Discussion: Worldview Analysis and Personal Inventory Research

A Brief Guide to Philosophical Writing This guide is designed especially for you as an undergraduate student taking philosophy courses at GCU. Our goal is to assist you with understanding and successfully completing writing assignments in various philosophy courses. Beginning philosophy students will notice somewhat different directions and expectations for their written assignments than typical essays in other college-level courses. This writing specialization traces its origin to the content, purpose, and goals of the philosophical enterprise. Let us consider together, then, some essential matters dealing with philosophical writing. What is good philosophical writing? It involves both negative and positive elements: In a nutshell, “There is no such thing as a piece of good philosophical writing that is unclear, ungrammatical, or unintelligible. Clarity and precision are essential elements here. A poor writing style militates against both of these”1. Thus, good philosophical writing will include the following: • Clarity • Precision • Proper grammar and spelling • Appropriate writing style There are certain things to avoid in writing philosophy papers2: 1. Lengthy introductions. Introductions need to be very brief; concentration must be on the main body and argument of the paper. 2. Lengthy quotations. Direct quotation ought to be restricted to only those rare cases where another writer’s exact words selection is of great importance. Minimize even paraphrasing since your ideas and arguments are what interest your readers. 3. Fence sitting. Indecision is ineffective in philosophical papers. Argue well and take a clear stand on your position. 4. Cuteness. Simple, dignified, careful writing is expected of philosophical papers. Name calling and attacks on other writers are unacceptable. Stick with careful argumentation instead. 5. Begging the question. This logical fallacy involves presupposing the truth of whatever it is that you are trying to show in the course of arguing for it (also known 1 Horban, P. (1993). Writing a Philosophy Paper. Retrieved from http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/resources/writing.html 2 As described in Horban, P. (1993). Writing a Philosophy Paper. Retrieved from http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/resources/writing.html © 2019. Discussion: Worldview Analysis and Personal Inventory Research

Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. as circular reasoning). Everyday discussions are rife with circular reasoning; good philosophical writing avoids such. Besides avoiding certain things, there are things to be accomplishing in writing your philosophy paper. Let us consider seven of these things to do in you essay3: 1. Organize carefully. Outline how you plan to argue your ideas in a logical progression that makes it easy for your reader to follow. You likely will need to let your thoughts simmer, take a break, and return to your work a day or two later. Think process, review, and flow. ▪ Philosophy paper introductions have three components4: 1. The part where you state your thesis. This comes toward the end. 2. The part where you motivate your project. This comes toward the beginning. 3. The part where you supply background for understanding your thesis. ▪ Thesis (a claim that may be true or false) must be stated clearly and concisely in the Introduction.5 2. Use the right words and define terms carefully. Choose the precise terms and ideas that will communicate your intended meaning to the reader. Use good dictionaries including philosophical ones. Do not presume that your reader always knows the meaning or specific sense in which you are using a particular word. When introducing technical language or ambiguous terms, always define the term in the sense in which you will use it in your paper. 3. Support your claims. Presuppose your reader is somewhat skeptical; thus, write to persuade them with solid argumentation and substantiation for all claims you make. ▪ Explain the argument if you are assigned to critiquing it6, being careful to indicate when you are speaking in your own voice versus someone else’s argument that you are not advocating. ▪ Deal only with the specific, particular thesis you are critiquing, rather than trying to cover everything in a particular article or about a particular topic7. ▪ Make an argument to support your thesis8. This should be the main focus of your paper. 3 See Horban, P. (1993). Writing a Philosophy Paper. Retrieved from http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/resources/writing.html, and Rippon, S. (2008). A Brief Guide to Writing the Philosophy Paper. Retrieved from http://philosophy.fas.harvard.edu/files/phildept/files/brief_guide_to_writing_philosophy_paper.pdf 4 From Chudnoff, E. (2007). A Guide to Philosophical Writing. Retrieved from http://www.as.miami.edu/personal/echudnoff/A Guide to Philosophical Writing.pdf 5 Rippon, S. (2008). A Brief Guide to Writing the Philosophy Paper. Retrieved from http://philosophy.fas.harvard.edu/files/phildept/files/brief_guide_to_writing_philosophy_paper.pdf, pp. 1-2. 6 Ibid, 2. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid, 3. © 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. ▪ ▪ You may utilize other philosophers’ objections to an argument you are critiquing, only be certain to give proper credit, while putting the argument (objection) into your own words and working to do so in the best form possible and perhaps even improving or extending the argument (and if so, defending your reasoning for doing so)9. Conclude by explaining what you think your argument has established (except for very brief papers of three double-spaced pages or less)10. 4. Give credit. Always give credit and proper citation when quoting, paraphrasing, or otherwise utilize another writer’s ideas or arguments; not doing so is plagiarism: a serious academic offense that can result in ruinous academic consequences. Assuming you are doing your own philosophical thinking already, you may use the arguments of other thinkers in your paper. Still, you ought to explain their argument in your own words (rather than quoting them), showing the logical steps involved, and interpreting their argument charitably (although not without critique where necessary)11. 5. Anticipate objections, and address them as clearly as possible, in order to strengthen your argument. Convince your reader that the objection to your thesis or point is either mistaken or not as strong as it first appeared. Of course, do not lie or try to dismiss valid objections. It is always appropriate to concede weaknesses in one’s own arguments or views. Remember that the goal of philosophy is truth and wisdom, not convincing others that you are smart or “winning an argument” at the expense of truth and your own integrity. 6. Edit boldly. In other words, do not be afraid of rewriting for the sake of improving your paper. ▪ Be prepared to make revisions, sometimes substantial, and potentially complete redo12. ▪ Remember to follow the conventions and expectations of philosophical writing as a rule. These include such things as avoiding direct quotes (or using them very sparingly); freely using first person personal pronouns (“I”) and possessives (“my”), which are useful to clarifying your own voice and arguments in contrast with others, say precisely what you mean in concise and simply prose, avoiding ambiguous terms and verbosity; using sign-posting, telling your readers what you have already done, what you are going to do, and how the different parts of your paper relate; being careful in using technical and specialized terms reserved for philosophy (such as logical or illogical, sound or unsound, valid or invalid, true or untrue), learning what they mean before putting them into your papers13. 9 Ibid, 6. Ibid, 4. 11 Ibid, 6. 12 Ibid, 4. 13 Ibid, 7. 10 © 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. 7. Proofread and keep thinking. ▪ Try to explain your argument to someone else; if you can explain it, you may be in good shape. If not, you will need to revise it14. ▪ Pray throughout the process, trusting the Spirit’s illumination upon your mind as you work toward finding the truth concerning the topic15. ▪ Remember that it is likely you will need to read philosophical articles very slowly, thoughtfully, and (quite likely) several times, especially to grasp the argument clearly and the details adequately16. On Writing a Précis A précis is a valuable exercise and tool for philosophical writing. The précis encompasses many of the characteristics outlined above with an important distinction: The goal is not to argue for a particular thesis or point, but to accurately synthesize the main arguments of a book or journal article. A précis is similar to an abstract, yet its aim is to be much more precise and detailed in regards to the argument of the work it is synthesizing. Discussion: Worldview Analysis and Personal Inventory Research

A good précis will distill an article to its fundamental logical structure, making clear the author’s main argument and each sequential step the author takes in making the argument, including all premises, and sub-arguments that serve as premises for other arguments. One ought to take care not to be overly reliant on direct quotations, but to summarize in one’s own words the contents and arguments, and yet represent only the author’s ideas, content, and arguments and not one’s own17. Accuracy and faithfulness to the original article is paramount. A précis is an excellent precursor to expounding one’s own thoughts on an article or writing because one will have already laid bare its argument structure. In addition, make sure the following characteristics are present in a précis: • • • Clarity and precision. Economy and efficiency in words. The shorter the better. A précis should not be more than one fourth the length of the original article. Usually word limits for précis are assigned that are challenging to meet because of its brevity. Expository in nature, and not critical or argumentative. The goal is simply to restate the author’s argument and accurately, clearly, and precisely as possible, in as few words as possible. One’s own thoughts, suggestions, or critiques are not the point here, though a précis is an excellent precursor that can lead to a larger discussion or critique of the article in question. 14 Ibid, 4. See for example, Aquinas, T. (n.d.). Prayer for Guidance. Retrieved from http://www.ccel.org/node/4506 and Canterbury, A. O. (1872). St. Anselm’s Book of Meditations and Prayers (M. R., Trans.). Retrieved from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/anselm/meditations.iv.xxi.html Twenty First Meditation. 16 Rippon, S. (2008). A Brief Guide to Writing the Philosophy Paper. Retrieved from http://philosophy.fas.harvard.edu/files/phildept/files/brief_guide_to_writing_philosophy_paper.pdf, p.6. 17 Levy, S. (2014). Writing a Précis. 15 © 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Finally, there is no substitute for actually reading philosophy and seeing firsthand the above characteristics. Read philosophy books and articles by professional philosophers. Read several précis and notice their style and skill. Only then will the above skills begin to take hold in one’s own thinking and writing. We hope this guide helps you toward writing successful philosophy papers in all your courses that make up your philosophy minor or emphasis. May God grant you insight and wisdom for philosophical writing as you give your strongest effort throughout your program of study at Grand Canyon University. Reference: Levy, S. (2014). Writing a Précis. © 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Grand Canyon University (Ed.). (2020). Practicing dignity: An introduction to Christian values and decision-making in health care. URL: https://www.gcumedia.com/digital-resources/grand-canyon-university/2020/practicing-dignity_an-introductionto-christian-values-and-decision-making-in-health-care_1e.php View both “Faith and Spiritual Decision-Making in Health Care Professions” video messages to RN to BSN students from Dr. Lisa Smith and Dr. Maria Quimba, from the College of Nursing and Health Care Professions. URL: https://www.gcumedia.com/lms-resources/student-success-center/v3.1/#/mediaelement/CONHCP/7285A42D-1FDE-E811-844B-005056BD1ABC This course requires the use of a Bible. Students should use one of the following versions: the English Standard Version (ESV), the New International Version (NIV), or the New American Standard Bible (NASB). Each of these versions is available in print and also for free at BibleGateway.com. Students might also find it helpful to choose a study Bible such as the NIV Life Application Study Bible or the ESV Study Bible in order to take advantage of additional information. Read the “Ethical Positions Statement” on the Christian Identity and Heritage webpage, under the “Foundational Documents” section. URL: https://www.gcu.edu/about-gcu/christian-identity-and-heritage.php Read the “GCU Doctrinal Statement” on the Christian Identity and Heritage webpage, under the “Foundational Documents” section. URL: https://www.gcu.edu/about-gcu/christian-identity-and-heritage.php Read the statement on the “Integration of Faith and Work” at GCU on the Christian Identity and Heritage webpage, under “Faith Integration” section. URL: https://www.gcu.edu/about-gcu/christian-identity-and-heritage.php Refer to the American Nurses Association Code of Ethics for this course. URL: https://www.vcuhealth.org/for-medical-professionals/nursing/about-nursing-at-vcu/ana-code-ethics Review the “Bachelor of Science in Nursing (RN to BSN)” section, found in the College of Nursing and Health Care Professions Undergraduate Field Experience Manual (2018-2019), located in the Student Success Center. https://www.gcumedia.com/lms-resources/student-successcenter/v3.1/#/?enc=pfQDIOPgUyBq4wWuT%2B0871gVKc4lkXSxHSIq%2Fu62bjCkGGYott5 RQMR8nvney1IA4mqFLzk8h8GXgERaxVGmeh9j8sAvR1s%2Fpk%2F2zDYZk5s%3D Refer to “The Nuremberg Code” found on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website. URL: https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/nuremberg.pdf Refer to the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki for this course. URL: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-researchinvolving-human-subjects/ View the “Introduction to Philosophical Writing” video to help inform your philosophical writing assignments throughout the course. URL: https://lc.gcumedia.com/phi403/philosophical-writing/v1.1/ Course Code PHI-413V Class Code PHI-413V-O500 Criteria Content Percentage 90.0% Christian Perspective of Spirituality and Ethics in Contrast to Postmodern Relativism 30.0% Scientism and Arguments 30.0% Personal Perspective and Worldview 30.0% Organization, Effectiveness, and Format 10.0% Discussion: Worldview Analysis and Personal Inventory Research

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0% Total Weightage 100% Assignment Title Worldview Analysis and Personal Inventory Unsatisfactory (0.00%) Explanation of the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics in contrast to the perspective of postmodern relativism is incomplete or insufficient. Explanation of scientism or the explanations of two main arguments against scientism are inaccurate. Details are not supported. Worldview questions are not fully answered. Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. Sources are not documented. Total Points 100.0 Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%) Explanation of the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics in contrast to the perspective of postmodern relativism is unclear. Explanation is not supported by topic study materials. Description of scientism is accurate. Explanations of two main arguments against scientism are unclear. Details are not clearly supported by topic study materials. Each of the worldview questions is answered but is lacking a personal connection or clarity. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Satisfactory (75.00%) Explanation of the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics in contrast to the perspective of postmodern relativism is clear. Explanation is not supported by topic study materials. Explanation of scientism is clear. Explanations of two main arguments against scientism are clear. Details are supported by topic study materials. Each of the worldview questions is answered with personal connection. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Good (85.00%) Explanation of the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics in contrast to the perspective of postmodern relativism is clear and detailed. Explanation is supported by topic study materials. Explanation of scientism is clear and accurate. Explanations of two main arguments against scientism are clear. Details are clearly supported by topic study materials. Each of the worldview questions is answered clearly and with personal connection. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Excellent (100.00%) Explanation of the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics in contrast to the perspective of postmodern relativism is clear, detailed, and demonstrates a deep understanding of the subject. Explanation is supported by topic study materials. Explanation of scientism is clear and accurate. Explanations of two main arguments against scientism are clear and insightful. Details are clearly supported by topic study materials. Each of the worldview questions is answered clearly and with deep personal insight. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. Comments Points Earned Based on the required topic study materials, write a reflection about worldview and respond to following: 1. In 250-300 words, explain the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics in contrast to the perspective of postmodern relativism within health care. 2. 3. In 250-300 words, explain what scientism is and describe two of the main arguments against it. In 750-1,000 words, answer each of the worldview questions according to your own personal perspective and worldview: a. What is ultimate reality? b. What is the nature of the universe? c. What is a human being? d. What is knowledge? e. What is your basis of ethics? f. What is the purpose of your existence? Remember to support your reflection with the topic study materials. While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. Read Chapters 1 from Practicing Dignity. URL: https://www.gcumedia.com/digital-resources/grand-canyon-university/2020/pra …