Skilful Thinking

Skilful Thinking
An Introduction to
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
Philosophical Skills
Skilful Thinking
An Introduction to
Philosophical Skills
GJ Rossouw (Ed.)
HPP Ltter
P Serfontein
J Snyman
PJJ van Veuren
Translation by Craig MacKenzie
HSRC Publishers
Pretoria
1994
The Authors, 1994

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or
by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information
storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
ISBN 0-7969-1592-X
First edition 1994
Electronic data capture: Mari Nel

Cover design: Ronell Lareman
Published by:
HSRC Publishers
134 Pretorius Street
PRETORIA 0002
Printed by: HSRC Printers
Contents
Page
Introduction
Chapter 1
Attitude and virtues for skilful thinking
GJ Rossouw
1.
Basic attitude towards thinking
2.
Virtues for skilful thinking
2.1 Intellectual tolerance
2.2 Intellectual fairness
2.3 Honesty about your prejudices
2.4 Willingness to analyse
2.5 Willingness to systematise
2.6 Willingness to experiment
2.7 Intellectual perseverance
3.
Summary
Chapter 2
Concepts, meaning and definition
GJ Rossouw
1.
Problems caused by concepts
1.1 Ambiguity
1.2 Vagueness
1.3 Unfamiliarity
1.4 Emotive words
2.
Guidelines for dealing with problems of meaning
2.1 Ambiguity and vagueness
2.2 Unfamiliarity
2.3 Emotive words
3.
Conclusion
Chapter 3
Reading, understanding and judging philosophical texts
HPP Ltter
1.
Where does one begin?
2.
Historical circumstances
1
4
4
6
6
7
7
8
9
10
10
11
12
12
13
13
14
15
16
16
21
23
24
25
26
26
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Sentences and paragraphs

Central problem or question
Conclusions
Analysis of arguments
Reasons (premisses)
Tracing of assumptions
With whom is the debate?
Critical reading of a text
The text in relation to other texts
Creative reading
Chapter 4
Reading reconstructively
PJJ van Veuren
1.
Philosophical texts
2.
How does one read philosophical texts?
3.
Philosophical genres
4.
Guidelines for the reading of philosophical texts
4.1 Indications in the text itself
5.
Reconstructive reading demonstrated by an example
5.1 What are the subject and the main thesis?
5.2 How does the argument unfold?
5.3 The argumentative cohesion of Russells essay
5.4 Is the argumentation in the essay acceptable?
6.
Concluding remarks
Chapter 5
Fallacious arguments
PJJ van Veuren
1.
Fallacies of irrelevance
1.1 Appeal to authority
1.2 The straw man fallacy
1.3 The genetic fallacy
1.4 The fallacy of ambiguity
2.
Fallacies of insufficient evidence
2.1 The fallacy of hasty generalisation
3.
Analogical arguments and the fallacy of weak analogy
4.
Conclusion
27
28
29
31
32
33
35
36
37
38
41
41
41
43
46
46
49
51
52
57
58
61
63
64
65
66
67
69
70
70
72
76
Chapter 6
The research process
HPP Ltter
1.
Research
2.
Steps in the research process
2.1 Find out what you must do
2.2 Designing a research project
3.
Style?
4.
Bibliography and sources
5.
Scheme of presentation
5.1 Gathering of data
5.2 Interpret, organise, structure and write
6.
Conclusion
Chapter 7
The bibliographic search
P Serfontein
1.
The search
2.
How to use the Philosophers Index
Chapter 8
Bibliography and source references
P Serfontein
1.
The alphabetical source list
2.
Source references within the text
3.
The use of foot- and endnotes
Chapter 9
The writing of a philosophy essay
JJ Snyman
1.
Preparatory work
1.1 Questions about the assignment
1.2 A first sketch of the end-product
1.3 The big question
1.4 The provisional scheme
1.5 The first draft
2.
The making of the end-product
77
77
78
78
80
80
81
82
82
84
85
86
87
89
90
90
93
95
96
96
97
97
99
100
100
100
3.
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Body
2.3 Conclusion
The end-product
Chapter 10
Types of essays in philosophy
JJ Snyman
1. Paraphrasing and summarising
2. Reconstruction of an argument/problem
3. Argue/reason
4. Interpretative representation
5. Two general problems
5.1 The issue of a personal opinion
5.2 The subjective judgement of the lecturer
Chapter 11
Study management
HPP Ltter
1. Introduction
2. Gathering of information
3. Planning
4. Carrying out a programme
5. Conclusion
Chapter 12
Time management
GJ Rossouw
1.
Five big consumers of time
1.1 Postponing
1.2 Tolerating too many interruptions
1.3 Doing petty tasks while the big task is left undone
1.4 Working without a plan
1.5 Saying yes too easily
2.
Good utilisation of time
2.1 On which things am I wasting my time?
2.2 In what should I invest my time?
101
102
102
103
106
106
107
108
110
111
111
112
114
114
115
116
117
119
120
120
120
121
121
122
122
123
123
124
3.
2.3 How can I utilise my time better?

Conclusion
125
128
Chapter 13
Writing a test and taking exams in Philosophy

Snyman
1. Preparation for the test and the examination
2. The class test
3. The real philosophy test and examination
4. Answering a philosophy question paper
12
129
129
130
133
Recommended reading
138
Introduction
GJ Rossouw
Almost from the start the decade of the nineties became

known as the information decade, indicating that the
greatest challenge facing humanity is the manipulation and
management of information. There is the growing awareness
that the mass of information known to humanity at this stage
only has value once it has been selected in an accessible way
and is then well managed. Furthermore, it has also been
realised that the information that you yourself want to
disseminate must not only be sound in content, but must also
be neatly packaged, clear and user-friendly. If this is not so,
your information has only a limited chance to make an
impression on the already saturated information-market. The
management of information has thus become one of the
greatest demands on the person of the nineties.
Skilful Thinking has been specifically designed to guide
people who have to deal with philosophical texts, or texts in
which arguments are employed, to access, manage and
present information and arguments. For this reason,
attention is given chiefly to three skills.
* Firstly, the emphasis falls on certain thinking skills that
the reader or writer of such texts should develop. These
include skills like formulating arguments clearly and
unambiguously, thinking analytically and being able to
judge arguments and identify fallacies.
1
* Secondly, a series of strategies are proposed for the

reading and writing of texts, for example, how to ensure
that a text is read in context, how to analyse and evaluate
a text, and also how to build and write an argumentative
text yourself.
* Skills alone are not enough. They must also be correctly

applied. Thirdly, therefore, the management skills that
must be available to a reader or writer of such texts are
looked at. In this respect attention is given to tracing and
accessing information, the demands of the research
process, the management of time and the preparation for
tests and examinations.
What makes Skilful Thinking a unique book is the
combination of the above-mentioned skills. It is particularly
user-friendly for the South African reader because it takes
the unique nature of our schools and universities into
account. It has been written on a level that is easily
accessible to a person who, after his or her schooling,
continues with a career or studies in which texts of a
philosophical or argumentative nature occur. More than
merely a theoretical introduction, this book can also be used
as a workbook in the teaching situation. This indeed is how
Skilful Thinking originated. It developed from an earlier
publication, namely, Learn to Philosophise. Incorporating
the needs and commentary of students and lecturers in
Philosophy, the book was revised and changed until it
reached its present form.
There are three categories of readers who will benefit from
this book. Firstly, it is a guide and workbook for students of
Philosophy in the mastery of those skills which are assumed
in that discipline. Secondly, it is an aid for lecturers in this
subject area to train students systematically in the mastery
2
of the abovementioned skills. Thirdly, it is a useful

introduction to thinking and writing skills for those who in
their studying or working deal with argumentative texts.
The skills that will be mastered, therefore, are skills which

are highly prized in most professions. A publication of the
American Philosophical Association shows that the
mastering of the kinds of skills which are dealt with in a
book like Skilful Thinking puts one in a position to do,
among other things, the following:
It enables you to do research and gather and organize

information in a wide range of subject areas.
It helps you to write clearly and effectively.
It promotes both written and verbal communication.
It leads to the generating of creative ideas.
It helps with the formulation and solution of problems.
It helps with the identification of hidden assumptions

and with the articulation of alternative perspectives on
an issue.
It helps you to convince other people of the validity of

new or unknown ideas.
It puts you in a position to sum up complex ideas

without oversimplification.
It helps you to integrate and explain diverse data with

the assistance of useful analogies.
It facilitates adjustment to unknown circumstances.
Moreover, it also puts you in a position to convey to

others effectively and economically the knowledge at
your disposal.
3
Attitude and virtues for

skilful thinking
GJ Rossouw
The misconception exists that the mastering of certain thinking

techniques and thinking strategies is all that one needs in order
to think critically and creatively. It is unfortunately not so
simple. To begin with, a certain attitude towards thinking is
necessary and, secondly, one must also possess certain virtues
or traits of mind. This basic attitude towards thinking, as well as
the virtues required to allow critical and creative thinking to
develop, will be described in this chapter.
1.
BASIC ATTITUDE TOWARDS THINKING
The starting point for the development of thinking skills is

surely the conviction that it is important to be able to think well
and in a sophisticated fashion. Only when you have this
conviction will you be prepared to take the trouble to acquire
the virtues, techniques and strategies that are necessary to allow
critical and creative thinking to develop. There are various good
reasons to support the conviction that thinking skills are
important. Consider, for example, the following:
Sound thinking can reduce errors

When you reflect carefully and thoroughly on an issue, you
reduce the chance of making errors both in your
argumentation and also in your actions. Errors that are
committed as a result of superficial or sloppy thinking

not only lead to intellectual or personal embarrassment,
but also possibly to financial loss, human suffering and
many other negative consequences. No one can ever
foresee all the possible consequences of their thinking
and planning, but sophisticated thinking can certainly
help us to foresee a great number of implications and
thus we can try to prevent negative consequences.
Considered actions are better than impulsive actions

People have no option other than to live together.
Whether we like it or not, we must simply get on with
each other. In this co-existence with each other we are
on the one hand, searching for security and on the other
hand, we also want to make progress with respect to the
activities in which we may be engaged. Human activity
can be motivated in a variety of ways. It can, for
example, be motivated by emotion, or will, or rational
thinking. In respect of both security and progress we do
better when we act thoughtfully and therefore consistently, rather than when we merely act impulsively and
give in to what our emotions or will might dictate to us
at a given moment. This does not mean that we must try
to escape the dimension of our will or feeling. It merely
means that we will make better decisions and will
therefore experience more security and progress when
our decisions are based on sound thinking. This
commitment to sound, rational thinking is indeed also
the cornerstone upon which the entire edifice of modern
science is built.
The abundance of information demands sound thinking
A characteristic of the present era is that we are

confronted with more information than we can handle. It
is simply no longer possible to work through all of the
5
information relating to ones subject thoroughly. The

greatest demand that this situation places upon one is to
develop strategies to help one to get a grip on this mass
of information. Instead of just beginning anywhere and
seeing how far one can get and how much one can
handle, one progresses much better when one
approaches the still-growing mass of information with a
calculated thinking strategy. Sophisticated thinking,
therefore, helps one get a grip on the present-day mass
of information and in so doing, makes it manageable and
useful.
The above reasons (and certainly also a number of other
reasons that you can add) should be enough to bring one to
an awareness of the importance of sophisticated thinking, as
well as to a readiness to learn relevant thinking skills. In
short, it can be said that the acquisition of thinking skills
can only begin when someone can answer the following
question positively and in a motivated fashion: Are
thinking skills important? When this first stumbling-block
in the way of the mastery of thinking skills is overcome,
further attention should be given to those virtues or
character traits that are indispensable for any sophisticated
thinker.
2.
VIRTUES FOR SKILFUL THINKING
2.1 Intellectual tolerance

When you think critically and creatively, you do not usually
do it in isolation. You engage in an ongoing discussion with
other people and texts. It is mostly in your critical
engagement with these people or texts that new or better
ideas are born. The first attribute of a sophisticated thinker
is therefore the willingness to listen to, to investigate and to
6
understand the ideas of others. When you summarily reject

ideas or arguments that you do not like or with which you
cannot immediately agree, you significantly diminish your
chances of gaining new and enriching insights. Intellectual
tolerance is precisely the virtue that makes you willing to
take new or strange ideas seriously and to give them a
chance. This prevents over-hasty judgements, because it
defers judgement until a thorough understanding of the
arguments has taken place.
2.2 Intellectual fairness

Closely related to the virtue of tolerance is the virtue of
intellectual fairness. This means that you do not declare an
argument to be totally useless upon the slightest suggestion
of a weakness or a falsehood in it. Intellectual fairness
demands that you will not succumb to irrelevant hairsplitting or ill-conceived criticism. It demands further that
you will accept in good faith that the person whose
argument you are listening to or analysing is not an idiot.
Intellectual tolerance thus puts you in a position in which
you will not prematurely discredit ideas and arguments or
suggest that they are ridiculous.
2.3 Honesty about your prejudices
The other side of the coin of intellectual fairness is honesty
with regard to your own prejudices, preferences and
sentiments. When you are prepared to admit to yourself
what your prejudices, preferences and sentiments are, you
will at the same time also realise that you tend summarily to
dismiss or avoid ideas and arguments with which you are in
conflict. You will realise that your prejudices can easily
prevent you from discovering new ideas or broadening your
7
perspectives. When honesty about your own prejudices has

brought you to this insight, you will naturally be more
cautious when facing ideas and arguments that differ from
your established ideas. Not only will you then have more
understanding of your unwillingness to take those ideas
seriously, but you will hopefully also be prepared to give
such ideas a second chance. In other words you will be more
prepared to investigate those ideas or arguments with
intellectual fairness and intellectual tolerance.
These first three virtues deal chiefly with our willingness to
take the large diversity in texts and arguments seriously. The
remaining virtues, which will now be discussed, deal with the
way in which such texts should be handled.
2.4 Willingness to analyse

The process of critical and creative thinking can only begin
when we are prepared to analyse texts or arguments. By way
of explanation it is useful to compare an argument with a
building. Analysis means that we should be able to identify
the parts from which it is built, i.e. we should be able to
separate the bricks from which the argument is constructed
and should be able to demonstrate how the different bricks
relate to each other to finally form the greater argument (or
construction). Only once we are able to expose the bricks
and the structure of an argument can we begin to make all
kinds of judgements about the argument itself. We can then,
for example, judge whether the bricks are really strong
enough, or whether they fit alongside each other adequately,
or whether they can be improved, or indeed whether it
would be better to reject them altogether and rather replace
them with alternative bricks. It is of the greatest importance
that we are prepared to look analytically not only at the
8
arguments of others, but that we are also willing to be

analytical about our own arguments.
2.5 Willingness to systematise
It is not enough, however, only to analyse or to dismantle

arguments. We should also be in a position to systematise
to put arguments together. This virtue has implications for
the sophisticated thinker on two levels in particular. In the
first place it demands that we bring the different bricks of an
argument into a logical relationship with each other. Once
again, this applies both to the construction of our own
arguments and also to the understanding and assessment of
another persons arguments. In this respect it is of the
greatest importance to develop sensitivity to logical
coherence. One must always seek that golden thread that
runs right through an argument and that binds different parts
of an argument together.
Secondly, you should also ask how the argument fits into
the greater context in which it functions. Arguments never
arise and exist in isolation. They are mostly reactions to a
series of preceding events or arguments. Arguments
therefore always have a specific context. The willingness to
be systematic asks of us (on this second level) that we be
prepared to demonstrate where this argument fits into the
greater context. You should be able to indicate into which
kind of debate it fits and how it differs from other arguments
in such a debate. It is often the case that we only grasp the
value of an argument or an idea when we see it in
relationship with other arguments or ideas on the same
subject. Furthermore, it is also good to know that new and
creative ideas very often emerge in this attempt to bring a
9
variety of arguments and ideas into relationship with each

other.
2.6 Willingness to experiment
An important characteristic of sophisticated thinkers is their

courage and willingness to investigate alternatives. They are
not content with that which is offered to them or with
criticism on that which is offered. Creative thinkers always
go one step further and ask: Can it not also be otherwise?
This willingness to experiment with new ideas, other
perspectives or alternative arguments is not a talent that is
available only to some people. It is a virtue that can be
nurtured by self-discipline and the right attitude. It is only
when this willingness to experiment has become part of your
mental equipment that you can collaborate really creatively
with regard to the improvement of ideas and arguments, and
the creation of new perspectives and approaches.
2.7 Intellectual perseverance
A last virtue and here it is certainly a case of last but not
least that is indispensable for the sophisticated thinker is
the virtue of intellectual perseverance. There is no instant
approach to critical and creative thinking. Indeed, this kind
of thinking demands the opposite. It requires that you work
through texts and arguments systematically and sometimes
slowly and tiresomely. Most of all it requires that you go
back in your tracks and test your understanding and
assessment of an argument for a second or third time. Sound
thinking requires self-discipline and perseverance.
Sophisticated thinking and a dedicated and self-disciplined
work pattern therefore go hand in hand.
10
3.
SUMMARY
The circle is now complete. The dedication and selfdiscipline that is spoken of above will only follow when the
basic conviction exists that sound thinking is important.
Thus we end where we began. Before a basic conviction
exists that sophisticated thinking is important, there will be
little motivation to nurture the seven thinking virtues that
are described above. These virtues of thinking in turn form
the basis for the mastery of those thinking techniques and
strategies that are necessary for the development of critical
and creative thinking.
11
Concepts, meaning and

definition
GJ Rossouw
Any philosophical text consists of three basic components,

namely words, sentences and arguments. Words are joined
together to form sentences and sentences are in turn
organised to form arguments. From this it appears that
words or concepts are the most basic building blocks of
philosophical arguments. Thus, if a mistake creeps into any
of these most basic components of philosophical argument,
we can expect that it will readily cause the argument as a
whole to founder on the rocks.
In this section of the basic skills that you need in order to be
able to analyse a philosophical argument or even to
construct one yourself, we are going to focus on guidelines
for the deft handling of concepts. We will begin with an
indication of some of the most general problems that
concepts can cause us. Thereafter, some guidelines will be
given as to ways in which these problems can be prevented.
1.
PROBLEMS CAUSED BY CONCEPTS
Although the list of problems that can be caused by words is

extensive, only the four most common problems occurring
in philosophical texts will be focused on here.
12
1.1 Ambiguity
The problem concerning ambiguity is well illustrated by the
following advertisement:
Mens jeans half off Friday only!
This utterance can clearly have two entirely different

meanings. On the one hand it can mean that mens trousers
will be sold at half the normal price on Friday. On the other
hand it can also mean that men must remove (or pull up)
their pants halfway on Friday only! There is thus a clear
ambiguity around the concept half off. The problem of
ambiguity is unfortunately not just restricted to
advertisements. It also appears in general and philosophical
texts and in philosophy essays written by students.
Ambiguity can be defined as that phenomenon of meaning in
which one word can take on more than one meaning in the
same text. In cases where such ambiguity occurs, it is very
important to determine which different meanings a word can
have in that specific case. When the ambiguity is not cleared
up, people can easily misunderstand each other. It leads not
only to an unnecessary waste of time and energy, but can
also cause great embarrassment, as for example in the case
of the half off jeans.
1.2 Vagueness
Vagueness must be sharply differentiated from ambiguity.
When a concept is vague, we have a good idea of what the
word means, but we are not sure of where precisely the
boundaries of the words meaning lie. In other words there
is uncertainty about what is included and what is excluded
by the word. Two examples in this connection will illustrate
the dilemma of vagueness:
13
Pornography: We all have a reasonable idea of what is

meant by pornography (for example, photo-magazines).
But precisely when do we have a pornographic photo?
What must stand out for it to be pornographic, or what
must be covered for us to label it as no longer
pornographic?
Poor people: We all know that poor people suffer a lack
of certain items. But what must someone lack before we
label such a person poor? Is someone who cannot afford
an overseas trip poor, or is it just someone who cannot
afford a house who is poor? Or is it simply people who
have no money to buy food who should be considered
poor?
In the light of the above cases it appears that we can

describe vagueness as that phenomenon of meaning where
doubt exists about the range of meaning of a concept.
Before the vagueness of the most important concepts in a
philosophical essay is cleared up, the point that the writer
wants to make is neither clear nor convincing.
1.3 Unfamiliarity
A problem often encountered by students of philosophy at the
beginning of their studies of the subject is that they are
bombarded by concepts that are entirely strange or unknown at
that early stage. As is the case with every other subject,
philosophers also make use of concepts specific to their
discipline. The purpose of this is not to try to sound learned,
but precisely to be able to formulate concepts with more
precision and clarity, because most of these terms have
acquired a well-defined meaning within the specific subject
area. Examples of such concepts that occur generally in
philosophy but which are possibly still unknown
14
to you are, among others, the following: a priori; a

posteriori; tabula rasa; ontology; epistemology; analytical
and synthetic judgements.
It goes without saying that your understanding and
interpretation of a text is seriously impeded when you come
up against such unknown concepts. It is unfortunately not
enough simply to consult a dictionary to solve these
problems regarding unfamiliarity, but more about this will
follow later.
1.4 Emotive words

Most words in our language elicit no emotion in us when we
see or hear them. Here for example we think of words like:
is, cupboard, book, or bench. Nevertheless there are a
number of words which indeed elicit a certain feeling in us.
This feeling which is associated with a certain word can be
of a negative or positive kind. Examples of words with a
negative connotation are: ridiculous, scandalous, rotten,
propaganda, underhanded, and many more. In contrast,
words like superior, fantastic, wonderful, in a class of its own,
elicit a positive feeling or emotional response in us. Words
that have either a negative or positive emotional value are
very useful in our everyday communication, but they must
be avoided at all costs in philosophical arguments or essays.
The reason for this is obvious: in philosophy we try to
convince other people of our cause by offering them good
reasons for our views. Therefore, we make an appeal to their
sober, sensible judgements to evaluate our arguments and
then if our arguments withstand their evaluation to
accept them. Philosophical arguments thus appeal to the
rationality of the audience.
15
However, if we were to make use of emotional words in a

philosophical argument, we would then violate the nature of
the philosophical discipline, because we would no longer
appeal to the rationality of another person, but rather to his
or her emotions. As soon as we drag positive or negative
emotions into a philosophical argument, we obstruct the
other persons capacity for rational judgement. To put it
another way using Copis words, passion tends to cloud the
reason (1986:94). It is for this reason that we must purify
our philosophical arguments of emotion-laden concepts.
2.
GUIDELINES FOR DEALING WITH PROBLEMS OF

MEANING
In this section which concerns how to avoid the problems

created by words in arguments described above, the focus
will fall chiefly on the ways in which you can prevent these
errors creeping into your own philosophical essays and
answers. The guidelines will be presented in the same
sequence as the problems have been discussed above.
2.1 Ambiguity and vagueness
These two phenomena will be dealt with together here, as
the same guideline applies to the handling of both problems.
The solution to both lies in definition. According to its
original Latin meaning, the word definition literally
means to border off. This is also precisely what we want
to achieve with the definition of problematic concepts. In
the case of ambiguous concepts we want to delineate or
distinguish the different possible meanings of a concept
from one another and isolate and indicate the specific
meaning that we are going to use in relation to the word.
Again, in the case of vagueness, we want to determine more
16
clearly the limitations of a concepts meaning with the aid of

a definition so that confusion will not arise over what is
included or excluded by a word.
However, the question is now: What does a definition look

like? How does one go about defining an ambiguous or
vague concept?
Although different methods of definition exist, a certain
method of definition has made its mark in philosophy. This
form of definition requires that you identify the
characteristics that are associated with a certain word.
Stated the other way round, you must be able to indicate
what characteristics an object or matter should have before
it qualifies to be named by a certain word. If, for example,
you want to define the word cow, you must be able to
indicate what characteristics are associated with the concept
cow. These are naturally characteristics like: belongs to the

cattle family, female animal, mammal, milk-producing, cudchewing and so forth. This form of definition is called
connotative definition, because it identifies those
characteristics which are connoted by the specific concept
(that is to say, it identifies those aspects which are generally
associated with the concept).
In order to facilitate connotative definition, a technique has
been devised which is known as definition in terms of class
and difference. This technique assumes that you will always
first indicate to which class of phenomena a certain concept
belongs and thereafter you will indicate in which respects
the concept differs from other phenomena in that class. An
example of such a definition in terms of class and difference
is the following: A key is an instrument which is used to
open and close locks. In this definition the class to which a
key belongs is defined as an instrument. The respect in
17
which a key differs from other objects which also belong to

the class of instruments is that it specifically opens and closes
locks.
In a definition like the one given above, we call the concept
that is being defined (key) the definiendum and the definition
itself the definiens. There are five basic rules which apply to
this technique of definition in terms of class and difference.
These five rules are:
The definition must indicate the core characteristics of

the concept (definiendum).
The definition should thus not only refer to those

characteristics which are associated with a particular
concept, but should specifically highlight those that are
unique.
It is for example totally inadequate to define a circle as
follows: A circle is a flat geometrical figure. The
unique characteristic of a circle, namely that it is round
(or that all points are equidistant from the middle point),
is lacking in the definition and this makes the definition
nebulous.
Definitions must not be circular.

By this is meant that the definition must not become a
mere repetition of the concept being defined.
An example of such a circular definition is: A golf club
is a club which is used in golf. The problem with
definitions of this sort is that they tell us nothing new
about the term which needs closer definition. It is
therefore not adequate simply to give a synonym of the
concept that is being defined. Antonyms or opposites
must also be avoided, because they still do not tell us
18
what the essential characteristics are that are associated

with the definiendum.
Definitions must not be too broad or too narrow.
By this is meant that the definition must not include

either too many or too few of the characteristics than are
normally associated with the word. The following is an
example of a definition that is too broad in other
words includes more than is normally meant by the
word: A person is a living being that stands on two
legs. This definition is too broad because doves,
chickens, and ostriches, for example, also possess the
same characteristics.
The following is an example of a definition that is too
narrow in other words which includes fewer of the
characteristics than are normally associated with the
word: A shoe is a covering for the foot that is made of
leather. This definition is too narrow because it
excludes objects that are generally regarded as shoes.
We can for example think of tennis shoes which are
made of canvas or synthetic material, and no one would
want to deny that clogs or canvas tackies are also shoes.
The definition must not be stated in figurative language.
Because the purpose of a definition is to clear up

uncertainty of meaning, it obviously follows that the.
definition must be formulated in simple, clear and
understandable language. However, when figurative
language or obscure concepts are used, this purpose is
frustrated. The following example illustrates this point
well: A wedding ring is a tourniquet which ends all
circulation. You will surely agree that although there is
something true in this definition, it in no way gives us an
indication of what a wedding ring really is. It also gives
19
us no indication of those unique characteristics that must

be possessed by an object before it can be described as a
wedding ring.
As far as possible a definition should not be formulated

negatively.
The motivation for this rule is that it is precisely the

purpose of a definition to say what we should
understand by a certain concept. When the definition is
formulated in negative language, it tells us what a
certain matter or object is not. In such a case we still do
not know what we are to understand by the concept
being defined. All that we know is what we are not to
understand by the concept. An example will illustrate
the point well: Socialism is not capitalism. Although it
is true that socialism is not capitalism, it is also true that
socialism is not a car or a cow or a building. Thus a
negative (or disavowing) definition does not succeed in
lifting out those unique characteristics that are
associated with the word socialism.
When you have to write an essay in your philosophy course,
it is advisable always to ask yourself the following two
questions:
What is meant by the concepts that appear in the
instruction?
Before you begin to write an essay or to answer a question,
you should first make sure that you know precisely what is
meant by the concepts in the instructions. You should also
make sure that no ambiguous and/or vague concepts appear
in the instructions. If such concepts do indeed appear, you
should first clear up the ambiguity and/or vagueness. Should
you receive an instruction like the following:
20
Does the state have an obligation to guarantee the security

of poor people?, you should ascertain first of all whether all
the concepts are clear. In the abovementioned case there are
two conspicuous problematic concepts, namely:
Security: Does security mean the safety of people in their
houses or does it mean financial security? This concept is
ambiguous and you must indicate by means of a definition
what you take the concept security to mean for the
purposes of the essay.
Poor people: Who are poor people? Who is included here?
The concept is thus vague and similarly requires definition
before you can meaningfully answer the instruction.
Are the key terms you are using unambiguous and clear?
You should not only just look critically at the instructions

that are given to you; you should also be critical with regard
to your own work too. Therefore check your work to prevent
ambiguous and vaguely formulated sentences.
In conclusion: Make this sensitivity with regard to
ambiguity and vagueness a part of your own philosophical
equipment. Always be on the look-out for these errors in
any philosophical text or argument that you read. It will
significantly strengthen your judgement if you have
mastered this technique.
2.2. Unfamiliarity
The problem of unfamiliar words will naturally occur not
so much in your own writing, but in the reading you should
do before you begin to write. Suppose you encounter a word
21
that is unknown to you, how do you go about solving the

problem?
The first and most obvious solution is to consult a
dictionary. It is not to be denied that a dictionary can be of
great help. Nevertheless it is entirely inadequate when tracing
the meanings of unknown words in philosophy. This can
easily be illustrated by way of an unknown concept like a
priori, which you will encounter in Kants philosophy, for
example.
Should you consult an Afrikaans-English dictionary like
Bosman, Hiemstra and Van der Merwes bilingual dictionary
you will merely get the following entry:
a priori, a priori.
It merely supplies an Afrikaans rendering of the term. Should

you go to an explanatory dictionary, you might get the
following entry:
a priori (L) Previously considered, from before: ascertain
something a priori, before it is seen or investigated.
This entry helps us somewhat, because it lists synonyms
better known to us. We now know that a priori has something
to do with something that has occurred before, but precisely
what it means is still not clear. In any event, we still do not
know what the precise technical meaning of the concept is in
the discipline of philosophy.
In order to get other clues, we can go to a philosophical
dictionary. In Flews Dictionary of Philosophy, for example,
you will find the following entry:
a priori (Latin for. from what comes before.) A
distinction between sorts of statements or propositions
based on how one may acquire knowledge of their truth.
22
...An a priori proposition is one that can be known to be

true, or false, without reference to experience, except in so
far as experience is necessary for understanding its terms.
This definition of a priori puts you in a position for the first
time to venture a preliminary definition of the concept. It
appears that a priori refers to a general class of knowledge
and that it specifically indicates that type of knowledge that
we naturally possess (in other words, knowledge that we
have not acquired through learning).
However, this definition has only the status of a preliminary

definition, because we are now working with Flews
interpretation of what in general is meant by the concept a
priori. You should check now whether this is also what Kant
meant by the term a priori. In the light of the specific content
that Kant assigns to the concept a priori, you will then be
able to provide a final definition of the concept in Kants
philosophy.
2.3 Emotive words
As was indicated earlier, the problem with emotive words is
that they jeopardise the rationality of a philosophical
argument, because they make an appeal to a persons
emotions rather than to his or her reason. Emotive words
must therefore be eradicated from philosophical essays and
arguments at all costs.
The implication of this for your own philosophy essays is
that you must avoid words like ridiculous (negative) or
fantastic (positive). It is perfectly normal to be either
impressed or irritated by a particular philosophical argument. You are more than welcome to be either impressed by
or irritated with Derridas philosophy, for example.
23
However, you must not reflect in an emotional way the fact

that a particular philosopher impresses or irritates you.
Rather give a number of good reasons why you have judged
a philosopher in such a positive or negative way. In any
case, you will then have a much better chance of also
convincing other philosophers of your judgement.
3.
CONCLUSION
Always remember that neat thinking is reflected in the neat

use of words. Those smallest elements of a philosophical
argument, namely words, are often the best indication of the
tidiness of your thinking.
Bibliography
Copi, I. M. 1986. Informal Logic. New York: Macmillan.
24
Reading, understanding
and judging
philosophical texts
HPP Ltter
A philosophical text can be read in different ways and often

different people do not see the same things in the text. Some
guidelines are given below which can help the reader of a
philosophical text to read, understand and judge the text
thoroughly and with good comprehension (whether the text
is an original work of an important philosopher or
discussions of, and commentary on, the views of such a
philosopher).
It is characteristic of philosophy that one often reads the
same text (or parts thereof) whether one is a beginner or an
experienced reader. The reason for this is that in philosophy
one learns to crawl, to walk and to run over the same
landscape (Rosenberg 1984:93). Beginners in philosophy
must become familiar with examples of good philosophy
and often these are the same texts as those studied by
experienced philosophers. What varies through ones
development as a student of philosophy is not the objects of
ones encounters, but the form and depth of ones
encounters (Rosenberg 1984:93).
25
1.
WHERE DOES ONE BEGIN?
The best place to begin is probably to read the text through

attentively to gain an insight into the general drift of it to
discover something about its subject matter or content. Mark
the things that look important and note what appears strange
or incomprehensible, unclear or confused. Because the
words of a text only communicate when they are linked in
an orderly and meaningful fashion, the reading of a text
begins with a tracing of the manner in which a writer has
organised his words. Writers of books and articles arrange
the words that they write according to a certain pattern, and
the first step for the good reader is to lay bare this pattern or
organisation of the text. Try thus to set up a provisional
scheme or structure that agrees with the pattern or
organisation of the text. After this process a number of steps
can be followed to try to gain further access to the text.
2.
HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Try as far as possible to gain an understanding of the

historical circumstances in which a particular philosopher
lived. Questions like the following might be asked: How did
the people of those times live? What were the important
events of that time to which the philosopher is possibly
reacting? What form of government existed and what
religion was dominant? The answers to some of these
questions will make it that much easier to understand why
certain things were experienced and seen as problems and
why certain proposals were made in this regard. Try to
determine, in turn, which (if any) of the following factors
possibly influenced the writing of a text: political, social,
religious, cultural, ideological, scientific, and so forth.
26
3.
SENTENCES AND PARAGRAPHS
In any given paragraph every sentence has a function that

links it to surrounding sentences. These connections
between sentences can be traced by asking: what role does
this sentence play in relation to that which preceded it or to
that which follows? Note that sentences can either support
or contradict and undermine each other.
Just as sentences have certain functions, so do paragraphs.

Thus, as you read through a text, so the possible function of
each paragraph should be noted in the margin. There are
various functions that paragraphs can fulfil. The following
are some of the general functions:
(i)
a general introduction to the text;
(ii)
a more specific introduction to a certain problem,

question or theme which is touched on in the text;
(iii)
a discussion of a problem or theme;
(iv)
examples or illustrations of a problem or given issue;
(v)
elements of a discussion or argument;
(vi)
supporting evidence, data or information;
(vii) a transition between

problems, etc.;
different
themes,
ideas,
(viii) a definition;
(ix)
a summary of what has been written so far;
(x)
an inference or conclusion, and
(xi)
an end or closing argument.
The reader of a philosophical text must be aware of the fact

that some parts of a text are usually more important than
27
others, depending on the purpose in reading such a text,

namely to understand it, to judge it, etc.
4.
CENTRAL PROBLEM OR QUESTION
It is very important to grasp what a specific philosopher

identifies as the questions and problems he wants to discuss
and solve. Note what Magee (1974:67) has to say in this
regard in his book, Popper: If one studies the work, of say, a
philosopher, the first question one asks oneself is: what
problem is he trying to solve? This may sound obvious, but
in my experience most students of philosophy are not taught
to ask this question and do not think to ask it themselves.
Rather they ask: What is he trying to say? As a result they
commonly have the experience of thinking they understand
what he is saying without seeing the point of saying it. For
only by understanding his problem-situation could they do
that.
The reason why it is important to know what problem or
question (or series of questions) is central, is that it
determines the value of the text that you are reading. You
should know to what question a writer is supplying an
answer or to what problem he/she is offering a solution in
order to determine the value of his/her contribution.
How would you go about determining what is the basic
question or problem ? Often the writer guides you by stating
it explicitly in the text. It often occurs at the beginning of a
text and you might even sometimes find it in the title. If it
appears at the beginning of the. text, it is often accompanied
by key words or phrases like:
(i)
The question that I want to discuss is ...
(ii) Is ... the right thing to do?

28
(iii) Ought ... to be done?

(iv) Why does ... not work?
(v) How does ... work?
If a writer does not state clearly what question or problem is
central to the text, the best way in which to infer it is to look
at the conclusion(s) that are arrived at in the text. As a
reader you can reasonably expect that the conclusion(s) that
are arrived at in a text will relate directly to the central
question/problem dealt with in the text. In such a case
tracing possible conclusions is thus the first important step.
5.
CONCLUSIONS
The most general approach to a philosophical text is to read

such a text in order to find out what a certain philosopher
thinks. If you read with this aim, a series of observations
and opinions are collected which are the answers supplied
by a certain philosopher to the problems he/she has
identified. From this a picture can be built up to indicate
what is being said in a certain text about, for example, the
human being, society or science - or aspects thereof.
By reading a philosophical text in this manner, a good
insight is gained into the content of the viewpoint it
contains, and the viewpoint can be named - given a name
and placed in a category. However important it is to perform
this task, it remains a starting-point. While you are busy
doing it, try especially to determine what the writers
original intention was as far as this is possible by the
answers that he/she supplies to the questions and problems
of his/ her time. Guard against interpreting his/her answers
too quickly in the light of your own worldview.
29
You can determine the answers that a certain philosophical

text gives most easily by searching for the conclusion(s) it
contains. You can begin looking for the conclusions by
asking: What does the writer want to prove or demonstrate?
Thus you should search for a proposition, or a collection of
these, that the writer wants the reader to accept on the
grounds of other propositions he/she presents. This search
assumes that texts that wish to convince a reader have the
following structure, namely This (conclusion) on the
grounds of that (reasons, arguments).
You often find a conclusion in the last paragraph of an

article or chapter, but it is not always there. It is also often
the case that the conclusions are dispersed throughout a text
and that different conclusions appear in different places in
the text.
Fortunately there are a number of clues to help a reader trace
conclusions. In cases where there is a clear indication of the
question or problem with which the text deals, you can
reasonably accept that a conclusion is a reaction to such a
question. Therefore, if a reader knows what the central
problem or question is, the boundaries of that which is
presented as a conclusion are very clearly demarcated.
A reader should also observe the role of certain key words
or phrases that can indicate a conclusion. Examples of these
are:
thus
in short
it follows that
(it) demonstrates that
(it) indicates that
proves that
30
we can deduce that

the point that I want to make
in my opinion
the most plausible explanation
suggests that
If a reader encounters these key words or phrases they

should be marked. Then the reader should check carefully to
see if what follows is indeed a conclusion. Sometimes such
key words or phrases are not used and then you should ask
yourself: where might the writer of this text have used them?
Conclusions can sometimes be traced by looking for them in
certain places in the text too. The most obvious places to
search for them are at the beginning and end of a text. Many
writers begin by stating the goal that they want to reach or
discuss in a text and many writers conclude a text with a
summary of the conclusions or important findings.
In the task of finding conclusions it can be of great help to

the reader to know clearly what conclusions are not. If one
knows this, the search is thus narrowed because large parts
of the text are excluded. A reader would be able to say with
reasonable certainty that a conclusion cannot be examples,
facts, definitions or background information. For this reason
it is important (as discussed earlier) to indicate clearly the
function of sentences and paragraphs.
The identification of conclusions in a philosophical text is
very important. If the reader fails here, virtually all further
steps in the reading of such a text will fail. Therefore take
exceptional care over this.
6.
ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS
If you understand what a certain philosopher is saying, what

the purport of his/her text is, and what insights it contains,
then the next step is to analyse the arguments which support
these insights. Thus you read a philosophical text not only
to find out what a philosopher thinks about a certain matter,
but especially why he or she thinks about it in this way. The
importance of a particular philosophical text often
31
lies in the manner in which a particular insight is discussed

and for this reason one must grasp the nature, structure and
validity of such supporting arguments.
Such a grasp assumes that insight is acquired into the

connection between different aspects and parts of a certain
text. Determine whether the various arguments hang
together or not; in other words, do the arguments support or
undermine each other? Now you might perhaps wonder:
what are the so-called arguments that must be analysed? An
argument is a group, collection or series of propositions
among which certain relationships exist. One (or more) of
these propositions contains a conclusion that according to
the writer requires further support. The other propositions
are points of departure or means of support. They are known
technically as premisses.
These premisses provide the reasons that must make the
conclusion acceptable. Rosenberg (1984:12) puts it thus:
The conclusion is what is argued for: the premisses are
what one argues from. Other propositions might help
clarify the connection between premisses and conclusion.
Naturally it is important that the validity of the arguments in
a philosophical text should be critically investigated. A
question that should be posed in this regard is whether the
reasons that the writer supplies are adequate support for his
or her conclusion(s).
7.
REASONS (premisses)
When a writer presents a conclusion for acceptance by the

reader he/she has an obligation to provide reasons: (i) to
convince the reader of his/her viewpoint and (ii) to
demonstrate why his/her viewpoint is right. For a writer it is
thus important to provide good reasons; for a reader it is
32
important to identify and judge the reasons. The value of a

writers conclusion(s) often depends on the quality of the
reasons that are presented by way of support.
It is important to note that there are different sorts of
reasons. In some cases empirical evidence is supplied as a
reason and in other cases moral, political or cultural values
provide the reason. Another matter of which the reader of
longer philosophical texts should be aware is that
conclusions already argued for are frequently supplied as
reasons in a subsequent discussion.
In order to trace reasons in a text, a reader must adopt a

strongly questioning attitude by asking: Why does this
conclusion make sense? or Why does the writer come to
this conclusion? or Why must I accept this viewpoint? To
find out what the writer presents in his/her text as answers
to these questions is to identify the reason(s) for his/her
conclusion(s).
With the identification of reasons there are also certain key
words or phrases which facilitate the search for reasons.
They are:
because
is supported by
in the first/second place
fact that
8.
for example
seeing that
as in the light of the
TRACING OF ASSUMPTIONS
In all philosophical texts certain convictions are present that

are accepted by the writer as self-evident. These sorts of
convictions, which are mostly not explicitly stated, are called
assumptions or suppositions. Such assumptions are the
invisible connections in the structure of an argument or
33
discussion and function, as it were the glue that holds the

whole argument together. You find assumptions by trying to
read between the lines. The identification of these is very
important, because often one cannot understand a certain
text very well until the assumptions that it contains are laid
bare.
The reader of a philosophical text is interested in

assumptions which affect the quality of the argumentative
structure of a text in other words, which influence the
reasons (premisses), conclusions and inferences of the text.
These elements of the argumentative structure are also
usually the places where one can look for assumptions.
However, how to find them is more difficult to illustrate.
One of the ways in which assumptions can be traced is by
asking yourself what the writer must have believed before
the reasons (premisses) could be joined to conclusions. You
could also ask why a specific reason supports a certain
conclusion. What might emerge from such an answer is that
the reason can only support a conclusion if other things are
tacitly postulated or assumed.
Two further strategies can help with the tracing of
assumptions. The one is to imagine that you yourself are
defending a certain conclusion. Think yourself into the
writers position creep into his or her skin, as it were
and try to think as the writer would have to have thought in
order to construct that argument. What would the writer
have had to believe in order to write his/her text?
Another strategy is to reverse this role and to see yourself as
someone who differs drastically from the writer. Now you
ask yourself how you would go about refuting the writers
viewpoint how you would be able to undermine his/her
argument in different ways and in different places. In this
34
manner a reader ought to discover anything that the writer

has not argued and simply assumed as self-evident. The
question that then remains is: Does the writer have good
reasons to make such an assumption? and Is it a credible
assumption?
One more remark must be made about assumptions.
Assumptions can belong to different categories. One can
find, for example, that a writer tacitly assumes certain
values, or accepts as true a specific definition of a concept,
or accepts a certain description of a given matter.
9.
WITH WHOM IS THE DEBATE?
Any good philosophical text emerges at a specific time and

place and this therefore means that a certain philosopher
writes a text within a certain context. He/she might react to
certain aspects of such a context and, in order to gain a good
understanding of the text, it is important to trace the texts,
events or phenomena in a society to which a philosopher
may be reacting. Questions like the following are asked:
From what does the philosopher fence him/ herself off?
To which problems is the philosopher reacting?
Which views does he or she want to refute?
With whom does he or she agree?
Which ideas does he or she take over?
How does he or she modify the way in which a certain
problem has been formulated up until now?
In this manner one can try to determine how a philosopher
modifies a certain problem by noting how this problem was
written about earlier and how it should be understood after
the contribution of this specific text is taken into account.
Such information later plays an important role in assessing
35
the contribution that a certain philosopher has made. Good

philosophical texts draw out new problems or bring new
dimensions and implications of existing problems to the
fore; they also indicate new directions where solutions can
be sought or even present imaginative solutions.
10. CRITICAL READING OF A TEXT
If a text has been analysed in the above manner, you can

move on to an evaluation of its different aspects. In order to
do this you can pose questions like the following: Are the
arguments valid? Are the premisses true? Is the problem
understood well and is it clearly formulated? You should
enquire further whether significant information, viewpoints
or arguments have not been left out which may perhaps have
altered the course of the writers argument.
This purpose of critical questioning of a philosophical text is
to discover shortcomings, limitations, contradictions,
fallacies, and so forth. The exercise demands that such a text
must first be well understood, because you should be in a
position to grasp what a philosophers answer might be to
this kind of critical questioning of his/her text. Rosenberg
(1984:95) asserts the following: Only when you achieve this
sort of imaginative and sympathetic understanding of a
philosophical stance can the critical attitude yield more than
superficial quibbles. Only then can your critique bear
importantly on what is essential to the view.
To read a text critically also means to indicate what new and
clarifying insights come to the fore, or what new
perspectives it opens. Are crucial questions defined in a new
manner so that original solutions can be presented? To what
extent do these new solutions succeed in answering the
traditional, vexatious questions?
36
11. THE TEXT IN RELATION TO OTHER TEXTS

It is of great importance to determine what impact a
philosophical text has made. This impact is seen in the
influence that such a text has had on other philosophical
texts to determine the influence it has had on the general
culture or on the society is almost impossible. Why is it
important to note the impact that a philosophical text has
had? One reason is that this impact gives an indication of
how the first readers of a philosophical text judged its value.
If they ignored it and paid no attention to it, they saw it as
worthless. Perhaps they were wrong, and later generations
rediscovered the importance of such a text. From this you
can see that the reaction of earlier readers to a philosophical
text teaches you a great deal about the value of it whether
it is good or bad; on which points or on account of which
aspects it drew the most attention and for what reasons other
readers found value in it. Naturally we will not read a text
today in precisely the same way, but it could be that the
reasons that earlier readers considered a text to be of
importance are still valid for us today in a modified form.
Another reason that a philosophical text must be judged in
relation to other texts is that no philosophy drops out of the
sky. By this is meant that a certain philosopher reacts in his/
her text to problems that have already been brought under
discussion in other texts. To determine how creative a
certain contribution is, you should read it against the
background of what has already been written on the subject.
The creativity and enduring value of a philosophical text can
also often only be determined by noting the possible new
definition of problems and new arguments that support a
certain viewpoint, or to see how seriously later philosophers
took up such a text.
37
It will therefore help to ask questions like the following:

How important is the contribution contained therein for
the subsequent philosophical debate?
In which ways are other philosophical texts which are
referred to (or perhaps not referred to!), or of which use
is made, understood and interpreted?
What new directions stem from the utilisation of a
certain text?
How fruitful is the content of the text for the handling of
crucial issues?
By asking these sorts of questions, the contribution of a
philosophical text can be weighed and its importance for
philosophical debate gauged.
12. CREATIVE READING

The last step in the reading of a philosophical text is for you
to reflect on the manner in which questions are understood
and solutions presented by way of posing the question: How
would I myself define this problem or question and what sort of
solution or answer would I be able to propose?
To ask this question means that you accept the writers
problems as your own and thus want now to work with him
or her, as it were, to find a satisfactory solution. In this case,
you would not be reading and writing philosophy simply for
academic reasons that is, just to gain a certain academic
qualification: you are now on a quest. There is something
concerning a certain aspect of human nature that captivates,
fascinates or perhaps annoys you, and you really want to
understand it better. Rosenberg (1984:96) says of such a
situation: When you turn to the great philosophical figures
of the past, then it is with the aim of exploring a wider range
38
of conceptual opinions than you are capable of evolving on

your own, and it is with the goal and hope of eventually
finding a way to your own resolution of the puzzles that
haunt you.
Some students find it difficult to work out their own

viewpoint on an issue, i.e., they struggle to read a text
creatively. Naturally the creative reading of a philosophical
text can only begin when all the other steps involved in the
reading of a text have been properly completed. Along with
this, you the creative reader, who will shortly become a
writer, should also take care to investigate critically your
own values and preferences in relation to the matter at issue.
If this is done, you will possess the necessary tools to take up
a reasoned, considered and personal viewpoint. How, then,
do you go to work?
You begin by defining how the problem or question is
understood. Thereafter it can be determined what the key
terms are and clear, unambiguous definitions of these given.
Following this, the possible answers to the question posed
and the reasons available to support these different answers
can be considered. Naturally it must be decided what
reasons are the strongest. This can be determined by
checking which reasons are least vulnerable to criticism,
which supported best by the relevant data, which follow the
suitable assumptions best, and which fit in best with the
reader/new writers own values and preferences.
All that remains is for a personal viewpoint and argument to
be formulated that integrates all the abovementioned
information and is, moreover, also cogent, consistent and
coherent (connected). How to do this is described in
Chapter 9.
39
For further information about the reading of philosophical

texts you can consult the following sources:
Browne, M. N. & Keeley, S. M. 1981. Asking the Right
Questions. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Rosenberg, J.F. 1984. The Practice of Philosophy: A
Handbook for Beginners (second edition). Englewood Cliffs,
N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Magee, B. 1974. Popper. London: The Woburn Press.
40
Reading reconstructively
PJJ van Veuren
1 PHILOSOPHICAL TEXTS
When you begin studying philosophy and how to
philosophise in a scientific way yourself, you immediately
come into contact with philosophical texts. For our
purposes, any written piece with a philosophical content
counts as a philosophical text.
This chapter deals with a specific way of reading

philosophical texts. In a later chapter more is said about
how you go about writing such texts yourself.
HOW DOES ONE READ PHILOSOPHICAL TEXTS?
The short answer to this question is: more than once.

One of the longer answers to the above question is:
reconstructively. Reconstructive reading consists of three
elements:
(a) Analysis
(b) Synthesis
(c) Appropriation/Evaluation
Reconstructive reading can be clarified by contrasting it
with ordinary reading. When most people read newspaper
41
reports, they are engaged in ordinary reading. Ordinary

reading is a way of acquiring knowledge about events,
people, things, etc. Relaxation reading matter is mostly read
in the manner of ordinary reading (e.g. stories in Fair Lady).
Reconstructive reading is a technique which you must
cultivate and continually practise, because you are always
inclined to switch over into ordinary reading. There is
nothing wrong with ordinary reading. It has its rightful
place in our lives. Because most of the reading that we do is
ordinary reading, it requires exertion to prevent the attitudes
and habits of ordinary reading getting the upper hand when
we read reconstructively.
While ordinary reading amounts to a relatively uninvolved

or pleasurable noting of the contents of what we have read,
reconstructive reading is work and appropriation of
contents, and it often requires sweat and toil.
There are interesting similarities between reading and eating
(devouring a book). In ordinary reading, one devours one
book after the other (for example, when one reads a whole
lot of Alistair Maclean books on a holiday). Reconstructive
reading is not hurried; it is ruminative reading; if it hastens
quickly to the end of a text, it is only to come back to the
beginning once again and to evaluate the beginning in the
light of the ending. Ordinary reading turns one page after
the other, from beginning to end, without interruption.
Reconstructive reading is a style of reading that often pages
back and re-reads what has already been read, and
sometimes pages ahead to gain an impression of what is still
to come. It also does not shy away from beginning from
scratch and reading the whole text more than once.
Ordinary reading leaves a text as it is, but reconstructive
reading changes the text. Naturally this is not to say that you
42
can arbitrarily change a text as it pleases you. Reconstructive

reading is an activity that changes a text by taking its elements
apart and constructing a connection between them. In this
disassembling and reassembling (analysis and synthesis),
reconstructive reading is bound to the text: it must stick to
the elements of the text as well as to the connection that is
suggested, but not explicitly stated, by the text.
Reconstructive reading means being prepared to get
involved with a text. You should start with the attitude that
the text matters to you and that it can instruct you that it
can communicate truth to you, or make you see things
differently from how you have previously perceived them,
or suggest thoughts you would not otherwise have thought.
Reconstructive reading changes a text, but it can equally be
said that you yourself also undergo a change in the process
of reconstructive reading: you perhaps see things differently
after you have read the text, or the text stimulates you to
think new thoughts.. When you read reconstructively, you
must throw yourself open to this. This opening of
yourself, however, is not naive: the appropriation of a text
occurs critically-evaluatively on the basis of the analytical
and synthetic activity of reconstructive reading. Taking
nothing for granted is .one of the most important things that
Philosophy can teach you.
3.
PHILOSOPHICAL GENRES
Reconstructive reading is a technique that you can acquire.

However, for it to work well, it must be an adaptable,
flexible technique which can take background knowledge
into consideration and then make adjustments accordingly.
There are no ten easy steps for reconstructive reading that
apply everywhere and every time. One reason for this is that
43
philosophical texts are not all of the same type or genre. For
example: all of Platos (428-348 B.C.) extant writings are
dialogues (discussions between two or more people).
Philosophical genres often overlap with literary genres; this
indicates the affinity between Philosophy and what is
usually called literature. Philosophical genres are (among
others): the aphorism (cf. Friedrich Nietzsches The Will to
Power); the enquiry (cf. David Humes Enquiry Concerning
Human Understanding); the discourse (cf. Rene Descartes
Discourse on Method); and the essay (cf. John Lockes Essay
Concerning Human Understanding).
All the types of text named above have a strong

argumentative content. Reconstructive reading is a technique
for the analysis and synthesis of the argumentative content of a
philosophical text. Not all texts have a pronounced
argumentative content. Many scientific texts have a
primarily descriptive content: a certain subject of study (for
example, a fish or an insect in Biology) is described with the
purpose of classifying it.
Arguments are sets of statements which stand in a certain
relationship with each other: one or more statements (the
premisses) support another statement (the conclusion) by
stating reasons on the grounds of which the conclusion
ought to be accepted or confirmed.
For example:
All human beings are mortal
(Premiss 1).
[Supporting statements]
John is a human being
(Premiss 2).
John is mortal
(Conclusion).
[Statement that ought to be
accepted on the grounds of
support]
44
An argument like the one above can very easily be rendered

in short by way of a diagram:
Example 1
Premiss 1 + Premiss 2
Conclusion
The arrow in the diagram above indicates the support that
the premisses give to the conclusion, or steps of logical
reasoning by which the conclusion follows from the
premisses.
Arguments sometimes take the following form:
Example 2
Premiss 1
Conclusion 1/Premiss 2
Conclusion 2
A combination of the two diagrams would look like this:
Example 3
Premiss 1
Conclusion 1/Premiss 2 + Premises 3
Conclusion 2
Use will be made below of this simple method of
schematisation to explain the arguments that appear in a
text. (For more examples consult Van Veuren, P.: 1991
45
Argumente-Kriteria-Kritiek. Pretoria: HSRC: pp.1418;

Copi, I. M.: 1986 An Introduction to Logic. (7th Ed.). New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company: pp.1850.)
4.
GUIDELINES FOR THE READING OF PHILOSOPHICAL TEXTS
Reconstructive reading has different levels and can be done

with great subtlety. What is given below are merely
guidelines for reconstructive reading on a first, elementary
level.
Texts which you encounter in your Philosophy course
mostly have an essay form; therefore we will give a
demonstration below of how one reads a philosophical essay
reconstructively. The structure of philosophical essays
mostly follows the traditional pattern: introduction, middle
and end. You can thus begin reading a philosophical essay
with the expectation that the essay will have a comprehensible structure. The structure of the essay usually allows one
to summarise the whole of the essays argumentation in an
overview diagram. To set up such a diagram, one must note
the main thesis that the essay makes (this is the point that
the writer wants to make) and the sub-theses which are
made to support the main thesis or to make it plausible. It is
usually possible to schematise the overall argumentative
structure of an essay in a reasonably simple pattern. How
one goes about this will be spelled out in more detail below.
4.1. Indications in the text itself
Title and sub-headings
When you start to read a text, you do not begin with an
intellect like a blank piece of paper. Philosophical essays
46
usually contain a number of indications from the writer

about how the text should be read. Some of the most
important indications are usually given in the title and the
sub-headings. In general a short summary of the course of
the writers argument is given. (Have a look at a few articles
in the South African Journal of Philosophy).
Many people have an inexplicable tendency not to read titles
of texts carefully, or even to ignore them. It should be
remembered that the writer of a philosophical text is also the
first reader of it, and that the writer formulated a title and
headings to order his or her own thoughts and also to make
it easily accessible for reading. Careless writers headings
sometimes have precious little to do with the content of the
paragraphs below the headings; fortunately, they are the
exceptions..
The title of an essay usually formulates the subject of the

essay, and sometimes also the main thesis that the writer
wants to make about the subject of the essay.
The sub-headings usually formulate the subjects or
propositions which are developed in the paragraphs below
the sub-headings. In a good philosophical essay there is
usually an argumentative cohesion between the main thesis
of the essay and the propositions that are made in or below
the sub-headings. The sub-theses, then, give support to the
main thesis that forms the conclusion of the argument.
Schematically presented:
Example 4
Sub-thesis 1 + Sub-thesis 2 + Sub-thesis 3
Main thesis (conclusion)
47
An important function of the reconstructive reading of a

philosophical essay is to identify the elements of the
argumentative cohesion of the essay (analysis) and to
construct their logical connections (synthesis). Put simply, it
boils down to phrasing and summarising the course of the
essays argument in your own words.
It is sometimes necessary to insert sub-headings into an
essay yourself. Such interpolated headings must be seen as
hypotheses or conjectures of what the writer would
probably have formulated him/herself. The insertion of subheadings forces you to seek (and mostly find) the connection
between the paragraphs of an essay. It also helps you to grasp
quickly the cohesion and the main points of the essay if you
later re-read the essay (for preparation for a test or
examination).
Introduction and conclusion

Philosophical essays are usually composed of three parts: an
introduction, a middle and an end. Indications can usually
be found in the introduction and conclusion as to the main
thesis argued by the writer. The main thesis is, as has already
been stated, the point that the writer wants to make about
the subject of the essay. This is usually explicitly formulated
in the introduction, but sometimes only in the conclusion. It
is a good technique when reading a philosophical essay first
to read the introduction and the conclusion. Sometimes the
main thesis that the writer formulates in the introduction of
his or her essay undergoes extension or modification in the
course of his or her argument, and it is formulated
differently in the conclusion. By comparing the introduction
and the conclusion of the essay with each other it is
48
often possible to reconstruct the thesis for which the writer

is actually arguing.
5.
RECONSTRUCTIVE READING DEMONSTRATED

BY AN EXAMPLE
The example that has been chosen to demonstrate the

application of the guidelines above is composed of two
relatively independent parts; only the first part appears
below. For the purposes of the illustration this part will be
treated as if it were a separate essay. Because it is a short
essay, no sub-headings appear in the text. However, it is
clear that it is composed of three parts, the classic pattern.
For ease of reference, the paragraphs are numbered 1 to 6.
Read the six paragraphs below first in the manner of
ordinary reading:
Do we survive death?
1.
Before we can profitably discuss whether we shall

continue to exist after death, it is well to be clear as to
the sense in which a man is the same person as he was
yesterday. Philosophers used to think that there were
definite substances, the soul and the body that each lasted
on from day to day; that a soul, once created, continued to
exist throughout all future time, whereas a body ceased
temporarily from death until the resurrection of the body.
2.
The part of this doctrine which concerns the present life

is pretty certainly false. The matter of the body is
continually changing by processes of nutriment and
wastage. Even if it were not, atoms in physics are no
longer supposed to have continuous existence; there is no
sense in saying: this is the same atom as the one that
existed a few minutes ago. The continuity of a human
49
body is a matter of appearance and behaviour, not of

substance.
3.
The same thing applies to the mind. We think and feel and
act, but there is not, in addition to thoughts and feelings
and actions, a bare entity, the mind or the soul, which
does or suffers these occurrences. The mental continuity
of a person is a continuity of habit and memory: there was
yesterday one person whose feeling I can remember, and
that person I regard as myself of yesterday; but in fact,
myself of yesterday was only certain mental occurrences
which are now remembered, and are regarded as part of
the person who now recollects them. All that constitutes a
person is a series of experiences connected by memory
and by certain similarities of the sort we call habit.
4.
If, therefore, we are to believe that a person survives

death, we must believe that the memories and habits
which constitute the person will continue to be exhibited
in a new set of occurrences.
5.
No one can prove that this will not happen. But it is easy
to see that it is very. unlikely. Our memories and habits are
bound up with the structure of the brain, in much the same
way in which a river is connected with the river-bed. The
water in the river is always changing, but it keeps to the
same course because previous rains have worn a channel.
In like manner, previous events have worn a channel in the
brain, and our thoughts flow along this channel. This is
the cause of memory and mental habits. But the brain, as
a structure, is dissolved at death, and memory therefore
may be expected to be also dissolved. There is no more
reason to think otherwise than to expect a river to persist
in its old course after an earthquake has raised a
mountain where a valley used to be.
50
6.
We know that memory may be obliterated by an injury to

the brain, that a virtuous person may be rendered vicious
by encephalitis lerthargica, and that a clever child can be
turned into an idiot by lack of iodine. In view of such
familiar facts, it seems scarcely probable that the mind
survives the total destruction of brain structure which
occurs at death.
(In Russell, B. 1975: Why I Am Not a Christian. London:

George Allen and Unwin: pp. 70-73).
With ordinary reading you have probably only formed an
indistinct impression of the content of this essay. We will
now read the essay step by step in a reconstructive way. The
process of reconstructive reading can proceed more easily by
putting questions to the text. Suggestions for such questions
are supplied below:
5.1. What is the subject and the main thesis?

Russells essay has a question as its title: Do we survive
death? Questions do not make statements; thus we cannot
infer or derive the main thesis of the essay from the heading.
The essays heading does, however, present the subject of
the essay: the problem of death and survival of death.
Because Russell announces the subject of his essay in the
form of a question, you can expect that the main thesis
regarding this subject will be his answer to this question.
Although the title of the essay does not formulate the main
thesis, it can help the reader to identify the main thesis of the
essay. What is Russells answer? It is a part of philosophical
rhetoric not to give direct answers to such questions unless
the writer has the intention of shocking his/her readers. A
more careful strategy is to make the answer plausible by way
of argumentation. This is the course that Russell follows,
51
and his main thesis is only formulated in the last two

paragraphs.
However, as soon as you try to formulate his main thesis,
you come up against a problem. His answer in para 6 is: it
seems highly improbable that the mind will survive the total
destruction of the brain-structure that occurs at death. But is.
that an answer to the title-question? Russell formulated his
title-question to draw his readers attention and interest.
Therefore he asks: Do we survive death? Formulated in
terms of the title-question, the answer must be: It is highly
unlikely that `we survive death.
5.2. How does the argument unfold?
If it is difficult to formulate a satisfactory main thesis for an

essay as in this case an analysis of the argument can be
undertaken to see whether the matter cannot be clarified in
this way.
In para. 1, which has the nature of an introduction, Russell
suggests how he thinks the question posed in the title should
be discussed. Survival of death implies a continuity of the
existence of a person. It is typical of philosophical essays
(and other philosophical genres) that the philosopher
debates both with his contemporaries and with the
philosophical ideas of the past, even if these ideas are
thousands of years old. The philosophers to whom Russell
refers in para. 1 include, for example, Plato and Descartes:
according to them, the continuity of the existence of a
person beyond death depends on a substance which is
indestructible, unlike the substance of the body which
remains the same through life but perishes at death.
Russell attacks this theory in para. 2 by way of an argument.
It is not immediately apparent that he is engaged in an
52
argument here, because the key words which usually signal

that an argument is in progress (e.g. because, since, etc.
before premisses, and thus, consequently, etc., before
conclusions) do not appear. However, it is reasonably easy
to see that the first sentence is followed by two supporting
propositions. One can make the following diagram of this
argument:
Argument 1
1. The matter of the body
changes continually
through processes of
nutrition and wastage.
2. According to modern
physics, atoms (of
which the body is
composed), do not
exist continually.
The part of this doctrine (namely substantialism) that relates

to the body, is almost certainly false.
The claim that it is meaningless to say that the same atom
existed a few minutes ago does not contribute to the main
line of the argument: it follows from the appeal to modern
physics and reinforces the point that is made thereby.
The last sentence repeats the conclusion that was stated at
the beginning: the notion that a thing-like and unchanging
substance guarantees the continuous existence of the human
body is unacceptable. However, in this sentence another
statement is made at the same time. This is Russells
alternative to the substantialist theory, namely, the theory
that the continued existence of a human body is a matter of
appearance and behaviour.
The first sentence of para. 3 states that you can argue in
exactly the same way about the human mind. This is also an
53
argument, although the key words which usually signal an

argument are absent. Should one take the last sentence of
the paragraph as a conclusion? Then supporting propositions
must be supplied for this. However, it looks as if it is simply
a summary of the sentence that has gone before. This
sentence should, however, serve as support for the second
sentence which posits that there is no unchanging substance
(a soul) that provides the basis for our thoughts, emotions
and actions. The argument can thus be stated as follows:
Argument 2
1.
All that a person consists of is a series of experiences

which are held together by memories and similarities of
the sort we call habit
There is nothing additional to thoughts, emotions and

actions, for example a thing-like substance or soul.
When we look at para. 4, the line of argument that Russell
follows becomes clearer: Argument 1 in para. 2 is a preamble
to Argument 2 in para. 3. Here the main point as far as
Russell is concerned is clearly stated: the substantialist
view of the continuity of human existence is not plausible
(for the reasons that he gives). The only plausible viewpoint
for Russell is the one that he elucidates in para. 3, and which
can be abbreviated as functionalism: emotions, thoughts,
and so forth rest not on a soul, but are functions and
associations of the brain.
The therefore with which para. 4 begins is the first key
word for a conclusion in the essay, and is supported by the
conclusions of Arguments 1 and 2 in the previous
paragraphs.
54
This argument can be schematically represented as follows:

Argument 3
1. The part of the substantialist theory that
relates to the body is
almost certainly false.
2. This theory is, as it

relates to the functions
of the mind, without
foundation.
If we accept that a person survives death, we must

accept that the memories and habits which constitute
that person will continue to be exhibited in a new set of
occurrences.
The first sentence of para. 5 states an important precondition
about the argumentation which will follow in this paragraph:
here no conclusive proof is possible on the one side or the
other. Russell argues more or less as follows: while one
cannot actually give reasons for the viewpoint that our
memories and emotions, which constitute us as persons, will
continue to exist after our bodily death (unless one falls
back on the substantialist theory), it is relatively easy to
make it plausible that our memories and habits do not
continue to exist after death. The main argument of para. 5
can be schematically represented as follows (the conclusion
follows the key word therefore):
Argument 4
1. Our memories and
habits are bound up
with the structure of
the brain.
2. The brain, as a structure, is dissolved at

death.
We can expect that the same thing will happen to the

memory.
55
The last sentence of para. 5 has the function of saying how

improbable it is that a persons memory will survive the
death of his body and brain. This indication can be
incorporated into the conclusion, so that it reads: We can be
absolutely certain that the same will happen to the memory.
If we now look at para. 6, we can see that this conclusion,
formulated slightly differently, is repeated here: It is highly
improbable that the mind will survive the total destruction of
the brain that occurs at death. However, the supporting
statements (premisses) that are given for the conclusion
differ. The argument can be schematised as follows:
Argument 5
1. We all know
that memories
can be obliterated
by an injury to
the brain.
+ 2. It is general
knowledge that
a virtuous person
can become a
vicious person by
encephalitis
lethargica.
+ 3. It is general
knowledge
that a clever
child can be
turned into an
idiot by lack
of iodine.
It seems highly improbable that the mind will survive

the total destruction of the brain structure which occurs
at death.
Now that Russells essay has been taken apart in detail
(analysis), it is possible to reconstruct its argumentative
cohesion (synthesis).
56
5.3. The argumentative cohesion of Russells essay

It has become clear that Russells essay hinges on Argument
3: the conclusion of this argument follows from the
conclusions of Argument 1 and Argument 2 which are used
as premisses in Argument 3. The conclusions of Argument 4
and Argument 5 relate to the conclusion of Argument 3. The
conclusion of Argument 3 states that if we accept that a
person survives death, then we must accept that the
memories and habits which constitute the person will
continue to be exhibited in a new set of occurrences. The
conclusions of Argument 4 and Argument 5 imply that it
would be irrational to accept that the memories and habits of
which a person is constituted will continue to exhibit
themselves after the brain has stopped functioning (we can
be almost certain of the contrary). From this Russell infers
that it would be irrational to accept that a person survives
the death of his body and brain. The argument begins with a
conditional statement and is then executed in two successive
steps (following the familiar formally valid pattern of modus
tollens).
Argument 6
IF we accept that a person survives death THEN we must
accept that the memories and habits which constitute that
person will continue to be exhibited in a new set of
occurrences.
Step 1
We do not accept the statement that follows THEN (the
italicised statement above), because it would be irrational in
the light of the conclusions of Argument 4 and Argument 5.
57
Step 2
Thus we reject the statement that follows IF (the statement
in bold face above, namely that a person survives death).
In summary: the interconnections among all the separate
arguments in Russells essay now become clear: the
conclusion of Argument 3 follows from the conclusions of
Argument 1 and Argument 2 which are used as premisses in
Argument 3. The conclusion of Argument 3 is a conditional
statement, and the conclusions of Argument 4 and Argument
5 are used as reasons for rejecting the consequent in the
conditional statement (the statement that follows THEN).
This step leads compellingly to the rejection of the
antecedent (the statement that follows IF).
After an essays argumentative cohesion is reconstructed in

this way, you can proceed to the next step in reconstructive
reading. This step entails critical evaluation and appropriation.
5.4. Is the argumentation in the essay acceptable?
Russells essay has been logically analysed in detail for the
purposes of illustration. In practice, when you have to deal
with longer philosophical essays, this kind of analysis is only
done on key paragraphs (mostly at the end of the essay or at
the end of the sub-sections of the essay where the writer
draws conclusions). In this way you can trace and lay bare
the spine of the argument. It has already been stated above
that reconstructive reading is also critical evaluation or
appropriation. The analytic-synthetic work of reconstructive
reading is a condition for an in-depth and fair evaluation of
the argumentation of an essay like Russells.
58
How convincing is Russells argumentation? Should you

agree with his conclusion on the grounds of his
argumentation? In order to answer such questions, you can
trace the sub-arguments and ask if they are acceptable. If
not, then neither is the main argument acceptable.
Look at Argument 3, for example. Do the two premisses
provide good support for the conclusion? Do they make it
plausible? In our analysis we saw that the essay hinges on
Argument 3. If we can find an error or a problem here, we
can call the whole essay into question. In Argument 3 there
is a gap in the reasoning: that is, there is an assumption in
the conclusion that is not supported by the premisses.
Premiss 1 and Premiss 2 merely state that the substantialist
theory, as it relates to the functions of the body and the
mind, is not plausible. However, in the conclusion, Russell
speaks of memories and habits which constitute a person.
This vocabulary usage belongs to Russells functionalistic
theory about the human being. This theory does not follow
directly from the premisses which state that the
substantialist theory is not plausible. If we want to
improve Russells argument here, we could construe it as
follows:
Argument 7 (Improvement on Argument 3)
Premiss 1
+
Premiss 2
+ (Premiss 3:
There is only one
workable
alternative to
substantialism.)
(Thus) the functionalistic theory ought to be accepted.
(Thus:) if we accept that a person survives death, then we

must accept that the memories and habits which constitute a
59
person will continue to be exhibited in a new set of

occurrences.
In philosophy it is not unusual to reason in this way: if there

are only two theories regarding a phenomenon, and it can be
argued that one theory is erroneous or has weaknesses, the
other thereby gains a measure of support. But is it the case that
functionalism is the only workable alternative to
substantialism? This is an assumption that Russell makes,
and on which his whole argument depends. If one wants to pull
the logical rug from under Russells feet, one would have to
come up with a second workable alternative to
substantialism.
When judging an essay critically, you can look for implicit
assumptions in the arguments, as illustrated above. However,
you can also judge the premisses of arguments critically. Look
at Argument 4, for example. This argument is an important one
in Russells demonstration, because he wants to make it
plausible that our memories and habits are bound up with the
structure of the brain, and perish along with it. Premiss 1 in this
argument states that memories and habits are connected to the
structure of the brain. What is the nature of this connection? It
appears from para 5 that Russell is not referring to an empirical
connection. He makes use of a metaphor (comparison) here: we
cannot observe the connection directly, but only understand it
indirectly from something that is indeed familiar, namely, the
relationship between a river and its bed. In science, use is often
made of such metaphors: we do not have knowledge of the
behaviour of electricity by direct observation. We therefore
speak about it in terms of something of which we do have
direct knowledge, namely, the flow of water (electrical
current).
60
One could ask all sorts of questions about Russells

metaphor (comparison) for example: is it a good
comparison? What alternative comparisons are there? In
the last sentence of para. 5 Russell uses the comparison to
explain that it is almost certain that our mental life
perishes with the brain. Can his metaphor support such a
strong pronouncement? The evaluation of scientific
metaphors is a matter that cannot be discussed in detail
here. However, one criterion can be mentioned: such
metaphors are good metaphors if they enable us to make
predictions which can be empirically tested by means of
experiments. It is common knowledge that our use of the
fluid-metaphor for electricity has been fruitful for
theorising about electricity and for making predictions
which have been confirmed by empirical tests. However,
the same cannot be said of Russells river-metaphor.
Therefore one could accuse Russell of depending too much
on this metaphor, and of not having enough grounds to use
words such as very unlikely and scarcely probable.
In conclusion, a remark can be made about the formulation
of the main thesis of Russells essay. If we formulate the
main thesis as an answer to the title-question, the meaning
of we must be qualified: We (functionalistically understood) very probably do not survive death.
6.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The above demonstration of a reconstructive reading of

Russells essay appears to be long and complicated.
However, this is a misleading impression that is created
because it has been done very thoroughly, with a lot of
explanatory commentary.
61
Russells essay exhibits a very rigorous argumentative

structure. However, many philosophical essays have a
looser argumentative structure. All reconstructive
reading of philosophical essays should proceed according to
the following steps:
Identify the subject of the essay and the main thesis
that is stated by the author.
Relate the course of the argumentation in your own

words, and make use of argument diagrams where they
can help to clarify the structure of the argumentation.
Construct the
argumentation.
Give a critical evaluation of the argumentation in the

essay.
62
overall cohesion of
the
authors
Fallacious arguments
PJJ van Veuren
To read texts (including your own work) critically and pick

out errors in reasoning is a technique that anyone can.
acquire. The purpose of this chapter is to familiarise you
with a number of faulty ways of reasoning. There are many
ways in which one can construct faulty arguments. As is
explained in Chapter 4, arguments consist of statements
which stand in a certain relation to each other; some of the
statements (the premisses) are given to support another
statement (the conclusion). The conclusion of an
argument is often (but not always) indicated by key words
like thus, consequently and other words which fulfil the
same function:
(Premiss 1)
John is either at the dentist or at home.
(Premiss 2)
John is not at the dentist.
(Conclusion)
Therefore John is at home.
A faulty argument arises when the premisses of the
argument do not succeed in supporting the conclusion, that
is: they do not make the conclusion acceptable. There are a
group of faulty arguments known as fallacies. They are
called fallacies because, unlike ordinary defective
arguments, they appear to be good arguments at face value.
Although the premisses of these arguments do not give any
logical support to their conclusions, they usually give a
kind of emotional motivation for the acceptance of their
conclusions. In this sense, then, they are misleading.
63
They can therefore deceive the reader, and they sometimes

also deceive the person who constructs them: he/she is not
aware that his/her reasoning is proceeding in a faulty
manner.
It is very useful to know the names and basic patterns of

fallacies, because it enables you to recognise them easily in
the argumentation of others (and to avoid them yourself).
Only a few fallacies which appear fairly often in texts (and
which you most likely will tend to commit yourself) will be
dealt with here.
It is easier to recognise fallacies if you group them into
classes according to the kind of error that is committed. I
shall therefore proceed in the following way: firstly, the
characteristics of a group of fallacies will be explained and
then an illustrative example of a fallacy which belongs to
that group will be given. In all cases fallacies are faulty
arguments because their premisses give very little or no
support to their conclusions. However, they have the
appearance of good arguments and can mislead you into
accepting them as good arguments.
1.
FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE
To this group of fallacies belong arguments which do not

succeed in making their conclusions plausible or acceptable
because the premisses have nothing to do with the truth or
falsity of the conclusion. Because we are accustomed to
accepting arguments which look more or less like this (and
are good), or because in a subtle way emotional pressure is
exerted on us by the argument, we sometimes accept the
conclusions of such arguments.
64
1.1 Appeal to authority

It often happens that writers and speakers appeal to an
authority to support a claim that they make. Under certain
conditions there is nothing wrong with this style of
argumentation. We cannot all do research in all areas of
science, and in many cases we have to rely on the results of
research conducted by other people. The basic form of
arguments in which an appeal is made to an authority look
like this:
(Premiss)
(Conclusion)
A asserts P
Thus P
This sort of argument is a fallacy if:

1.
the authority (A) quoted in the premiss is not an

acknowledged authority in the field in question;
2.
the authority (A) does not have a record of reliable

pronouncements in the field;
3.
no consensus exists among specialists in the field

regarding the proposition (P), or
4.
the authority is not quoted correctly.
It is easy to see that any one of the deficiencies mentioned

above in itself (or in combination with some of the others)
will seriously weaken the support that the premiss gives to
the conclusion. Arguments which make an appeal to an
authority are good, correct arguments if they do not have
any one (or more) of the above deficiencies.
Example of a fallacy which appeals to authority
The Congress [the Peoples Congress at Bloemfontein,
September 1944] also expressed the conviction that
65
this policy [of race segregation] `is based on Holy

Scripture which teaches us that God did not will
uniformity but diversity of nations and that He
realises His counsel by the plurality of peoples, races,
languages and cultures . . . When God wills a
separation, then He also wills it in an absolute sense.
(Groenewald, F. P.: Apartheid en voogdyskap in die
lig van die Heilige Skrif in Cronje G. (ed.): 1947
Regverdige rasse-apartheid: 41; 49 [translated into
English]).
The first sentence of this argument makes an appeal to a
declaration of the Peoples Congress in support of the
conclusion that God wants an absolute separation of
peoples, races, languages, and so forth, on earth. It is fairly
easy to see that this appeal to authority exhibits the
deficiencies mentioned in (1) to (4) above.
1.2 The straw man fallacy

In the Middle Ages people used straw dolls to practise their
skill with swords. The straw man fallacy is a good name
for this fallacy because in it person As viewpoint is
distorted by presenting it in an exaggerated or one-sided
form. This straw man is then attacked and refuted while
pretending that it is person As actual viewpoint. To avoid
this fallacy, you must always try to present the viewpoint
that you want to attack as strongly and completely as
possible.
The following schema represents the basic pattern of this
fallacy:
(Premiss 1)
66
A has standpoint S1 (S1 is a misrepresentation of As standpoint, which is actually S).
(Premiss 2)
The following reasons refute standpoint S1.
(Conclusion)
Therefore As standpoint S is unacceptable/

implausible.
Example of a straw man fallacy

Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keeps my word,
he shall never see death.
The Jews said unto him, Now we know that thou hast a
devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou
sayest, If a man keeps my word, he shall never taste of
death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which
is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou
thyself? (John 8:5153).
Jesus does not claim that he is greater than the forefather

Abraham. Nor does such a claim follow from what he says.
However, the Jews pretend that he is claiming to be
greater than Abraham, and attack this statement.
1.3. The genetic fallacy
If you want to refute or criticise a certain theory or
viewpoint, and you attack the origin of this theory instead of
the theory or viewpoint itself, then you commit an error of
reasoning.
How someone arrived at a certain theory is not ad rem for
the evaluation of the theory (i.e. such information is
irrelevant).
The simple pattern of this fallacy looks like this:
(Premiss)
(Conclusion)
Theory T has its origin in X.

Therefore theory T is false/unacceptable.
67
Example of a genetic fallacy
The poet in Marx is much more important than is

generally supposed. ... He had been writing poetry as a
boy, around two main themes: his love for the girl next
door ... and world destruction. ... Marx, in short, is an
eschatological writer from start to finish. ... But if
poetry supplied the vision, and journalistic aphorism
the highlights of Marxs work, its ballast was academic
jargon. ... What did any of this have to do with the
politics and economics of the real world? Nothing
whatever. Just as the origin of Marxs philosophy lay
in a poetic vision, so its elaboration was an exercise in
academic jargonizing (Johnson, P. 1988 Intellectuals.
London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson: 5457.)
Johnson concludes that Marxs theory has nothing to do
with science, and with politics and economics in the real
world, because it had its origin in a poetic vision. Instead
of giving an ad rem refutation of Marxs theory, he refers to
its origins. This sort of reasoning sometimes occurs in a
vulgar form: in this case reference is not made to the origin
of a theory or viewpoint, but to the personal qualities of the
author. Such arguments are called ad hominem fallacies
because they are directed at the person of the author and not
against the theory itself. For example:
Since a large part of Rousseaus reputation rests on his
theories about the upbringing of children more
education is the main, underlying theme of his Discours,
Emile, the Social Contract and even La Nouvelle Heloise
it is curious that, in real life as opposed to writing, he
took so little interest in children it comes as a
sickening shock to discover what Rousseau did to his
68
own children. ... It is right to dwell on his desertion of

his children not only because it is the most striking
example of his inhumanity but because it is organically
part of the process which produced his theory of politics
and the role of the state ... (Johnson, P. 1988 Intellectuals.
London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson: 2122).
1.4 The fallacy of ambiguity

Some arguments err by making a semantic error (that is,
they do not pay attention to the meanings of words). Most of
the words that we use in language have more than one
meaning. (Example: the word cat can have the following
meanings: a feline animal, a combination of pulleys, a
double tripod with six feet, a kind of small ship.) When a
word with more than one meaning is used in a premiss of an
argument, and the meaning of the word does not remain the
same throughout the argument, the argument is faulty. All
arguments can err in this manner, so an exemplary pattern
cannot be given here. The following argument demonstrates
the error in schematic form:
(Premiss 1)
Only X[1] is Y
(Premiss 2)
No Z is X[2]
(Conclusion)
Thus no Z is Y.
The word which has undergone a shift of meaning is X: X

[ ]
does not have the same meaning as X 2 .
[1]
Example of a fallacy of ambiguity

Look at how absurd and stupid it is to say: I choose
non-existence above an unhappy existence. Someone
who says, I choose this above that, chooses something.
69
But non-existence is not something; it is nothing [1].

However, when what you choose is nothing [2], there
can be no question of genuine choice (Augustine: On
Free Will).
It is clear that in this argument the word nothing[1] does not
have the same meaning as the word nothing[2]: in the first
case it means absence of existence and in the second case it
means absence of alternatives. Because the word nothing
undergoes a shift of meaning in the argument, the premisses
are irrelevant to the conclusion and therefore do not support
it.
2.
FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
Arguments in this group err in that the evidence which is

stated in the premisses apparently gives enough support to
the conclusions, but does not in fact do this. In this group of
fallacies, the error does not lie in the relevance of the
premisses in respect of the conclusion, but in the evidence
that is stated in the premisses.
2.1 The fallacy of hasty generalisation
This fallacy is often committed when we talk about people
who belong to a different group or class from ours. When
we talk about groups of people, we necessarily make
generalisations. A generalisation is a statement about
attributes of all individuals in a group or class on the
grounds of the observation of attributes of a number of
individuals from the class concerned. For example:
(Premiss 1)
(Premiss 2)
70
Swan 1 is white.
Swan 2 is white.
(Premiss 3)
(Conclusion)
Swan 1001 is white.

All swans are white.
An argument like the one above is faulty if pronouncements

are made about the attributes of all individuals in a class on
the basis of the observation of the attributes of a small
number of individuals in this class. For example:
(Premiss 1)
All three of the woman students that I saw

when I walked into the main entrance of the
University had red hair.
(Conclusion) All of the woman students at the University

have red hair.
It is surprising how often we make this same kind of error

when we talk about groups, classes or nationalities to which
we do not belong. Just note what is said about Americans,
blacks, Boere, workers, students, first-years, and
so on.
This fallacy sometimes occurs when statistical data is given
to support a generalisation. Statistical generalisations state
that because a certain percentage of persons or items in a
random sample taken from a population have certain
attributes, the same percentage of all the persons or items
in the population have the attributes in question. For
example:
(Premiss)
56% of the 100 people to whom the

following question was put: Do you
support the reform initiative of President de
Klerk? reacted positively.
(Conclusion) 56% of all the people of the RSA support

the reform initiative of President de Klerk.
71
Such statistical arguments are good arguments if the sample

is big enough. If the random sample in an opinion poll like
the one above is, for example, 50 people, the error of hasty
generalisation is committed. (One must be careful about
summarily dismissing small random samples in statistical
investigations as erroneous, however, because in some cases
a random sample of 30 people or items is adequate for a
good generalisation.) If random samples are taken from
populations like the inhabitants of Johannesburg or the
voters in the RSA, the sample must contain more than 1000
people to yield reasonably reliable generalisations.
Statistical investigations and opinion polls can also err in
another way: when the random sample does not give all the
people in the population an equal chance of being part of the
sample, the fallacy of biased statistics is committed. For
example: do all the. people in the RSA have an equal chance
of being part of a. random sample if telephone directories are
used to compile the sample? It is clearly not the case: people
who live in squatter camps have, so to say, no chance of
being a part of the sample. How a sample is drawn from a
population thus has important implications for the reliability
of the generalisations that are made on the basis of that
sample.
3.
ANALOGICAL ARGUMENTS AND THE FALLACY

OF WEAK ANALOGY
What do we mean when we say A is analogous to B? This

expression suggests that we have made a comparison
between two different entities, A and B, and found that a few
relevant points of similarity exist between them. Because A
and B are different entities (or events or whatever), there are
naturally differences between them. If we say A is
72
analogous to B, we refer explicitly only to the relevant

similarities between them. The following example in which
an analogy is made between the earths atmosphere and the
skin on our bodies explains what has just been said.
The earths atmosphere can be compared to the skin on

our bodies. It protects us, regulates our (global) body
temperature, and allows controlled material exchange
between our bodies and the environment. It is a sort of
life-shield that, like the skin, is very vulnerable. The
increasing concentrations of green-house gasses are
like the thickening of the bodily skin, a change that can
cause our global body temperature to become
uncomfortably high. The thinning of the ozone layer is
like a raw wound where the skin is scraped off, and its
protection is diminished. (Boyle, S. and Ardill, J.
1989. The Greenhouse Effect. London: Hodder and
Stoughton: 13).
The analogy in the example above is not an argument,
because no conclusion is drawn from the comparison. The
comparison in this case has only an explanatory function: by
comparing the earths atmosphere with the human skin, the
functions of the atmosphere and the processes which occur
in it are realistically and concretely brought home to the
reader.
We use analogical arguments daily without being explicitly
aware of it. For example: if you happened to buy a pair of
leather boots from a certain manufacturer, and were happy
with the durability of the product, you may decide to buy a
pair of leather shoes from the same manufacturer with the
expectation that you will probably also get durability in this
case. This decision is justified by an (implicit) argument
following this pattern:
73
(Premiss 1)
The boots have properties ABC, and

durability.
(Premiss 2)
The shoes have properties ABC.
(Conclusion) Consequently it can be expected that the

shoes will probably also have durability.
The comparison in the premisses of analogical arguments

does not give 100% support to the conclusions. It would
thus be . erroneous to infer the . following conclusion from the
comparison: The shoes will necessarily also have durability. If you make such an inference, you clearly do not
understand analogical arguments. However, you are not
committing a fallacy of weak analogy. This sort of fallacy
only occurs when an error is committed with the
comparison in the premisses of an analogical argument.
There are two errors that appear rather frequently in
comparisons in analogical arguments.
One of the errors occurs if (as in the example above) ABC is
irrelevant to the property of durability. For example, A =
brown colour; B = nylon laces; C = manufacturers label on
the sole. These properties have no factual connection to the
durability of boots or shoes. (Relevant properties would for
example be the following: A = quality of the leather; B =
strength of the stitching; C = material of the sole.) If you
are not observant, this kind of error can be misleading.
The other error occurs if the relevant differences
(disanalogies) between the elements in the comparison weigh
more heavily or are more important than the relevant
similarities (analogies). That is: a fallacy of weak analogy
is also committed when an inference is made from a
comparison between two different entities and the comparison
emphasises trivial points of similarity and ignores or obscures
74
decisive points of difference. If you are not observant, such

an argument can be misleading. The following argument
illustrates this kind of error:
Suppose you find yourself trapped in a tiny house with

a growing child. I mean a very tiny house, and a
rapidly growing child you are already up against the
wall of the house and in a few minutes youll be
crushed to death. The child on the other hand wont be
crushed to death; if nothing is done to stop him from
growing, hell be hurt, but in the end hell simply burst
open the house and walk out a free man ... However
innocent the child may be, you do not have to wait
passively until it crushes you to death. A woman
surely can defend her life against the threat to it posed
by the unborn child, even if doing so involves its death.
(Thomson, J. 1971. Defense of Abortion. Philosophy
and Public Affairs , 1(1):475b.)
In this argument a comparison is made between an imagined
situation (a woman who is trapped in the house with the
growing child) and a pregnancy that threatens the life of the
pregnant woman. In both of these cases mention is made of
a woman and a child, and the womans life is in danger.
Thomson suggests that if we decide that the woman in the
imagined case has a right to self-defence, and if we are to be
consistent, we should also decide that the pregnant woman
has a right to self-defence. (To be consistent in this context
means to apply a rule or norm that you have established in
one case to another similar case.) If we look carefully at
Thomsons comparison, the question arises whether the
analogy that she has constructed holds up. Can one talk of
self-defence in relation to the termination of a pregnancy
which places the life of the woman in danger? The situation
that Thomson invents suggests that self-defence would be an
75
ethically justifiable reaction by the woman. In this

(invented) case the womans life is endangered in a violent
manner. Self-defence, in the conventional meaning of the
word, refers to a justifiable violent reaction against an
unjustified violent attack on a persons body. Unless one
decides to extend the conventional meaning of selfdefence, the use of this word for the termination of a
pregnancy to save the womans life is forced. This is an
indication that the analogy that Thomson constructs does
not hold up. The analogy falters on the issue of selfdefence. There might of course be other grounds for the
ethical justification of abortion if the pregnant womans life
is threatened, but self-defence does not come into
consideration.
4.
CONCLUSION
Familiarity with the fallacies. explained above is an

important part of the equipment that you must have to be
able to read critically (and to avoid fallacies in your own
written work). On the other hand you must not go looking.
for fallacies on every page of a book that you are reading:
most people have learnt to think correctly and honestly.
When you want to accuse someone of committing a fallacy
you must be reasonably sure of your case.
76
The research process

HPP Ltter
Many people like to say that their viewpoints, decisions and

actions are based on information that has come to light in
research. It is as if anything that is based on research has a
particular degree of truth. These optimistic expectations of
research ignore the fact that there can be good as well as
bad, complete as well as incomplete, thorough as well as
superficial research. In addition, the quality of research also
depends upon the ability of the researcher and the reliability
of the method(s) used.
What does research look like in Philosophy? In this chapter
one aspect of this is looked at, namely how research is
undertaken as a process within the field of Philosophy. The
other aspect, namely the final product of research as it is
taken up in articles and books, is discussed in Chapter 9.
1.
RESEARCH
As a philosopher, one must naturally ask at the outset what

the concept research means in general. A simplified
definition would be: a systematic, methodical search
(quest) for specific (from scratch) information (views,
arguments, data, solutions) about a precisely defined theme
(problem, question, subject). Fundamental to research is a
concern about one problem or another which must be
solved.
77
From this definition it should be clear that no research can

be done meaningfully before there is clarity about the
problem to be investigated. If clarity is achieved about this,
one should get a sense of the kind of information that is
needed, the possible places where it can be found and the
ways in which this information can be accessed.
2.
STEPS IN THE RESEARCH PROCESS
A previous paragraph showed that research is just like a

story, with a beginning, middle and end. What precisely are
the most important steps in the research process and what is
their connection with each other? It is important to get
answers to this question, because it facilitates planning for
research. If you are aware of all of the aspects that a task
entails, it becomes easier to award adequate time to them. It
also means that research can be completed in an orderly
fashion in phases that follow each other logically you
could well ask whether a confused floundering is
reconcilable with the definition of research!
2.1 Find out what you must do
As has already been said, research is an intellectual activity
in which a solution or answer is sought to a problem or
question. You cannot begin to do research if this problem,
subject or question is not defined more clearly. This
definition of research problems, subjects or questions can be
given by instructions from lecturers, principals (like
companies or institutions) from outside, or by your own
interest and philosophical background. Often these
definitions are not sharp and outlined enough. For this
reason a set of instructions must be thoroughly inspected to
78
determine what precisely they entail. However, some

subjects are sufficiently vague to allow enough room for a
students (philosophers) own interpretation of a problem
and assessment as to which aspects are going to be
addressed.
Various things can be done to achieve clarity about the

subject of philosophical research. The best place to begin
as you already know is to consult philosophical
dictionaries and encyclopaedias which briefly sketch the
important questions and the influential answers to these.
Books and articles also sometimes give a similar overview
which can quickly orientate you. An acknowledged standard
textbook often has the advantage that the content is
structured either chronologically or systematically, so that in
both cases the content gradually unfolds according to a
certain pattern. A further advantage of all the abovementioned literature is that a good bibliography is usually
supplied, containing the most important works which have
already been written on a particular theme.
It is not always so easy to define the subject of a certain
research project clearly. It is also sometimes necessary to
do things such as the following in order to achieve this end:
It can be useful to consult the literature mentioned in the
previous passage about related issues and in so doing
acquire additional clues. You can also talk to others
(philosophers and non-philosophers) and so exchange ideas
about what the nature and importance of the subject of
research is. Most importantly it is also necessary to define
clearly the main concepts to be used (see more about this in
Chapter 2).
79
2.2 Designing a research project

Having achieved (provisional) clarity about the nature of the
research subject, you can go on to the designing of the
research project. This means that you should decide how the
research is going to be undertaken. This process must
include answers to questions such as the following:
What style of presentation will be followed?
Which sources will be utilised for the gathering of
information?
How will the results of the research be presented?
How you go about obtaining answers to these questions is
discussed in more detail below.
3.
STYLE?
Along with defining the research subject with the help of

orientating reading which has already been described above,
it is necessary to address the matter of the specific style in
which the answer or solution to the stated question or
problem is to be given. In philosophical research writing can
be performed in different styles. For example, an
explanation of an important philosophers viewpoint on a
specific problem can be presented or it can take the form of
a solution to a familiar philosophical problem, and so on.
These different styles that philosophical research as
presented in essays can assume, are discussed more fully
in Chapter 10.
80
4.
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES
Once you have decided upon the style of the research

project, you can begin setting up a tentative bibliography of
all the books and articles which will probably be relevant to
the research project. The reason that a tentative bibliography
is mentioned here is that, on the one hand, some of the items
in the original bibliography will, upon closer investigation,
prove to have no bearing on the subject while, on the other
hand, you may find very useful references to relevant
literature in the reading of good sources. The original
bibliography that you set up at the beginning of a research
project is thus revised by both omissions as well as
additions.
However, the specific style that is chosen has a significant
influence on the bibliography that is drawn up, that is, on the
nature of the sources which will be used. For example, should
you choose a style that entails an exposition of Lockes
conclusions about freedom, his original writings and the most
important commentaries thereon should definitely be consulted.
Should you choose to discuss contemporary views on freedom,
the most important philosophical works of the last few decades
should be used. If you want to analyse the concept of freedom
in order to explain its importance to people, in addition to
philosophical literature, you should also make use of examples
of the way the concept is used in different contexts in the
everyday world. From this it can be seen that although in
philosophical research other philosophical texts are mostly used
as sources, there is nonetheless occasion for the use of data
from everyday life, personal experience and other scientific
disciplines. Thus during the designing of the research project
81
the sources that are going to be used for the gathering of data
should be accurately determined.
5.
SCHEME OF PRESENTATION
Another matter which is very important in the designing of a

research project is to develop a provisional scheme of
presentation. Once you have noted all of the important
points which will be investigated in the research process, you
can begin thinking through the problem carefully. From this a
scheme should emerge which will best organise and
structure the research results. Naturally, like most of the
aspects of the research project in its early stages, this scheme
is provisional and may possibly be revised later.
Nonetheless, such a scheme is essential as a kind of road
map which helps you find your way through a diversity of
facts, data, arguments, viewpoints, and so on.
Once a research project has reached this stage, it is normally
a good time to discuss it with someone else whether a fellow
student, lecturer or thinking friend. Errors that can be
pointed out at this stage can save a lot of unnecessary
trouble.
5.1 Gathering of data

No one can gather data effectively, quickly and from scratch
if it is not done with an eye on a clear and distinct problem,
question or theme. Something else that can delay or restrict
the gathering of data is neglecting the tracing and utilisation
of relevant literature. How to do thorough and reliable
bibliographical searches is discussed in Chapter 7.
You cannot readily assume that all philosophical literature is
equally good, reliable, or true. Not everything that is
82
written by philosophers is good, reliable and true. It may be

difficult for beginners in philosophy to separate the wheat
from the chaff. Often you do not know how accurately,
reliably, thoroughly and fairly a certain philosopher has
presented his own viewpoint or that of others. With the
course of time you indeed note which writers are often
referred to because they have made important contributions.
What is certainly clear is that articles in philosophical
periodicals are of more recent origin, because articles
require a lot less preparation than books. There you find the
most recent trends regarding specific themes if of course
there are still people writing on that specific theme!
Some students find it difficult to extract data from
philosophical literature. Do you read only books and articles
and try to remember what is important? Do you take over a
writers ideas just like that even the formulations and
sentence constructions? Philosophical research deals mostly
with definitions, but especially with arguments. It is
therefore important that information is gathered in such a
way that the tendency, as well as the context of the
argument is taken into account. Along with this, the
structure of the arguments must also be revealed. How to do
this is discussed in Chapter 4.
When you gather data, it must be systematically noted. This is
important, because these notes form the information which will
be fashioned into the research results. Some people find it
easier to make notes about the different aspects of a research
project on different pages and then to organise these aspects in
terms of themes or subjects. If you do it this way, you will
perhaps find that the information from one source will be
spread across a number of pages with different headings. It is
important to maintain an openness towards the data so that, if
83
necessary, relevant data can modify the provisional planning

and schemes.
5.2 Interpret, organise, structure and write

Naturally the mass of data must be digested and fashioned
into a coherent and meaningful whole. At this point in the
research process you will discover to what extent the
different aspects of the research process support or undermine each other depending on how well or poorly they have
been carried out. When the data has to be integrated into a
meaningful whole, it will become clear how well the
research instructions were understood and the research
problem defined, how good the initial provisional scheme
was, whether it should be modified in the light of the new
data, whether relevant data has been gathered, and so on.
This is also the way in which you should go to work at this
stage, namely, to examine more closely everything that has
been done so far in order to take a decision about what fits
in and what does not, as well as to decide in what scheme or
pattern the collected data and insights will be presented.
Although they are discussed elsewhere in more detail, it is
important to mention some key requirements. which any
philosophical research should fulfil. When deciding on how
the collected data and ideas should be . integrated, you
should ask what definitions are needed and what arguments
can be and should be made. It is of great importance that
what you say comes across clearly and distinctly. and that
the reader should be persuaded by sound reasoning. Such an
argument must be a step-by-step process in which the reader
clearly senses that one paragraph flows from, and builds on
the previous one. This kind of logical construction of a
reasoned argument is what impresses lecturers! In addition,
84
it is of importance to ensure that the different parts of the

text fit together and that you do not contradict yourself,
that is, that what appears on one page of your final report is
entirely in harmony with what is argued for earlier and later
in the text. In Chapter 9 more specific guidelines are given
about the writing of a philosophical text.
6.
CONCLUSION
The broad guidelines to the research process which are

given above are just that: broad guidelines. No hard and fast
rules or rigid guidelines are laid down, but rather
parameters are established within which you can become
more acquainted with your life-world. What sort of person
are you? Someone who is curious, who really wants to
know more, who is not always satisfied with established
ideas, who wants to understand more about how things
work. To have this sort of attitude is an indispensable
prerequisite for a researcher. This kind of attitude is only
enhanced by what has been written about the research
process. Without this, the content of this chapter will prove
fruitless.
Bibliography
Rossouw, H. W. Enkele Riglyne by die Skryf van n Opstel.
University of Stellenbosch: Unpublished lecture notes.
85
The bibliographic
search
P Serfontein
Many students hearts sink into their shoes when they get
the instruction to write a philosophy essay. Eventually some
hand in poor essays or nothing at all. There are surely many
reasons for this. However, more often than not it is a
question of ignorance about how and where to begin the
research process. This is unnecessary! The purpose of this
chapter is to provide general guidelines about how to obtain
the, necessary information and background knowledge on a
particular subject.
The quality of a philosophy essay does not only have to do
with thinking and language skills, but is also, to a great
extent, dependent on the usefulness and relevance of the
research material or information upon which the arguments
are based. It is important therefore that this early phase of
information gathering is undertaken in a systematic,
purposeful and competent manner.
The bibliographic search begins as soon as the task subject is
established. The question, however, is where do you begin?
An important tip is to ensure that from the beginning you
note down the complete data from every source that is
necessary for the bibliography (see Chapter 8). This includes:
the author(s) name, full title of the book, date of publication,
publisher, place of publication and in the case of periodical
articles, it is also necessary to take down the name of the
periodical, volume and page numbers.
86
Material that is gathered and noted down in an orderly

manner is ultimately time-saving with regard to the
assignment in question, and it can also be useful for further
assignments or other academic activities.
1.
THE SEARCH
The first step in the bibliographical search involves

orientating yourself with regard to the subject in question, as
well as determining the meaning of any unknown words.
Excellent sources of background knowledge about a subject
are encyclopaedias and subject dictionaries. General
encyclopaedias, for example the Encyclopaedia Britannica,
can be used, but you will probably find the subject-directed
encyclopaedias and dictionaries in the library especially
useful aids, for example:
Edwards, P. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (8 vols).
Flew, A. A Dictionary of Philosophy.
Grooten, J. and Steenbergen, G. J. New Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.
Lacey, A. R. A Dictionary of Philosophy.
Urmson, J. O. The Concise Encyclopedia of Western
Philosophy and Philosophers.
Wiener, P. P. Dictionary of the History of Ideas. (5 vols).
Apart from the background knowledge that you can acquire
in this manner, reference is usually made at the end of an
article in an encyclopaedia to various other articles that deal
with the subject.
Note also if the name of any person is mentioned often
such a person will have written a great deal about the
subject and can be viewed as an authority. It may be a good
idea to obtain works by such an author in particular.
87
For a historical perspective and background on the most

important philosophers and philosophical ideas, F. C.
Coplestons History of Philosophy (8 vols) is an important
source to consult. Other useful sources on the history of
philosophy are:
The Great Ages of Western Philosophy (2 vols). Stumpf,
S. E. Philosophy, History and Problems. Windelband,
W. A History of Philosophy (2 vols).
Consult also the catalogue in the library for available books
on your subject, for example euthanasia, Aristotle,
postmodernism, etc.
If you feel at all unsure about the use of the library or the
catalogue, ask the Information Librarians in the library for
help. They will gladly help you!
Students are often unaware of the large number of

philosophical periodicals which can be consulted in the
library, for example:
The South African Journal of Philosophy
International Philosophical Quarterly
Journal of the History of Ideas
Journal of Philosophy.
These periodicals offer an excellent way of gaining especially
recent information on a particular subject.
In order to trace relevant articles on a particular subject, the
Philosophers Index can be consulted. This source, which
appears annually; contains an index of philosophical books
and articles.
This source is very easy to use, but if you have problems at
first ask the Information Librarian.
88
2.
HOW TO USE THE PHILOSOPHERS INDEX
Every volume of the Philosophers Index consists of a

subject index followed by an author index with abstracts.
If your subject is euthanasia, for example, then you search
for this word in the subject index. The work is alphabetically
arranged. Under this heading you will then get a
bibliography that contains the writers names and the titles
of articles or books. For the full bibliographical data page to
the author index which also in most cases, contains a short
abstract of the content of the article or book.
The subject index covers a wide range of subjects from

names (for example, Hobbes, Locke, MacIntyre, etc.) to
different sections of philosophy (for example, ethics,
aesthetics, political philosophy, etc.) and specific subjects
(for example, historical materialism, social contract, freedom of speech, liberalism, etc.).
Armed with a list of articles in philosophical periodicals,
you can then quickly consult the title catalogue of the
library to determine whether the library has the periodicals
you need.
In this manner you can assemble extremely useful information for your essay.
In conclusion: Take your time and look at the books on the
shelf which deal with your particular subject, for example:
ethics. Scrutinise the contents pages of books with
promising titles. In this way you often chance upon very
useful information about the subject in question, while at the
same time enlarging your insight into the subject.
89
Bibliography and
source references
P Serfontein
1.
THE ALPHABETICAL SOURCE LIST
Scientific rigour demands that all the sources consulted

during research are listed alphabetically at the end of a
paper or essay.
This source list does not only lend authority to the writers
arguments; it also indicates the sources which can be
consulted in further research on the subject. In the teaching
situation the source list also enables the lecturer to
determine from which literature you have constructed your
frame of reference.
It is essential that a bibliography be presented accurately.
Bibliographical references must therefore be carefully noted
down during the research and writing process.
There are different ways of presenting the bibliographic
information. There is indeed a reasonable measure of
agreement among the different styles and all of them contain
more or less the. same information. However, it is important
that the style which is decided upon is carried through
consistently.
Apart from consistency in style, a further basic rule in the
construction of the source list is that every entry is made in
the language of the quoted source . This would mean for
90
example, that when an editor is referred to, the abbreviation

ed.(s) (English), or red.(s) (Afrikaans), or Hrsg. (German) is
used, depending on the language in which the document
appeared.
All the different sources which are consulted are arranged
alphabetically by author. Below are examples of how you
refer to the different types of sources according to the
Harvard method.
A book with one author
Beauchamp, T. L. 1978. Contemporary Issues in Bioethics.
Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
A book with two authors
Singer, P. & Wells, D. 1984. The Reproduction Revolution:

New Ways of Making Babies. Oxford: University Press.
A collection with an editor
Allen, R. E. (ed.) 1966. Greek Philosophy: Thales to
Aristotle. New York: Free Press.
A contribution to a collection
MacIntyre, A. 1982. A Crisis in Moral Philosophy. In
Callahan, D. (ed.). The Roots of Ethics. New York: Plenum
Press: 320.
Note: The pages of the contribution in question must be
supplied.
91
A book with an institution as author

Human Sciences Research Council (South Africa). Institute
for Information and Special Services. 1970. General
Information. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.
State publication
South Africa (Republic). Commission of Inquiry into Race
Issues in South Africa, 1990: Report. Pretoria: Government .
Printers.
Periodical articles
Levy, S. R. 1980. Abortion and Dissenting Parents. Ethics,
90(2):162164.
Unpublished theses and dissertations

Nel, P.R. 1978. Objectivity and Subjectivity in Science.
Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch (MA dissertation).
A work whose author is unknown
Anon. 1989. The Role of the Police during the State of
Emergency. The Sunday Times, 26 August: 2.
Interview
Venter, K. Interview on 2 February 1990 with F. W. de
Klerk in Cape Town conducted in connection with the
release of Nelson Mandela.
A translated work
Aristotle 1925. The Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by D. P.
Chase. London: Dutton.
92
Note: The original author is named, then the title in its

translated form is given, and then the name of the translator
and the details of the translated edition follow.
More than one work by the same author in the same

year:
Nietzsche, F. W. I 964a. Die Geburt der Tragodie. Stuttgart:
Alfred Kroner.
Nietzsche, F. W. I 964b. Unzeitgemasse Betrachtungen.
Stuttgart: Alfred Kroner.
2.
SOURCE REFERENCES WITHIN THE TEXT
In order to prevent plagiarism, it is necessary to acknowledge

the words and thoughts of the original author. The thoughts
of the original author can be referred to directly, although
the writer renders these in his/her own words, or the passage
in question can be directly quoted within inverted commas.
In both cases it is necessary that the other writers work is
identified by referring to the sources in question.
The Harvard method is recommended because it is a lot
easier than the older op. cit. and loc. cit. reference system.
The authors surname, year of publication and page number
are inserted between brackets within the text at the end of
the sentence, for example:
Of course, a great deal of ethical theory is controversial,
and a study of some parts of it raises more questions than
answers (Brandt, 1982:16).
Or
When someone asserts that he can do without church,
confession, faith, or God, we are dealing with secular-ism
(Heyns, 1969:24).
93
The necessary data can however, also comprises part of the

sentence, for example:
Barnes (1980:225) discusses the obligations of the
citizen with regard to the state as follows:
Or
Taylor (1985:36) refers to the fact that an Aristotelian
approach means that: We cant just legislate the
goods people are actually seeking ....
Note: The authors initials are left out, but if there are two
or more authors in the source list with the same surname,
their initials must be included in the reference in order to
prevent confusion.
Sometimes reference is made to more than one page. This is

indicated by a comma or hyphen, for example: Du Plessis
(1985:2, 10, 2226).
Sometimes the argument being referred to extends over a
number of pages. This is indicated as follows: Liebenberg
(1953:58 et seqq.).
When a work with, two or more authors is referred to, it is
done as follows:
Du Toit, Collins & Bothas (1981:15) viewpoint can be
summarised as follows.
Or
This approach entails a view of reality in which the
human subject is placed in opposition to the world
(Mackenzie et al., 1977:47).
94
3.
THE USE OF FOOT- AND ENDNOTES
When a source is used directly or indirectly, the reference to

such a source occurs in the text itself (as is indicated above).
Footnotes and content notes or annotations can still be used
to provide additional information or to further clarify
concepts in the text.
Place a reference number (usually Arabic numerals) in the
text immediately after the word or sentence in question. The
reference number is placed partially above the line.
For every reference number in the text, write a
corresponding reference number either at the bottom of the
appropriate page in the case of footnotes or at the end in the
case of endnotes or annotations, for example:
In his discussion of the correspondence theory of truth
A. R. White4 makes a distinction ...
The foot- or endnote looks like this:

2. White also discusses different traditional and modern
views of truth.
95
The writing of a
philosophy essay
JJ Snyman
Now that you are conversant with inferences, reasons,

conclusions, arguments and counterarguments, we can move
on to the writing of an essay in philosophy. To allow a
philosophy essay to unfold correctly you must remember
that a piece of work of this sort demands planning and is not
simply finished overnight. There are at least three phases in
the writing of a philosophy essay.
1.
The preparatory phase during which a number of

decisions must be taken and the writing up of all
sorts of information and ideas until the first rough draft
is done.
2.
The making of the end-product, that is, a penultimate

structuring, the second and third draft.
3.
The end-product: this is the final shaping and

completion of the essay during which a lot of checking
must be done.
1.
PREPARATORY WORK
In this phase a number of decisions have to be taken. These

decisions are mostly in response to questions which you
must ask yourself.
96
1.1 Questions about the assignment
What do the concepts in the assignment mean? Consult

ordinary and subject dictionaries and encyclopaedias
here if you are uncertain or go and talk to the lecturer if
there are obscurities.
What objective has been set by the assignment? Is it to
learn something new, to learn how to formulate, how to
argue, to criticise, to cast work which has already been
covered in your own language and arguments? Ask the
lecturer if you are not certain.
What type of essay is desired? Is it simply
summarising, arranging, rendering, overview, critical
discussion, analysis, providing evidence, designing,
testing of inferences and conclusions, refutation, etc.?
(Consult the following chapter for an exposition of the
types of essays that can be written in Philosophy.)
Where will you find the material for the assignment?
What literature must be used, or should you work the
argument out for yourself and argue in response to a
reading?
What material is usable and relevant? Beware of just
using books and articles that you come across in an
index under a given subject. Something that was written
on liberalism in 1930, for example, is not automatically
usable today unless that document is for one reason or
another regarded as a classic.
1.2 A first sketch of the end-product

At this stage you should not be in a position to sit down and
write an assignment from page one to page ten. At most you
have only vague ideas, loose thoughts and a mass of data.
Now you should start sorting:
97
98
What is and what is not asked: limit the assignment

(and the essay). For example: you have to write an
essay on The Soul-Body Problem in Philosophy, and
you are restricted to 3 000 words on this topic. A first
and logical limitation will be that this essay will not be
an overview of what philosophers have had to say on
the subject over the last 2 000 years. Decide on a facet
of the problem, for example, viewpoints on the
mortality of the soul, and search for representative
arguments for and against these views.
When you have established the limits of the topic,
decide what the main question is and what secondary
questions stem from it, and which of these you are
going to deal with.
Think about where to begin and where to end. How are
you going to proceed with the issues, how will your data
flow? It is important to remember that an essay is not a
sandwich which is randomly packed with filling until it is
thick or long enough. Everything must fit together. If you
think that you have hit on something clever, think about
how you are going to build it into the course of the
argument. If you struggle with this, it may perhaps be an
indication that this piece of data does not fit.
In some types of essays it is explicitly expected of you to
give your own opinion. Think about how and where you
will do this. There are various possibilities:
As a concluding remark or closing paragraph that
begins I think that ... or One would say that ...
(or any variation of these);
as your own theory, usually by way of concluding;
in critical questions and observations, usually as
closing views, but they can also appear in the course
of the argument;
in loaded words and phrases (this insightful

view, rightly, with justice, unjustly,
incorrectly, etc.), suggestions and innuendo
(from this region, it is not surprising that ...,
if one is in agreement that ...), proposals, and so
forth; or
you can also present someone elses point of view
as an answer to a problem without stating
explicitly that it is your own point of view. The
course of the argument will then suggest that this
viewpoint is favoured and that it is considered to
be an answer to the stated question.
Try continually however, to say more than merely:
basically I agree/disagree. Give reasons, give your own
rendering of a similar viewpoint and discover how your
own emphases make a difference to the original data. It is
your own emphases which matter. (See the sections on the
issue of individual opinion and on the subjective judgement
of the lecturer in Chapter 10.)
1.3 The big question
Very often an assignment is given as a mere statement:
The body-soul problem, or Postmodernism. This leads
students to think that all that is required of them is to find a
number of facts or statements on the subject and to
reproduce these in a manner that is logical in one way or
another. What you ought to do in order to determine what
is contained in the subject, is to change the subject into a
question. Better still: think of what questions are contained
in the subject. For example: Is there something like a soul?
Why do. people think that there should be souls? What is the
function/meaning of the concept soul? What is postmodernism? What is modernism? Why post? Is it a victory
99
over, or a protest against modernism? From these questions

you should arrive at a statement of the main problem, and
possible answers or views.
1.4 The provisional scheme
If you have progressed this far, you can start thinking about
a scheme, a sketch or a kind of work-map. This is not a
time-schedule, but rather a kind of proposal of the whole.
The purpose is to plot out all the data, thoughts, questions
and so on so that you begin to get a sense of where things
belong.
1.5 The first draft

Now the first draft can be attempted, and this consists of
cryptic, telegram-style notes of what you think the essay will
look like. In places these notes will be more detailed,
especially where you yourself want to say something. Make
use of blocks and arrows, and see how the essay flows
from beginning to end. Is something lacking, or is there too
much material?
By this time you will have worked through the sources well
and have organised your thoughts. Now you can tackle the
second phase, namely the making of the end-product.
2.
THE MAKING OF THE END-PRODUCT
The following phase is the writing of the second and even

third draft, not yet entirely the finished product. What is
now required of you is to shape your thoughts into an
acceptable form. This acceptable form contains the
following three-part arrangement:
100
1.
Introduction (Say what you will do).
2.
Body (Do what you said you would do).
3.
Conclusion (Tell the reader what he/she ought to have

gained by the reading of your essay).
2.1 Introduction
Although the introduction does not contain that many

sentences, one says a great deal in it. From the introduction
emerges the interpretation of the subject, the statement of
objectives, and the drawing of parameters. What is indeed
explicitly presented is the statement of the problem and the
work-plan to be followed. As self-evident as it may sound,
one says something like the following:
In this essay, Platos views about X are presented. To see
these in perspective, his arguments about Y are first looked
at, after which his thoughts about Z will be explained. In
conclusion, it will be explained how Y and Z connect with
each other to make X look plausible.
This introduction is important: the attention of the reader is
hereby captured, and he/she is informed precisely as to what
to expect in the essay. An introduction is not a few pretty
sentences with which the writer soft-soaps the reader. The
reader must know exactly what the writer wants to achieve.
If the reader has to guess, he/she might lose interest, even
worse, the reader might decide that the writer is confused
and therefore regard the essay as worthless.
101
2.2 Body
This part is the execution of the work-plan that was stated in
the beginning, and it must respect the sequence in the stated
work-plan. This part can also be provided with main
headings (following the outline of the work-plan) and subheadings. This facilitates the reading of the essay.
What happens in this part of the essay depends on the kind
of essay desired. Consult the following chapter on types of
essays.
2.3 Conclusion
Tell the reader where you have brought him/her. The
conclusion can be a confirmation of initial suppositions. It
can be an explicit formulation of the answer to the initial
question or questions. It can be a summary of the most
prominent conclusions of the argument a sort of
underlining. Usually a self-evaluation of the results of the
writers argument goes together with the last possibility. It is
not necessarily a case of blowing ones own trumpet, but a
way of spelling out the possible advantages of ones own
theory or experience as against other possibilities.
An element of playfulness is always an important ingredient
in a philosophy essay. Play a role. Be the devils advocate to
your own point of view or to that of another. An implicit or
explicit question-and-answer style can come in handy in this
respect. You can even query your own argument with a
question or an objection, e.g. Is such an inference/
conclusion valid? or How could Q come to such a
conclusion?. Make it appear as though something of a
discussion or a debate is being conducted with someone else.
102
3.
THE END PRODUCT
This is the phase of final shaping and completion. In this

phase one mainly makes sure of the following things:
Make sure that the introduction agrees with the rest of

the essay. It must guide the reader. You must therefore
know what the end is, and it is for this reason that the
introduction in its final form must also be the last part
of the essay to be written.
Take care that the end-product is consistent. Check the

following:
Do the sequence in the work-plan and the

introduction and the sequence of the main points in
the essay agree?
If internal references are used in the essay, is the

reader directed to the places to which you refer?
(Example: This matter is touched on in 3.1 on
page 9. Ensure that it is indeed 3.1 and that it is
page 9 of the final manuscript and not page 9 of the
draft version!) Internal references must preferably
refer back rather than forward. The problem with
forward references is that they can easily give rise to
circular arguments: the reader has to accept
something as already proven now, that in fact must
still be proved further on.
Literature references and bibliography: For a

complete exposition of the correct style of
reference and the setting up of a bibliography you
can consult Chapter 8 about the bibliography and
source references.
Next make sure of transitions. Thoughts should not

just appear out of thin air. Check whether the
103
paragraphs and sub-sections connect with each

other. If something should form a contrast, indicate
this with a word or a transitional phrase like in
contrast to this. If it must cohere, then say:
connected to this ... Make use of transitions like:
From what has been said so far, it appears that ...
or If ..., then ... It is good to close a section with
something like the following: In summary it can be
said that ..., For this reason attention can next be
given to ... (or any variation of this).
104
Be careful of the word thus. Make sure that there

are clearly identifiable reasons present in the text if
this word is used.
Make sure of paragraph divisions and sentence

construction. It is good style to alter the length of
sentences. Main thoughts always come in short and
simple sentences. Long and complicated sentences
with more than two verbs should be rewritten as
simpler sentences. Also check your spelling and
choice of words. A dictionary is standard writing
material for any person who needs to write anything
more than letters!
Take care that the appearance of the essay fulfils the

following requirements:
The essay should look neat. No pages torn from a

notebook should be handed in.
Provide the essay with cover page (an ordinary A4

page), with the title of the essay and your name and
student number clearly written on it.
The essay should be manageable. Secure the pages

with simple paper-clips or staples. Nuts and bolts,
steel bands, all kinds of ribbons and pieces of wool,

and large, thick cardboard files are totally
unnecessary (and often damage the lecturers desk).
Write only on the right-hand page.
Leave a margin of about 3 cm on the left.
Study and analyse an article which has appeared in a

philosophy periodical. You ought then to see how this essay
has fulfilled the basic requirements as well as what
possibilities exist for interesting variations.
105
10
Types of essays in
philosophy
JJ Snyman
Various types of essays are possible in philosophy. Each

type of essay will determine how you go about searching for
information and the ultimate wording of the material. It is
possible that elements of all the different types of essays
occur in a single essay, but for the convenience of distinction
they are kept separate from each other here.
PARAPHRASING AND SUMMARISING
This is the type of essay which is set most frequently in any

introductory or orientational work. The most important
objective of this sort of work is to make a given piece of
literature understandable by rendering it in a shorter and
simpler form. Paraphrases and summaries do not contain
quotations from the literature as confirmation or illustration
of a point. Neither does the data in this type of essay
necessarily follow the order of the data in the original. The
argument, the matter or the issue in question is
straightforwardly stated. A summary or paraphrase often
begins with the writers conclusion, and then provides an
overview of the motivations for this. The text should
therefore be read thoroughly before you proceed to write
about it. A summary is not a representative sample of
sentences/ statements in a given piece of literature.
106
2.
RECONSTRUCTION
PROBLEM
OF
AN
ARGUMENT/
This type of essay is a more advanced form of summary or

paraphrase and the instruction usually reads: Give an
accurate explanation of .... In this kind of essay the
problem, statement of problem and/or the argument of a
philosopher must be reconstructed.
A problem can be understood in one or both of the following

ways:
Firstly: Very often the work of a philosopher is a reaction to
one or another question or problem, and very often this
problem is stated explicitly in the work. But just as often the
problem is, at most, implied. A philosophical text can be
clarified by inferring from the text what precisely this
problem was. In so doing you arrive at the philosophers
statement of the problem. You can understand a philosopher
if you can discover the sorts of questions he/she asked. And
the questions that a philosopher poses are very often more
important and insightful than the answers.
Secondly: There may be an inherent problem in a
philosophers work. This is when for one or other reason,
wittingly or unwittingly, the philosopher writes him- or
herself into a corner. There is one or another tension that is
not resolved, or an inconsistency, or a question that is not
answered or cannot be answered. Something does not quite
fit. Pointing out this sort of problem may also help to make
a philosopher more intelligible.
All philosophical texts invariably consist of one argument or
another. Sometimes the argument is wholly recognisable as
such, even if it is an extended one. Sometimes parts of the
argument are concealed, or not so explicitly stated, or the
107
conclusion is merely suggested. It is now expected of you to

draw together the threads of the argument, to formulate
explicitly, with motivation from the text, the point that the
philosopher wants to make.
In this sort of essay phrases like the following occur:
X states his viewpoint on Y as a reaction to Z. The

reconstruction is then a colouring in of the background
of Xs viewpoint by contrasting it with Zs. This is
followed by an outline of those of Zs problems to which
X thinks he/she can make a better contribution.
To follow Xs argument, one must know what his/her

assumptions are and what they contain. Often a
philosopher conceals his/her point of departure because
it is taken to be generally known. The reader is not
always acquainted with what is regarded as already
known, and becoming acquainted with that assumed
knowledge can supply further reasons for the ultimate
conclusion.
When an argument, problem, or statement of a problem is

reconstructed, quotations from the work discussed can be
used, but then only as an illustration of something that the
philosopher says in a very typical way.
Important guidelines for the execution of this type of
instruction are also given in the chapters on Reading,
understanding and judging philosophical texts and The writing
of a philosophy essay.
3.
ARGUE/REASON
This is the most typical philosophical genre. What is desired

here is a demonstration that is, an extended argument by
means of motivated assumptions, reasons, inferences and
108
conclusions. The instruction will usually read: Present a

critical discussion of ..., or it will ask for an evaluation or
for a personal opinion on the matter.
Here different approaches are possible:
You can be asked to supply an argument only to support

or disprove a matter. The expectation is that you should
briefly state the matter and the questions that relate to
the argument. Then your personal argument follows
(often in response to literature) for or against the matter.
You can be asked to judge an argument. You may find

that the argument is too weak or too strong, and you can
then propose a stronger or a weaker rendering of the
original argument. If you find that the given argument is
invalid, a counterargument is developed. The argument
to be judged must get a fair chance to state its case. But
in this philosophical fairness there also lies a
philosophical cunning: the argument is rendered in such a
way that its weak points begin to emerge clearly. The
evaluation then highlights these weak points, and
proposes something in response: a weakening, a
strengthening or a completely oppositional approach.
You can be asked to propose a solution to a certain

unresolved problem. In this case you should in a sense
also develop a counterargument or a weaker or stronger
variant of the original argument to solve the unresolved
problem (which naturally must be well identified and
specified). What is expected here is an exposition of why
the matter is a problem, and what the requirements for
the solution ought to be. A solution is then argued for in
accordance with the specified requirements.
109
A strategy that you can follow here is to formulate the issue

under discussion as a question to which yes and no can
be the answer. You will then have constructed a thoughtexperiment by thinking through and doing reading on
(however improbable they might perhaps sound) both yes
and no arguments about this matter. Sort out these
arguments, viewpoints and reasons on two different axes, in a
sequence moving from strong to weak (the yes
arguments), and from weak to strong (the no arguments):
Yes: Arguments, reasons, viewpoint
Question
No: Arguments, reasons, viewpoint
Then decide where in this scheme the problem posed in the

instruction is located, what must/can be done with it, and
where in the scheme the possible and required solutions lie.
The important point to remember in any argument that you
put to the test is to take account of possible counterarguments. You should be able to play devils advocate to
your own argument; in other words, you should be able to
conceptualise what sorts of arguments can be brought
against your own case. It is therefore a good strategy to
advance certain objections against your own case
beforehand, by saying for example: The objection can be
lodged that ..., but ... You do not blindly adopt a viewpoint.
If strong arguments against your own standpoint exist, you
can nonetheless defend it by stating fair conditions under
which this viewpoint is tenable.
4.
INTERPRETATIVE REPRESENTATION
In this kind of essay students must discuss an unusual or

very extensive philosophical text. At best it is a combination
110
of elements of the reconstruction and argument types of

essay. Here you concentrate on rendering a text or a
philosophical conception intelligible. It involves the
reconstruction of an argument, the hidden and known
agenda of the writer, the different possible meanings of
ideas that he/she might have, the location of the connections
between arguments and data that are presented by the writer.
Where the bare reconstruction of a problem or argument
reduces the work of the philosopher under discussion, the
interpretative representation aims to help the reader of the
philosophical text get a sense of its richness.
5.
TWO GENERAL PROBLEMS
There are two problems with the writing of a philosophical

essay which time and again are experienced by students and
bemoaned by lecturers. These are: the issue of the personal
opinion (of a student) and the subjective judgement of the
lecturer which the student has to accommodate.
5.1 The issue of a personal opinion
This matter is mentioned separately here because students
often have a problem with it. Sometimes students wonder
where their own opinion about a matter comes into its own,
and sometimes they are unsure whether they should, in fact,
state their own opinion on a matter.
If one looks at the types of essays above, it is clear that there
are different strategies for expressing a personal opinion. In
some essays a personal opinion comes over in the manner in
which the material is selected and arranged. Your personal
opinion then manifests itself in the connections that you can
apply to the material that is made available to you. In other
essays you have to explicitly express and argue for certain
111
value-judgements: the matter is logical/illogical, just/unjust,

moral/immoral, true/false, good/bad. These sorts of valuejudgements and their discussion can be done in the course of
the essay, or as a detailed argument at the end of the essay
(the counterargument type of essay lends itself very well to
this). You can also express a personal opinion or valuejudgement by making use of someone elses work. If a good
counterargument is set up by Smith against Jones, you
introduce your own opinion part with something like In
opposition to this Smith argues rightly that ....
Sometimes a personal opinion is inappropriate. This often
happens when you feel that you have to react to every
statement made by a philosopher and you can soon deface
your essay with I agree or I do not agree. It would have
been better had you identified the main issue in the
argument and then, stating reasons, said why you agreed or
disagreed. Or sometimes your opinion is not at issue. The
argument deals with apples and you drag pears into the
matter. Or the worst happens: your personal opinion rests on
a fallacy. The fallacy that occurs most (especially with
beginner students) is to give a personal opinion by merely
appealing to authority.
5.2 The subjective judgement of the lecturer
It happens that students sometimes feel offended about the
mark that they have been given for an essay, or that they are
afraid to acknowledge a personal opinion. The reason they
advance for the offence and the fear is that they think that
what they wrote does not agree with the subjective
judgement of the lecturer. When students argue in this way,
they accept that the only correct standpoint/ interpretation/
argument is that of the lecturer, or that the
112
lecturer wants
reproduced.
his/her
judgement
to
be
uncritically
Whatever the case may be, it is extremely unphilosophical.

A student can adopt any viewpoint, including one which
contradicts the lecturer, as long as this viewpoint is relevant,
can be defended in the acceptable manner of logical
argumentation, without being deliberately offensive or
insulting.
113
11
Study management
HPP Ltter
The more autonomous and self-employed you want to be,

the more it becomes necessary to work systematically and
regularly precisely because you must manage without the
continual external encouragement of the teacher. For this,
self-discipline and planning are necessary.
Many a very gifted student, who has lacked this attribute of

self-discipline, has in the past had to go home emptyhanded without making head or tail of his or her study.
(Pauw 1974:54,58 [translated into English])
1.
INTRODUCTION
To study successfully at university demands that you

manage your study activities, because every student should
take responsibility for what he or she achieves. To manage
your study means:
1.
that you must gather the right sort of information to

know what you must do and when,
2. that you must plan carefully to ensure that you can get
everything done at the right time, and
3. that you regulate yourself accurately in order to carry
out your planned programme carefully and in time.
What follows is an explanation of these three aspects.
114
2.
GATHERING OF INFORMATION
A student requires a great deal of information for sound

planning in order to study successfully. Hopefully every
student knows for which course or subjects he/she has
registered, but it is not self-evident that a student knows at
what times and in which lecture-hall classes are presented.
This information is essential, as is knowing what books are
prescribed, when and where larger and smaller tests are
being written, and knowing what instructions or assignments
must be handed in on what dates. A study guide or a set of
key notes often contains this information, as well as
information brochures which the university makes available.
In order to do good planning a lot more information is
necessary. You must know how a semester mark/year mark
is constituted, so that priority can be assigned to those tests
and assignments that constitute a significant proportion of
such a mark. It is also important to know when examinations
are to be held on each subject, so that you can determine
how much time is available to devote to every subject.
Naturally you need to make sure that you know what tests
and examinations cover, as well as what themes are
available for the assignments. It is staggering to a lecturer to
see how often students are incorrectly informed about such
matters!
Apart from all sorts of information regarding academic
activities, you should also gather adequate information
about your extramural activities. Students who participate in
sport on a regular basis or in a choir should check on
practice times and when competitions or performances will
be held. Furthermore, specific once-off events like Intervarsity and the Song Festival should be noted, as well as the
preparations that might be necessary for these. Everyday
115
obligations at your residence or routine tasks at your living

quarters or parental home should be added to this
information, because they influence your everyday study
programme.
3.
PLANNING
What do you now do with all this information which is

probably very confusing and intimidating? How must it all
be synthesised? The most important role that this
information can play is to indicate
1.
what, in total, should be done in a certain semester;
2.
what specific things must be completed in a term;
3.
what more or less must be done in every week, and
4.
how much time is available for study during the

examination and how much time is available for every
subject.
With this information in order, you can begin to plan

provisionally to fit all your activities in so that everything
can be timeously and properly completed. You can set up a
programme that covers all the most important events during
a semester, as well as one for every day of the week in which
more detailed information is contained, for example, what
lectures to attend, and so on. It is important that you leave
room in such a programme for unexpected events. In
addition, you should neither adhere too rigidly to such a
programme, nor should you abandon such a programme as a
guideline for everyday activities. Consult Chapter 12 for
more specific guidelines on time management.
116
4.
CARRYING OUT A PROGRAMME
It does not help to plan your working days carefully on the

basis of detailed information and then not act accordingly.
You need a great deal of self-discipline to ensure that the
most important parts of a programme are carried out. The
purpose of such a programme is to increase your
productivity, that is to say, that you get as much as possible
completed in the limited time that is available to you. A
students productivity is not measured by the number of
hours spent behind a desk, but by the amount of work that
can be completed in a limited time.
In what ways can you increase your productivity? The

following tips will help you:
Attend all lectures. There are various good reasons for

this. During a lecture you become acquainted with the
prescribed work, and it is presented in an accessible
manner. In addition, good lecturers present the work in
such a manner that you gain a useful summary of it, the
more difficult parts are rendered intelligible, and tips as
to which parts are most important are also given.
Another advantage that the attendance of lectures offers
is that you get to know a particular lecturer and his/her
lecturing style, as well as the ways in which he/she views
the work and what he/she regards as important.
Buy all prescribed books. Naturally an intelligent student

will first ascertain whether all the books will indeed be
used; but if they are going to be used, every one of them
should be on your shelf. The reason for this is that sources
that contain information of crucial importance for lectures,
tests, assignments and examinations are then within your
immediate reach. It can be very time-consuming always
having to borrow the books from other students when they
117
are finished with them or to go to the library to ask for the

copies on the reserved shelves. If it is impossible to acquire
all of the books due to their cost, you need to make
provision for the time that will be wasted in this process.
Use the study guide. Study guides (or key notes) are
composed to make the content of a course more
accessible and orderly to students. For this reason they
should be thoroughly utilised. Short cuts and useful tips
can allow you to work faster and more thoroughly.
Make summaries. Although it initially takes a lot of time

to summarise the content of a course, it is well worth the
trouble, because of the large amount of time that is
saved later during tests and examinations. Even
summaries must later be summarised! However, you
should never rely on summaries alone see them simply
as the scheme of the content of a course. Take care to
go back regularly to the key notes and prescribed books
so that your scheme comes alive with enough flesh
(detailed information) around it.
Form discussion groups. One of the most useful means

by which greater productivity in study can be promoted
is a discussion or study group. A group of students who
sometimes get together to discuss the content of a
course, to try to solve problems with the course and to
set up and try to answer possible test and examination
questions can be a strong stimulus for motivated,
thorough study.
Rest and relax sufficiently. A mistake that students often

make is to work in such a way that during tests they
have a great deal less rest and relaxation than usual.
This is a big mistake. In order to use ones brain-power
optimally, adequate rest and relaxation are necessary.
118
Researchers have found that too little rest impedes brain

functions like creativity and the acquisition of insights
first. It therefore makes sense to look after yourself well
so that you are reasonably rested and well cared for
right through a semester.
5.
CONCLUSION
Among the biggest mistakes that students make at

university is not to manage their study activities and to
think that they only need to begin working two or three
weeks after the commencement of classes. The financial
costs related to university study today are too high to make
such mistakes. The better and more responsible option is to
apply yourself to study management right from the
beginning.
Bibliography
Pauw, J.R. 1974. Eerstejaar op die kampus: n Wegwyser vir
die nuwe student. Johannesburg: Boekhandel de Jong.
119
12
Time management
GJ Rossouw
I didnt have enough time, is one of the most common

excuses used when students hand in assignments late or
when their performance in tests and the examination is not
as they would have liked. Unfortunately time is one of those
things that one can do nothing about. Time is not
intimidated by us. It simply moves on relentlessly. The only
thing that we can do is manage ourselves better so that we
can better utilise the time available to us. To utilise your
time better does not mean that you must necessarily work
harder. It just means that you must work in a more planned
and purposeful manner. There is an expression that
expresses it succinctly: work smarter, not harder. In this
chapter we will firstly look at those habits that cause us to
waste time. Thereafter we will look at ways in which we can
learn better habits regarding time-utilisation.
1.
FIVE BIG CONSUMERS OF TIME
1.11
Postponing
The first habit that leads to the squandering of valuable time

is the tendency to put off until tomorrow or later those
things that can be done today. The time that I could already
have devoted to the task today is then naturally lost forever
and cannot be recalled by any means. This habit normally
has two further bad side-effects. Firstly, it creates feelings of
guilt because you know only too well that your time is not
120
being utilised effectively. Secondly, it makes you think

negatively about yourself because you do not experience a
feeling of success and fulfillment, but rather a feeling of
failure owing to the non-attainment of your obligations and
objectives.
1.2 Tolerating too many interruptions

A second habit that causes time to be lost is the tendency to
interrupt yourself too often or to allow yourself to be
interrupted too often. The problem with such interruptions is
not just that valuable time is lost, but also that your
motivation and sharp focus on your objective is affected.
Interruptions will always occur, whether by a telephone or
by a visitor. However, this does not mean that we have to
surrender totally to these interruptions. It is in our power to
prevent some of these interruptions and especially to prevent
these interruptions from lasting longer than is really
necessary. You can, for example, go to another place to
work if you discover that you are frequently interrupted in
your residence room, or you can explain to a visitor that you
must first complete a task before you can go visiting
together.
1.3 Doing petty tasks while the big task is left undone
Surely one of the biggest consumers of time is the habit of
keeping yourself busy with all kinds of small tasks just because
you do not want to start on that large and important task that is
awaiting you. This putting-off approach is very common.
Because this habit leads to the further shrinking of the time
available for the completion of the task, it leads to increasing
anxiety about the task. This makes the problem look even
bigger. Postponement causes motivation to diminish even
121
further and big tasks become bigger than they were to begin
with.
1.4 Working without a plan
It is possible to keep yourself fairly busy with work and at

the same time waste valuable time. This happens especially
when you just do what lies within arms reach without
planning thoroughly. An example of this is the student who
is very busy reading all kinds of books and making
summaries and then suddenly discovers that there is no time
left to complete the task that must be handed in tomorrow.
Naturally it is important to read books and to make
summaries but in this case it should have been done only
when the task which had first priority (that which had to be
finished by tomorrow) had been completed. Then there
would have been enough time for the task, as well as for
reading and making summaries.
1.5 Saying yes too easily
A last habit which causes a lot of time to be lost is our
tendency to say yes to people too easily. In this way we
get involved in more things than we can handle. The
consequence is that our most important objectives are
adversely affected. This does not mean that one should now
go to the other extreme and always say no to everyone. We
all surely have an obligation towards other people and the
community in which we live and must therefore contribute a
certain amount towards them. However, what is of cardinal
importance is that, on the one hand, we do not accept more
responsibility than we can handle. On the other hand we
must only say yes to those things to which we can really
make a meaningful contribution.
122
2.
GOOD UTILISATION OF TIME
Habits are things that one struggles to get rid of. Fortunately
this does not only apply to bad habits but is also true of
good habits. What is of great importance when it comes to
utilisation of time is to acquire good habits in place of your
old bad habits. Naturally this demands self-discipline of you
until the new habit is established. Once it is established, it
requires far less self-discipline. It becomes almost second
nature almost like brushing your teeth: that which was
initially an unpleasant exertion later becomes something
pleasant and something which you would have difficulty
doing without. In the process of acquiring good habits there
are three questions that you must ask yourself: On which
things am I wasting my time? In what should I invest my
time? How can I best utilise my time?
2.1 On which things am I wasting my time?

Before you can cultivate new habits you must naturally first
uncover the weak points in your present habits of timeutilisation . You can do this in various ways. You can, for
example, note down for a week which things you invest time
in every day, so that you can form a picture of your present
time-utilisation habits. Another possibility is to reflect on
how you are inclined to allow time to be wasted, or you can
even ask a good friend to tell you honestly and directly
where he/she thinks you fritter away your time. Only when
you have traced these weak spots in your utilisation of time
are you ready to go further and acquire good habits.
123
2.2. In what should I invest my time?
The question In what should I invest my time? is closely

linked to the question what do I want to achieve? It is
therefore of cardinal importance that you determine as soon
as possible what you want to achieve in your life. If you do
not do this, the chances that you will utilise your time well
are slim. Moreover, you also run the danger of frittering
away your time here on earth.
When you study at a university, one assumes that your
university study is part of your preparation for the role that
you one day want to fulfil. University study is thus one of
your short-term objectives on the way to attaining your
long-term objectives. To carry through this phase of your
life well, it is essential that you spell out to yourself what you
want to attain at university. You should determine these
objectives as specifically as possible. Determine for yourself
what you want to attain at every level. In addition, you
should make your objectives as measurable as possible. You
should for example not only determine that you want to do
well in a certain subject, but commit yourself to gaining, for
arguments sake, 60% or 90% in the June examination.
When you have specific and measurable objectives, you are
ready to go further and plan more specifically how you will
reach those objectives. You can then decide what you need
to do each day and each week in order to reach the stated
objective.
However, there is one problem that might surface: this is
that some of your objectives might conflict with each other
or that there is not enough time available to you to reach all
of your objectives simultaneously. In such a case you should
arrange your objectives in order of importance (priority) so
that you first give attention to the most important matter.
124
Naturally you determine your priorities by ascertaining what

it is that is the most important for you to attain eventually.
Once you have determined what you want to attain and how
you will attain it, you can make use of the following tips to
utilise your time in the best possible way:
2.3 How can I utilise my time better?
Set up a weekly and daily priority list for yourself. Do

not put more on this list than you can handle. It might
even be that relaxation is a high priority for you at a
certain stage in which case you must also put this on
your priority list. Usually, not all the things that you put
on your priority list are equally important. You should
therefore specify which of the things on your list are the
most important and which less important. It is very good
practice to devote attention first of all to the most
important matter on your list and only move on when
the first matter is completed.
It is undoubtedly the case that there are better and worse

times of the day to work. At certain times of the day
there are simply more interruptions that can keep you
from your work than at other times of the day. In
addition, it is also true that one is clearer and sharper at
certain times of the day than at other times. Some people
are more productive early in the morning, while others
might find that they work best in the evening. In order to
utilise your time best, it is important that you determine
which times of the day you are interrupted least and also
when you are the most productive. These times are the
best time slots. Plan your day so that you can tackle your
most important work in these good time
125
slots. Rather do less important work, for which you

require less intense concentration, in your weaker time
slots.
You can save a lot of time by planning your work in

such a way that you can combine some of the different
objectives that you have. In this way you can work on
more than one objective at the same time. An example
of such an integration of tasks is the following: Let us
assume that you have three objectives that you want to
attain in the short term:
1. You have to write an assignment on human rights.

2. You want to gain a distinction in political philosophy.
3. You have to deliver an address on the requirements for a

good bill of human rights at one of the political societies
on campus.
We assume further that the task on human rights must be
dealt with first, and is therefore also your highest priority.
Instead of tackling each of these tasks in isolation, you can,
while you are working on the assignment, also do some
preparation for the other two tasks. You can for example,
make useful summaries for yourself while you are reading
work on which you will later be examined. In this way you
make preparing for your examinations easier. In addition
you can also make a few notes of material which you come
across which is relevant for your address on a bill of human
rights. When you then begin working on the preparation for
your address a week or two later, you are already orientated
and need not begin from scratch.
126
Every work session normally consists of three phases. First

there is the starting phase in which you orientate yourself
and get yourself ready for the task which you are about
to tackle. Then follows the middle phase in which you
begin to work purposefully on the task. Finally, there is
the concluding phase in which your attention begins to
wander and you are already beginning to direct yourself
to the next matter or appointment that will follow. It is
clear that the beginning and concluding phases are the
most unproductive phases of the work session. The
secret of good utilisation of time is that you keep these
two less productive phases to a minimum. You can
accomplish this by making use of longer, unbroken work
sessions. In this way a greater percentage of your time
goes into the productive middle phase. Instead of trying
to complete your work in short 10-minute sessions, you
will utilise your time a lot better if you rather make use
of, say, 40-minute work sessions.
In the business world reference is sometimes made to

Parkinsons law. This law states: Work expands so as
to fill the time available for its completion. This is very
often true. If you do not discipline yourself to complete
a task within a specific time, you are usually inclined to
grind on with it until it is finished some day. However, if
you plan beforehand and set yourself a certain time limit
at which point the task must be finished, the chances are
very good that you will indeed succeed in completing the
task within the set time limit. It is also a good habit to
reward yourself when you have reached your objective
within the time limit that you have set yourself. This
reward does not necessarily have to be a big one. It
might even be something as small as walking to the cafe
in order to buy yourself a fruit juice. Such rewards help
to reinforce your sense of success and progress and in so
127
doing to motivate you further for the next task that

awaits you.
3.
Large tasks which are awaiting you have a habit of

discouraging you. The task looks like a mountain
standing before you and precisely for this reason you
tend to postpone rather then tackle it. As we said earlier,
postponement only means that the task looks still larger
and more difficult. A good approach to follow when you
get a big task is to divide it into smaller components as
fast as possible. This is known as the divide-and-rule
approach. Doing this makes it easier to start the task and
it also no longer looks so overwhelming to you. It is
simply the case that a half-finished task is a better
motivator than a task on which you have not yet begun.
CONCLUSION
The acquisition of good time habits requires exertion and

sacrifice from you, because your bad old time habits will not
simply sound the retreat. It is therefore necessary, especially
at the outset, that you follow a fairly strict routine until the
new habits are established. It also helps to tell people who
are close to you about your intention to utilise your time
better. Making your intention known aloud and in public
strengthens your motivation and commitment because you
know that other people now have certain expectations of
you.
128
13
Writing a test and taking

exams in Philosophy
JJ Snyman
PREPARATION
EXAMINATION
FOR
THE
TEST
AND
THE
Because Philosophy is a subject that one takes for the first

time at university, students often ask the question: How
does one study Philosophy for a test or examination?
Students discover very quickly that Philosophy cannot be
memorised in the same way as, for example, a fact-question
in some subjects. And, as it tends to look like the questions
regarding the prescribed works for literature in Matric, the
problem quickly surfaces that in Philosophy model answers
cannot be so easily worked out and learnt by heart. What to
do now?
There are two kinds of tests possible in Philosophy. The first
is usually called a class test, and the second is the real
McCoy. Students must be able to handle both and they are
therefore discussed below.
2
THE CLASS TEST
This is a kind of didactic control measure that the lecturer

uses to monitor the students preparation for classes. It
consists mostly of short questions to test whether the
students possess the necessary information for the lectures
129
that follow or have just been completed. This test is

therefore also directed at content questions: what has the
student grasped of the contents that he/she should have
learnt, and what does the student now know about the
subject?
3.
THE REAL PHILOSOPHY TEST AND EXAMINATION
Preparing for a philosophy test or an examination requires a

few skills. The most important skills to learn are the
philosophical skills of argumentation. One does not learn
philosophy by memorising phrases, statements and possible
facts in a certain sequence. One learns philosophy by learning
to philosophise. It is important to know and to remember the
so-called basic facts, for example that Descartes wrote about
doubt as a method and that the conclusion about the whole
procedure of doubt has a definite certainty, namely I think,
therefore I am, and that Rousseau modified it to I feel,
therefore I am.
What is also of importance is then to indicate why a
philosopher asks certain questions and why certain answers
are given and, further, how the answers cohere and
interrelate. It does not merely have to do with what the
philosopher said, or what can be written about a certain
problem. You should be in a position to formulate the
question behind the given answer. To ask questions is not
the exclusive privilege of the lecturer.
Therefore to do sound preparation for a test or examination,
you, as it were, need to creep into the skin of the
philosophers whose arguments are given for a certain part of
the syllabus and be able to think as they themselves thought.
130
Mere reproduction of work from a textbook is however not

what is asked for in a test or an examination the time
allowed is in any case too short for this. What is at issue is
your own insight and ability to handle and construct
arguments. Something is being asked of you: a personal
insight, a personal arrangement of the data, or a personal
argument, or sometimes two or all three of the
aforementioned.
Thus, how do you learn to philosophise? A few guidelines

follow below:
Make sure first of all of the meaning of the concepts

dealt with. See whether they are correctly written down
and if they are quoted correctly from the prescribed
book. When Thomas Aquinas says for example: There
are no accidents in God, this does not mean that no
mishaps occur in God. Accidents in this context mean
chance attributes which are not actual. A
philosophical dictionary or encyclopaedia would make
this distinction in meaning clear.
Interrogate the particular piece that is being studied.

(Also ask questions in the eventual test or examination
answer. This is not merely for the purposes of rhetorical
effect. It indicates that discussion is being entered into
on a certain viewpoint, that argumentation is being
undertaken. Naturally the question is posed in such a
way that you yourself can answer it. A little
philosophical cunning is entirely in order, especially in a
test or examination answer!) Try to ascertain what the
main question is that a philosopher poses. This should
be followed by ascertaining what his theme is. In order
to do this you should listen carefully in class, go through
the notes and complete all reading assignments from the
prescribed works. By accurately working through and
131
answering the questions that are posed in the study

guide about each philosopher, you should know what the
key features of a philosophers views are.
Once you have clarity about the main issue, you must
trace how the issue is expounded or constructed or
argued in detail. If you were in the shoes of Plato (or
whoever else) how would you have advanced the issue in
order to convince? What reason comes first, and what
second? Where is an ancillary argument necessary?
Where must an indication be given that the initial
viewpoint is being deviated from, and what can be
supplied as a reason for this? What are the strong sides
and what the weak points in the argumentation? Where
does a philosopher expose him- or herself to criticism?
A useful tip in the preparation for a test or an

examination is to think about how you as a lecturer or a
teacher would have explained this work to students,
especially in such a way that they would have enjoyed
the course. Try to explain in simple language to such a
person what problems someone like Freud tried to solve
and what the nature of his solutions were. Conduct a
discussion about the acceptability or otherwise of this.
Something that you should also keep in mind during

preparation is time-planning during the test or the
examination. It is essential especially in the kind of tests
and examinations where essay-type answers are
required. Work on 30 to 45 minutes per answer.
(Normally lecturers give an indication in advance of the
number of questions to be answered within the set time.)
Take care therefore that a total overview of the
composition of a section is well mastered, so that you
can immediately select the information necessary for the
answering of the question and quickly plan how it will
132
be presented to the examiner. You should therefore also

practise in preparation and learn how to plan a possible
answer.
Be attentive to similarities and differences between

sections of the work. Students experience problems
especially where they have to handle different
philosophers views on the same subject in a course.
Hobbes and Adam Smith both speak about emotions,
but Hobbes tends to speak more of passions, while
Smith tends to speak of sentiments. There is a reason
for this, and it can be inferred from a holistic view of
their conclusions and conceptions. If you have grasped
this, you do not easily confuse their respective
conceptions of the relationship between the reason and
the emotions.
Where the views of different philosophers on the same

matter must be studied, it is important to be attentive to
the specific nature of the philosophers views. There
might be all kinds of similarities between Plato and
Aristotle, for example, but Platos specific contribution
to philosophy can be remembered as the doctrine of
ideas or forms, while Aristotles is the form-matter
doctrine. If you study these philosophers by way of
contrasts (even if these are a little forced), you quickly
discover that philosophy is actually a continuing debate,
a competition of arguments thats when philosophising
occurs!
4.
ANSWERING A PHILOSOPHY QUESTION PAPER
Writing a test or examination is an art which must be

mastered. The writing of tests and examinations in
Philosophy is not a test of memory. It is accepted as self133
evident that students possess a memory ability. The reason

for test and examination writing is for the lecturer to check
whether you can argue, whether inferences and conclusions
can be drawn, and whether you can communicate in a
meaningful, logical, insightful and coherent manner.
The following must be borne in mind when answering
questions in a test or an examination:
Make sure that the set question is answered. The question

that appears in the test or examination is not just a cue for
you to write down anything even remotely related to you in
the question. The examiner is not someone who, so to speak,
goes through the question with a shopping trolley and rings
up everything that he or she thinks necessary.
Analyse the question. Usually it contains specific
instructions which say: Do this, and do that, and lastly this
must be done. Use these components as an agenda for the
requested answer. Begin the answer with a kind of
declaration: In this answer I will firstly ...; secondly I will
..., and then lastly ... If you begin to write in this way, the
battle is half won. Then you feel that you are in control, and
concerns about what must be remembered, and what is
continually forgotten, disappear. It is then as if the answer
begins to dictate itself.
The question that you can anticipate is usually one of the
types of essays that one writes in Philosophy. Formulated as
a question, they can appear as follows:
Give an accurate explanation .../ Explain.../ Discuss ...

The answer to this question must contain the following:
The necessary and relevant data presented in a logical or
systematic order. Here the examiner can see how well
you can lay out the coherence of the data. Phrases like
134
the following are important: firstly, secondly, etc.;

linked to this ...; in agreement with ...; from what has
been said so far, it appears that ...; in contrast with ...;
etc. The continual use of phrases like He said / He went
on to say / Further he holds that / He also asserts
reveals that the student has no insight into the
systematic coherence of the argument(s), and arbitrarily
strings together the data like beads.
Give a critical explanation ... / Critically discuss ...

The minimum requirement here is the same as above,
but with the additional component of criticism. Criticism
can entail various things: The pointing out of an
inconsistency or an absurdity in terms of the arguments
itself (immanent criticism), or the pointing out of
something which is untenable in the conception under
discussion in terms of another conception which is more
defensible (transcendental criticism). In both cases you
can make use of criticism that has already been used
elsewhere, or you can formulate and motivate your own
criticism.
Write an essay on ... in which you demonstrate ...

Here a programme or agenda is stated in the question.
Identify the instructions, state them in the introductory
paragraph of the answer, divide the essay accordingly,
and provide the sections with headings.
A quotation is given in which a statement is made

which must either be defended or refuted.
Identify the programme for the answer by way of the
statements which are made in the quotation. State the
point of the quotation in the introductory paragraph, e.g.
In the given quotation it is said / asserted that ...
Decide whether the statement is true or false or too
135
strong or too weak, relevant or beside the point.

Motivate this finding and then argue the possible
alternative.
A direct question is asked

An example of a direct question is: Why can Hobbes
not be viewed as an atheist? Or: Do animals have
rights? In this case always added is: Motivate your
answer. This is the sort of question to which yes or
no can be answered. What is at issue here, then, what
are the reasons for the yes or the no? Here various
strategies can be pursued. Read the chapter on the
philosophy essay to see what is possible here.
Compare ...
This question is usually asked to see whether students
can see connections by means of similarities and
differences. The best way of going to work here is to
limit the list of similarities and differences and to name
them in the introductory paragraph as an agenda for the
rest of the answer. Arrange them into a sequence in
sections with headings. A mere table will not suffice.
The important thing is that you should be able to explain
why there is a similarity or a difference. Many of the
phrases that are used in the first type of answer are also
of importance here.
A matter that you need to pay attention to is time allocation.

The time that is going to be invested in each section, as well as
the time allocation within an answer, allows for effective
transfer of knowledge and the demonstration of the kind of
skills that the examiner wants to test. It is better to supply as
many average-to-good answers as possible than to take all the
time available completing one question and not get to the others
or put the others off.
136
Telegram style is only an emergency solution when time is

running out. It must be avoided as far as possible. A pointform answer that looks like a stocklist is certainly not
philosophical
style.
Ultimately,
reasoning
and
argumentation is sought after, and not a list of everything
that you can remember.
A last tip: Where tests and examinations are conducted in

writing, a bad handwriting is a very important factor in the
judging of the answer. If your handwriting is difficult to
read, and the work moreover does not come over well, an
examiner will begin to react very unsympathetically towards
your answer, however hard he/she tries to remain positive.
You should therefore, under all circumstances, ensure that
your handwriting is legible, or where problems exist, make
special arrangements with the lecturer.
137
Recommended reading
Brown, M. N. & Keeley, S. M. 1981 Asking the right
questions. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Copi, I. M. & Burgess-Jackson, K. 1992 Informal Logic.
New York: Macmillan.
Copi, I. M. 1986 An introduction to logic. New York:
Macmillan.
Geel, R. 1991 Hoe zet ik mijn gedachten op papier?
Muiderberg: Dick Coutinho.
Lamers, H. A. J. M. 1989 Hoe schrijf ik een wetenschappelijke tekst? Muiderberg, Dick Coutinho.
Pinto, R. C. & Blair, J. A. 1993 Reasoning: a practical guide.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Rosenberg, J. F. 1984 The practice of philosophy: a
handbook for beginners. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall.
Van Veuren, P. J. 1991 Argumente-kriteria-kritiek. Pretoria:
RGN.
138

Skilful Thinking - Skilful Thinking - Entire Ebook

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Skilful Thinking - Skilful Thinking - Entire Ebook

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

Translation by Craig MacKenzie

The Authors, 1994

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

First edition 1994

Electronic data capture: Mari Nel

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

Sentences and paragraphs

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

2.3 How can I utilise my time better?

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

Writing a test and taking exams in Philosophy

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

Almost from the start the decade of the nineties became

* Secondly, a series of strategies are proposed for the

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

* Skills alone are not enough. They must also be correctly

of the abovementioned skills. Thirdly, it is a useful

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

The skills that will be mastered, therefore, are skills which

It enables you to do research and gather and organize

It helps you to write clearly and effectively.

It promotes both written and verbal communication.

It leads to the generating of creative ideas.

It helps with the formulation and solution of problems.

It helps with the identification of hidden assumptions

It helps you to convince other people of the validity of

It puts you in a position to sum up complex ideas

It helps you to integrate and explain diverse data with

It facilitates adjustment to unknown circumstances.

Moreover, it also puts you in a position to convey to

Attitude and virtues for

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

The misconception exists that the mastering of certain thinking

BASIC ATTITUDE TOWARDS THINKING

The starting point for the development of thinking skills is

Sound thinking can reduce errors

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

committed as a result of superficial or sloppy thinking

Considered actions are better than impulsive actions

The abundance of information demands sound thinking

A characteristic of the present era is that we are

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

information relating to ones subject thoroughly. The

VIRTUES FOR SKILFUL THINKING

2.1 Intellectual tolerance

understand the ideas of others. When you summarily reject

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

2.2 Intellectual fairness

perspectives. When honesty about your own prejudices has

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

2.4 Willingness to analyse

arguments of others, but that we are also willing to be

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

It is not enough, however, only to analyse or to dismantle

variety of arguments and ideas into relationship with each

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za