Author: Rooke Christy 

Originally Posted: 3/3/2023

“And for the final essay of the class, you will choose your own paper topic.” 

Ok, but how? You can find some interesting suggestions here at the philosophers’ cocoon. However, I wanted a systematic way to generate thesis ideas, so I came up with one (inspired by the book The Pyramid Principle by Barbara Minto).

Importantly, this is a method for coming up with thesis ideas. I am not instructing you on how to build a successful argument (not today, at least). Additionally, I cannot show you how to come up with good ideas. (Personally, I think the fear of Bad Ideas inhibits people’s creativity; let yourself brainstorm low quality ideas! Give your mind permission to make connections).

Instead of reading aimlessly to try to find a topic, with this method you can come up with potential thesis ideas and then do directed research to (see if it’s possible to) support your favorite thesis idea. 

Summary of methods:

Method 1: From Scratch

1. Identify a situation or status quo (or statement of fact) in your field of research.

2. What could be a complication for this situation? 

   • Some possible complications include:

i. Something could go wrong (how do things tend to go wrong in your area of interest?)

ii. Here’s three alternatives

iii. Here’s someone with a different point of view (“someone” could be you!)

3. What questions arise from this complication?

   • Each complication has a corresponding question, from which you can create further questions.

i. Something could go wrong →

3. • • • a. How can we prevent it? 

       • b. How can we address related concerns/worries?

ii. Here’s 3 alternatives →

a. Which alternative should we accept (if any)? 

b. Why shouldn’t we accept one of these alternatives?

iii. Here’s someone with a different pov →

a. Who is right? 

b. Are all wrong? 

c. Should we combine the views somehow?

4. What are some potential answers to these questions? Each answer you generate is a thesis idea.

5. Construct an argument to support one of the answers you came up with in step 4. Address potential objections. BAM. Paper written.

Method 2: Ideas from abstracts or readings

1.  Pick a philosophy reading. (Or reading in your field, if different).

   • I suggest using article abstracts/book summaries if you don’t have a particular reading in mind.

2. Identify statements the author makes. 

3. What question(s) are the statements answering? Identify the questions. 

4.  Either provide an alternative answer to this question, or identify a further question that you can answer in your own paper.

   •  Some further questions might include:

i. What are some alternative answers to the question? Is there reason to prefer a different answer?

ii. What are some related questions that we could answer? Does answering any of these related questions help us answer the original question?

iii. What assumptions do you have to make to ask this question? Can any of these assumptions be questioned?

iv. Why is this question important?

4. • You also have traditional options:

i. Against the author: 

a.  Is there something wrong with the author’s answer? 

4. • 1. • • (Usually involves pinpointing a mistaken premise, or an implicit “unstated” assumption that you disagree with; or an unwanted implication of the author’s argument)

ii. Charitable Reading: 

b. Is part of the author’s argument unclear? How can you make the author’s argument clearer? 

4. • 1. • • (Provide a charitable interpretation of the author’s work; or see if a charitable interpretation is possible and discuss any limitations of your reading)

5. Create an argument for your answer to one of the questions in step 4. 

For a walkthrough of the steps, read on!

I(a). Coming up with Ideas From Scratch

In discussing how to write an introduction to a business memo (/email/document/etc), Barbara Minto says that we need to state a recognized, stable situation within which a complication develops, which raises the question to which the document gives the answer (pp. 37). How is this relevant to philosophy (or academic writing more generally)? Philosophy essays do this exact thing! (Though they usually don’t explicitly state the question).

 The key to generating ideas is to hone in on the implicit questions papers are answering. Coming up with ideas is hard because we’re trying to come up with answers without first identifying any questions that need answering. So, let’s identify some questions!

• The basic method is as follows:

1. Identify a situation or status quo (or statement of fact) in philosophy.

2. What could be a complication for this situation? 

3. What questions arise from this complication?

4. What are some potential answers to these questions? Each answer you generate is a thesis idea.

5. Construct an argument to support one of the answers you came up with in step 4. Address potential objections. BAM. Paper written.

In more detail….

1. Identify a situation/status quo/statement of fact. 

What is a recognized stable Situation? Some kind of status quo. Most birds fly. X person is the current US President. Most philosophers are compatibilists about free will. Many things could be a “situation”. Let’s take the existence of a material world. 

2. Identify a complication for the situation. 

What could be a Complication? Minto offers seven ways a Complication could arise, each with a corresponding Question to answer in your written work. Here are three Complications: Something could go wrong; here’s three alternatives; here’s someone with a different point of view. 

3. Identify questions that arise from the Complication

Complication 1- Something could go wrong: Someone could kidnap us and connect us to a computer simulated world, much like in the Matrix movies. 

Question: How can we prevent it?

This question doesn’t quite work for philosophy papers (though answering it could make an interesting movie or sci fi short story). Let’s try instead, “What worries does this potential situation bring up, and how can we address these concerns?”

The worries you come up with will likely depend on your area of interest. For example:

Epistemology: 

What are the implications for knowledge? Are there skeptical implications? Does this (at least logical, if not actual) possibility have consequences for our ability to know things in everyday life? Can we learn something about the nature of knowledge from this example? (Full disclosure, my area is epistemology.)

Metaphysics: 

Would objects in a virtual world still be real objects? Do I have hands in a simulated world? (David Chalmers has some interesting papers on the metaphysics of virtual reality, by the way) Is there anything internally inconsistent about viewing reality this way? Is there a reason to think our reality is actually a simulation?

Ethics: 

What does a simulated world mean for my obligations to others? If reality is simulated, does this mean I can do whatever I want? 

4. What are some potential answers?

Example of Answer/thesis: 

• Objects in a virtual world would still be real objects. 

• If a simulated world is a shared experience with other humans, then all of our usual moral obligations still remain to humanity, but we have zero obligations to preserve nature (except to the extent that not preserving it has consequences on humans).

Complication 2- Here are three alternatives: We have the possibility of computer simulation already. Perhaps we’re dreaming. Perhaps we’re a figment of some creature/deity’s imagination.

Question: Which alternative should we take? Or, which alternative should we accept (if any)? Why shouldn’t we accept one of these alternatives?

Example of Answer/thesis:

• The first two are skeptical hypotheses that we should not entertain, while the third is a metaphysical thesis that does not threaten our everyday knowledge (e.g., I know I have hands regardless of whether I exist in a god-being’s mind or exist in a material world; I don’t know I have hands if I’m a brain envatted and experiencing a simulated reality).

• We ought to act as if we are not dreaming or simulated, regardless of what the truth is. 

Complication 3- Someone with a different pov: George Berkely and his idealism is a well-known possibility. Perhaps you yourself are another possibility, if you have a unique point of view to offer.

Question: Who is right? Are all wrong? Should we combine the views somehow?

Example of Answers/theses (+ potential choices for argumentation): 

• Thesis: Berkeley’s Idealism is the Metaphysical view we should endorse, not Materialism. 

  • You could address objections to Berkeley’s view.

  • You could look at responses to challenges against materialism, and try to poke holes in these responses.

• Thesis: Berkeley’s idealism is on the right track, but we are ideas in a cruel demon’s mind, not a god. 

  • Maybe you have an argument to show this is a more consistent view given other things we take ourselves to know.

• Thesis: It is impossible to determine which metaphysical thesis is correct.

  • Provide a skeptical argument.

  • Consider objections to skeptical arguments and if they apply to your skeptical argument/ if these objections are successful.

I(b). Example:

Alright, let’s look at an example using an abstract from a paper:

https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqaa084 The Paradox of Pain by Adam Bradley

Abstract

Bodily pain strikes many philosophers as deeply paradoxical. The issue is that pains seem to bear both physical characteristics, such as a location in the body, and mental characteristics, such being mind-dependent. In this paper I clarify and address this alleged paradox of pain. I begin by showing how a further assumption, Objectivism, the thesis that what one feels in one’s body when one is in pain is something mind-independent, is necessary for the generation of the paradox. Consequently, the paradox can be avoided if one rejects this idea. However, doing so raises its own difficulties, for it is not obvious how anything can possess all of the features we typically associate with bodily pain. To address this puzzle and finally put the paradox of pain to rest, I develop the Embodied View, a novel metaphysical account on which pains are constitutively mind-dependent features of parts of a subject’s body.

First, let’s note how Bradley follows the method outlined above. 

Bradley (1) Identifies a Situation. AKA, the status quo. Philosophers see pain as paradoxical, because pain has both physical (mind independent) and mental (mind dependent) characteristics.

(2) Complication (for the status quo): His use of words like “seem” and “alleged” imply the complication: Actually this is not a paradox at all. 

• We might identify this complication as “someone with a different point of view” above

(3) This complication gives rise to the Question Bradley will answer in his paper: How could this not be a paradox? Or, how could we resolve this seeming paradox?

(4) Bradley’s paper provides the Answer: We can resolve the paradox by rejecting objectivism, a necessary assumption for generating the paradox

• But this leads to a subQuestion: what difficulties arise from rejecting objectivism, and how can we resolve these difficulties?

• Answer: Metaphysical difficulties arise. We can resolve these difficulties by developing a novel metaphysical account of pains, such as Bradley’s Embodied View.

II. Coming Up With Ideas From Readings

So, the above works if you have a situation in mind already. But what if you don’t, and you need to generate ideas for undergraduate philosophy classes or papers more generally? We reverse-engineer the above process.

1. Pick a philosophy reading.

2.  Identify statements the author makes. 

3. What question(s) are the statements answering? Identify the questions. 

4. Either provide an alternative answer to this question, or identify a further question that you can answer in your own paper. Some further questions might include:

i. What are some alternative answers to the question? Is there reason to prefer a different answer?

ii. What are some related questions that we could answer? Does answering any of these related questions help us answer the original question?

iii. What assumptions do you have to make to ask this question? Can any of these assumptions be questioned?

iv. Why is this question important?

You also have these popular options:

- Against the author: 

i. Is there something wrong with the author’s answer? 

1. 1. • (Usually involves pinpointing a mistaken premise, or an implicit “unstated” assumption that you disagree with; or an unwanted implication of the author’s argument)

-Charitable Reading: 

i. Is part of the author’s argument unclear? How can you make the author’s argument clearer? 

1. 1. • (Provide a charitable interpretation of the author’s work; or see if a charitable interpretation is possible and discuss any limitations of your reading)

5. Create an argument for your answer to one of the questions in step 4. (As noted earlier, constructing the actual argument to support your thesis goes beyond the scope of my article)

Let’s apply these steps to Bradley’s abstract. We’ve satisfied step 1.

Step 2: Let’s extract some statements.

Pain seems paradoxical;  pain seems to bear both physical and mental (mind dependent) characteristics; the paradox can be avoided if we reject objectivism; difficulties arise from rejecting objectivism; the metaphysical account Bradley develops (the embodied view) addresses the difficulties that arise from rejecting objectivism.

Step 3: What questions are these statements answering?

i. the paradox can be avoided if we reject objectivism; 

• • • How can we avoid the paradox of pain? 

ii. difficulties arise from rejecting objectivism: 

• • • Can we just discard objectivism? What happens if we reject objectivism? 

iii. The embodied view addresses the difficulties that arise from rejecting objectivism: 

• • • (How) can we address the difficulties that arise from rejecting objectivism?

    • Can the embodied view address these difficulties?

Step 4: Identify a further question you can answer in your own paper. 

i. How can we avoid the paradox of pain?

• • Further Question: Do you have a different way to answer this question? (ie provide a different answer)

    • 1. Eg: “We can’t.” “It seems like a paradox but the current way of viewing things is actually fine and not paradoxical.” “Here’s an alternative to discarding objectivism that resolves the paradox”

ii. Can we discard objectivism?

• • Further Question: What assumptions do you have to make to answer this question? Can any of these assumptions be questioned?

    • 1. E.g: “Actually, discarding objectivism doesn’t lead to the issues Bradley thinks/ Actually those issues aren’t really issues.” “We can discard objectivism, but that’s not what’s driving the paradox, so it won’t help.” “We can’t discard objectivism, even if we add the embodied view.”

IIb. Sample ideas-turned-thesis

Some Sample thesis statements responding to Bradley (a-c are separate theses you could choose between):

Bradley argues that rejecting Objectivism to resolve the paradox of pain leads to complications. He resolves these complications by developing the Embodied View. In this paper I will argue that…

• the supposed challenges of rejecting objectivism are not actually a problem, and that we don’t need to add the embodied view.

• we should modify objectivism instead of rejecting it.

•  the embodied view leads to challenges of its own that Bradley has not and cannot sufficiently address, and then provide suggestions for modifications to the Embodied View to resolve these challenges.

The next step would be to do research to see if the thesis you chose can be adequately argued/supported. Thus, we can partake in directed reading for the sake of research, instead of reading widely in an aimless manner hoping to figure out what we might want to research.

Hope this helps someone else. Feel free to send an email with suggestions and questions to kchris37@jhu.edu.