thesis statement reflects your unique experiences and feelings. It shares a central idea about a personal story or insight you’re discussing.

Here are a few examples to give you an idea of how to craft your own:

• Overcoming my fear of public speaking taught me that courage is not the absence of fear, but the ability to act despite it.
• Traveling to a new country showed me that stepping out of my comfort zone is the best way to grow and learn.
• My experience of balancing school and a part-time job proved that hard work and dedication can lead to personal success and self-discovery.

Thesis Statement Examples For Informative Essay 

A thesis statement for an informative essay provides a clear and specific overview of the topic you’re explaining. It helps readers understand the focus of your essay and what information they can expect to learn. 

Let’s take a look at some informative thesis statement examples :

• The process of photosynthesis is essential for plant growth as it converts sunlight into energy and produces oxygen, which is crucial for life on Earth.
• The history of the internet reveals how technological advancements have transformed communication, from early networks to the modern web.
• Understanding the basics of genetic inheritance can explain how traits are passed from parents to offspring and how genetic disorders can occur.

Thesis Statement Examples For Compare And Contrast Essays

A thesis statement for a compare and contrast essay highlights the similarities and differences between two or more subjects. It helps readers understand the main points of comparison and what you will be discussing. 

Some examples are:

• While both public and private schools aim to provide quality education, they differ significantly in terms of funding, curriculum flexibility, and student-to-teacher ratios.
• Although electric cars and gasoline-powered cars serve the same purpose of transportation, they differ in their environmental impact, cost, and efficiency.
• The lifestyles of city dwellers and rural residents differ greatly, with urban areas offering more job opportunities and amenities, while rural areas provide a slower pace of life and closer connection to nature.

Argumentative Essay Thesis Statement Examples

A thesis statement for an argumentative essay clearly states your opinion on a hot topic and explains why you hold that view. It shows what you believe and what you’ll be arguing for. 

Below are some argumentative thesis statement examples :

• A universal basic income can help reduce poverty and provide financial stability, making it a crucial step toward reducing economic inequality.
• Renewable energy is vital for fighting climate change because it cuts down on greenhouse gas emissions and supports a healthier planet.
• Requiring school uniforms in public schools can decrease peer pressure and help students focus more on their studies.

Thesis Statement Examples For Persuasive Essay 

A thesis statement for a persuasive essay aims to convince the reader of a particular viewpoint. It presents your position and hints at the arguments you’ll use to support it. 

Some examples include: 

• Adopting a plant-based diet is beneficial for health and the environment, as it reduces the risk of chronic diseases and decreases ecological footprints.
• Investing in public transportation improves urban mobility and reduces traffic congestion, leading to a more efficient and eco-friendly city.
• Banning single-use plastics is essential to protect marine life and reduce pollution, helping to preserve the environment for future generations.

Analytical Essay Thesis Statement Examples 

A thesis statement for an analytical essay breaks down a topic and examines its components. It highlights what you will analyze and what insights or conclusions you aim to provide. 

Here are some good thesis statement examples for analytical essays:

• Analyzing Shakespeare’s use of imagery in "Macbeth" reveals how it enhances the play’s themes of ambition and guilt.
• Examining the impact of social media on communication shows how it has changed the way we interact and perceive relationships.
• The portrayal of leadership in “The Great Gatsby” illustrates how wealth and power can corrupt moral values and influence behavior.

Expository Essay Thesis Statement Examples 

A thesis statement for an expository essay explains a topic or idea in detail. It provides a clear summary of what the essay will cover and how it will inform the reader. 

See the examples mentioned below: 

• The process of recycling involves several key steps, including sorting materials, processing them into raw materials, and creating new products.
• The history of the internet highlights key milestones such as the development of early networks, the rise of the World Wide Web, and the evolution of online communication.
• Understanding the causes of climate change requires examining factors like greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and industrial activities.

Process Essay Thesis Statement Examples 

A thesis statement for a process essay explains how something is done or how a process works. It gives a clear overview of the steps involved. Take a glance at these examples :

• Making homemade pizza involves preparing the dough, adding toppings, and baking it to create a delicious and customizable meal.
• The steps to start a small business include researching the market, creating a business plan, and securing funding to ensure a successful launch.
• Learning a new language requires practicing speaking and listening skills, studying grammar, and immersing oneself in the language through reading and conversation.

Thesis Statement Examples According to Different Academic Levels 

Writing a thesis statement changes as you move through different study levels. Each stage has its own approach and complexity. Here’s how thesis statements might look across different levels:

Thesis Statement Examples for Kids 

At a basic level, thesis statements for kids are simple and direct. They usually focus on familiar topics and straightforward ideas. Consider these examples :

• Dogs make great pets because they are loyal, fun, and good with kids.
• Reading books is important because it helps you learn new things and improves your imagination.

Middle School Thesis Statement Examples 

In middle school, thesis statements start to involve more detail and support. They reflect a better understanding of how to structure arguments. Here are some examples :

• School uniforms should be required because they promote equality, reduce distractions, and make it easier for students to focus on their studies.
• Eating a balanced diet is crucial for maintaining good health because it provides essential nutrients, boosts energy levels, and helps prevent diseases.

High School Thesis Statement Examples 

High school thesis statements are more sophisticated, often including a clear argument and multiple supporting points. Take a look these examples :

• The benefits of online learning outweigh the drawbacks because it offers flexibility, access to a wide range of resources, and the ability to balance education with other responsibilities.
• Participating in extracurricular activities is important for high school students as it helps develop leadership skills, build friendships, and enhance college applications.

College Thesis Statement Examples 

At the college level, thesis statements are complex and detailed and often address more complex arguments. Examples include:

• Implementing renewable energy solutions, such as solar and wind power, is essential for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and mitigating the effects of climate change.
• The rise of social media has transformed political campaigning by increasing voter engagement, spreading misinformation, and altering traditional campaign strategies.

Thesis Statement Examples for Research Papers

For research papers, thesis statements must be well-researched and specific and provide a clear direction for the study. Consider these examples :

• Exploring the effects of childhood trauma on adult mental health reveals significant correlations between early experiences and the development of psychological disorders later in life.
• Investigating the impact of artificial intelligence on the job market shows that while AI creates new opportunities, it also poses challenges related to job displacement and workforce adaptation.

More Examples Of Thesis Statements 

As you work on different essays and writing tasks, you’ll see that thesis statements can vary a lot. Here are some additional examples to illustrate their diversity.

Literary Analysis Thesis Statement Examples 

• In "To Kill a Mockingbird," Harper Lee uses symbolism, such as the mockingbird, to highlight the themes of innocence and moral growth.
• The use of unreliable narrators in Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Tell-Tale Heart” enhances the story’s exploration of guilt and madness.

Implied Thesis Statement Examples 

• Despite its surface simplicity, “The Little Prince” offers a profound critique of adult behavior through its exploration of human nature and relationships.
• The persistent use of color imagery in “The Great Gatsby” subtly emphasizes the theme of the American Dream and its inherent flaws.

Thesis Statement Examples For Research Papers 

• Examining the effects of sleep deprivation on academic performance shows a direct link between lack of sleep and reduced cognitive abilities in students.
• Research into the impact of climate change on coastal ecosystems reveals that rising sea levels and increased temperatures are threatening biodiversity and habitat stability.

Complex Thesis Statement Examples

• While the integration of technology in education offers numerous benefits, such as personalized learning and greater accessibility, it also presents challenges related to screen time and data privacy.
• The debate over genetic engineering in agriculture involves both potential benefits, like increased crop yields and disease resistance, and ethical concerns, such as environmental impact and genetic diversity.

In closing, 

A strong thesis statement is the backbone of any good essay. It helps guide your writing and keeps your readers focused on your main point. With the examples provided, you can see how to shape your thesis for different types of essays and academic levels.

If you want a little extra help with your thesis statements, check out the thesis statement generator from MyEssayWriter.ai . It’s a handy tool that can help you create and perfect your thesis statements quickly. 

For extra help with essay writing, check out our essay writer . It's an AI tool that can write high-quality essays for you in a breeze!

Frequently Asked Questions

How do i write my thesis statement.

To write and start a thesis statement, you should:

• Pick Your Topic: Decide what your essay will be about.
• Formulate Your Argument: Choose your main point or stance on the topic.
• Be Specific: Make sure your statement clearly outlines what you'll discuss.
• Make It Debatable: Your thesis should present an argument that can be supported with evidence.
• Keep It Concise: Aim for one or two sentences that clearly express your main idea.

What 3 things should a thesis statement have?

Typically, a thesis statement format includes three main parts: the topic you're discussing, your main argument or viewpoint , and the reasons or evidence you'll use to back up that argument. 

What is an example of a weak and strong thesis statement?

Weak Thesis Statement: "Social media is bad."

• It's too broad and lacks detail.

Strong Thesis Statement: "Social media platforms negatively impact mental health by increasing anxiety and depression among teenagers, and this can be addressed through improved online safety measures."

• It's specific, takes a clear stance, and hints at the main points of the essay.

What is a thesis statement sentence?

A thesis statement sentence is a single sentence in your essay that summarizes your main point or argument. It’s usually found at the end of your introduction and guides the rest of your essay.

Caleb S. (Mass Literature and Linguistics, Masters)

Caleb S. is an accomplished author with over five years of experience and a Master's degree from Oxford University. He excels in various writing forms, including articles, press releases, blog posts, and whitepapers. As a valued author at MyEssayWriter.ai, Caleb assists students and professionals by providing practical tips on research, citation, sentence structure, and style enhancement.

On This Page On This Page

Get Access to Advanced Features with our Affordable Plans

Complimentary Trial

Continue for FREE

OFFER ENDS Today

Signup for Free Access

Access to all Tools

No Credit Card needed

Quota: 1500 Words (6 pages)

Offer ends in: 03hr 19m 8s

Already a user? Login instead

For Monthly Usage

$ 9.99 /month

Up to 2500 words/month

Access to all features

AI Essay Writer

AI Essay Outliner

Go Big Monthly!

$ 14.99 /month

Up to 100,000 words/month

Access to all existing tools

50% off on custom essay orders

500 credits for plagiarism check

Top Annual Savings!

Advanced (4 Months FREE )

$ 99.99 /year

OFFER ENDS Soon

Unlimited essays

12 Months for the price of 8

Access to all upcoming tools

Get started for free

Please enter a valid Name

Please enter a valid email address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Please enter atleast five characters

Please enter a valid Password

Show Password

Already have an account? Sign In here.

Please enter your email address

Forgot Password?

Don’t have an account? Sign Up

Verify Your Account

Enter the verification codes to confirm your identity.

Code sent to [email protected]

Send again in seconds

Code sent to +1 302 385 6690

Claim Free Essay

Your first custom essay order on our website is FREE!

Select language

Marien Raat wins Vliegenthart Thesis Award 2023

Marien Raat wins the 2023 Vliegenthart Thesis Award with his master's thesis. He wrote his combined master's thesis called Computation in Nested Closed Timelike Curves for the History and Philosophy of Science and Computing Science master's programs.

Computation in Nested Closed Timelike Curves

Described as a genius in his field, Marien's thesis addresses the problem Turing once described: The computational power of computers is finite and stops at the halfway point. A problem so hard to compute that computers simply have no capacity left for it, let alone for even more complex problems. However, Marien argues that with current knowledge, including quantum mechanics and time loops, it may still be possible to expand the computing power of computers and have them compute more difficult - previously unsolvable - problems, thus proving Turing wrong. To do this, you need well-placed time loops that free up space in the computer at exactly the right time. The thesis is described as precise, incisive and clear, as is the lecture summary that makes it possible for almost anyone to understand the basis of his thesis, and touches on a problem that has been cracking brains for some time: can we break through the apparent limits of computational power that currently grips computers?

Jury Verdict

All master's theses in the field of Natural Sciences that competed for the Vliegenthart thesis prize this year were judged by the jury to be excellent and outstanding. Marien Raat's research, with which he graduated cum laude and, according to his thesis supervisors, produced a brilliant piece of work, stands out for two specific reasons.

First, for his research, Marien identified a gap in the argumentation of a previously published article and sought contact with the authors to discuss how this gap could be bridged. Second, the thesis addresses a very fundamental problem and offers a fresh perspective on the topic from different perspectives of physics, computer science and philosophy.

Through this approach and elaboration, Marien demonstrates two skills vital to a healthy and forward-looking research culture: initiating open and critical discussion of the limitations of our work and that of others, and creating familiar spaces to explore intersections of different disciplines in order to work on difficult fundamental problems for which immediate application is not obvious. An admirable achievement for such a young researcher for which the jury warmly congratulates him.

• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Facebook
• Share on WhatsApp
• Share via email

Utrecht University Heidelberglaan 8 3584 CS Utrecht The Netherlands Tel. +31 (0)30 253 35 50