Philosophy common mistakes
Philosophy · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked to explain a metaphysical position (e.g., substance dualism, physicalism, or idealism), the candidate defines it only by contrast with an opposing view (e.g., 'dualism is the view that the mind is not the brain') without stating its positive commitments, such as what entities it posits and what relation it asserts between them.
Under time pressure, candidates reach for the quickest differentiator. Negative definitions feel efficient because they can be generated from the label alone, but they leave the position underdetermined and often misrepresent it (e.g., treating property dualism as if it were substance dualism).
What to do instead
For every -ism you might be asked about, memorize a three-part positive formula: (1) what exists, (2) what it is like essentially, and (3) how it relates to other things. Practice writing one-sentence positive definitions for at least ten core positions (substance dualism, property dualism, physicalism, idealism, neutral monism, eliminativism, etc.) and check each against a textbook summary before exam day.
In epistemology questions, the candidate asserts that knowledge is justified true belief without mentioning Gettier-style cases, and when a Gettier case is presented, the candidate either denies that the subject has justified true belief or denies that the case is possible, rather than explaining why the case shows the traditional analysis is insufficient.
The JTB analysis is learned first and rehearsed most, so it becomes a default answer. Gettier cases are counterintuitive, and candidates often try to preserve the familiar definition by reinterpreting the scenario instead of following the argument where it leads.
What to do instead
Learn at least two concrete Gettier cases in full detail (e.g., the stopped clock case and the job/interview case) and practice stating precisely which conditions are met and which are not. Then rehearse one response to each: the 'no false lemmas' reply, the reliabilist reply, and the virtue-epistemology reply. Be able to say what each reply concedes and what it denies.
When applying a normative ethical theory to a case, the candidate labels the theory ('this is utilitarian') and then asserts the conclusion ('so we should do X') without showing the hedonic or preference calculation, or without considering how a rival theory would assess the same case.
Candidates memorize theory names and stock examples but not the inferential steps that connect them. Application questions reward speed, and naming a theory feels like doing the work. The result is an unsupported assertion that scores low on analysis.
What to do instead
Use a fixed three-step template for every applied ethics answer: (1) state the theory's criterion in one sentence, (2) apply it explicitly to the case by identifying the relevant goods, duties, or character traits, and (3) state one objection from a rival theory and respond. Practice this on five cases (e.g., lying to save a life, factory farming, whistleblowing) until the template is automatic.
In metaethics questions, the candidate conflates moral realism with moral absolutism, or conflates moral anti-realism with moral nihilism, so that a question about whether moral facts exist is answered as if it asked whether moral rules are universal or whether anything matters.
These distinctions are terminologically close and rarely used in everyday speech. Candidates learn the labels from secondary summaries that do not separate the metaphysical question (are there moral facts?) from the practical question (are moral rules exceptionless?) or the psychological question (do people care about morality?).
What to do instead
Build a two-by-two map: realism vs. anti-realism on one axis, cognitivism vs. non-cognitivism on the other, and place error theory, expressivism, constructivism, and naturalism in their cells. Write one sentence for each cell that distinguishes it from its neighbors. Then drill with questions that ask you to classify a stated view rather than to defend one.
When formalizing an argument in propositional or predicate logic, the candidate translates 'only if' as a biconditional, or translates 'unless' as a conjunction, producing a symbolization that is not logically equivalent to the original sentence.
Ordinary English conditionals are slippery, and candidates rely on surface grammar rather than on truth-functional meaning. 'Only if' looks like 'if and only if' and 'unless' looks like 'and not', so the errors feel natural and go unnoticed under time pressure.
What to do instead
Memorize a translation table with test sentences: 'P only if Q' = P → Q; 'P if Q' = Q → P; 'P unless Q' = ¬Q → P (equivalently P ∨ Q); 'P if and only if Q' = (P → Q) ∧ (Q → P). For each, construct a two-line truth table showing one row where a mistaken translation differs from the correct one. Practice ten translations of each connective until the table is recalled automatically.
When asked to identify a fallacy, the candidate names the fallacy from the topic of the argument (e.g., 'that's an ad hominem' whenever a person is criticized) rather than from the structure of the inference, and so misclassifies arguments that mention a person but do not attack them, or that attack a position rather than a person.
Fallacy labels are learned with vivid stock examples, and candidates pattern-match on surface content (mention of a person, mention of popularity, mention of authority) instead of reconstructing the argument's premises and conclusion. This produces both false positives and missed fallacies.
What to do instead
For every fallacy you might be tested on, write the argument schema (e.g., ad hominem: A claims P; A has flaw F; therefore P is false) and one example that superficially resembles it but is not a fallacy (e.g., testimony about a person's character when character is the issue). Practice by reconstructing ten short passages into premise-conclusion form before labeling anything.
In ancient philosophy questions, the candidate attributes to Plato or Aristotle a doctrine drawn from a later summary (e.g., 'Plato said the soul has three parts' without noting the Republic's specific argument, or 'Aristotle said the good is happiness' without distinguishing eudaimonia from pleasure or honor) and cannot cite the dialogue or treatise where the view is argued.
Survey courses compress thinkers into slogans, and candidates memorize the slogans. The primary texts are long, so candidates substitute encyclopedia summaries that omit the argumentative context and the distinctions the original author draws.
What to do instead
For each major figure, keep a one-page card with four fields: the text and book/line range, the question being answered, the argument in two premises and a conclusion, and one standard objection. Fill it from the primary text or a detailed commentary, not a summary. Quiz yourself by covering the argument field and reconstructing it aloud.
In modern philosophy questions, the candidate treats Descartes' 'I think, therefore I am' as a syllogism or as proof of the existence of a substantial self, and treats Hume's bundle theory as a denial that any idea of self occurs, rather than distinguishing the introspective claim from the metaphysical one.
These famous lines are quoted out of context and are easy to paraphrase incorrectly. Candidates also import later interpretations (e.g., Kantian or behaviorist readings) into the original text without noticing the anachronism.
What to do instead
Read the relevant passages directly: the Second Meditation for the cogito and the Treatise section 'Of Personal Identity' for Hume. Write a one-paragraph summary of each that states exactly what is and is not claimed (e.g., the cogito establishes existence only while thinking; Hume denies a distinct impression of a simple self, not that we use the word 'self'). Then write one anachronism to avoid for each thinker.
In political philosophy questions, the candidate describes Rawls' original position as a procedure for deciding particular laws or as a claim that people are literally ignorant, and describes Nozick's entitlement theory as a defense of whatever distribution results from any acquisition, without mentioning the proviso or the historical principle.
Theories of justice are taught through contrasting slogans (fairness vs. liberty), and candidates learn the contrast rather than the internal structure. The original position and the entitlement principle are then paraphrased from memory in ways that erase their distinctive features.
What to do instead
For each theory, write the structure explicitly: for Rawls, the parties, the veil of ignorance, the two principles in order, and the difference principle; for Nozick, the three principles (justice in acquisition, transfer, rectification) and the historical vs. end-state distinction. Then write one sentence on what each theory would say about a concrete case (e.g., inherited wealth, a lifesaving medicine priced at market rate) and check it against the text.
In aesthetics and philosophy of mind questions, the candidate answers a question about aesthetic judgment by asserting 'beauty is subjective' or 'beauty is objective' without engaging the distinction between a judgment of taste and a mere report of preference, and answers a question about consciousness by asserting 'the hard problem is unsolvable' without stating what the hard problem is or what would count as a solution.
These domains invite sweeping verdicts because their central questions are unresolved. Candidates substitute a confident conclusion for the analysis the question asks for, often because they have not learned the specific problem situations (Kant's four moments of taste; Chalmers' distinction between the easy and hard problems).
What to do instead
For aesthetics, memorize Kant's four moments in the Critique of Judgment and be able to state the antinomy of taste in one sentence. For philosophy of mind, write a one-paragraph statement of the hard problem (what it is, why physicalist accounts of function leave it open) and list three proposed responses (illusionism, panpsychism, mysterianism) with one objection each. Practice answering 'what is the problem?' before 'what is the solution?'.