Comments on First Papers
 
 

The most common failing of the papers was failing to answer the question fully.

    The first step to answering the question is stating the question: that is, stating a specific, pointed question that can be addressed in a paper of this length.  That way, you and I can both tell if you succeed in what you intend to accomplish in the paper.  You may want to rework the statement of the topic you've decided to answer.  You may want to make it more specific.  You at least need to state the question, and say something about why it matters.
    The next step is sketching how you are going to answer the question: that is, providing your reader with a roadmap for what is to come, and explaining briefly why that would succeed in answering the question.
    The final step is following that roadmap.  You should make sure that every paragraph and every sentence in the paper moves us toward answering the question.  If you can't resist making the cute, insightful point that you realized in the course of writing but that doesn't really fit in, then put it in a footnote.  Remind your reader at each transition where in the course of the journey we now find ourselves.
 

The second most common failing of the papers was failing to define your terms fully.  This is especially difficult, but for that reason especially important, with someone like Heidegger who uses so many philosophically-loaded terms in an idiosyncratic way.  It is good to demonstrate to someone who already understands the material that you can use Heidegger's terminology successfully.  It is far better to explain what's going on in such a way that someone not already familiar with the material can begin to make sense of it.

 

Don't be afraid to make trouble for Heidegger, or to offer your own evaluation of him.  Even if you think he's totally right (which is unlikely), you can further your own and your reader's understanding by defending him against objections.

    However, if you do make objections, be sure to explain why they are relevant and rational.  Also, be sure to pursue them.  Try to find a Heideggerian response, and then say why it is adequate or inadequate.
    A subsidiary instance of this point is the need to answer rhetorical questions.  If you pose a question to which you feel the answer is entirely obvious, either reframe it as a statement, or else state succinctly what you take that answer to be.  Doing so is a good way to check that we are understanding things in the same way.  Also, philosophers have a tendency to refuse to accept that any question or answer is obvious, so it's best not to assume that they are.
 

I often ask for more elaboration and examples, but also insist that the page limit be respected.  Isn't this contradictory?  At some point it must be, but part of writing well, especially writing well philosophically, is writing in a maximally clear and dense way.  The great philosophy papers are like crystal: totally solid, but totally transparent.

 
 

In general, your writing was pretty good, especially considering the material at hand.  One relatively prosaic point, however: quotes of longer than 3 lines should be set off in quote format: that is, single-spaced, with indented margins, and perhaps a smaller font.

    More importantly, only cite quotes that you really put to use. As a general guideline, you should makes sure to have 2 lines of explanation for each line of text. By 'explanation' I do not mean saying why this quote is important: I mean saying in your own words what Heidegger meant in the cited passage.