Table of Contents

Notes on Writing 'Explications': Page 1

Writing 'Analytical Papers': Page 2

The idea of an 'Abstract' (Summary of Thesis): Page 3

Composing an Abstract: a Recipe: Page 4

Log of Some Frequent Writing Errors: Page 5

Notes on Writing 'Explications'

Axiom: In an 'explication' you are trying to be clearer than the text you are explaining!
Here are some things to watch for when you are trying to explicate a text or, more generally, explain another person's ideas. An explication should satisfy the standards of (a) fidelity, (b) clarity, (c) charity, (d) context:

(a) fidelity: is the explication accurate, describing what's actually in the text? (maybe referring to specific passages would help?) is the explication complete, i.e, does it touch all the main points? is the explication pertinent, i.e., does it stick to what is relevant and useful for understanding the text?

(b) clarity: is what the writer says clearer than the original text? does it render the original text more understandable? (especially, does it break out of the text's jargon? - don't just paraphrase!)

(c) charity: does your explication offer an interpretation so that the original text makes sense? (avoid making the text sound implausible or contradictory to the greatest extent possible). Note: It is also possible that the thinker is contradicting himself or herself but then you need to need to point this out.

(d) context: does your explication make sense of the passage so that it fits into the context of the rest of the work?

Addendum:

There is a general writing trap everyone should avoid; I call it the 'idle opener'. It's the first paragraph that says nothing relevant to the assignment, e.g., 'Nietzsche was a great philosopher whose work has occupied many thinkers' or 'The problem of God has been discussed for 2000.23 years now.' You have my general permission to drop all such idle commentary!

In general, avoid verboseness; it impairs clarity and the reader's pleasure.