PHIL1050

Introduction: Introduce the entire paper. Imagine you are introducing a friend to an acquaintance. 

 

In this case you are introducing your thesis to your reader. You should mention both 

 

philosophers you will be contrasting as well as the third philosopher you will be looking at to 

 

bolster the claims of your thesis or to provide a modern context for your discussion. There 

 

should be an easily identifiable thesis included in this introduction. 

 

1.   Primary philosopher- You will be expected to show an understanding of a philosopher 

 

and be able to reference the original article from which we derived our basis of 

 

understanding, i.e. rationalism via Descartes or empiricism via Hume. 

 

a.   What is the name of your primary philosopher?

 

b.

 

  What is the title of the article

 

?

 

c.   What would an exhaustive discussion of key vocabulary words or phrases that 

 

must be included when discussing this framework look like? (This is where you 

 

should highlight the items from our course which I have starred, happy-faced, and 

 

otherwise mentioned that one should be able to recall at a hypothetical cocktail 

 

party twenty years from now. Please do not refer to my starring or the cocktail 

 

party.)

 

2.   Second philosopher- Choose a second philosophical outlook. This framework similarly 

 

will be explained to your reader as the above but should be seen as separate such that you 

 

provide them their own space and time.

 

a.   What is the name of your second author?

 

b.   What is the title of the article?

 

c.   What are a few key vocabulary words or phrases that must be included when 

 

discussing this philosopher’s ideas? (Keep in mind this is an essay not a shopping 

 

list. You should be discussing these ideas to show your understanding not just 

 

mentioning buzzwords.)

 

3.   Contrast of philosophical Frameworks- In the third section of your paper you should be 

 

able to develop a clear set of differences between your two above frameworks. You may 

 

mention any important similarities briefly but your concentration should be in explaining 

 

what separates the two.

 

4.   Contemporary academic discussion- Our third bibliographic entry will come from a peer 

 

reviewed journal. (You might consider using the journal of 

 

Environmental Ethics

 

housed 

 

right here at UNT at The Center for Environmental Philosophy.) You will use this source 

 

to show how the above two lenses can be used to discuss and even participate in 

 

academic debates surrounding an ongoing contemporary issue of your choosing.

 

a.   What is the issue?

 

b.   Who is the author associated with this issue?

 

c.   What is the title of the article?

 

d.   Does the author themselves rely on a particular framework from above?

 

e.   What are the sides of the debate?

 

f.    What can we achieve by framing the debate using the philosophical frameworks 

 

(of your above philosophers at 1 and 2 of this outline) as lenses to see the issue at 

 

hand? (This should help make your contrast above more explicit.)

 

Conclusion: You should reacquaint the reader with your thesis. Give them a brief summary of 

 

the paper. Offer where your thinking and writing might contribute to further a discussion on this 

 

topic based on what you have learned in the process of researching and writing. Give the reader 

 

something to walk away with. 

 

Avoid rhetorical questions throughout your entire paper

 

You are expected to write a Research Paper, no longer than 5pages (around 1250 words),to be turned in via a link provided. The paper is evaluated on structure (esp. clarity of thesis and path statements), and appropriate, critical, informative use of independent research. The paper must include references and a bibliography formatted using Chicago style. There will be more on this to come