Writing Philosophy

WRITING PHILOSOPHY

John F. Petrik
M. Pascal wanted all forms of poetic diction to be good French; it was
fine if they were noble and sustained, but otherwise it was just rubbish.
said of Blaise Pascal
THE ACTUAL PRACTICE of philosophy as youll encounter it in your academic

career will involve a considerable amount of writing. All good writing is a
form of truth-telling. You should always ask yourself, at every point in the
course of your writing, Is this true? Is this exactly what I mean? Put the
results of your research and reflection on paper. If youve worked with a tentative thesis as your guide, dont lose sight of that thesis when you write.
Present your evidence clearly, in well-ordered prose. Otherwise it will be
just rubbish.
THE WRITING PROCESSPRE-WRITING, COMPOSING,

REVISING, AND COPYEDITING
OK, good advice, but so far, as Aristotle would say, its just a bunch of platitudes. After all, whos going to tell you to make lousy arguments about nothing in particular in dull, murky prose?
You might start by reviewing the commonly accepted American standards for college-level writing. You, as an undergraduate, ought to be able to
do these fourteen things with your prose:
Use the steps of the writing process: pre-writing, composing, revising, and
copy-editing.
Unify a composition by limiting the material to a significant, clearly
defined topic.
Plan a paper that progresses by necessary stages which can easily be comprehended by a reader.
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
Develop ideas with concrete, substantial, and relevant detail with consistent attention to proportion and emphasis.
Connect all parts of the paper with effective and explicit transitions that
unify the paragraphs.
Select words that are precise, idiomatic, and economical.
Construct unified, coherent, forceful, and varied sentences.
Copyedit so that there are no more than two sentence form errors (run-ons,
fragments, etc.), no more than one spelling error per two hundred fifty
words, no more than one punctuation error per page, no more than two grammar errors in the complete piece.
Use the required method of development effectively.
Demonstrate knowledge of the purpose of the paper.
Show awareness of the audience for whom the paper is written.
Make use of the tone that successfully interacts with the purpose and the
audience.
Format the paper according to the appropriate form.
Incorporate material from other sources into a longer and documented
thesis paper: All of your instructors expect you to be able to do these things,
and philosophy instructors are no different from the rest. Given these expectations, how should a student approach a paper, as a practical matter?
Dont fall into the trap of trying to start by writing a polished introductory paragraph. Doing so is a sure way to induce writers block. Forget about
writing your papers beginning and concentrate on getting some of your arguments on paper. Keeping your thesis in mind, simply list the principal reasons
you have for thinking it true. You may have two, three, six, ten, or any number of these reasonsthat will depend on your argument. Look the reasons
over and see if any natural order of presentation suggests itself to you.
Whether it does at this stage or not, take each of the reasons and develop
it into a paragraph. Use the reason as your topic sentence, then support it
with details. As you work out these paragraphs, you will find that some of
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
them may suggest further development in new paragraphs. At the end of this
process youll have a very rough first draft. Once youve got this far, you can
rearrange, edit, and reorganize to suit your argument. When youre relatively
satisfied with the draft, write your introductory and concluding paragraphs.
Go back through your draft and ensure that the claims youve made are
really what you mean, and true, as far as you can see. Dont write something
just because you think it sounds good, and never, ever, write something
merely because you think it will make the instructor happy. As you run this
sincerity-check, run a concurrent accuracy-check on your documentation.
Ensure that the claims youve made about a particular philosophers views
or a particular philosophical text are supported by proper citations. Crosscheck your citations against (minimally) your notes or (better still) the texts
themselves. Doing this will keep you from inadvertent plagiarism, but more
important, it will ensure the factual accuracy of your work. If you were just
sure that Plato said such-and-such, but cant find such-and-such in the texts,
youd better reconsider your argument.
Once you have the first working draft in order (that is, its both accurate
and sincere), think about how you might improve its style. (The three great
stylistic virtues are economy, elegance, and clarity, and the greatest of these
is clarity.) If youre satisfied with the cogency of your arguments, think
about the quality of your presentation. Consider your audience (all writing is
directed toward an audience) to be your instructor and the other students in
the course. This will help you pick the right tone, let you know how much
explanation you need to provide of each point you make, and tell you what
assumptions (if any) you can appeal to. Consider developing your own
examples to illustrate concepts or distinctions, and make these examples
accessible to your audience. The best way to understand and explain a concept is to produce examples of its correct application.
SUGGESTIONS FOR BEGINNING WRITERS OF PHILOSOPHY

Composition textbooks are loaded with rules for student writers, and most of
those rules are good ones. I think, however, that most undergraduate students
of philosophy would profit if they heeded these six bits of stylistic advice:
Avoid writing mere summary unless its absolutely necessary to advance
your case: A good citation or a well-selected quotation will often replace a
great deal of summary. Dont confuse summary with analysisthey are not
the same thing.
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
Avoid including irrelevant background information. An essay on Kants

moral philosophy that begins, Kant was born . . . is not off to a good start,
unless youre advancing the novel thesis that the circumstances of Kants
birth are essential to an understanding of his ethical theory. Biographical
detail, historical curiosa, speculation about influences and so on belong in an
essay only when theyre directly relevant to the argument, and they seldom
are.
Avoid clichs. Three classes of cliche are especially easy to avoid: the
prepackaged metaphor, Haigspeak, and the dumb opening line. Examples of
the first are, launches an attack (a martial metaphor), undermines the
foundations (an engineering metaphor), has his tongue in his cheek (a
clownish metaphor), the whole nine yards (a concrete-pouring metaphor).
Recalling the literal meaning of these figures will help you decide when to
cut them out of your text. Haigspeak (usually so-called in honor of General
Alexander M. Haig, its most distinguished contemporary practitioner, but
also sometimes referred to as sociological teutonism) is prose rich in a
managerial jargon that uses words in ways that pervert their natural functioning as a normal part of speech. Nouns become verbs or vice versa, words
extend odd little combining forms like amoebic pseudopodia, nouns become
adjectives, words are strung together in ways that defy English syntax (but
would work well if we were writing in German). In that time-frame, the
value-free content issue impacted Kants epistemology thought-process. . . .
You get the picture. If youve written something that sounds like a very dull
corporate report, youve probably been writing Haigspeak. Dumb opening
lines are as objectionable in a philosophy paper as they are anywhere else.
Please, never start a paper by writing, Since the dawn of time, mankind has
wondered about [here insert the name of a philosophical problem]. The great
philosopher [here insert the name of a great philosopher], in his or her book
[here insert the name of a book], had many important things to say about this
problem. Most dumb opening lines originate in advice someone once gave
you to draw the reader in. The best way to draw the reader in is usually to
tell that reader what youre up to.
Avoid the passive voice. Transitive verbs are either active or passive. When
a sentences verb is active, the sentences grammatical subject performs the
action the verb refers to. When the verb is passive, the subject receives the
action. The passive voice is generally wordier, duller, and less clear than the
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
active voice. It has been written by Plato is passive. Plato wrote is

active. (Dont confuse the passive voice with the past tense.)
Cut out any paragraph, sentence, or word you dont need. If something
isnt doing work in your essay, its doing harm.
Make your work as mechanically correct as you can before you turn it
in. I bother to offer this obvious advice because of the depressing frequency
with which students turn in what amounts to unfinished work. A student
hasnt kept his or her end of the academic bargain when an instructor has to
edit and proofread (and maybe even staple) a paper in the course of reading
it. Too many students apparently do not even read their papers before they
submit them. When your essay is as clear and persuasive as you can make it,
proofread your final draft. Format the paper the way your instructor asked
you to. Correct the errors in the draft, paying particular attention to:
Sentence-form errors (fragments, fused sentences, comma splices).
Misplaced phrases and clauses.
Agreement errors.
Punctuation errors.
Misspellings.
WRITING UNDER PRESSURE

Well look in detail at the writing process throughout this moduleappropriately enough, since good writing is nothing but clear thinking made visible. For now, however, lets begin by taking these simple heuristics and
seeing how student writers apply them to the task of writing under pressurewriting when they must complete an adequate bit of prose under a
strict time limit. The most common occasion for such writing is the in-class
essay.
In-class essays range from short answer questions on quizzes to the long
essays final examinations usually require. Students often do poorly on such
tasks not so much because they dont know the material the test covers, but
because they have false ideas about just what and how theyre expected to
write. If youre going to fail an essay test, better to fail it out of honest and
honorable ignorance than because youre striving for some misguided
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
rhetorical effect. When your instructors pose an essay question, they probably want you to do basically three things:
Answer the question. Unless the tests requirement is something like, Tell
me everything you have learned about philosophy, your instructor really
does want you to answer the question, and not dump onto the paper everything you think you have heard during the course. Read the question carefully. Its unlikely that your instructor will ask you a trick question, but its
easy to misunderstand the requirement if you simply glance at it with the sort
of casual attention appropriate to a consultation of T.V. Guide. Once youve
understood the question, stick to it and dont write about some unrelated
topic you find easier or more interesting.
Write in complete sentences and coherent paragraphs. Dont assume that
your instructor will charitably construe unconnected and ambiguous words
into clear and correct answers. You should write so that your intended meaning
will be clear to a reader unfamiliar with your private understanding. Thus,
what might be useful enough to you if written as a quick note to yourself
would be inadequate as an answer to a test question. The instructor, even with
the best will in the world, cannot tell what private context youve supplied to
make your answer clear. Help the instructor by formulating your thoughts in
complete sentences organized into coherent paragraphs.
Finish in the time allotted. Again, you cannot expect to communicate with
incomplete intimations or good intentions. You must organize your work so
that its completion fits into the time you have available.
SHORT ANSWERS
Consider the simplest writing taskthe short answer. Suppose that your
class has been assigned Platos short dialogue Euthydemus, and that your
instructor is giving a quiz to see whether youve read it with comprehension.
(Most quizzes, by the way, are designed to do exactly this, which is why they
tend to concentrate on factual information about assigned readings.) The
quiz might well contain a short answer question like this one:
With whom does Socrates argue in the Euthydemus? What kind of people are they?
Heres a perfectly good short answer:
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
Socrates is arguing with two brothers, Euthydemus and Dionysodorus,

who are sophists. Their profession as sophists is the teaching of rhetoric
and virtuepersuasion, self-defense, and fighting tactics.
The student has answered quite adequately in a short paragraph composed of just two complete sentences. Suppose the student had answered like
this:
Athenians
Or, worse yet, like this:
Brothers
philosophy
These Bill-and-Ted answers are vague and inadequate. Athenians is

too broad (moreover, if taken to apply to Euthydemus and Dionysodorus, its
inaccurate since theyre in fact out-of-towners). The next answer, Brothers
philosophy, is also too broad, and it no longer even implies a complete
thoughtwhat, for example, is a reader supposed to make of the word philosophy? That Socrates opponents are philosophers? This is falsetheyre
sophists, and Plato was quite alive to the difference between sophists and
philosophers. That Socrates himself is a philosopher? True enough, but uninteresting because the question did not ask about Socrates. That the dialogue
describes the process of doing philosophy? Maybe, but then the question
didnt ask that, either. Stick to the question, and answer it in complete sentences organized into short paragraphs.
SHORT ESSAYS
Consider a related but more complex requirement. Suppose that a midterm
or final examination asks you to write a one-to two-page essay in response to
a question about the Euthydemus. The examination question might be:
What is it about the way Socrates opponents in the Euthydemus
argue that makes them, in Platos eyes, bad people? Whats wrong with
them?
Read the question carefully. Its quite straightforward, but students often
misread questions just like it. First of all, the question asks for an interpretation of Platos views based on what he wrote in one particular dialogue.
Thus, you ought to make an argument whose conclusion is a statement about
Platos thought as expressed in the Euthydemus, not necessarily about either
your beliefs or your instructors.
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
Second, notice that the question has a presuppositionit assumes that

Plato thinks Socrates opponents are in some sense bad people. You may
not agree with that presupposition. You may, after reading the Euthydemus,
decide that Plato really doesnt disapprove of Euthydemus or Dionysodorus
at all. Maybe you think that as far as hes concerned theyre great guys. If
thats the case, then by all means argue for itbegin your answer by writing
something like, Plato doesnt in fact think that Socrates opponents are bad
people, and then be sure you go on to explain why you think that. Usually,
however, the presuppositions of an essay question will be so probably true as
to be beyond serious controversy. This is in fact the case with our example,
so we might as well take note of the presupposition and use it in forming our
answer. What does Plato think is wrong with these two characters, anyway?
Once youve understood the question, formulate a tentative answer to
it, and try to keep that answer down to one sentence. If youre allowed to
use scratch paper, as you usually will be, write your answer on it. Heres a
beginning:
Plato disapproves of Euthydemus and Dionysodorus because theyre
both sophists.
Youll find that you think your tentative answer a good onethat is, a
probably true onefor reasons. Notice that your reasons will have to show
that both parts of your answer are true: Euthydemus and Dionysodorus are
sophists, and Plato thinks sophists are bad actors. List your reasons for thinking so:
1.
2.
3.
4.
They are sophists because they teach persuasion.

They are sophists because they claim to be able to teach virtue.
Plato dislikes sophists because they reason badly.
Plato dislikes sophists because theyre indifferent to truth.
This amounts to both an argumentyour answer is a conclusion supported by four premisesand the outline of an essaythe answer is the
essays thesis and the four reasons can become the topic sentences of four
body paragraphs. It now remains for you to turn the outline into an argumentative essay. To do that, youll have to provide some exposition and possibly
some illustration of each of your four reasons. This is what a good essay
might look like:
Plato disapproves of Euthydemus and Dionysodorus because both
brothers are sophists. He contrasts these sophists with Socrates, a
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
philosopher, and its perfectly clear in the dialogue that Plato thinks
Socrates is the one worthy of emulation.
Euthydemus and Dionysodorus are sophists because they teach their
students how to persuade others in argument. The point of their teaching is not to arrive at truth, but to get people to agree with them. They
can teach you, for example, how to make a plausible argument in a law
court.
It isnt only persuasion that they teach, however. They also claim to
be able to teach virtue. This seems to come down to self-defense
(among other things the course in virtue includes instruction in how to
fight in armor) and other forms of mastery over others. Virtue is fundamentally a kind of powerthe ability to be able to get other people to
do what you want them to do.
The sophists Plato describes in his dialogues are notorious for their
bad but plausible reasoning. Throughout the Euthydemus the two
sophists try to twist the words of the people they talk to in such a way as
to cause them to believe whatever the sophists want them to, even if its
nonsense. For example, at one point Euthydemus and Dionysodorus set
out to show their mastery (their virtue) by showing that one of the
people theyre talking to really thinks that a dog is his father and its
puppies are his brothers. This is, of course, a stupid argument, nothing
more than a dumb pun, but the two sophists proceed something like
thisHave you got a dog? Yes. And is that dog a father? Does it
have puppies? Yes. So if that dog is yours and a father, then the
dog is your father and his puppies are your brothers.
The obvious foolishness of the argument doesnt matter, provided that
it can convince someone. (This argument doesnt seem to convince the
parties to the dialogue, but evidently Euthydemus and Dionysodorus
have built their reputations on arguments much like it.) This willingness
to be satisfied with merely persuading someone points to the real problem Plato has with the sophists: theyre indifferent to truth. Since he
thinks that truth and goodness are so close to each other as to be practically the same thing, Plato would completely reject the idea that
sophistical tricks and deception could possibly produce virtue.
The student who wrote this has answered the question clearly, accurately,
and economically. If you approach an essay question the way weve
approached this example, you should be able to block out an answer and compose a short essay of about this length and complexity in about thirty minutes.
Notice that the student was able to answer the question only because:
The student had read and understood the dialogue the test asked about.
The answer clearly shows a familiarity with Platos text.
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
The student had read and understood the question. The essay sticks to
the point and answers the question.
The student blocked out an argument in outline form, and then used
that outline to structure the final essay. The essay is organized to present
the students argument clearly, naturally, and economically.
As we move to other forms of writingshort essays written out of class
and longer research papersyou should be able to see how to apply these
same techniques to more complex problems.
WRITING WHEN YOU HAVE MORE CONTROL

OF YOUR TIME
The most important writing you do for a philosophy course will probably not
be in response to essay questions that appear on quizzes and tests. Most
courses will require you to write papers of various lengths. Well begin by
considering how one might approach the task of writing a short essay out of
class.
Consider, if you will, an imaginary Introduction to Philosophy course,
taught by the hypothetical Doctor Praetorius. In this section are ten hypothetical students in their first year of college: Fran Bahumba, Lannie Boffo,
Kelly Cowznofski, Walvis DeBeers, Mackie Gabel, Billy Joe Hara, Leslie
Lacksmi, Shawn McAgamemnon, L.T. Nagumo, and Pat Stentor. They begin
the course by reading Platos short dialogue Charmides, and are about to
write their first essay. Heres the requirement the instructor gave them:
Youre reading Platos Charmides, in which Socrates engages the
young Charmides and his older relative Critias in a discussion of a
character trait Charmides is supposed to possess. What is that trait,
why is it philosophically interesting, and what arguments does Socrates
offer about it? Answer these questions in an essay of about five hundred
to seven hundred fifty words. Document and format your paper in the
MLA (Modern Language Association) style.
WRITING WHILE YOU READ

Since good writing is just good thinking made visible, beginning students of
philosophy can profit from some reflection on writing. In this case the writing is going to be done while the students read a philosophical text: reading
and writing will prove to be reciprocally illuminating processes. Follow the
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
last named of our hypothetical students, Pat Stentor, through the four stages
of the writing process.
PRE-WRITING
Again, the student begins by reading and understanding the question.
Observe that the question has one clear presupposition: the dialogue is about
a character trait Charmides is supposed to have. Note too that the requirement has three component questions:
What is Charmides distinctive character trait?
Why is this trait philosophically interesting?
What arguments does Socrates make about it?
The second component question may be the toughest one. It requires a
bit of analysis, and analysis done in the light of that common understanding
of the courses goals which arises between an instructor and the students. In
the context of our hypothetical course, it means at least this muchthe trait
will be philosophically interesting if it can be shown that it reveals something about reason or right living.
Having understood the question, Stentor keeps them in mind while reading the Charmides. If a student can answer the questions an essay assignment
poses about a text, theres a good chance that the student has understood the
text. In this case, Stentor makes marginal notes in the book itself. These help
the student to note those portions of the text that are of particular importance
in answering the question. Stentor then comes up with a tentative thesis and a
working outline:
Thesis: The Charmides is about the virtue of sound-mindedness, which
is some kind of knowledge of knowledge.
1.
Sound-mindedness includes:
a. Moderation.
b. Self-control.
c. Knowing your own limitations.
2. Sound-mindedness appears serious, so Charmides thinks it means
decorum.
a. This isnt true, Socrates says, because things done slowly and deliberately
arent as beautiful as things done quickly and fiercely.
3. Charmides changes his mind and says that sound-mindedness is respectfulness.
a. This is also wrong, because Homer says so.
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
4.
Charmides then says that sound-mindedness is minding ones own business,

and with that he hands the argument over to Critias.
a. But this isnt any good either, because it would do away with the division
of labor.
1) Doing away with the division of labor would be bad for the city, and
whats bad for the city shouldnt be good for the individual.
b. Paradoxes: sound-mindedness is a knowledge of knowledge.
1) Knowledge isnt its own object.
2) Knowledge of knowledge means knowing what you dont know, and how
could one do that?
COMPOSING
At this point the student begins writing. Let the draft begin with a clear,
unambiguous statement of your thesis. This will help you maintain your concentration on target; you can always change the essays beginning as you
revise it. Devote a paragraph to the first reason you have for thinking the thesis true, another paragraph to the second reason, and so on. Do not make the
mistake of trying to write an introductory paragraph first.
The first draft that emerges from this process will seem disconnected
and inelegant to you, probably badly disorganized, and in fact it will be all of
these things. Dont worry about itthis is only a rough draft. Youve got
your main ideas on paper, and youve got the beginning of an argument. This
is enough to get you over the first hump.
As youre writing the draft, incorporate textual evidence from the earliest stages. Use your notes and be sure you know where your evidence came
from.
REVISING
Having completed the first draft, the student is in a position to think about
the essays cogency, clarity, and organization. Do your reasons in fact support the thesis? Are the reasons for the thesis presented in a natural order?
That is, are they easy to follow? Have you moved from clear reasons to more
obscure ones? Rearrange the paragraphs as you need to. Have you made
clear, smooth transitions between paragraphs? If someone reading the essay
cant see how one paragraph ties in with another, or if the essay as a whole
reads as if it were a set of distinct answers to unconnected questions, then the
transitions arent working.
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
COPYEDITING
Finally, edit and proofread. At this stage pay particular attention to mechanical errors. Read the paper aloud, or have someone else read it aloud to you.
If the reader stumbles or pauses, you may have written something awkward.
(Try to pick a fluent reader. That way youll be more sure that the stumbling
is your fault and not the readers.) Think about your choices of words. Are
they precise? Are they appropriate to your audience? Are they exactly the
ones you mean?
Format the paper as the assignment asked you to, and remember to fasten it. The finished version of Stentors essay appears on the next few pages.
Quickly read it and decide whether its a good response to the assignment.
You might also want to read the Charmides itselfits a short work and can
be read in about half an hour.
After youve done this, compare Stentors essay with other papers on
the same assignment, which youll find marked. They represent different
approaches, different styles, and different levels of quality.
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
Pat Stentor
Doctor Praetorius
PL101 Introduction to Philosophy
26 March 1995
The Paradox of Sound-Mindedness
The Charmides is an inquiry into sound-mindedness. Plato shows how Socrates pushes first Charmides
and then Critias for an account of this virtue, and how the
participants in the dialogue eventually arrive at the conclusion that sound-mindedness is some sort of knowledge
of knowledge. Beyond that, the virtue remains mysterious,
and for good reason: it seems to entail that people who
have it know things that they do not know. Good.
The word sound-mindedness renders the Greek
sophrosyne,which the translators say can mean a variety of
things, including moderation (West 3). From the things
Socrates and the others in the dialogue say about soundmindedness, it must include character traits we would
now call self-control, knowing your own limitations, exercising good judgment, and recognizing expertise when
you see it. Right. Will you develop this analysis?
These all bring to mind a picture of someone grave,
serious, and judicious, which is probably why the young
Charmides thinks that sound-mindedness means doing
every thing decorously and quietly (Plato 24). Since he is
young, frivolous, and superficialhe is followed by a
swarm of admirers and knows it (Plato 1416); he baits
the older Critias in a boyish, nudging way (Plato 31);
Socrates himself admits that he finds the young man
attractive and is therefore wary of him (Plato 1718)it is
not surprising that he gives a superficial account of the
virtue..O.K.
Socrates disposes of this account by getting
Charmides to agree that sound-mindedness is beautiful,
and that things done laboriously (that is, slowly and quietly) are less beautiful than those done quickly and keenly
(Plato 2426). Right. This is indeed Socrates argument. Do
Stentor 1
Right
Stentor 2
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
you buy it? Can you think of anything done slowly we call beautiful? Since swiftness and ferocity are beautiful, and
sound-mindedness is beautiful, sound-mindedness
cannot be slow and decorous. Having shown the inadequacy of this definition, Socrates urges Charmides to look
beyond surfaces and into his own mind, where he ought to
be able to recognize the quality that makes a man soundminded (Plato 27). Right. Should he look into his own mind
Stentor 3
because hell see the virtue there, or the idea of the virtue, or both?
Charmides next, more reflective, attempt at a definition says sound-mindedness is respectfulness, which
makes a human being have a sense of shame and be
ashamed (Plato 27). It seems, however, that shame is not
a good thing in itself. Socrates reminds his listeners of the
way Homers Telemachus says, Respectfulness is not
good for a needy man, meaning that it is not good in all
circumstances, particularly in circumstances where you
have a duty to assert yourself (Plato 27). This would mean
that sound-mindedness would have to be both good and
not good, for that is how Socrates seems to understand
anything thats only conditionally good (Plato 28). Right.
Do you agree with that understanding?

This is an important step in the dialogue, because it
indicates that there may be something paradoxical if not
contradictory in the virtue of sound-mindedness. This
becomes clearer when Charmides offers his last definitionsound-mindedness is minding ones own business
or doing ones own things (Plato 28)and then turns
the argument over to the older and more experienced
Critias. O.K.
If, Socrates argues, we understand doing ones own
things literally, then sound-mindedness could hardly be
a good thing. Imagine a city in which everyone grew his
own food, made his own shoes, and wove his own clothing. Such a city would be inconvenient, and certainly
worse than a city in which labor was divided in an appropriate way. Therefore it seems that sound-mindedness
Stentor 4
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
would be bad for the city, and what is bad for the city cannot be a virtue (Plato 2930). O.K.
Critias objects that he and Charmides do not
mean that everybody has to be economically selfsufficient. They mean, rather, that a sound-minded
man should do what is good and recognize that it is
good (Plato 3435). This is the sense in which he
knows his own things and does them. Good. Notice
how the definition of the virtue seems to grow less specific

with each modification.
This, however, leads to the paradoxes with
which the dialogue ends. First, sound-mindedness
would have to be a knowledge that has itself as its
own object, and its hard to see how that could be so
(Plato 36, 3839). It would be as if the sense of sight
were invisible, yet somehow visible to itself (Plato
40). If sound-mindedness were like this, then it
would be a very peculiar sort of quality. Right.
Second, sound-mindedness would have to
include knowledge of things that the soundminded man did not know. This comes from the
requirement that a sound-minded man be able to
recognize genuine expertise in others even when he
himself lacks such expertise: a sound-minded man
does not have to be a doctor to know a good doctor
(Plato 4447). Right.
The Charmides ends inconclusively but suggestively. Sound-mindedness seems to involve
being aware of oneself, and it is therefore as elusive
as the self always seems to be. Good.
Works Cited
Plato. Charmides. Trans. Thomas G. West and Grace
Starry West. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1986.
West, Thomas G. and Grace Starry West. Introduction, to
Plato, Charmides. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing
Company, 1986.
Stentor 5
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
This clear essay answers the questions and shows a good understanding of the dialogue. Are you entirely satisfied with the arguments
Socrates makes, or do you think they might be open to criticism? Do
you think, for example, that his arguments are purely destructive, or is
there a positive view of sound-mindedness lurking behind them?
A
Boffo 1
Lannie Boffo
Dr. Praetorius
PL 101 Introduction to Philosophy
26 March 1995
Can We Know What We Dont Know?
I dont know where I want it, but Ill know just the
right place when I see it, she told me, as I continued to
slide the big rubber plant around the office, trying my best
not to spill any dirt from the old Karmel Korn barrel we
were using as a desk-side nursery. Since a work-study
grant was paying for my time, I really didnt have much
cause for complaint, but after an hour and a half I began to
wonder if my boss really knew, in any sense of the
word, what the right place might be.
Had I, at that point in my young life, known Platos
Charmides, I would have been able to accept the plantmoving, Yeah, yeah, cute . . . well, philosophically, because
the problem of recognizing a correct solution when you
see it is the general issue that Socrates and Critias try to
clarify in that dialogue. Recognizing the right answer is a
problem because it seems to demand that we know something we dont know. If you dont know what the right
thing to do is, then how are you ever going to be able to
see that anything at all is, in a particular case, the right
thing to do?
The dialogue begins with some inconsequential flirting Ibetween the middle-aged Socrates and the popular
Charmides, whos supposed to be as sound-minded as
Good.
Boffo 2
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
he is good-looking. You couldnt tell it from the definitions of sound-mindedness he comes up with: theyre
superficial and show all too clearly that Charmides has no
idea of what hes talking about. He cant do any better than
repeat things hes heard from older and smarter men (Plato
1528). O.K.
The last of these second-hand definitions, however,
is important, because it brings Socrates real opponent into
the dialogue. Charmides says that sound-mindedness is
minding your own business, a definition he obviously got
from his relative Critias (Plato 28). This is the first interesting thing anyone says about the virtue of sound-mindedness, be cause it indicates for the first time whats really
strange about this character trait: it seems to require a
knowledge of something that you dont know. O.K., but
why should this be so? Consider the advice, Mind your own
business, and imagine getting that advice when you
thought you were minding it. You would find it unhelpful,
to say the least. If you knew what your business was, and
were deliberately not minding it, that would be a different
story, but when all someone can give you in the way of
advice is a version of Do the right thing, youre to be
forgiven if you dont feel theyve been very helpful. O.K.,
Boffo 3
but keep going.

So sound-mindedness seems to come down to this:
the ability to know what you know and what you dont
know, recognizing yourself, as Critias puts it (Plato 35).
This is an odd sort of knowledge, because it seems
unteachable and even indescribable. Not only is it reflexiveturned back on itselfbut it even produces insights
into things that the sound-minded man himself knows
nothing about. What would be an example of such insight? If
you think about various other kinds of knowledge, or in
fact about anything that has what Plato calls an object,
youll see that reflexivity is very had to find there. Mathematical knowledge is not about itself, but about mathematical objects like shapes and ratios (Plato 37). Right. When
we perceive something, we dont perceive our own perception, and when we desire something, we dont desire
Right
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
our own desire (Plato 41). Yet sound-mindedness is

strangely about itselfit is its own object. Plato certainly
says as much, but do you agree with him? Isnt it possible to want
to want something? Ever heard of people who are in love with
being in love? Right.
Stranger still is the second general property of soundmindednessthe ability to know what you dont know.
Plato isnt really talking about the virtue of only offering
opinions about things you know something about (although thats a rare and important enough virtue). Right,
good point. Hes talking instead about being able to tell
when another person knows what hes talking about. Suppose that you yourself are not a doctor, but youre in need
of a doctor and you want to find a good one. Well, how are
you going to do that? After all, your ability to recognize a
good doctor depends on some kind of knowledge of medicine, and if you had enough knowledge, youd be a doctor
yourself. This is unsatisfying because we dont like to
think that our choice of experts is a leap of faith, but its
just such a leap that sound-mindedness seems to want us
to make (Plato 39, 4648). O.K.
So the dialogue leaves sound-mindedness in a way
even more mysterious than it was before Socrates started
playing with Charmides allegedly beautiful soul. I think
there may be a way out, however, if we question what
seems to be Platos assumption about knowledge. He
writes as if all knowledge involved comparing two things
and deciding that theyre alike, as if every piece of knowledge were like comparing two pieces of cloth to a color
chart. But if knowledge were more like active insight than
passive comparison, we might be able to find a way out of
the problems of knowledge and learning that so seem to
perplex Socrates. A good, critical conclusion.(Now go read
some St. Augustine.)
Boffo 4
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
Works Cited
This pleasantly written essay does a good job of setting up

Platos theory of knowledge, and it opens a clear, thoughtful criticism of that theory. You almost lose sight of your argument on
the second page, but youve managed on the whole to sustain a
sophisticated piece of analysis. Good work.
A
Walvis DeBeers
Dr. Praetorius
26 March 1995
The Form of a Virtue
Youve done a good job of placing the Charmides into the

larger context of Platos thought. You have a good familiarity
with the doctrine of the Forms, and you see clearly the ways in
which Plato thinks getting wrapped up in appearances can keep
us from knowledge. You might want to think about the strange
connection between virtue and self-knowledge. The Forms, after
all, dont seem to be subjective phenomena in our minds. They
are, rather, real, and independent of us, or so Plato seems to
think. Dont be too quick to agree with Socrates. Are you sure,
for example, that his argument against Charmides first account
of sound-mindedness is a good one?
Plato thinks that real knowledge is always knowledge of universals, which he calls Forms or Ideas (Phaedo
80-82). Whenever someone in one of the dialogues gives
Socrates a particular example, whether an example of
virtue as in the Meno (Meno 5) or an example of piety as
in the Euthyphro (Euthyphro 31), Socrates always questions them to see whether they have knowledge of the
Form. Thus, hes not content to hear that helping ones
friends is a virtue, or that imitating Zeus is pious, but he
DeBeers 1
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
wants to know what Virtue as such and Piety as such are

(Meno 6, Euthyphro 31). He rarely, however, seems to
arrive at a satisfactory account of the Form hes looking
for. Good start.
There are reasons for this. As the Seventh Book of
the Republic hints, the forms are very hard for us to see,
trapped as we are in the cave of mere appearance. Our
minds have become accustomed to the darkness and illusion that the senses continually present (Republic
185188), and only through the greatest effort can a
philosopher hope to turn his mind to the eternal Forms
themselves and recognize them for what they are Phaedo
8485). O.K.
We can find the same concern with knowledge, and
the same implicit answer, in the minor dialogue Charmides
(West 4). As is the case in the Euthyphro, Socrates is concerned with just one particular virtue, in this case soundmindedness. As the translators point out, this word also
means moderation (West 67), but from the kinds of
things that Socrates and his two interlocutors Charmides
and Critias say, its clear that good judgment might also
be a good English equivalent. Good judgment better
suggests the broad scope of the virtue the three men discuss. Good.
Good judgment isnt just a matter of appearing
serious and judicious, as the inexperienced young man
Charmides first suggests (Charmides 24). As usual, the
appearances mislead us. Right. This virtue, at least, is
something beautiful (all of the participants in the discussion agree with this) yet beautiful actions, whether bodily
athletics or mental discourse, are not slow, but rather quick
and sure (Charmides 2526). Do you buy Socrates argument? The first account is therefore inadequate. It would be
U/C
DeBeers 2
worthwhile to think about this a little. Can you think of examples

of physical or mental activities that are beautiful when performed
slowly and deliberately?
So is Charmides second account, in which he says
that sound-mindedness is respectfulness (Charmides 27).
The authority of Homer is sufficient to dispatch this. As
DeBeers 3
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
Socrates quotes him, Respectfulness is not good for a

needy man (Charmides 27). The reference is to the
Odyssey, where Odysseus son Telemachus advises his
newly returned father to be bold and assertive in taking
back his wife, household, and kingdom from the suitors
who thought him dead. Odysseus was a man of proverbial
good judgment, and his example is sufficient to show that
reticence is not sound-mindedness (Homer 321). Once
again, Charmides has failed to get beyond appearances to
the virtues real Form. Good.
Even when Charmides place in the debate is taken
by the older and more experienced Critias, the three men
are unable to come up with a clear account of the Form of
sound-mindedness. It isnt merely minding ones own
business (Socrates quickly shows Critias that he cant
mean that); its more like doing the things that are good,
and knowing which things arent good (Charmides 29-34).
This virtue, then, like so many other virtues Plato
discusses, turns out to be a form of knowledge. Soundminded ness is a state of self-knowledgeCritias even
says it is almost...recognizing oneself and explicitly
connects it with the Delphic inscription Know thyself,
so closely associated with Socrates (Charmides 35).
Kinds? (It might be better to reserve forms for the Platonic

Ideas.)
As with all forms of self-knowledge, however, the
object of sound-mindedness is elusive and hard to see. It
must be a knowledge that knows not only what it knows
how to do (presumably this means the virtues and skills
one has), but what it doesnt know how to do (virtues and
skills in other people that one hasnt got oneself), and,
strangest of all, it can know itself (Charmides 4348).
From the other dialogues, particularly the Phaedo,
its not hard to see where this is going. Knowledge of what
sound-mindedness is will have to be knowledge of a Form,
and the soul, mired as it is in the body and its senses, will
inevitably have a hard time dragging itself out of the world
of appearance into the eternal light of recollection. The
DeBeers 4
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
Charmides is entirely consistent with the rest of Platos

thought. Its negative conclusionwe dont know what
sound-mindedness ispoints beyond skepticism to the
knowledge of the eternal Forms. Good conclusion.
DeBeers 5
Works Cited
Homer. The Odyssey. Trans. Robert Fitzgerald. Garden
City: Doubleday Anchor, 1963.
Plato. Euthyphro. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. in Steven M.
Cahn, ed. Classics of Western Philosophy. 3d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1990. 2840.
Plato. Meno. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. in Steven M. Cahn,
ed. Classics of Western Philosophy. 3d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1990. 427.
Plato. Phaedo. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. in Steven M. Cahn,
ed. Classics of Western Philosophy. 3d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1990. 66111.
Plato. Republic (abridged). Trans. G.M.A. Grube. in
Steven M. Cahn, ed. Classics of Western Philosophy.
3d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company,
1990. 112190.
West, Thomas G. and Grace Starry West. Introduction,
to Plato, Charmides. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1986.
A
Nagumo 1
L.T. Nagumo
Nagumo 1
Dr. Praetorius
26 March 1995
An Analysis of Platos Charmides Try to communicate some-
thing about your argument when you give an essay a title.

Let the reader know what to expect.
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
The virtue of sound-mindedness is discussed in the

Charmides. This essay will discuss the definitions of
sound-mindedness that are arrived at by the characters in
the dialogue. At the end of the dialogue it will be seen thatSocrates has succeeded in refuting all of the arguments
which he meets, and that in conclusion the reader is left
knowing that he does not know what the virtue is. (Try to
Passive.
Passive.
Passive.
avoid the passive voice.) You will argue, then, that the
Charmides has a purely negative conclusion. Do you take
Socrates purpose to be a purely destructive one?
The first definition of sound-mindedness is offered by
the youth Charmides, who says that sound-mindedness is
doing everything decorously and quietly (Plato 24). This
means that someone who was dignified and sober would
probably be soundminded, while someone who was noisy
and flighty would not have the virtue. It is important to see
that Socrates is not satisfied with this definition because it
deals only with the appearance of the virtue, and not with
its reality. Socrates challenges the definition by pointing
out that if soundmindedness is good, it ought to be beautiful (Plato 24). If, however, one looks at other activities that
might be called beautiful or ugly, one finds that in all of
them swift ness and fierceness are more beautiful than
slowness and the appearance of difficulty (Plato 26). Thus,
if sound-mindedness is like either athletics or like learning, it probably does not mean doing things decorously
and quietly (Plato 2425). O.K.
At this point Socrates tells Charmides to look within
himself to see if he can think what qualities in a man
would make him want to call that man sound-minded
(Plato 27). Again, it is important to see that Socrates thinks
that someone can see through appearance to reality not by
looking at the surfaces of things, but instead by looking
into ones own mind or soul. All right, but now, why would
you look into yourself to see beyond appearances? When he does
look within, Charmides thinks that sound-mindedness is
what makes a human being have a sense of shame and be
ashamedand sound-mindedness is just what respectful-
Passive.
Good
Nagumo 2
Reference?
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
ness is (Plato 27). This definition does not stand up under

scrutiny, however. Socrates points out that Homer said that
respectfulness is not good for everybody (Plato 27).
It may be assumed, however, that sound-mindedness is
good for everybody, therefore respectfulness cannot be
identical with sound-mindedness. O.K., good.
Charmides last definition is that sound-mindedness is
doing ones own things or minding ones own business (Plato 2829). At this point Socrates gets him to turn
the argument over to his older relative Critias, who is the
one who gave Charmides that definition at some earlier
time. Critias defends this view at length, first explaining
that he does not mean that every sound-minded person
would have to do everything for himself (like make all of
his own shoes, etc.), but that he means that a soundminded man does good things (Plato 3033). So someone
who did bad things would not be sound-minded. The
important thing to notice here is that Critias thinks that
sound-mindedness is not a matter of making good material
things, like good shoes, but that it is more like doing the
right thing, so sound-mindedness is more of an ethical
virtue. An ethical virtue as opposed to what other kind of
Wordy.
Nagumo 3
Comma Splice.
Wordy
Comma Splice.
virtue? (An intellectual virtue, perhaps?)

There are also problems with this definition. Critias
thinks that sound-mindedness cannot be something unconscious, but that it has to be a kind of knowing. A person
cannot be sound-minded and not know that he is soundminded in addition to knowing what the right thing to do
is. This means that sound-mindedness has to be knowledge of itself, of what one does know, and of what one
does not know (Plato 3435, 3840). Socrates agrees with
all of this but he thinks that it might not make sense. For
example, our ears can hear sounds but they cannot hear
themselves hearing, and our eyes can see colors but they
cannot see themselves seeing (Plato 40). So it seems that
knowledge has to be about something that is not itself. If
this is true, then how can sound-mindedness be knowledge
of both itself and of other things?
Nagumo 4
Right.
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
There is another problem. A sound-minded man

knows what he does not know. This is more than just being
able to say I do not know when you run into a question
you cannot answer, although Socrates acts as if it is hard
enough to be able to do that. It means that you have to
know things about things you do not know anything about.
For example, one does not know anything about medicine,
but one can tell a good doctor from a quack (Plato 39).
How can this be?
In conclusion, the Charmides is about sound-mindedness, but it ends without coming up with a definition of
its subject-matter. If one is to believe Socrates, one is
forced to agree that no one can say what sound-mindedness is, reasons which this essay has outlined above.
Wordy, unnecessary. Havent the participants in this dialogue

come to know something about the virtue of sound-mindedness?
They know, for example, that its reflexive, and that it enables the
person who has it to distinguish knowledge from
the appearance of knowledge.
Works Cited
This careful, modest paper shows a good understanding of

the Charmides. You summarize Socrates arguments accurately,
and you see the importance of each exchange.
There may be more positive conclusions about the virtue of
sound-mindedness (see the comments above) drawn in this dialogue than you seem prepared to admit.
Try to avoid unnecessary passive constructions, and try to
cut down your essays wordiness.
B
Nagumo 5
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
Shawn McAgammemnon
Dr. Praetorius
PL 101 Introducion to Phiolsophy
26 March 1995
McAgammemnon 1
Socrates Charmides Socrates is a characte in the dialogue, not
the dialogues author.

Since the dawn of time mankind has been been studying the virtues. Clich, and probably false, too. What makes a
person a good person? Who is to say what the right thing
to do is? These questions have always been formost in
humanitys mind. These questions are taken up by
Socrates in Platos book Charmides. You dont need this first
Spelling.
Passive.
paragraph.
Socrates was born in Athens in Greece and lived a
long and active life as an important philosopher who
workde to make the other Greeks understand the
inprotance of justice and virtue. He was also a heavily
armed infantryman in one of the Greek wars that were
being fought in his lifetime(West page 13. Isnt this point
Spelling.
Spelling.
irrelevant? (He couldnt very well have served in wars that

werent fought during his lifetime.) He always argues against
the sophists and the skeptics who opposed his search for
truth. In the end he is executed by the people who he had
been trying to help, and his death was a loss for all (Praetorius class notes). This paragraph is irrelevant. You dont
need it.
In Charmides he argues against Charmides, a young
professional wrestler of the time who is related to Plato
(Plato 16). Underline or italicize book titles. A professional
wrestler?
Charmides says that sound-mindedness which is McAgammemnon 2
good. Sentence Fragment. It is also a virtue of beauty, and Tense Shift.
means doing everything slowly and decorously(Plato 24).
Socrates said this definition was no good because it stands Spelling.
to reason that if we think a fast and feirce boxer is more
beautiful than a slow one hwo has a hard time boxing then
we should nt think that its good to be slow when we are
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
being sound-minded either. Spelling. Case Error. This is a

good agruement because he supports his case with much
evidence Plato 2427).
Charmides then says that being sound-minded is to
be respectful(Plato 27). But Socrates says thats not right
either because Homer the famous Greek poet thinks that it
isnt good to show respect for other people they might
probably think that youre just weak and take advantage of
you rather than respond to your respectfulness by showing
you respect too. (Plato 27) Why does Homer carry authority
Spelling.
with the participants in the dialogue?

Charmides next definition say that sound-minded
people mind there own business. Case error. Subject-Verb.
Agreement Error. A definition which he got from Critias, Spelling.
another person who is in the wrestling school (Plato 28). Sentence
Fragment.
Socrates and Critias spend the rest of the book arguing
about this. Critias thinks that a sound-minded man is a
man who does things that are good. Socrates wants to McAgammemnon 3
know how he knows that theyre good. Well says Critias, a
sound-minded man just knows that some things are right Awkward.
to do and other things arent right to do. So sound-mindedness is the ability to recognize yourself in what you are
doing instead of acting thoughtlesslessly or without proper
understanding(Plato 35). Spelling. Heres an important
point: how is moral knowledge a kind of self-knowledge?

In order to understand what you know, you have to
understand what you dont know. Its the old story, you
cant have ebony without ivory. Comma Splice. Example:
Take for instance looking for adoctor. Clich, and not a particularly apposite one. If you are a doctor then you dont need
a doctor. But if you arent a doctor, then how do you know
that the doctor you go to is a good doctor and not some
kind of weird chiropracter? Its the old saying, It takes
one to know one. Spelling. (Besides, there were no chiropractors in Athens.)This is what Socrates thinks is wrong
with Charmides story about sound-mindedness. You have
to be one before you can know what one is(Plato 3840).
P
Awkward.
Case Error.
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
Ok., now develop this point. If one hasnt got expertise, then how
could not distinguish expertise from charlatanism?
There is also another problem with minding your
own business. If everybody minds their own business,
then everybody will have to do everthing for themself, like
making shoes for example. That would be bad for society,
so sound-mindedness can not be the same thing as minding your own business as Critias says it is (Plato 29). O.K.,
Not a word.
so why would it be bad for society?
McAgammemnon 4
There are many other problems with finding out

what sound-mindedness is. How can an eye see itself seeing? How can we be in love with being in love? How can
anything know anything about itself? THis is the puzzle
that Socrates challenges Charmides with(Plato 40). How
too can you know if someone really knows what theyre
talking about (Plato 40)?
These are the problems that SOcrates wants to
explain to Charmides and Critias. He wants to make them
look at things from two sides, because he thinks that noone
has all of the answers, and that all we can do is try to be
sound-minded enough to look at a problem from every
possible angle before we make up our minds about it.
Works Cited
You see several of the important points the dialogue

makeswhy not develop them? Consider what Critias says about
sound-mindedness being a kind of self-recognition: a soundminded person acts thoughtfully. How is acting thoughtfully a
kind of self-recognition? How would the virtue that involves
self-recognition enable you, for example, to distinguish an expert
from a fraud?
Cut out anything that isnt doing work in your essay. You
could, for example, improve this essay simply by deleting the first
two paragraphs. Try to proofread more carefully.
C
Awkward.
Improper
Capitalization.
Improper
Capitalization.
Spelling.
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
Mackie Gabel
Dr. Praetorius
26 March 1995
Gabel 1
First Essay Assignment (Give your essay a title that communi-
cates something about your thesis.)

Socrates was born in Athens in the year 470 B.C.
(Practorius class notes). He wrote many interesting dialogues of which the book Charmides is perhaps the most
improtant and beautiful. (Avoid using your class notes as a
Irrelevant.
source.) Socrates didnt write the Charmides or anything else Irrelevant.

thats survived. He was a professor of philosophy in Platos
school and taught the philosopher Plato everything he
knew (Practorius class notes). Anachronistic and simply
false. There were no professors as we would understand them in

Athens. He was married to a woman named anthippe.
Also, Plato founded the Academy (he wasnt a student there)
and he didnt do so until after Socrates death. He talked to Irrelevant.
people about philosophy all the time because he thought
that he didnt know anything (class notes). He fought in
many battles that the ancient Greeks fought in. He always
tried to help people but the dint like the way he made
them feel like they didnt no anything ans so they put him
on trial for being a child molestor and made him kill
himself by drinking poison(class notes). Spelling. Also,
Spelling.
Irrelevant.
Spelling.
Spelling.
Spelling.
Socrates was not accused of child molestation, but rather of impiety and corruption of the youth.. He is one of the Greatest
philosophers of all time, and he has many good ideas
which Everybody should listen to. This whole first para-
graph is not only irrelevant to the topic of the paper, but contains
at least three factual errors as well. If I were you, I would cut it
out entirely.
Charmides who is a very popular wrestler thinks that Soundhe is very smart and knows what sound-minded is. mindedness.
Socrates wanted to show him that he isnt so smat and so he
questions him what is sound-minded? Sentence Sense.
Charmides thinks he knos but Socrates totally shows him
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
that he dosent know (Plato 25). Socrates uses very good

logic to make his points and Charmides can not follow
them, so Socrates asks if someone esle can help him and
another man Critas says he can(Plato 31). Critas thought
that Charmides is right and that Socrates is just playing
games with his mind to show that hes a smart man which
Charmides isnt being just a boy and a wrestler. Spelling.
Critas says that everybody would be better off if
every one else minded his or her own business (Plato 34).
Live and Let live is his philosophy of life. Socrates isnt
satisfied with this because he things that people shouldnt
mind their busines but they should be there brothers
keeper, as it says in the Bible Socrates was a pagan. The
Gabel 2
Spelling.
Spelling.
Spelling.
Vague.
Spelling.
Tense Shift.
Clich.
Bible didnt even exist in its present form. Whats the Bible got P
to do with anything here? (Bible). Besides if we all just Spelling.
minded our business we would all have to make our own Wrong Word.
clothes and shoes. Which would be bad for society (Plato Case Error.
2930). Sentence Fragment. If everyone makes their own
clothes then clothesmakers and clothstores would go out
of business, thus increasing unemployment and homelessness. Society could not survive with such a goal in mind.
Does Plato show any interest in these social problems?

Critas believes Socrates and starts to yawn, that is
how confused Socrates has made them all. But as usual
Socrates doesnt know when to quit. He keeps beeting a
dead horse when everyone would really rather get back to
watching the wrestling match. He says that a man who
minded his own business would have to know something
that he doesnt know. Thats impossibile. If you dont
know it then you dont know it, in other words, you cant
know it (Plato 40). This last point is important. Plato
thinks theres something paradoxical about the self-knowledge involved in sound-mindedness. What is it?
Socrates goal throughout the whole book is to show
people that there really isnt just one right answer, there are
as many answers as there are people. Spelling. Comma
Splice. Maybe if we all took Socrates advice we would
have a much kinder world in which people respected each
Gabel 3
Comma Splice.
Spelling. Clich.
Spelling.
Comma Splice.
Case Error.
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
others opinions and didnt try to censure views and

thoughts that they disagreed with. I feel this is Socrates
real mission in life, to make people tolerate each other like
they should in a true democracy that we all should hope to
live in one day. Is Socrates a democrat? You make Socrates
Case error.
Case error.
sound as if hes a sophista moral skeptic or relativist. This is a Case error.

strong and probably false claim. You need to marshall more evidence for it.
I feel that Socrates has a very important message but
his argument fails because he doent convince everybody
of his truth. If people dont believe what you have to say,
then your agrument cnnot be a good one. We must always
try to persuade our listeners and not belittle them by making them feel stupid like Socrates seems always to try to
do. I feel in conclusion that the book Charmides is a very
beautiful argument and that its logic fails because of
SOcrates being so mean to people he should really treat as
responsible adults capable fo making their own choices.
Freedom of opinion must be respected by all. This para-
Gabel 4
Spelling.
Improper
graph confuses the logical success of an argument with the argu- Capitalization.
ments rhetorical success or persuasiveness. An argument can be
a good one even if as a matter of fact it happens not to persuade Spelling.
its audience. Youve also established an impossibly high standard
of success. There will always be someone who remains unconvinced by even the most bravura logical and rhetorical performance.
Works Cited
The Charmides is not about freedom of opinion or liberty

of conscience. Its about sound-mindedness, a very peculiar virtue.
Socrates is not merely playing word games with Charmides and
Critias. Hes trying to get them to elucidate their understanding
of the virtue of sound-mindedness, a virtue they both claim to
know a lot about. Look at the dialogue again, and try to find the
definitions Critias and Charmides offer. Then try to find, specifi-
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
cally, what Socrates thinks is wrong with them. You havent

shown a good understanding of the dialogue.
D
Fran Bahumba
Dr. Praetorius
26 March 1995
Bahumba 1
Eek, a Greek Your title certainly converys something about your

argument, but you might strive for a less frivolous tone.
The Charmides is another dull, witless exercise in
the Socratic method, and I for one am tired of it. Fifty generations of philosophers have spent far too much time poring over the sweet little parables of Plato and his kind
maybe its time we stopped?
There is nothing whatsoever to be learned from any
of Platos dialogues, least of all the Charmides. This is a
strong thesis, but o.k., Im willing to be convinced. Lets rock.

The whole point of the dialogue is that its impossible to
know anything. This will come as no news to anyone who
has read the Meno or the Euthyphro. If thats it, its certainly possible to come right out and say so in one sentence, without forcing the reader to plow through forty
three pages in which a handful of dead Greek guys sneer at
each other over chopped olives and Retsina. Enough is
enough. Funny, but gratuitous. So far you are not making a
good argument.
Heres the plot of the Charmides: Socrates wants to
see if Charmides is as beautiful on the inside as he is on
the outside, so he asks him to explain what it means to be
sound-minded. Charmides gives him three perfectly good
answers; But the answers arent perfectly goodthats the
whole point. naturally Socrates isnt satisfied with any of
them. As usual young people are depicted as being stupid,
so Charmides gets his older friend (if thats what he is)
Bahumba 2
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
Critias to come to his rescue and refute the mean old

Socrates. Naturally because Plato always stacks the deck
in favor of Socrates, Critias gets blown out of the water
because Socrates twists him around to the point where he
cant even make his definition of sound-mindedness out
to be consistent (Plato 1356). This is a mixed metaphor. To
Trite.
stack the deck is to cheat at cards, while to blow out of the

water is to explode an enemy ship. Dont mix metaphors.
(Beside, both are clichs anyway.)
At the end of it all no one knows what the answer is.
This is the point. Nobody ever knows anything (Plato 56).
Least of all why we should bother to think about things
like this in the first place. Flippant.
The characters in this dialogue believe in the
Greek Why the quotation marks? Isnt it a dialogue? gods, as
can be seen from the numerous times Critias and Socrates
talk about the Temple at Delphi and its famous in scription
Know thyself (Plato 3536). This clearly indicates their
adherence to an antique superstition which modern science
has completely discredited. It is possible today to climb to
the top of Mount Olympus, where you will find nothing
more than a rather ordinary summit. No Apollo, no Zeus.
Nothing but a fine view. O.K., but not really relevant.
The roots of Greek religion were simply ignorant
fears of the unknown. These were people who thought that
the earth was flat, and that earthquakes came from Neptune striking the ground with his pitchfork. Wrong. Poseidon, not Neptune. It was a trident, not a pitchfork. Their
views were based on nothing more substantial than a primitive science. While we must excuse such ignorance in
view of the technologically primitive conditions under
which the ancient Greeks lived, it is surely the height of
unreasonableness for us to think that we could make any
of their habits of thought our own. The scientific revolution of the twentieth century has exposed forever all forms
of superstition for the nonsense they are, and we can gain
nothing whatsoever from thinking about the kinds of
Bahumba 3
Wrong.
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
things Socrates may or may not have wondered about.
Questionable history, and quite irrelevant to the Charmides.

His speculations about virtue are good examples of
this. They are clearly the result of the projection of human
desire onto imaginary father and mother figures, which
came to be known as gods. In view of such obscurantism,
its no wonder that the inevitable conclusion of every
Socratic dialogue is, I dont know. If youre going to make
an anthropological attack on Plato, you ought to set it up and

sustain it better than you have in this essay. Minimally, get the
mythology, the science, and the anthropology right.
Works Cited
Your obvious dislike for Platos dialogues has clouded

your analysis. Its fine to disagree with Plato, and even to detest
and denounce him, but the argument youve made misses the point.
Greek religion is irrelevant to the issues the dialogue raises, and
as it is youve offered only an unsympathetic caricaturea straw
manof that religion. Think about the sorts of paradoxes selfknowledge raises.
On the whole, this is clearly, correctly, and vigorously written, but your main argument simple misses the mark.
D
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
Leslie Lacksmi
Dr. Praetorius
26 March 1995
Lacksmi 1
Philosophy Homework. Give your essay a title.

The questions of philosophy has been wondered
about by mankind since before the dawn of time. Passive.
Subject-Verb Agreement Error. Clich. (Actually, a botched

clich.) In the book by Socrates, called Platos Charmide,
these questions come under much scrutinization(Plato
1356). Socrates did not write the Charmides. These questions
will be discussed in this essay. A weak, vague introduction.
Not a word.
Passive.
Philosophy asks many questions, and the Charmides doesnt

address all of them by a long shot.
Socretes shows that being sound-minded is what is
called being temerant. Meaning doing things slowly and
deliberately. Sentence Fragment. In this he gets the others
around him to quickly agree by the strength of his arguments.
The strenht of his arguements being very persuasive
and through the use of many vivid examples. Sentence
Fragment. He draw the reader in with them in an exciting
manner. Subject-Verb Agreement Error. Example: a soundminded doctor knows what he is doing, but an unsoundminded doctor knows what he isnt doing. What? Where
does this example come from? How could an unsoundminded
doctor know what he isnt doing?
The many clear and vivid examples which are used
by Socrates are sound-minded and convinceing. Plato is
convinced by the arguements in the examples. The many
different points of view in this book show that we really
cannot know what the eternal profounde questions of philosophy means. Everybody in the book has their own opinions and nobody is realy right. Subject-Verb Agreement
Error. Socrates shows this in the use of his many vivid and
persuasive examples.
This showing that we dont know as much as we
think we know is the Socratic method that Socrates prac-
Spelling.
Spelling.
Spelling.
Awkward.
Passive.
Lacksmi 2
Passive.
Spelling.
Indent.
Spelling.
Spelling.
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
ticed as may be seen in the many scenes of this book

where he shows people that they do not know what he
knows, like how sound-minded is minding your own business. This is the Socratic Elencus method (class notes).
Clumsy, wordy, and unclear.
In conclusion I found this dialogue hard to understand but I definitely feel that I was improved when I read
it by Socrates many vivid examples that draw the reader
in. Case Error. This final paragraph contributes nothing to your
argument.
Works Cited
What is the Charmides about? This essay contains no sign

that youve understood or even read the dialogue.
F
Kelly Cowznofski
Dr. Praetorius
26 March 1995
Cowznofski 1
Self-Knowledge and Sound-Mindedness

Platos Charmides is about a virtue called soundmindedness. In the action of the dialogue, Socrates follows his usual practice of showing how inadequate
peoples
concepts are. The two men hes talking to, Charmides and
Critias, cannot give an account of this virtue, and the three
eventually decide that sound-mindedness is knowledge
of knowledge. Since real knowledge is always able to distinguish itself from error, being sound-minded seems also
to mean that you would have to know things you didnt
know. A good beginning.
Right.
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
Sound-mindedness translates a Greek word,

sophrosyne, that means many different things, like moderation, good judgment, and self-control. Good judgment seems to be one of the most important parts of the
virtue, given that Plato thinks a sound-minded man is one
who knows an expert when he sees one. Documentation?
How do you know this?

Because sound-minded people are usually older and
experi enced, young Charmides thinks that sound-mindedness means doing everything decorously and quietly.
This is superficial. No virtue could come down to nothing
more than mere appearance, especially for Plato, who
thinks that appearances are things that we can only have
opinions about, but not knowledge. Documentation? You
Cowznofski 2
Citation?
must cite passages that support your claims about the text.
Socrates refutes this by making Charmides to agree
that sound-mindedness is beautiful. He argues through
examples that if something is done laboriously, slowly and
quietly, its less beautiful than what is done quickly and
keenly. Because swiftness and ferocity are beautiful, and
sound-mindedness is beautiful, sound-mindedness
cant be dignified and slow. Socrates tells Charmides to
look past appearances and into his own soul, where he
should find the quality that makes a man sound-minded.
Citations?
Charmides next try says that sound-mindedness is
respectfulness, which makes a human being have a sense
of shame and be ashamed. But this cant be right either,
be cause shame isnt in itself a good thing. Socrates
reminds Charmides that the famous poet Homer says,
Respectfulness is not good for a needy man, meaning
that it isnt good all the time, especially when a mans got
to assert himself. If Charmides new definition were right,
them the virtue of sound-mindedness would have to be
good and bad at the same time, which is a contradiction.
Documentation?
This shows that theres something strange about the
virtue of sound-mindedness, and the virtues strangeness
O.K.
documentation?
Cowznofski 3
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
becomes even more obvious when Charmides gives his

last definitionsound-mindedness is minding your own
business or doing ones own thingsand then turns the
argument over to his older friend Critias. Fine, but you need
to support your argument with textual evidence.

Socrates argues that if we understand doing ones
own things literally, then sound-mindedness wouldnt
be a good thing at all, but a bad thing. If there were a city
in which everybody grew all his own food, made his own
clothes, and did everything for himself without relying on
anyone else, it would be a bad city. It would be uncomfortable, at least, and not nearly as well-run as a city in which
tasks were divided up among the citizens. So soundmindedness would be bad for the city, and anything thats
bad for the city cant be a virtue. Again, documentation?
Youve accurately presented this argument, but where does

Socrates make it? Also, do you think its a good argument?
Critias answers Socrates by saying that he and
Charmides dont mean that everybody has to be totally
independent. He says they mean that a sound-minded
man should do what is good and recognize that it is good.
This is the sense in which he knows his own things and
does them. His things means the things he ought to be
doing. O.k., but where does Critias say these things?
There are still problems with this. First of all,
sound-mindedness if you follow Critias definition to its
logical conclusion would have to be a kind of knowledge
that has itself as its own object, and its hard to see what
that would look like. It would be as if the sense of sight
were invisible, yet somehow visible to itself. If soundmind edness were like this, then it would be very strange
indeed. Right. Documentation?
Second, sound-mindedness would have to include
knowledge of things that the sound-minded man did not
know. This is because a sound-minded man can to recognize real expertise in other people even when he himself
hasnt got that expertise. A sound-minded man doesnt
Cowznofski 4
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
have to be a carpenter to know a good carpenter when he

sees one. Right. Documentation?
The Charmides ends without reaching a definite
conclusion about the virtue of sound-mindedness. Like the
other kinds of knowledge Plato writes about, it turns out to
be impossible to describe in words. Good closing paragraph.
Cowznofski 5
Works Cited
West, Thomas G. and Grace Starry West. Introduction,
to Plato, Charmides. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing
Company, 1986.
This would have been a good essay, had you cited your
sources properly. As it stands, however, this is an undocumented
paper, and therefore merits a failing grade.
F
Billy Joe Hara

Dr. Praetorius
26 March 1995
Know Thineself!
Socrates most striking singularity was the mysterious voice or supernatural sign which attended him
from the days of childhood. According to Plato, who treats
the sign very lightly, it manifested itself sporadically
(Plato 10). These first two sentences appear verbatim in A. E.
Taylors Socrates, page 4. Who can say if it is just this sign
that guided Socrates in his debate with Charmides? Your
first citation is bogus.

Charmides is not only beautiful in body, but temperate in soul (Plato 11). Socrates repeats his praise of the
family of Charmides and Critias (which is in a sense
Hara 1
Thyself?
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
Platos own), celebrated by the poets for virtue and what

men call happiness, and finds a transition to the theme of
the dialogue in the consideration that if Charmides already
has temperance, shall we inquire together whether he
really posesses temper ance? The presence of temperance must give rise to some perception which in turn will
beget an opinion about its nature and quality (Plato 12).
Can the boy define temperance? He must have some
notion, and as he speaks Greek he can tell it (Plato 15).
We thus arrive at the typical theme of the minor dialogues, the quest for a definition of a virtue. Sophrosyne,
ventures Charmides after some demur, is doing everything
in an orderly and quiet fashion. It is in sum a kind of quietness (Plato 15). As a definition it is for the present purpose
refuted by the stereotyped argument that a virtue must by
hypothesis be a fine and good thing, and quietness, slowness, whether of mind or body, as induction from many
examples shows, is not always preferable to quickness,
and is therefore not always good (Plato 17).
A second definition identifies it with another
untranslatable Greek word, aidos, modesty, the sense of
shame, respect for others opinions (Plato 18). This is
briefly disposed of on the same principle by the Homeric
line: aidos is not a good thing for a beggar (Plato 18).
Charmides then remembers that he heard from someone
that sophrosyne is mind ing ones own business. Was the
someone you, Critias you rascal? asks Socrates. Does it
matter who said it? the boy replies. Not at all, admits
Socrates. The question is, is it true? The phrase doing
the things of ones self, was a term of praise among conservative citizens and usually in Plato (Plato 19). It distinguishes the ordinary sober citizen from the busybody and
the meddling politician. Taken literally, it may be forced to
mean the negation of the economic division of labor, making ones own shoes, baking ones own bread. Symbolically, it may signify the higher division of labor in society
and the soul of man, whereby everything confines itself to
the function for which it is naturally fitted (Plato 21). The
Hara 2
Hara 3
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
piqued Critias, who has with difficulty restrained himself

thus far, intervenes: Because you cant divine, do you
think the author of the definition equally ignorant of his
meaning? (Plato 22) Critias says his meaning is that the
doing (rather than the making) of good things is sophrosyne. Socrates raises no objection to this, but with
abrupt transition asks whether the sober-minded man can
be unaware that he is sober-minded (Plato 23).
Let us make a fresh start and ask whether it is possible to know what you know and what you dont knowif
there is any knowledge that knows itself. Induction seems
to show that it is not so in other things, that no art, no
sense, no science, no faculty, exercises itself upon itself
(Plato 28). This argument leads up to the metaphysical
problem of Aristotles thought of thought. Critias finds
Socrates bewilderment as infectious as a yawn, but, being
concerned for his reputation with the audience, tries to
conceal his confusion; and in order that the discussion
may continue, Socrates proposes to postpone the puzzle
and concede for the sake of the argument that there is such
a thing as knowledge of knowledge, and so proceed to
inquire whether this knowledge of knowledge, or knowing
ones self, is the same as knowing what one can and cannot do, and even if we waive this difficulty, whether knowing what one can and cannot do is beneficial (Plato 32).
In conclusion, we can see that Critias reaffirms the
fundamental Platonic principle, which Socrates has called
in question, that if we know what we can and cannot do we
shall trust experts in matters whereof we are ignorant and
so all things will be well done and we shall do well and
fare well (Plato 56). I found this an interesting dialogue
which gave me much to think about, especially, when I try
to know mineself! Except for the last sentence, everything in
this paper from the second paragraph on has been lifted from
Paul Shoreys What Plato Said, pages 53 to 57.
Hara 4
Hara 5
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
Works Cited
Plato. Charmides. Trans. Thomas G. West and Grace Starry West. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1986.
This essay is clearly an instance of plagiarism. Ive indicated books youve

copied from in the margins. The fact that every one of your citations is bogus (they
obviously dont refer to pages in the work youve listed as your source) leads me to
think that the deception is probably intentional. Reread the colleges policy on academic honesty and then come talk to me.
I can give you no credit for this paper.
F
Pat Stentor, The Paradox of Sound-Mindedness.

Grade: A. This is a very good, straightforward essay written in a relatively
formal tone. Student Stentor has concentrated on the text of the Charmides
and offered a good argument for an interpretation which holds that the dialogue is about the paradoxical nature of self-knowledge. Note how impersonal the style is. The essay begins by stating its thesis and the reasons for
the thesis which Student Stentor will offer.
Lannie Boffo, Can We Know What We Dont Know?
Grade: A. This is also a very good essay. Notice how different in style and
approach it is from Stentors The Paradox of Sound-Mindedness. Student
Boffos essay is far more personal and informal. There is no hesitation to use
either contractions or the first person pronoun, nor is there even any reluctance to begin the essay with a personal example the student believes will
advance discussion. The essays argument is clear: sound-mindedness is
reflexive knowledge, and Platos difficulty handling reflexive knowledge
points to a more general problem with his epistemology.
Walvis DeBeers, The Form of a Virtue.
Grade: A. Another very good essay which differs from the other two A
papers in that it seeks to connect the Charmides with other works. Students
who perceive such connections and are able to bring them out as they
respond to the assignment are welcome to do so. Recognizing quite correctly
that the Charmides shows Platos characteristic interest in the Forms, Stu-
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
dent DeBeers has decided to show that the Charmides gives further evidence
of Platos belief that the Forms lie behind appearances and are thus
extremely difficult to grasp.
L. T. Nagumo, An Analysis of Platos Charmides.
Grade: B. This is a good essay. Student Nagumo has documented the paper
carefully and accurately. The arguments are clear and cogent. Had the student been able to draw the three distinct parts of this essay together, it might
well have merited a grade of A.
Shawn McAgamemnon, Socrates Charmides.
Grade: C. This is a passing essay. Student McAgamemnon appears to have a
basic understanding of why Socrates thinks Charmides and Critiass definitions of sound-mindedness are inadequate. The paper, however, is not only
full of cliches and proofreading errors, but seems to have only a tenuous
grasp of what an argument isa connected series of premises that establish
the truth of a conclusion. This paper could be immediately improved by cutting the first two paragraphs and taking the time to proofread what remained.
Mackie Gabel, First Essay Assignment.
Grade: D. This is not good work. Sloppily written, uncomprehending, and
full of errors of fact, this is at best marginally passing but unacceptable
work. Signs that Student Gabel has actually read the dialogue and got a
small sense of Socrates objections to Critiass and Charmides definitions
save it from receiving a failing grade, but only barely.
Fran Bahumba, Eek, a Greek.
Grade: D. This fluent paper completely misses the point. Student Bahumba
has not made an effort to understand the dialogue. Compare this essay with
the papers that earned a grade of A or B and youll see what the problem is.
The student is, however, at least serious enough to denounce a philosophical
position as offensively false, and offers some superficially plausible but
unsound arguments in support of the essays thesis. This papers willingness
to make an argument saves it from a failing grade, but it is not good work.
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
Leslie Lacksmi, Philosophy Homework.

Grade: F. This is very bad work: careless, unthinking, and riddled with mistakes. Student Lacksmi shows no real sign of having even read the Charmides,
let alone understood it.
Kelly Cowznofski, Self-Knowledge and Sound-Mindedness.
Grade: F. This is a good essay, but it has one fatal flaw: its undocumented.
Student Cowznofski has failed to cite a single passage from the Charmides
to support the claims the essay makes about that dialogue. This is unfortunate, because everything the essay says is true, and overall it shows considerable insight. Had Student Cowznofski documented this paper, it would
have earned at least a B, maybe even an A.
Billy Joe Hara, Know Thineself.
Grade: F. This essay is plagiarism. In some colleges turning in an essay like
this will get you expelled. Portions of the first paragraph were copied from
page 4 of A. E. Taylors Socrates: The Man and His Thought (Garden City,
N.J.: Doubleday Anchor, 1953). The rest of the essay comes straight from
pages 53 to 57 of Paul Shoreys What Plato Said (abridged edition, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1967). The parenthetical citations are spurious,
as the instructors quick look at the Charmides revealed. There is no excuse
for this. The few minor changes in wording which Student Hara made do not
make the essay any less a case of plagiarism. Even if this student had listed
Taylor and Shorey among the works cited, this would still be plagiarism. If
at this point in your academic career you dont know what plagiarism is (and
there are people who honestly and innocently do not know) then educate
yourself before you turn in your first paper.
There are some general lessons one might draw from these essays. First,
recognize that there are a variety of acceptable styles, and that what you
intend to argue and who your audience is should do at least as much to determine your style as anything else. Some good essays are formal, others relatively informal. Some good writers strive to submerge their personalities;
others write unabashedly in the first person and draw freely on their own
experiences. It doesnt really matter. Your task in writing philosophy is to tell
the truth about important problems, and to do so clearly, with well-marshalled evidence. How you do that is up to you: there is no algorithm that
will crank out good essays.
WRITING PHILOSOPHY
You should always consider your audience. Students often find it much
easier to achieve a voice theyre comfortable with once they realize that all
writing is directed toward an audience. If you know your audience, you
know all sorts of useful things: how formal or informal your tone should be,
what background knowledge you can appeal to, what assumptions you can
appeal to (or seek to upset), the vocabulary you should work with, and even
the physical appearance the final paper should have. Sometimes an instructor
might ask you to write for a specific audience, but usually the choice of an
audience is up to you. In this case, the best policy is to consider your audience to be either your instructor and your student peers or a generally welleducated but nonspecialist adult audience. Use the models in this pamphlet
as a guide, but dont feel you need to follow the good models slavishly.
Good philosophy has been written in the form of dialogue, confession, aphorism, treatise, proof, poem, and biography (and this list is not complete).
Second, remember that your job is to make arguments, not merely to
express unfounded opinion or indulge in interesting speculation. The views
you express ought to be yours, but you ought to have some reason for holding them. The essays you write should therefore be analytic or interpretive rather than personal or expository.
Third, time spent editing and proofreading is time well-spent. The good
essays in our sample are far easier to read than the bad ones because the
authors edited and proofread them carefully, thereby removing many obstacles to the readers understanding.
Finally, avoid plagiarism. Organize your research so that its easy for
you to cite your sources. Dont assume that your instructors dont read (or
dont really read) what youve written. They do, and they take your writing seriously enough to consult at least some of the sources you cite. Your
citations are, after all, part of your argument.
When your instructor returns your paper, read and use the comments
you find on it. The written comments ought to be clear; if they arent, ask
about them. So too with the proofreading symbols the instructor will probably use to point out mechanical errors. Use the marked papers you get back
to identify and correct habitual flaws in your writing.

Writing Philosophy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Writing Philosophy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WRITING PHILOSOPHY

THE ACTUAL PRACTICE of philosophy as youll encounter it in your academic

THE WRITING PROCESSPRE-WRITING, COMPOSING,

SUGGESTIONS FOR BEGINNING WRITERS OF PHILOSOPHY

Avoid including irrelevant background information. An essay on Kants

active voice. It has been written by Plato is passive. Plato wrote is

WRITING UNDER PRESSURE

Heres a perfectly good short answer:

Socrates is arguing with two brothers, Euthydemus and Dionysodorus,

These Bill-and-Ted answers are vague and inadequate. Athenians is

Second, notice that the question has a presuppositionit assumes that

They are sophists because they teach persuasion.

WRITING WHEN YOU HAVE MORE CONTROL

WRITING WHILE YOU READ

Charmides then says that sound-mindedness is minding ones own business,

Do you agree with that understanding?

how the definition of the virtue seems to grow less specific

but keep going.

our own desire (Plato 41). Yet sound-mindedness is

some St. Augustine.)

This pleasantly written essay does a good job of setting up

Youve done a good job of placing the Charmides into the

wants to know what Virtue as such and Piety as such are

worthwhile to think about this a little. Can you think of examples

Socrates quotes him, Respectfulness is not good for a

Kinds? (It might be better to reserve forms for the Platonic

Charmides is entirely consistent with the rest of Platos

thing about your argument when you give an essay a title.

The virtue of sound-mindedness is discussed in the

ness is (Plato 27). This definition does not stand up under

virtue? (An intellectual virtue, perhaps?)

There is another problem. A sound-minded man

Wordy, unnecessary. Havent the participants in this dialogue

This careful, modest paper shows a good understanding of

Socrates Charmides Socrates is a characte in the dialogue, not

the dialogues author.

irrelevant? (He couldnt very well have served in wars that

being sound-minded either. Spelling. Case Error. This is a

with the participants in the dialogue?

point: how is moral knowledge a kind of self-knowledge?

so why would it be bad for society?

There are many other problems with finding out

You see several of the important points the dialogue

First Essay Assignment (Give your essay a title that communi-

cates something about your thesis.)

source.) Socrates didnt write the Charmides or anything else Irrelevant.

false. There were no professors as we would understand them in

that he dosent know (Plato 25). Socrates uses very good

Does Plato show any interest in these social problems?

others opinions and didnt try to censure views and

sound as if hes a sophista moral skeptic or relativist. This is a Case error.

The Charmides is not about freedom of opinion or liberty

cally, what Socrates thinks is wrong with them. You havent

Eek, a Greek Your title certainly converys something about your

strong thesis, but o.k., Im willing to be convinced. Lets rock.

Critias to come to his rescue and refute the mean old

stack the deck is to cheat at cards, while to blow out of the

things Socrates may or may not have wondered about.

Questionable history, and quite irrelevant to the Charmides.

an anthropological attack on Plato, you ought to set it up and

Your obvious dislike for Platos dialogues has clouded

Philosophy Homework. Give your essay a title.

Subject-Verb Agreement Error. Clich. (Actually, a botched