A. P. Martinich 's best-selling text, Philosophical Writing: An Introduction, aims to help those with minimal experience in philosophy to think and write successfully. It helps students gain confidence in their essay-writing skills by improving their ability to present their knowledge and thoughts clearly. This updated edition includes new examples of the structures of a philosophical essay, new examples of rough drafts, tips on how to study for a test, and a new section on how to utilize the internet effectively. Written with clarity and wit, this is an indispensable tool for all philosophy students.
A. P. Martinich is an analytic philosopher at the University of Texas at Austin. His area of interest is the nature and practice of interpretation; history of modern philosophy; the philosophy of language and religion and the history of political thought. He is considered a foremost authority on Thomas Hobbes.
مثلِ فیلسوف نوشتن: آموزشِ نگارشِ مقالهی فلسفی / ای. پی. مارتینیک / تهران: هرمس 1393 فلسفه – نویسندگی صحیح، روشن و دقیق بنویسید. انتخابِ ساختار برای یک مقالهی فلسفی میتواند کارِ بسیار دشواری باشد، بهخصوص نزدِ نویسندگانِ کمتجربه. [7] نحوهی نوشتنِ یک مقالهی موجز و دقیق قواعدی دارد و آموختنی است. [8] گاهی تلاشهای فلسفی برای شرحِ سخنی نو که به درستی پرده از رازِ واقعیات بردارد، منجر به خلقِ دستورِ زبانهایی عجیب میشود. فیلسوفها به ترکیبِ کلماتی ناسازگار و متعلق به حوزههای متفاوت گرایش دارند. «تامس هابز» آنرا خلطِ مقولات مینامید. [9] فلاسفه غالباً دربارهی اینکه چه جملهای بیمعنا و یا معنادار است با یکدیگر اختلافِ نظر دارند. پس تشخیصِ اینکه ادعایِ فلسفیِ مطرحشده برآمده از یک اشتباهِ دستوریِ کمارزش است یا بازتابدهندهی بصیرتی عمیق و فلسفی،کارِ آسانی نیست. [10] اگر دیدید جملاتی که مینویسید بهلحاظِ دستوری از اختیارتان خارج است، احتمالاً این افکارِ شما است که اختیارِ آن از دستتان خارج شده است. بنابراین کیفیتِ نثر ما دربارهی یک موضوع، میتواند معیاری برای سنجشِ میزانِ فهمِ ما از آن موضوع باشد. جملاتِ دستوری منسجم، برآمده از ذهنیتی با تصاویرِ واضح است. [11] و ابهام در بیانِ نظرات، نشانهی ذکاوت نیست، از سردرگمی است. ساده-بیانکردنِ موضوعات به قوهی تفکری ورزیده نیازمند است، زیرا هر کسی میتواند فهمِ یک موضوع را عملاً ناممکن کند. نوشتههای فلسفی قالبهای بیانیِ مختلفی دارند. [12] مانندِ «گفتوگو» [افلاطون، برکلی، هیوم]، «نمایشنامه» [کامو، مارسل، سارتر]، «شعر» [لوکرتیوس]، «داستان» [جورج الیوت، کامو، سارتر]. در این کتاب، فقط به قالبِ «مقاله» توجه شده است، زیرا مؤلفِ آن معتقد است قالبِ مقاله برای فلسفی نوشتنِ مخاطبانش: بیشترین احتمال در کاربرد و سادهترین است، و نزدِ فیلسوفانِ حرفهای نیز متعارفترین شیوه است. [13] *** *** نویسنده و مخاطب: مخاطبِ یک دانشجو به او تحمیل شده است که همان استادِ او است. [19] و اگرچه ساختار و انشای یک مقالهی دانشجویی باید روشنگرانه و تبیینی باشد اما قاعدتاً هدفِ یک دانشجو از ارائهی یک مقاله، شرح و تبیینِ موضوعات برای آگاهیدادن و اقناعِ مخاطبش نیست زیرا میداند که او نسبت به مفادِ آن آگاهی دارد، بهجز در شرایطی که موضوعِ مقاله استثنایی و یا مخاطبِ او استادی کماطلاع باشد. پس هدف دانشجو از ارئهی آن مقاله به استادش چیست؟ دانشجو باید به استادش نشان دهد که او نیز از کموکیفِ موضوعاتِ موردِ بحثشان باخبر است. [...]
I really enjoyed this book. A great help on learning how to write philosophically, which entails concepts such as clarity, precision, rigor, and cogency. I thought the 5 point outline was helpful concerning how to write a philosophical argument:
1. State the proposition to prove 2. Give the argument that proves the proposition 3. Show that the argument is valid 4. Show that the argument is sound 5. Conclusion
The extended outline is incredibly helpful in that it really fleshes out these 5 headings.
To be perfectly honest, I skimmed most of this book. It's more geared at analytical philosophers. I keep wanting a reference/companion/style guide to the more open-ended writing style in "continental" (and beyond) philosophy, but haven't found it yet.
Em "Philosophical Writing", Martinich trata das qualidades de um bom texto de Filosofia, como coerência, clareza, concisão e rigor. Como era de se esperar, o autor manifesta essas quatro qualidades em sua escrita. Acredito que os melhores capítulos sejam os 3 e 4, pois é neles que encontramos uma exposição mais aprofundada sobre a estrutura de um texto filosófico, além uma exposição sobre regras de composição textual. Os demais capítulos são mais curtos e esquemáticos. Embora o livro careça de uma lista de exercícios mais proveitosa, e apesar do autor ser por vezes idiossincrático quanto às suas preferências filosóficas, a leitura da obra é fluida e elucidativa.
So far I'm really enjoying it. I can't say whether or not its a fantastic introduction to the subject in comparison to other texts but I'm finding it pretty informative.
A 'must read' and practice for student philosophical writers. I came to it late and the realisation that I failed to use the most basic writing conventions caused more than a little umbrage.
The author's treatment of the use of gender in Philosophical Writing was so minutely teased out that he leaves himself open to the accusation of chauvinism. The author's distaste of 'he/her' as a convention is understandable and the use of a single pronoun, rather than the forward slash double entry, does make for a much better read. Martinich is happy to cede the notion of a female protagonist in students' writings but convention requires, that (he is at pains to contend) as most philosophy professors are male, he touts the notion that the reader (of a student's work) is probably male and so he shall continue to refer to the reader (himself as a teaching professor and professors in general) as 'he' in the narrative and students as the writers as 'she' (for convenience/contrast/gender balance?!). Textbook logic?
Prior to the twentieth century, 'female philospher' was an oxymoron. The previous three thousand years saw women barred from access into the male dominated worlds of acedemia (or politics, or even performative religion for that matter). The last century has brought massive change but gender bias is still alive and well, sadly. More and more philosophy students are women so how about pivoting the thinking lads?
To misquote another great feminist... It's thought exercise stupid!
If you are looking for a great resource to learn how to write well in the world of academics, this is a great book for you. However, if you are looking for a resource to help your overall writing skills, I do not believe this is what you need. While a great resource for those looking to start writing for philosophical journals or even for a student just starting out in a philosophy program, it is not helpful for more than that primarily due to how specific the subject matter is to philosophical writing. Five stars on that front though!
Wonderfully straight to the point. Answered lots of questions I didn't even know I had. However, this review might change when I receive the grades for my essays this semester.