I have always wanted to have a paper in Analysis or Thought. A really neat, short, paper, that is self-contained and makes an substantive philosophical point. Unfortunately, I tend to write articles of about 8000-9000 words, and first drafts are typically even longer. I've written some pre-read papers for conferences of 3000 words, but to get all the nuances in, they typically expand to 8000 words or more once they reach the article stage. What does it take to write brief philosophy papers? More generally, what does it take to write concisely?

Flash fiction is a style of fiction of extreme brevity, 500 words or less, typically 100-150 words. One very brief example, attributed (probably falsely) to Ernest Hemingway goes as follows: "For sale: Baby shoes, never worn." Or take flash poetry. The Dutch poet Vondel wrote the shortest poem in Dutch, and probably in any language, "U, nu" (literally, "you now", or "now it's your turn"). It's also palindromic, and won him a poetry prize. How to write flash fiction? David Gaffney advises flash fiction authors to cut down on character development, and to jump right in the story. Place the denouement not at the end, but in the middle, that way you have some space left to ponder the implications of what has happened with your readers, and you avoid that your story reads like a joke, with a punchline at the end.

So how do you write really short philosophical pieces that are substantive pieces in their own right? Which brief philosophical self-contained pieces do you particularly admire?

Posted in ,

15 responses to “The art of writing brief philosophy papers”

  1. Nicholas Denyer Avatar
    Nicholas Denyer

    The Runabout Inference-Ticket
    A. N. Prior
    Analysis
    Vol. 21, No. 2 (Dec., 1960), pp. 38-39

    Like

  2. Nicholas Denyer Avatar
    Nicholas Denyer

    What the Tortoise said to Achilles
    Lewis Carroll
    Mind
    New Series, Vol. 4, No. 14 (Apr., 1895), pp. 278-280

    Like

  3. Brannon McDaniel Avatar
    Brannon McDaniel

    Nominalist Things
    Henry Fitzgerald
    Analysis
    63.2, April 2003, pp. 170-171

    Like

  4. Jerry Dworkin Avatar
    Jerry Dworkin

    For many “short takes”, many philosophical, see http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/11/short-takes.html

    Like

  5. N Kirkwood Avatar
    N Kirkwood

    I remember the excitement I felt as an undergraduate after having got through a 70 page article on neo-logicism and discovered the next paper on my list was one of Boolos’, at about 4 pages long. The Boolos’ paper took almost as long as the first to grasp…

    Like

  6. Michael Kremer Avatar
    Michael Kremer

    Great examples. Of course we can’t really leave off: Gettier, Edmund L. (1963). “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”. Analysis 23: 121–123.

    Like

  7. Helen De Cruz Avatar

    Thanks – I did not know about this blogpost (and it’s remarkable that it has the same probably-not-Hemingway flash fiction)!
    I was recently reminded of the art of ultra-short philosophical works by letting my biology students read a philosophy paper in class, using David Concepcion’s method of reading philosophy with meta-cognition.

    Like

  8. David Wallace Avatar
    David Wallace

    Possibly this is N Kirkwood’s example, but:
    G. Boolos, “Gödel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem Explained in Words of One Syllable”.

    Like

  9. Christopher Stephens Avatar
    Christopher Stephens

    Another one of Boolos’ lovely short papers is “A New Proof of the Godel Incompleteness Theorem”. It’s a couple of pages longer than the paper David Wallace mentions, but still only 5 pages.

    Like

  10. Charles Pigden Avatar

    Prior was a master of the short, pithy pregnant paper. Another that has set the agenda for over fifty years of debate is:
    Prior, A N 1960. “The Autonomy of Ethics”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 38, pp. 199-206
    Two more VERY short papers, the one, unpublished in the author’s lifetime, the other, published, but somewhat undersung. (Not quite unsung but not as famous as it deserves to be. )
    1. Bertrand Russell ‘is There an Absolute Good?’ reprinted in Pigden ed. Russell on Ethics, London Routledge, pp. 122-4.
    This is Russell’s formulation of the error theory and it is two pages long
    2. Durrant, R.G., (1970), ‘Identity of Properties and the Definition of Good’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 483: 60–1
    This is another two page article. Durrant anticipates Putnam’s point that Moore’s Open Question Argument fails because two predicates can have different senses although they refer to the same property. (Durran’t’s examples are ‘yellow’ and ‘the colour of daffodils in the spring’)
    Three short, agenda-setting papers from Geach, the first two importantly right, the third horribly wrong:
    1. Geach, P. T. (1960) ‘Ascriptivism’, Philosophical Review 69(3): 2. (Reprinted in Geach, P. T. (1972) Logic Matters, Oxford: Blackwell, 250–4).
    2. Geach, P. T. (1965) ‘Assertion’, Philosophical Review 74(4): 4. (Reprinted in Geach, P. T. (1972) Logic Matters, Oxford: Blackwell, 254–69.)
    3. Geach, P. T. (1956) ‘Good and evil’, Analysis 17: 33–42. (Reprinted in Foot, P. (ed.) (1967) Theories of Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
    68–73.)

    Like

  11. Aaron Thomas-Bolduc Avatar
    Aaron Thomas-Bolduc

    First, I will often write a long paper (7–10k) that is fairly broad, then develop one or two section plus some other relevant bits and pieces into an analysis length paper. That said, I have yet to send any of those to Analysis or Thought; soon though, hopefully.
    Second, quite possibly my favorite philosophy paper of all time, though probably not a great model for writing in general, is George Boolos’s “G\”odel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem Explained in Words of One Syllable”, Mind 103, 1994, pp.1–3 (!). (I now see that this has been mentioned, but hey, it’s great.)
    @N Kirkwood and David Wallace, Boolos published quite a few fairly short, but often quite dense papers. See especially sec. III of Logic, Logic, and Logic (Harvard, 1998).

    Like

  12. Sergio Tenenbaum Avatar
    Sergio Tenenbaum

    Possibly not entirely persuasive, but certainly pithy is G. E. M. Anscombe’s “A Note on Mr. Bennett”, which I quote in its entirely (minus the footnote referencing Bennett’s paper): “The nerve of Mr. Bennett’s argument is that if A results from your not doing B, then A results from whatever you do instead of doing B. While there may be much to be said for this view, still it does not seem right on the face of it.” (Analysis 26: 208).

    Like

  13. Brian Weatherson Avatar

    I’m not sure “Epiphenomenal Qualia” (Frank Jackson, Philosophical Quarterly, 32: 127-136) is short enough to be what you’re looking for. But it isn’t long, and if it ended at the end of page 132 it would still have had 90-something percent of the impact it actually did.

    Like

  14. n Avatar
    n

    Writing concisely is about research and rhetoric. A great deal has to be conveyed quickly and in a way that people will understand. So most of the work goes into background research to find and narrow your problem. Then the rhetoric has to be crafted so the metaphors and examples tightly conform to the issues, so that the problem is well illustrated and the value of your contribution clear.

    Like

  15. louis Avatar
    louis

    Stephen Yablo, “Paradox Without Self-Reference,” Analysis, vol. 53 (1993), pp. 251–52

    Like

Leave a reply to Charles Pigden Cancel reply