I. Form Analysis: Identify the Type of Writing
    A. An essay trying to prove something in a more or less step by step method.
    B. A problematic essay
II. Close Reading
    A.Key Concepts
        1. What they are
        2. Types of definition
    B. Key Claims or Statements
    C. Premises, Conclusions, Intermediate Steps

The form analysis and close reading approaches are not mutually exclusive. To fully understand a philosophical text, one must frequently employ both methods and go back and forth between them.

I. Identify the Type of Writing

A. Is this an essay that is trying to prove something in a more or less sequential way?

1. Is this essay primarily trying to disprove one or more positions with which the author disagrees?

In this case, it is important to pick out the parts of the essay in which the author is quoting or paraphrasing the view of her opponent, so as not to confuse this view with the author's own view. (Sometimes an author is trying to refute several opponents that may differ among themselves or share some ideas but not others.) What is the primary idea of the opponent against which the author is arguing? If there are several distinct opponents, what are the primary ideas of the various opponents against which the author is arguing?

Then one can proceed as in A.2.a, by studying first the opponent's reasoning for her position (to the extent to which the author gives us enough information to reconstruct it), and then the author's reasoning against the opponent's argument.

2. Is this essay primarily a positive argument that proceeds step by step to defend the conclusion(s) the author advocates from the beginning?

a. In this case, it is important to pick out the individual steps and try to figure out how the argument advances, step by step, along the path to the author's conclusion. (See part II.B and C, below.)

b. Essays that have this form are usually developed in the context--not at first obvious--of a larger debate that may not be mentioned by the author. It is almost always helpful to be aware of the opposing positions against which the author is constructing his or her arguments.

B. Is it a "problematic" essay, i.e., one that seeks a general answer to a general question by examining existing views and evidence? (Aristotle typically composes "problematic essays." His Nicomachean Ethics begins with such a problematic inquiry into the nature of happiness, followed by an inquiry into the nature of virtue.)

Essays written in a "problematic" method typically proceed:

1) by examining "observed appearances" or views held by "the many" or "the wise" and trying to preserve what is best from them. Such views may contradict one another, so the inquirer must modify them to some extent.

2) by breaking a bigger problem into micro-problems whose solution may then be incorporated into a solution to the bigger problem?

3) by trying to discover the nature of the thing under study first in formal (or general) terms, then in "material" (or specific) terms.

Aristotle (a) defines happiness (or the human good) in formal terms, that is, he describes characteristics of happiness with which almost everyone would agree, and then (b) develops his own specific definition that (i) fits within the formal definition but (ii) differs from other philosopher's specific definitions.

Even a relatively specific definition may require a further analysis so as to produce a more specific definition of one of its parts. Thus, in book I of Aristotle's Ethics, he gives a specific definition of the human good or happiness, but this definition includes the term "virtue," which is not precisely defined. The pursuit of a more precise definition of virtue is taken up in book II. Only after book II does Aristotle study specific moral virtues like courage, moderation, and justice, and intellectual virtues like prudence.

Note: Within relatively brief passages of a "problematic" essay, a writer may engage in step by step deductive reasoning in order to reach (intermediate) conclusions that will play a role in the larger search. Thus in book II of his Ethics Aristotle argues from the premises that (1) There are three types of thing in the soul (which he lists) and (2) virtue is neither of the first type nor the second type
--for reasons he states-- and then he concludes that (3) virtue is of the third type.

A. Pick out the key concepts (not to be confused with key claims): these are the general ideas that play a pivotal roles in the development of the author's "case" or reasoning.

1. Key concepts are often labeled by means of technical terms, words or phrases that are defined more precisely than most words or phrases in ordinary use. The words themselves may be quite ordinary but in the author's hands, they are used with a more fixed meaning than they usually have. Without giving terms relatively fixed meanings, it is impossible to reason well. (Mathematics is the most advanced model of a science that proceeds in this way.)

2. Key concepts may be implicitly or explicitly defined. They are implicitly defined if their meaning has to be discovered by observing how they are used by the author. (This is similar to the method used by compilers of dictionaries: they study how words are used by speakers of a language.)

3. If they are explicitly defined, they may be defined in different ways:

a. Stipulative Definition: The author asserts that he or she will be using the term in a certain way: For instance: "By 'virtue' I shall mean any quality generally praised by human beings" or "By 'nibble' I shall mean four consecutive bits of information or a half a byte." These may or may not be close to the definitions such terms have in ordinary language. (Stipulative definitions cannot be criticized for being false because, e.g., they depart from ordinary usage; they can, however, be criticized as useless or harmful if one can show that they are useless or harmful.)

b. Aristotelian-Analytic Definition. By producing the definition, gradually, as a solution to a problem, starting from and sticking as close as possible, to "what seems to be the case" (when one considers both what experience reveals and what most people or those who are reputedly wise say). This is Aristotle's method in his Ethics. When this method is used the meaning of the term is enriched, i.e., the definition of its concept is gradually articulated and made more precise in the course of the study. This method has been used by major philosophers such as Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, and John Dewey.

B. Pick out the key claims (statements) made by the author, whether they are premises, intermediate steps, or final conclusions. (To do this, of course, one must be careful not to confuse statements made by the author on her own behalf with statements made by the author's opponents or views attributed by the author to her opponents.)

1. A statement takes the form of a declarative sentence, i.e., a sentence that is true or false (or might be true or false in the future).

2. We can know that a sentence conveys a statement without knowing whether it is true or not. ("Osama Bin Laden is alive and well in Karachi, Pakistan" conveys a statement, even if we do not know whether it is true or false.)

3. A statement may contain a key concept, e.g., "Moral virtue is necessary for a life worth living." ("Moral virtue" might be a key concept in the larger essay.)

C. Distinguish premises and conclusions, and then ultimate premises, intermediate steps (=intermediate conclusions), and final conclusions.

Note: These are relative notions: a conclusion is always a conclusion relative to specific premise(s). Plato's conclusions in a given passage are relative to Plato's premises.

1. A premise is a statement that is meant by its author to support another statement. Relative to the premise (or premises-there may be several), the allegedly supported statement is the conclusion.

2. "Ultimate premises" are premises that are not meant in turn (in the writing under examination) to be supported by further premises. (These are the logical starting points of argument.)

3. "Final conclusions" are conclusions that are not in turn (in the writing under examination) treated as premises or support for further conclusions.

4. "Intermediate steps" or "intermediate conclusions" serve a dual role. On the one hand, they are conclusions from premises other than themselves; on the other hand, they are premises that allegedly support conclusions distinct from themselves.

5. Sometimes, the final conclusion of a written piece is the main point the author is trying to establish; sometimes the final conclusion is a particular application of a general main point the author was trying to establish.

For instance, if the author has argued for the main (but intermediate) conclusion that human cloning (of whole human embryos) is wrong, she may also go further to conclude that the U.S. government should outlaw the practice. Most of the work in the article may have been devoted to proving the main conclusion, even if it is not the final conclusion.

6. Distinguish between moral premises and descriptive premises.

a. Moral statements use terms like right, wrong, ought, ought not, duty, (a) right, the human good, virtue, and so forth. They make evaluative claims but are not legal or aesthetic statements, which also make evaluative claims. (See Note 1 below.) A moral statement that functions as a premise in reasoning is a moral premise.

b. Descriptive statements are claims about the way things really are (were, or will be). They may be particular, single, or general. They may be about things or events we can observe or about things or events we cannot observe, say, because they occur at the microscopic level, or too far away to be directly observed, or in the past. They can be true or false.

c. Moral statements may be singular, particular or general, as may descriptive statements. See Note 2.

d. Generally, it is impossible to support a moral conclusion without at least one moral premise. (Typically arguments with moral conclusions have mixed premises, i.e., at least one moral premise and at least one descriptive premise. descriptive premise.)

---

Note 1. This is not the place for a more complete account of the distinctions among types of evaluative statements. Suffice it to say that in addition to notions of moral right and moral duty, there are notions of legal right and legal duty; as there are things one ought to do to be a morally virtuous person, so there are things one ought to do in order to be a law-abiding citizen (legal duty) or a good sculptor ("aesthetic duty").

Note 2 Examples of Moral and Descriptive Statements:
    "All types of killing are wrong" (moral, highly general),
    "Killing that prisoner was wrong" (moral, singular),
    "All human beings will sooner or later die" (descriptive, general),
    "Ralph Munchykins met the love of his life exactly ten years ago today" (Descriptive, singular),
    "Some Religious Studies faculty have been at WKU less than five years" (descriptive, particular).