Writing in philosophy is difficult. It presupposes that:
- You understand what you are reading.
- You have a clear argument you are making.
- You present this argument in accord with the expectations of good writing and the assignment.
You're asserting that you've got the first point down. So then we need to focus on the other two features. The first thing I would suggest is to look carefully at the prompts for the assignments. Back when I was teaching philosophy general education courses in the US, one of the most common problem I saw was students who did not follow the instructions of the assignment.
One of the more common types of assignments in philosophy is a "outline", "rehersal", "resume" , "precis". In this case, your goal should be to reproduce in as few words as possible the core of the argument and to leave out anything that is superfluous to this core argument. This is often a difficult task for someone new to philosophy both because it's easy to get distracted and there are things that the authors themselves do not emphasize to the extent that they should be.
A second common type of paper is one that asks you to make an argument in interaction with what you are reading. Here, you may be asked to critique a single article or to contrast two articles or to take your own position. This type of writing presupposes that you can summarize in accordance with the above method. After that, you will need to identify what you take to be a weakness in one view or an unseen compatibility between two views.
The expectations of good writing in philosophy may not be the same as you learned in high school or that you learn from a writing class at a junior college. Assuming you have a solid footing in writing in general, the main concept of philosophy is that each paper is an argument.
Here are a few of the more common things to consider to help write papers that argue well:
- Each paragraph is an argument with the main claim (occurring either as the first or last sentence) contributing to the main argument of the paper. Your goal should be to lay out your argument clearly and precisely.
- Each term should be clearly defined. A good place to get solid definitions is the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. Another good place is directly from the texts you are addressing. (A relatively bad place for most terms is the dictionary).
- Don't vary the meanings of key terms in your paper and don't vary the terms themselves. (If you're talking about "free will" don't switch back and forth between "autonomy" "self-rule" and "free will" and "choice" -- define it 1x and stick to one term).
- There should be a definite trajectory building up to your conclusion,
- but you should also have stated your outline its most succinct form at the top of the paper.
When I say "argument", the most basic patterns are things like "modus ponens" and "disjunctive syllogism."