Pryor(2012), 철학 보고서 쓰는 법 2 - 철학 보고서 쓰는 단계

Three Stages of Writing

 

①. 준비 단계(Early Stages)

 

  The early stages of writing a philosophy paper include everything you do before you sit down and write your first draft. These early stages will involve writing, but you won't yet be trying to write a complete paper. You should instead be taking notes on the readings, sketching out your ideas, trying to explain the main argument you want to advance, and composing an outline.

 

a. 다른 이들과 논의(discuss)

  As I said above, your papers are supposed to demonstrate that you understand and can think critically about the material we discuss in class. One of the best ways to check how well you understand that material is to try to explain it to someone who isn't already familiar with it. I've discovered time and again while teaching philosophy that I couldn't really explain properly some article or argument I thought I understood. This was because it was really more problematic or complicated than I had realized. You will have this same experience. So it's good to discuss the issues we raise in class with each other, and with friends who aren't taking the class. This will help you understand the issues better, and it will make you recognize what things you still don't fully understand.

It's even more valuable to talk to each other about what you want to argue in your paper. When you have your ideas worked out well enough that you can explain them to someone else, verbally, then you're ready to sit down and start making an outline.

 

b. 개요(outline) 작성

  Before you begin writing any drafts, you need to think about the questions:

 

- In what order should you explain the various terms and positions you'll be discussing?

- At what point should you present your opponent's position or argument?

- In what order should you offer your criticisms of your opponent?

- Do any of the points you're making presuppose that you've already discussed some other point, first? And so on.

 

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

 

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

  Give your outline your full attention. It should be fairly detailed. (For a 5-page paper, a suitable outline might take up a full page or even more.) I find that making an outline is at least 80% of the work of writing a good philosophy paper. If you have a good outline, the rest of the writing process will go much more smoothly.

 

c. 빠른 시작(start work early)

  Philosophical problems and philosophical writing require careful and extended reflection. Don't wait until two or three nights before the paper is due to begin. That is very stupid. Writing a good philosophy paper takes a great deal of preparation.

  You need to leave yourself enough time to think about the topic and write a detailed outline. Only then should you sit down to write a complete draft. Once you have a complete draft, you should set it aside for a day or two. Then you should come back to it and rewrite it. Several times. At least 3 or 4. If you can, show it to your friends and get their reactions to it. Do they understand your main point? Are parts of your draft unclear or confusing to them?

  All of this takes time. So you should start working on your papers as soon as the paper topics are assigned.

 

② 초안 작성(Write a Draft)

 

a. 단순한 산문체(simple prose)

- 대화에서 사용하지 않을 방식으로 글 쓰지 않기

- 독자가 초등학교 3학년인 것처럼 간명하게 쓰기

- 철학자들의 글은 나쁜 글임에도 불구하고 철학적으로 중요한 거지 어렵고 복잡하게 써서 중요한 것이 아님(philosophically important despite their poor writing, not because of it)

 

b. 알기 쉬운 구조(obvious structure)

- 논의의 흐름을 알려주는 연결어를 사용

  ex) because, since, given this argument

  ex) thus, therefore, hence, it follows that, consequently

  ex) nevertheless, however, but

  ex) in the first case, on the other hand

- 논의의 단계를 알려주는 어구를 사용

  ex) I will begin by...

  ex) Before I say what is wrong with this argument, I want to...

  ex) These passages suggest that...

  ex) I will now defend this claim...

  ex) Further support for this claim comes from...

  ex) For example...

- 자기의 의견과 철학자의 의견을 독자들이 분명히 구별할 수 있도록 할 것

 

b`. 알기 쉬운 구조의 범례

- 비판하는 글

...We've just seen how X says that P. I will now present two arguments that not-P. My first argument is... My second argument that not-P is... X might respond to my arguments in several ways. For instance, he could say that... However this response fails, because... Another way that X might respond to my arguments is by claiming that... This response also fails, because... So we have seen that none of X's replies to my argument that not-P succeed. Hence, we should reject X's claim that P.

- 옹호하는 글

I will argue for the view that Q. There are three reasons to believe Q. Firstly... Secondly... Thirdly... The strongest objection to Q says... However, this objection does not succeed, for the following reason...

 

c. 간결하지만 완전한 설명(be concise but explain yourself fully)

be concise	explain yourself fully
-무엇이 문제이고, 그것이 왜 문제가 되는지, 그리고 보고서의 내용이 그 문제와 어떻게 관련되는지 밝히기 -문제를 직접 적시하지 않는 내용은 빼기 (주제에 대해 아는 모든 것을 똑똑한 척하며 뱉어내지 않기)	-한 문장으로 논점이나 개념을 제시하지 말고, 설명하는 문장 혹은 예시 문장을 붙이기 -무슨 말인지 정확하게 말하기 cf) "I know I said this, but what I meant was..."와 같은 핑계를 대지 않도록 하기 -독자가 게으르고(lazy - 멍청하고 못됐다, stupid, mean)고 생각하고 쓰기

  In fact, you can profitably take this one step further and pretend that your reader is lazy, stupid, and mean. He's lazy in that he doesn't want to figure out what your convoluted sentences are supposed to mean, and he doesn't want to figure out what your argument is, if it's not already obvious. He's stupid, so you have to explain everything you say to him in simple, bite-sized pieces. And he's mean, so he's not going to read your paper charitably. (For example, if something you say admits of more than one interpretation, he's going to assume you meant the less plausible thing.) If you understand the material you're writing about, and if you aim your paper at such a reader, you'll probably get an A.

 

d. 풍부한 예시와 정의(plenty of examples and definitions)

- 예시는 철학자들의 추상적이고 난해한 철학적 주장을 명료하게 하고, 철학적 논증의 핵심 개념을 설명하는 데에 굉장히 유용한 도구

- 개념이 일상적 대화에서 자주 쓰이더라도 그 정확한 의미를 밝히는 작업이 필요하고, 개념의 정의가 일상적 용법에서 다소 벗어나더라도 그것을 분명히 밝혔다면 문제가 없음

- 일부러 어휘를 다양하게 쓰지 말기(Don't vary your vocabulary just for the sake of variety)

  ex) self ≠ soul ≠ mind

- 일반적 철학 용어(general philosophical term)에 대한 설명은 필요 없지만, 주제에 대한 특정 기술적 용어(technical philosophical term)는 설명이 필요

  ex) 일반적 철학용어 : “필연적 참”, “타당한 주장” / 기술적 용어 : “실체이원론”, “물리주의”, “행동주의”, “수반” 등

 

d`. 예시와 정의가 필요한 사례

 

  For instance, suppose you're writing a paper about abortion, and you want to assert the claim "A fetus is a person." What do you mean by "a person"? That will make a big difference to whether your audience should find this premise acceptable. It will also make a big difference to how persuasive the rest of your argument is. By itself, the following argument is pretty worthless:

 

A fetus is a person.

It's wrong to kill a person.

Therefore, it's wrong to kill a fetus.

 

  For we don't know what the author means by calling a fetus "a person." On some interpretations of "person," it might be quite obvious that a fetus is a person; but quite controversial whether it's always wrong to kill persons, in that sense of "person." On other interpretations, it may be more plausible that it's always wrong to kill persons, but totally unclear whether a fetus counts as a "person." So everything turns here on what the author means by "person." The author should be explicit about how he is using this notion.

 

e. 다른 이의 관점 제시/평가(presenting and assesing the view of others)

 

❶ If you plan to discuss the views of Philosopher X, begin by figuring out what his arguments or central assumptions are.

❷ Then ask yourself: Are X's arguments good ones? Are his assumptions clearly stated? Are they plausible? Are they reasonable starting-points for X's argument, or ought he have provided some independent argument for them?

 

- 상대방(철학자)의 말이 정말 내가 이해하는 그 말인지 숙고하기

- 상대방(철학자)의 관점이 무엇에 의해 추동되고 왜 매력적인지 이해하기

- 상대방(철학자)을 비판하기 위해서는 우선 독자에게 상대방의 관점을 설명해야 하며, 그 경우 보고서의 내용과 직접적으로 관련되는 부분만을 설명할 것

- 상대방(철학자)을 해석하는 과정에서 상대방이 명시적으로 말하지 않았더라도 말하려 했던 바를 논의할 수 있지만, 그 경우 내가 그렇게 하고 있음을 보고서에서 명시해야 함

  ex) Philosopher X doesn't explicitly say that P, but it seems to me that he's assuming it anyway, because ~

- 상대방(철학자)을 해석하기 위해서 예시를 들어도 좋고, 필요하다면 다른 학자의 관점과 혼동을 막는 차원에서 상대방의 관점과 다른 학자의 관점을 구별해도 좋음

 

e`. 다른 이의 관점 제시/평가하는 방법

Quotation (직접 인용)	Paraphrase (간접 인용)
-원문의 어떤 구절이 상대방(철학자)의 관점에 대한 나의 해석을 지지하는 데에 특별히 유용할 때 -아주 낮은 빈도로 몇 문장 정도의 분량만 -자기 설명을 대체해서는 안 되며, 하면 끝이 아니라 인용문에 대해서도 나만의 설명이 여전히 필요 (주장이 인용에 포함된다면 그 주장을 명시적으로 재구성해야 하고, 인용에 숨은 전제나 주장이 있다면 밝혀야 함.)	-단어를 바꾸고 몇몇 부분을 빠뜨리는 식으로 기계적으로 해서는 필자가 원문을 제대로 이해한 거라고 보이지 않음 -필자 자신의 말로 원문의 내용을 표현하되 원문의 의미를 바꿔서는 안 됨

 

e``. 간접 인용의 나쁜 예와 좋은 예

- 원문

All the perceptions of the human mind resolve themselves into two distinct kinds, which I shall call impressions and ideas. The difference betwixt these consists in the degrees of force and liveliness, with which they strike upon the mind, and make their way into our thought or consciousness. Those perceptions, which enter with most force and violence, we may name impressions; and under this name I comprehend all our sensations, passions, and emotions, as they make their first appearance in the soul. By ideas I mean the faint images of these in thinking and reasoning. (David Hume, Treatise of Human Nature)

- 간접 인용의 나쁜 예

Hume says all perceptions of the mind are resolved into two kinds, impressions and ideas. The difference is in how much force and liveliness they have in our thoughts and consciousness. The perceptions with the most force and violence are impressions. These are sensations, passions, and emotions. Ideas are the faint images of our thinking and reasoning.

  Hume says that impressions "strike upon the mind" with more force and liveliness than ideas do. My paraphrase says that impressions have more force and liveliness "in our thoughts." It's not clear whether these are the same thing. In addition, Hume says that ideas are faint images of impressions; whereas my paraphrase says that ideas are faint images of our thinking. These are not the same. So the author of the paraphrase appears not to have understood what Hume was saying in the original passage.

- 간접 인용의 좋은 예

Hume says that there are two kinds of 'perceptions,' or mental states. He calls these impressions and ideas. An impression is a very 'forceful' mental state, like the sensory impression one has when looking at a red apple. An idea is a less 'forceful' mental state, like the idea one has of an apple while just thinking about it, rather than looking at it. It is not so clear what Hume means here by 'forceful.' He might mean...

 

f. 반론 예상(anticipate objections)

- 독자가 반론을 제기하는 것보다 나으니, 스스로 반론을 예상해서 그 반론을 어떻게 재반박하거나 극복할 수 있는지(can be countered or overcome) 설명할 것

- 예상되는 모든 반론을 다 다룰 수는 없으니, 가장 강력하고 중대한(the strongest or the most pressing) 반론에 집중할 것

 

g. 막힐 경우(if you're stuck)

- 어떤 관점이 불분명한 경우 불분명하다고 말해도 됨

 

  If something in a view you're examining is unclear to you, don't gloss it over. Call attention to the unclarity. Suggest several different ways of understanding the view. Explain why it's not clear which of these interpretations is correct.

 

- 두 입장 중 하나를 선택하지 않아도 괜찮음

 

  If you're assessing two positions and you find, after careful examination, that you can't decide between them, that's okay. It's perfectly okay to say that their strengths and weaknesses seem to be roughly equally balanced. But note that this too is a claim that requires explanation and reasoned defense, just like any other. You should try to provide reasons for this claim that might be found convincing by someone who didn't already think that the two views were equally balanced.

 

- 만족스러운 답을 제시할 수 없는 문제를 제기하고 탐구해도 괜찮음

 

  Your paper doesn't always have to provide a definite solution to a problem, or a straight yes or no answer to a question. Many excellent philosophy papers don't offer straight yes or no answers. Sometimes they argue that the question needs to be clarified, or that certain further questions need to be raised. Sometimes they argue that certain assumptions of the question need to be challenged. Sometimes they argue that certain answers to the question are too easy, that is, they won't work. Hence, if these papers are right, the question will be harder to answer than we might previously have thought. These are all important and philosophically valuable results.

  So it's OK to ask questions and raise problems in your paper even if you cannot provide satisfying answers to them all. You can leave some questions unanswered at the end of the paper. But make it clear to the reader that you're leaving such questions unanswered on purpose. And you should say something about how the question might be answered, and about what makes the question interesting and relevant to the issue at hand.

 

- 받아치기 힘든 반론이 제기되어도 괜찮음

 

  Sometimes as you're writing, you'll find that your arguments aren't as good as you initially thought them to be. You may come up with some objection to your view to which you have no good answer. Don't panic. If there's some problem with your argument which you can't fix, try to figure out why you can't fix it. It's okay to change your thesis to one you can defend. Writing a paper of these sorts doesn't mean you've "given in" to the opposition. After all, neither of these papers commits you to the view that not-P. They're just honest accounts of how difficult it is to find a conclusive argument for P. P might still be true, for all that.

 

  ex 1) One philosophical view says that P. This is a plausible view, for the following reasons... However, there are some reasons to be doubtful whether P. One of these reasons is X. X poses a problem for the view that P because... It is not clear how the defender of P can overcome this objection.

  ex 2) One argument for P is the 'Conjunction Argument,' which goes as follows... At first glance, this is a very appealing argument. However, this argument is faulty, for the following reasons... One might try to repair the argument, by... But these repairs will not work, because... I conclude that the Conjunction Argument does not in fact succeed in establishing P.

 

③ 퇴고하고, 계속 퇴고하기(rewrite, and keep rewriting)

 

a. 따져 물어라.

  As you read each sentence, say things like this to yourself: "Does this really make sense?" "That's totally unclear!" "That sounds pretentious." "What does that mean?" "What's the connection between these two sentences?" "Am I just repeating myself here?" and so on.

 

b. 모든 문장이 쓸모 있는지 검토하라.

  Make sure every sentence in your draft does useful work. Get rid of any which don't. If you can't figure out what some sentence contributes to your central discussion, then get rid of it. Even if it sounds nice. You should never introduce any points in your paper unless they're important to your main argument, and you have the room to really explain them.

 

c. 말하고 싶은 바를 정확하게 썼는지 검토하라.

  Make sure your sentences say exactly what you want them to say. For example, suppose you write "Abortion is the same thing as murder." Is that what you really mean? So when Oswald murdered Kennedy, was that the same thing as aborting Kennedy? Or do you mean something different? Perhaps you mean that abortion is a form of murder. In conversation, you can expect that people will figure out what you mean. But you shouldn't write this way. Even if your TA is able to figure out what you mean, it's bad writing. In philosophical prose, you have to be sure to say exactly what you mean.

 

d. 글 전체의 구조를 검토하라.

  Also pay attention to the structure of your draft. When you're revising a draft, it's much more important to work on the draft's structure and overall clarity, than it is to clean up a word or a phrase here or there. Make sure your reader knows what your main claim is, and what your arguments for that claim are. Make sure that your reader can tell what the point of every paragraph is. It's not enough that you know what their point is. It has to be obvious to your reader, even to a lazy, stupid, and mean reader.

 

e. 퇴고하는 방법

- 초고 완성 하루이틀 뒤에 하라

- 동료에게 읽혀보라

- 소리내어 읽어보라

- 적어도 서너 번은 하라

 

-Jim Pryor (Professor, Dept of Philosophy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

(출처 : http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html)