Second Draft – Introduction to Philosophy Writing Tutor

By the second draft, you should be getting beyond mere notes.

BERKELEY PAPER
SECOND DRAFT

This is a more refined draft of a first paragraph. It is merely to remind the writer where she is going. It will certainly be revised when the paper is finished.

In Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, Berkeley argues that there is no such thing as matter that is independent from the mind (idealism). One way that Berkeley argues this is by showing that abstract ideas are not possible. If no abstract ideas are possible, then everything is a particular idea. Particular ideas are perceptions are in the mind. If perceptions are in the mind, and every idea is a perception, then every idea is in the mind. If all of our ideas are in the mind and ideas are all we have, then everything is in the mind.

There should be a paragraph early in the paper that states the author’s objectives. Notice the first-person voice of the first sentence. Not only is this acceptable in philosophical writing, it is very common.

In this paper I will argue that abstract ideas are possible. This will not prove that matter exists. If I am right, however, then Hylas can argue that our idea of matter is an abstract idea, and therefore immune to Philonous’ most convincing strategies. So, if Hylas can avoid committing to a particular idea, which would always be a sensation, he might be able to make some headway against Philonous. Hylas seems to have a point. We do seem to have abstract ideas of things. If I could show that our idea of matter is abstract, then Philonous’ main argument would be short circuited.

All the work of putting together quotations has been distilled into a short statement of Berkeley’s argument. This will need to be expanded in the next draft, but here the writer is trying to express the essential point of the passages that she is considering.

Philonous clearly takes seriously the possibility of abstract ideas. He even says that, if Hylas can frame an abstract idea in his mind, then he, Philonous, is willing to concede the argument (p. 28). Philonous has challenged him to frame an abstract idea of something “divested of all those sensible modes” (p. 28). In other words, he is challenging Hylas to come up with an idea of something without at the same time coming up with an idea of a particular thing with particular sensible properties such as color, shape or extension. Hylas confesses that he cannot frame an abstract idea and Philonous concludes that then he should not believe in them.

The writer’s own view is expressed here with slightly more detail and clarity than in the last drafts. We still get the sense that the theory is clearer in her mind than it is on paper. That is fine at this stage. This section of the paper will receive a great deal of attention in the next drafts.

There appears to be a way that we think about things without specifying the exact sensible properties of that thing. We can think about a car without thinking about a particular kind of car (Toyota or Ford or Acura, etc.) and without thinking about a particular shape or color. It seems that we do this when we say, “are you going to buy a car this year?” In my question, I don’t have a particular kind of car in my mind since I don’t know what kind of car you would buy in the future (how could I have any idea at all what kind of car you would buy, in terms of its specific properties, when you haven’t bought it yet?) It is clear that we are able to guide our questions in this way. So, there must be some entity in the mind that works to specify a ‘container’ for particular aspects of an idea like color, shape, texture etc. When I say “a car” I’m activating that container in my mind, without activating particular properties. Maybe it is a little like having a blank book without there being any words written on it yet.

This draft is better written than any previous draft, and contains the essential elements of a paper. At the very least, by this time the student has started to think about how to relate her ideas to the text and has started to convey her own views. There is still a great deal to fill in, since she has not really said what is at stake. Furthermore, the writer has not spelled out in enough detail her own idea. It would be nice to have a more concrete analysis of the whole ‘container’ theory. Still, it is a productive start.