Introduction
Welcome to the first lesson of our final module, "Writing and Research in Phenomenology." In our last session, you completed an important exercise: drafting a short critical analysis of a passage from Merleau-Ponty. That task required you to move beyond simply understanding his late concepts and begin using them to interpret his work. This was your first practical step toward the course's ultimate goal: writing academic essays on phenomenology.
Today, we will build directly on that experience by formalizing a crucial distinction in philosophical writing. The learning outcome for this lesson is to distinguish between using sources for exposition versus using them to build an original argument.
Understanding this difference is fundamental. In your previous work in mathematics, you are familiar with the difference between stating a definition or a theorem and using that theorem within a proof to arrive at a new conclusion. Philosophical writing operates on a similar principle. First, you must accurately present a philosopher's ideas (exposition), and then you must use those ideas as evidence, building blocks, or points of critique to construct and defend your own thesis (argumentation).
This lesson will equip you with the conceptual tools to recognize these two functions of sources and to begin employing them consciously in your own writing.
1. Defining the Two Roles of Sources: Exposition vs. Argument
At its core, a philosophy paper is not a report or a summary; it is a reasoned defense of a claim. This means every part of your paper should serve your central argument. Sources, whether primary texts from philosophers or secondary analyses from commentators, are your essential tools. They can be used in two primary ways:
- Exposition: The act of explaining, clarifying, and accurately representing a philosopher's views. The goal is to demonstrate a clear understanding of the material. This is the "what" â what does the author claim and how do they support it?
- Argumentation: The act of using the explicated views to build your own case. This might involve criticizing a source, defending it against objections, synthesizing it with another view, or using it to support a new interpretation. This is the "so what" â why does this exposition matter for the claim I am defending?
To explore this distinction further, let's start with a foundational guide on philosophical writing.
[PDF] Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper
The following guide by Jim Pryor, 'Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper,' clearly articulates the purpose of a philosophy paper. It provides an excellent starting point for understanding the central role of argumentation.
Please read the first three numbered sections under the heading 'What Does One Do in a Philosophy Paper?'. Pay close attention to the definition of a philosophy paper as a 'reasoned defense of some claim' and the clarification of what 'originality' entails. The text states, 'Merely summarizing what others have said won't be enough'âthis is the central idea for our lesson.
As Pryor makes clear, exposition alone is insufficient. While you must accurately represent the views of Merleau-Ponty, your ultimate goal is to offer your own "thoughtful critical response." The rest of this lesson will break down how to master both exposition and argumentation.
2. The Art of Exposition: Laying the Foundation
Before you can build an argument, you must lay a solid foundation of exposition. Your reader needs to understand the philosophical position you are engaging with, and they need to trust your representation of it. Good exposition is characterized by accuracy, clarity, and conciseness.
When to Quote and When to Paraphrase
A key decision in exposition is whether to use a direct quotation or to paraphrase. This choice is not arbitrary; it signals your purpose to the reader.
- Quoting is best used when the author's specific wording is crucial evidence for your claim, particularly in an exegetical argument (an argument about the correct interpretation of a text).
- Paraphrasing (restating the idea in your own words) is generally preferred as it demonstrates a deeper level of understanding. It shows you have processed the idea, not just transcribed it.
The following video offers practical advice on this point and on how to distinguish your voice from your source's.
Guide for Writing a Philosophy Paper
This clip from Jeffrey Kaplan's 'Guide for Writing a Philosophy Paper' provides concise advice on using quotes and signposting your arguments.
Please watch from 15:15 to 16:20 to learn about signposting, then from 18:45 to 20:03 for advice on using direct quotes. Notice the exception he makes for 'exegetical' papersâthis is an important nuance.
As Kaplan notes, an argument about what a philosopher thinks (e.g., "I will argue that Merleau-Ponty's concept of Flesh is fundamentally ecological") is itself an original argument that relies heavily on quotations as evidence. However, even when quoting, you must always follow up with your own explanation, as Pryor's guide also emphasizes. Never let a quote stand on its own as a substitute for your explanation.
3. Building an Original Argument: Making Your Contribution
With a solid expository foundation, you can move to the primary task of a philosophy paper: building your own argument. This means you are no longer just reporting on a conversation; you are actively participating in it.
From Passive Description to Active Analysis
How do you make this shift? It involves creating what one professor calls "relational action" between your sources and your ideas. You must actively do something with the material you've explained.
How to Write a Critical Analysis Essay (Professor Explains)
In 'How to Write a Critical Analysis Essay,' Professor Mark Egan offers a powerful conceptual framework for understanding the difference between passive description and active critical work.
Please watch from 00:23 to 03:35. Focus on the distinction between the 'passive' listing of ideas and the 'active' use of sources to show tension, connection, dialogue, and development. This 'doing' is the essence of argumentation.
This "active" use of sources is how you create an original argument. Imagine you have explained a concept from Husserl and one from Merleau-Ponty. Your argument begins when you show:
- Connection: How Merleau-Ponty's idea is a development of Husserl's.
- Tension: How Merleau-Ponty's idea critiques or contradicts Husserl's.
- Application: How Merleau-Ponty's concept can be used to analyze an experience that Husserl's cannot.
- Synthesis: How both views, taken together, reveal a deeper truth about the phenomenon.
This logical structuring of claims is the "proof" of your paper's thesis.
Engaging Philosophically
Let's return to Pryor's guide for a concrete example of what constitutes meaningful philosophical engagement versus a superficial response.
[PDF] Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper
This final reading from Pryor's guide provides a sharp, clear example of weak versus strong philosophical engagement. This is one of the most important takeaways for developing your own argumentative writing.
Please read the section titled 'Your paper should do some philosophical work' (it is near the end of the document). Contrast the weak complaint ('Philosopher X assumes A...') with the more interesting and satisfying ways of engaging with the view.
As Pryor shows, simply identifying a premise and rejecting it is not enough. A strong argument engages more deeply by questioning the logical steps, the truth of the premises, or the very framework of the debate.
4. A Note on Originality in Phenomenological Writing
While the structure of a rigorous, argumentative essay is universal in philosophy, phenomenology offers unique ways to generate the content for an original argument. Your goal isn't just to write about phenomenology but to think phenomenologically.
An original argument about Merleau-Ponty might not come from a purely logical refutation. It could emerge from a deeper, more attentive description of experience itself.
[PDF] Practicing Phenomenological Writing - Publishing at the Library
Max van Manen's 'Practicing Phenomenological Writing' describes a method of research that is itself a form of thinking. While your essays will follow a more traditional academic structure, his methods for generating insight are invaluable.
Please read section 4, 'Exploring the Phenomenon: Generating âDataâ', and section 4.5, 'Locating Experiential Descriptions in Literature, Art, etc.'. Notice the various sources van Manen suggests for exploration: personal experience, art, literature, and etymology. You can use these very methods to find fresh evidence and develop a novel interpretation of Merleau-Ponty's work.
For example, you could construct an original argument that Merleau-Pontyâs account of motor intentionality is powerfully illustrated in a particular piece of music or a specific athletic activity. Your paper would still have a clear thesis and use exposition of Merleau-Ponty's texts, but your original contributionâyour evidence and analysisâwould be grounded in this rich, descriptive phenomenological investigation.
Conclusion
Today we have drawn a critical line between two ways of using sources. Exposition is the necessary craft of accurately explaining a philosopher's position. Argumentation is the art of using that exposition to build and defend your own thesis.
Key Takeaways:
- Exposition reports; Argumentation constructs. A philosophy paper requires both, but its purpose is defined by the latter.
- Good exposition is the foundation of good argumentation. It requires careful reading and a strategic use of paraphrasing and quotation.
- An original argument involves being an active writer: putting sources into dialogue, showing connections and tensions, and using them to advance your own claim.
- In phenomenology, original arguments can be generated not only through logical critique but also through a deeper, more attentive description of lived experience, drawing on a wide range of sources including art and literature.
Preview of the Next Lesson:
Now that you understand the ideal relationship between exposition and argumentation, we will turn to a practical skill: analyzing how other scholars use sources. In the next lesson, we will learn to evaluate the textual evidence used in a secondary source essay by cross-referencing it with the primary work. This will sharpen your critical reading skills and prepare you to engage with the scholarly conversation surrounding Merleau-Ponty.