Revising Phenomenological Essays for Clarity and Rigor

1. The Mindset of Revision: Rewriting as Thinking

A common misconception is that a first draft is a near-finished product. In philosophy, the opposite is often true. The first draft is a process of discovery, where you often figure out what you truly want to argue only by the time you reach the conclusion. The real work of argumentation happens during revision.

To understand this mindset, let's watch a short, insightful clip.

Kaplan's point is crucial: you must be willing to "throw away" your early paragraphs and rewrite them from the more enlightened perspective you've gained. Revision is not just cleaning up prose; it is rebuilding your argument with greater clarity and confidence.

When you return to your draft after a day or two, you should approach it with a critical eye.

Adopting this critical distance is fundamental. Your task is to transform your draft from a record of your thought process into a clear, linear argument for your reader.

2. A Checklist for Clarity and Coherence

Given your background in mathematics, you can think of this stage as being similar to checking a proof. Every step must be logically sound, every term must be unambiguous, and the overall structure must be transparent. Here is a checklist, drawn from our resources, to guide your revision.

Argumentative Clarity

• Use Simple Prose: As Pryor and Kaplan both advise, your goal is not literary elegance but argumentative precision. Avoid jargon and pretentious language. If you wouldn't say it in a serious conversation, don't write it.
• Say Exactly What You Mean: Your sentences must be unambiguous. To ensure this, Pryor suggests a useful heuristic: pretend your reader is "lazy, stupid, and mean." This forces you to explain every step in simple, explicit terms, leaving no room for misinterpretation.
• Define Your Terms: If you use a technical term from Merleau-Ponty (like chair - 'Flesh') or a term you are using in a specific sense, define it explicitly.
• Use Terminology Consistently: Kaplan emphasizes the importance of repeating key terms. In philosophy, as in mathematics, switching between synonyms (e.g., "consciousness," "awareness," "subjectivity") can create ambiguity and lead the reader to believe you are making distinctions you don't intend. Consistency is a virtue.
• Practical Test: Read your paper out loud. As Kaplan notes, if you stumble over a sentence, it's a sign that the prose is awkward or unclear and needs to be rewritten.

Coherence

• A Recipe, Not a Shopping List: An essay that simply lists points, one after another, is incoherent. You must show how the points connect to form a single, overarching argument.

• Make Your Structure Obvious: Use "signposting" to guide your reader. As Pryor explains, phrases like "I will now defend this claim...", "A possible objection is...", or "Therefore..." make your logical structure explicit. Your reader should never have to guess where your argument is going.

3. Achieving Scholarly Rigor in Phenomenology

Beyond general principles of good writing, revising a phenomenological essay requires attention to the specific demands of the discipline.

What Kind of Paper Are You Writing?

Phenomenological writing can take different forms. An important step in revision is to be clear about which form your essay takes, as this sets the standard for rigor.

For your purposes, your work will likely fall into one of two categories:

1. Exegetical Paper: A close analysis and interpretation of Merleau-Ponty's texts. Here, rigor means accurately and charitably representing his arguments, using textual evidence correctly (as we discussed last lesson), and developing your own interpretation or critique in dialogue with his work.
2. Direct Phenomenological Study: An attempt to "do" phenomenology by describing a concrete experience, using Merleau-Ponty's concepts as your guide.

This distinction is crucial. The first type of paper argues about Merleau-Ponty's philosophy; the second tries to practice it. Your revision strategy must align with your project.

Rigor in an Exegetical Paper

If you are writing an exegetical paper, rigor involves moving beyond mere summary to make an original contribution.

During revision, ask yourself:

• Am I just summarizing Merleau-Ponty, or am I advancing my own thesis?
• Have I considered and responded to potential objections to my interpretation? (See Pryor's section on "Anticipate objections" in LINK).
• Is it clear which ideas are Merleau-Ponty's and which are my own contribution?

Rigor in a Direct Phenomenological Study

If your paper attempts a direct phenomenological description, rigor has a different texture. It's less about historical exegesis and more about methodological integrity. Two concepts are key:

1. The Phenomenological Attitude: This involves bracketing the "natural attitude" to describe experience as it is lived, rather than how we theorize it. In revision, check if your descriptions are truly phenomenological. Have you described the experience of, for example, lived space, or have you lapsed into explaining a scientific or theoretical account of space?

2. The Phenomenological Example: In this tradition, an example is not just an illustration. It is a carefully chosen narrative or vignette used as a "vehicle for eidetic insight"—a way to reveal the essential structure of an experience.

When revising, examine your use of examples. Does your story about learning a motor skill (from Module 5) simply illustrate the concept of the body schema, or does it work to reveal the lived texture of motor intentionality in a way that a definition alone could not? This is a sophisticated but powerful revision technique specific to the field.

Conclusion

This lesson, and our course, concludes here. We have journeyed from the core principles of phenomenology to the intricate details of Merleau-Ponty's late ontology, and finally, to the craft of expressing these ideas in writing. The revision process is where all this learning comes together, transforming your knowledge into a clear, coherent, and rigorous philosophical argument.

Key Takeaways:

• Revision is Thinking: Treat revision not as proofreading, but as the final and most intense stage of crafting your argument. Be prepared to rewrite significantly.
• Clarity and Coherence are Paramount: Use a systematic checklist to ensure your prose is simple and precise, your terminology is consistent, and your logical structure is transparent to the reader.
• Rigor is Context-Specific: Understand whether you are writing an exegetical paper or conducting a direct phenomenological study. The standards of rigor—and therefore your revision priorities—will differ accordingly.
• Embrace Phenomenological Tools: When writing in this tradition, use its unique methodological tools, like the phenomenological example, to their full potential to create insightful and rigorous work.

You now possess both the conceptual framework and the practical skills to engage with phenomenology at a high level. Your journey from here is one of independent reading, thinking, and writing. The goal was to equip you to philosophize on phenomenology, and you are now well-prepared to begin.