Also see a short essay on what it is to study philosophy, and the sites on Help Studying Philosophy, Writing Philosophy Papers, How to Revise a Philosophy Draft, and General Tips for Studying Philosophy.

© 2000-2003, Ashley C. McDowell

Reading a philosophy paper is probably different from reading other kinds of writing, and it might be frustrating at first. This guide is meant to fill you in on how to go about reading a philosophy paper in particular. Some of the following may be old news to you. Some of it, however, should be helpful.

A philosophy paper is in the form of an argument for a conclusion, so the most important things for you to understand are the following:
1) what each part of the paper says
2) how the parts of the paper fit together to form an argument
3) what the conclusion of the paper is.
(Only then can you go on to decide whether the premises are true, whether the structure of the argument is good, and whether the premises provide adequate support for the conclusion.)

Fortunately, most philosophy papers make these tasks relatively easy, once you know how to do them (this is especially true of contemporary papers, and not so much for historical papers and books).

First you have to figure out what the topic of the paper is. Is it about metaphysics or ethics? If it's ethics, what area of ethics? What's the general question the author is worried about? What's the issue? Philosophers will often make this very clear, usually right at the beginning of the article. You cannot read the first page or two of most current philosophy articles without knowing what the basic topic is and why people are worried about it.

Next, and most importantly, you must identify the author's thesis. What is the author's position? Is she in favor of or against some position within the topic? What does she want you to be convinced of?

The vast majority of philosophy papers have an introduction and a conclusion that tell you what the thesis, or conclusion, of the paper is. It should never be mysterious what the philosopher is trying to prove. If it is, she isn't doing her job. Again, though, this doesn't hold so much for older stuff.

You should learn to look for words and phrases that indicate that the author is describing his thesis. These include easy ones like "I will be arguing that…" or "I will present reasons to believe that…" or "we shall see that…" or "I will show that…" (or these same sorts of phrases in the past tense at the very end of an article). It might take a little more work to find the thesis, though. Sometimes an author just states the thesis baldly at the very beginning of the piece. Sometimes (rarely) an author never states the thesis, but leaves the reader to figure it out based on what she has said in the course of the article. Sometimes it is obvious what the thesis is because it is repeated often, or because every section of the article ends up rejecting the opposite view (if someone writes a piece in which he systematically eliminates several arguments for the existence of God, for example, it's pretty clear that his conclusion is that arguments for the existence of God do not work).

Be very careful to look out for other positions the author might be talking about, but which she does not believe herself. Usually a philosophy paper will include a discussion of one or more positions that the author thinks are wrong. The author might even spend most of the paper presenting an argument that she will end up rejecting. You must keep track of what the author believes and what she's presenting just because she wants to talk about it. You can get yourself very confused if you interpret everything the author says as something she herself believes.

In any case, you should not feel satisfied in reading a philosophical piece until you have identified the author's thesis.

You should also not feel satisfied unless you know - at least generally - the way the argument will proceed. This is the next step in reading a philosophy paper. How will the author be arguing for his thesis? Will he be arguing against another possibility in order to conclude that his option must be right? Will he be just presenting an idea out of the blue? Does he have several different ways to get to the conclusion he eventually reaches? What are they?

You might have to figure this out by reading the paper and then thinking back about what went on in it, but most of the time philosophers have a detailed overview of the steps that take place in the course of the paper. This can be anywhere in the article - at the very beginning, or after the general introduction of the topic, or at the end, or some combination of the above. Look for lists of steps, where the author says something like, "first, I will argue that …, and second I will argue that …, and finally I will show that…." Or look at the end to find a similar list of steps that have happened. It is always worthwhile to look for these descriptions of the structure of the paper before you start reading. Do not feel strange about flipping to the end of an article to try to find the place where the author describes the structure - philosophy papers aren't mysteries, and you can't "ruin the surprise" by looking forward. Sometimes you will figure out the structure of the argument by looking at the transitions. Between sections, the philosopher might say something like, "I've just shown that…, and now I will go on to argue that…." or "so we see that this argument for the position doesn't work. Does this other argument work?"

The statements or ideas in a philosopher's argument that are meant to support the conclusion are premises for that conclusion. Keep in mind, though, that there are often arguments for each premise first, to establish the premises as likely before using them to establish that the conclusion is likely. So there are usually arguments within arguments in philosophy papers. These arguments might involve giving examples or reasons. In this way, each step of an overall argument is supported by reasons, and the philosopher tries to make it an argument that any reasonable person would accept. If you accept the arguments for the premises, you should accept the premises; and if you accept that those premises give support to the conclusion, you should accept the conclusion.

Not all arguments will be clearly laid out. Often you have to work to see how the pieces fit together. Just be aware that you should try to understand the structure of the argument before you try to judge whether you think the things the author is saying are true. If the argument is not logically strong, it does not really matter whether the premises are true, because the conclusion doesn't follow from them. Also, if you start worrying about each statement the author makes, you might lose sight of the forest for the trees: you might bog down on particular points and miss the overall view of the argument. After all, the author might have been giving more support for her conclusion than she needed, in which case it might be okay for one of her premises to be false. Or she might be presenting an argument that she will end up rejecting or revising. Always make sure you understand what the author is saying before you think about whether you agree.

The important thing is to be able to pick out the statements that sum up each point or subpoint. This is something that takes practice, but will get easier as you go along. Basically, this is the same thing as figuring out what to underline or highlight in your book as you read. Here are some typical clues that a sentence, phrase, or paragraph is making an important point and probably constitutes a premise or conclusion:
- this shows that
- it follows that
- therefore
- the point is that
- the implication of this is that
- this premise is that
- this means that
- this is important (crucial, a major point, vital…)
- it is important to note that
- this position says that
- so
- thus
- then
- first, (second, third, etc.)
- finally
- I think that
- I suggest that
- I have shown that
- I believe that
- it is plain (obvious, clear, etc.) that
- we have seen that
Also, look for signposts like italics, numbered or bulleted lists, or points to which the author has given proper names. In addition, look carefully at the beginning and ending of sections; usually the author sums up the point of the section in one or both of those places. Look for obvious changes of topic: if the author is suddenly talking about something really different, she might have finished an argument for one premise and moved on to another one. Look for things that the author says vehemently: if he is using language like "surely we cannot believe for one minute that…" or "there is no possible way to make this work," or "plainly no one will deny that…", then he is probably saying something he feels strongly about - so it is probably an important part of the argument. Sit back after reading a section and think, "how would I sum up what just got said?" If there is an obvious sentence that says about the same thing as what you came up with in asking yourself that question, it is probably the sentence that makes the main point of that section.

Now you can take the main points and the thesis and construct for yourself an idea of how they all fit together. Again, there are probably subconclusions that fit together to help prove the main conclusion, and those subconclusions probably have reasons in favor of them. Some of those reasons will be positive, advocating a particular point; others will be negative, rejecting a point (and thus eliminating it in favor of something else). Some reasons will be factual or empirical - for instance, claims about the amount of suffering caused by a certain kind of action, or claims about human psychology. Some reasons will be theoretical or conceptual - for instance, claims about what kinds of things should be thought of as morally worthy, or how many subdivisions we should make in human virtues. Ideally, you would outline the argument for yourself in separate notes on the reading. Short of that, however, it can be very helpful to make notations in the margins of the text, assigning premises numbers or just writing a phrase to indicate the point being made (e.g., "reasons to think humans value happiness" and "reasons to think happiness isn't the same as pleasure"). Then you can glance down your margins and get a visual map of the structure of the argument.

Okay, so now you have figured out what general area the discussion will be in, what topic in particular is under consideration, what the author's thesis is, and what the structure of her argument is. You have identified some likely candidates for main points by looking for clues about what sentences are playing an important role. And you have attempted to get a grip on the structure of the reasons and the conclusions they are meant to support. That's it! You have basically finished what it takes to read a philosophical paper carefully.

Not until this is done do you get to do the "fun stuff" - thinking for yourself about it. Only now can you figure out what these points really mean, and then whether you think the argument is a good one. Generally it is a good idea to read the paper once to figure out what it says (and hopefully what the author means), and then read it again to think about what you think about what it says. This sounds like a lot of work, but it actually makes it easier than trying to do all of these different things at once, which can be confusing and cause you to lose track of what's going on.

These suggestions are meant to make it easier for you to end up doing philosophy, or thinking about these fascinating problems on your own and deciding what you think. The point is that you cannot decide whether an argument is right or wrong until you understand what it says. But once you have the skills to do that, you have the tools to think deeply about the most important and difficult problems humankind can come up with.