Format and Submission Requirements
● Length and Formatting: Your paper should be a complete draft of 750-1000 words,
using a 12pt Georgia font, double-spaced. A complete draft includes an introduction, all
body paragraphs, and a conclusion, and meets all source requirements.
● Word Count: Include a word count at the end of your document, covering only the
main text (excluding the title, bibliography, or footnotes). Place this count at the very end
of your paper.
● No Cover Sheet: Do not include a cover sheet with your submission.
● Submission Portal: Submit your paper via D2L by navigating to Assignments > Final
Paper Draft.
● Acceptable Formats: Only submit your document in Word (.docx) or PDF (.pdf)
format.
● Citation Styles: You must cite all sources used. You may choose any citation style
(MLA, APA, Chicago) as long as it is applied consistently throughout your paper.
● Source Requirements: Your paper needs to make use of at least one source for option
#1, and two for option #2.
○ When using sources in your paper, critically engage with their content. Don’t
merely cite sources for the sake of citation. Use them to bolster your argument, or
perhaps provide evidence for your claims. For instance, if you are discussing
“Mestiza consciousness,” don’t just quote Anzaldúa. Analyze the quotation. Why
does she say what she says?
● Other Requirements: Your paper needs an introduction, a conclusion, and a work
cited page.
Option #1 Critical Paper
Objective: This assignment requires you to engage in a deep, critical examination of a
specific philosophical concept (e.g., the shadow beast, playful “world-” traveling, mestiza
consciousness, arrogant perception, love, etc.), or argument (e.g., John Stuart Mill’s
arguments for free speech, Descartes’ skeptical arguments, etc.) and defend it against a
credible objection. You will begin by systematically introducing the concept or argument you
will be defending in your paper. You will then raise a serious and well-thought-out objection
against the concept or argument. You will then analyze the objection. Your analysis should
demonstrate an understanding of the philosophical issue, its complexities, and its implications
if the objection were to prove fatal. Finally, you will provide a counter-argument where you
will defend the concept (the philosopher’s account of this concept) or argument against the
objection.
Content Guidelines:
● Introduction: Begin your paper with an introduction that outlines your argument’s
structure and presents a clear thesis statement (e.g., “In this paper, I will argue that X is
Y, because of Z”).
● Background: Summarize the philosophical view that will be central to your paper (the
view that you will be defending).
● Objection: Introduce a credible objection to the philosophical view. This objection
could be your own or that of another philosopher (you might need to do some research).
Make sure to explain the objection thoroughly.
○ A credible objection is well-reasoned and acknowledges the complexity of the
philosophical issue. It should challenge the concept or argument you’re defending
in a meaningful way, not just pick at minor details. For example, if objecting to
Mill’s free speech argument, consider how the principle of utility might conflict
with contemporary issues of hate speech, rather than simply arguing against free
speech in general.
● Counter-Objection: Defend the philosophical view against the objection. Make your
best case in support of the view.
● Conclusion: Conclude with a summary of your paper.
Option #2 Synthesis Paper
Objective: This assignment requires you to synthesize the ideas of two philosophers to
explore a central philosophical concept or issue. Your paper should not only juxtapose these
ideas but also weave them together to of er new insights or understandings. For example, you
might explore how Anzaldúa’s notion of “Mestiza consciousness” can be understood through
Lugones’ “playful ‘world-’ traveling,” or how the importance of free speech as John Stuart Mill
suggests is enriched by the role of communication in loving practices.
Content Guidelines:
● Introduction: Start with an engaging introduction that presents the central concept or
issues your paper will address. Include a thesis statement that succinctly summarizes
your main argument or insight (e.g., “In this paper, I will argue that X is Y, because of
Z”).
● Background: Provide a brief overview of the key ideas of each philosopher as they
pertain to your paper’s focus. Make sure that this section sets up a foundation for your
synthesis.
● Synthesis: This is the core of your paper. Critically analyze how the ideas of the two
philosophers can be interwoven/combined to provide a deeper understanding of the
central concept or issue. Discuss the similarities, and differences, and how one
perspective can illuminate or challenge the other.
○ For instance, if examining “Mestiza consciousness” through “playful ‘world-’
traveling,” discuss how Lugones’ ideas on a loving perception and playfulness
complement or complicate Anzaldúa’s vision of a new consciousness born from
hybridity and borderland experiences.
● Implications: Explore the broader implications of your synthesis. Consider, for
example, the impact on understanding cultural identity, social justice, ethical living, or
other relevant areas (e.g., love, etc.).
○ For example, if synthesizing Anzaldúa and Lugones, you might explore how their
combined ideas on knowing the other could offer new ways of navigating
multicultural societies.
● Conclusion: Conclude with a summary of your paper.
III. Things to Avoid in Your Philosophy Essay
● Lengthy Introductions: Avoid unnecessary lengthy introductions. Focus on your
topic without emphasizing the importance or historical interest of your subject.
● Overuse of Quotations: Minimize direct quotations and paraphrasing. Your paper
should primarily reflect your own thoughts and analyses.
● Fence Sitting: Do not merely present various positions without taking a clear stance.
Your paper should demonstrate a well-argued position.
● Cuteness: Maintain a tone of simple dignity throughout your paper. Avoid trivializing
your topic or the philosophers you discuss.
● Begging the Question: Ensure your arguments do not presuppose the truth of the
conclusion you are trying to establish. Avoid circular reasoning.
● Weak Arguments Against Opposing Views: When arguing against other positions,
do not simply assert that they are wrong or their premises are false. You must
substantively demonstrate the weaknesses in their arguments without assuming your
position is correct
