A problem, a plan and ideally four to eight pages. Two philosophy professors list the mistakes not to make on the big day.
This is one of the most feared tests of the baccalaureate: the 543,369 final year students in the general and technological tracks will work on philosophy this Tuesday, June 18. The specialty written tests will follow, from June 19 to 21, and the grand oral between June 24 and July 3.
Two philosophy professors give their advice so that candidates put all the chances on their side during the four hours they will work and avoid mistakes that make a bad impression.
1. Not reciting your lesson
The philosophy program includes 17 notions in the general stream – including art, happiness, duty, the State or the unconscious – and seven in the technological track. “The first mistake is to think that the program is divided into 17 watertight chapters,” warns Jean-François Dejours, professor of philosophy and head of the philosophy group at Snes-FSU, for BFMTV.com. “The subjects rarely appeal to a single notion, they are rather hybrid, mixed subjects.”
This teacher thus takes the example of a subject on art, often linked to other notions such as technique, truth or nature. “We should not expect a compartmentalized subject but remember that notions interact with each other. The principle of philosophy is to make them enter into dialogue.”
For philosophy professor Gilles Vervisch, author of Star Wars, philosophy strikes back, the ideal is to “forget everything” for the first twenty minutes of the test, without even asking what notions the subject refers to, to re-appropriate the question.
“Often, students jump on the subject and recite their lesson, but this is the best way to go off-topic,” he warns for BFMTV.com. “There is a 99% chance that the given topic is not the same as the one seen in class.”
2. Don’t rush into copying
The first hour and a half must be reserved for reflection, believes Jean-François Dejours. We therefore force ourselves to let go of the copy to concentrate on the draft.
“Often, students see their neighbors starting to scratch in the first half hour and are anxious about the blank page so they rush to their copy, but it is the opposite that must be done. It is about reflection that we evaluate the candidates, not the filling.”
It is also not a question of writing the entire copy in draft form. “The draft is a guide, a plan,” insists this teacher. Only the introduction and conclusion must be written in draft form. “It’s very important to take care of your entry and exit.”
In detail, this teacher recalls that the introduction “questions the subject” and the conclusion traces “the path of reflection”. “Too often I see copy that answers the question in the introduction and asks the question in the conclusion.”
3. Don’t just rephrase the subject
Finding the question of the subject is the key to the test. “The sinews of war”, supports philosophy professor Gilles Vervisch. “A copy that problematizes from the introduction already has the average and conversely, it is difficult to give more than 10 to a copy that does not problematize.”
He details his point with an example of a subject: can we be happy without being free? “Spontaneously, we answer no, with the example of deprivation of liberty as the punishment par excellence,” he argues. “But we can also answer: ‘it depends’.”
“This is the principle of philosophy: at least two answers are opposed. A philosophical subject always raises a paradox, it is this paradox that must be problematized.”
Gilles Vervisch thus considers the proposed subject problematic: is freedom a means or an obstacle to happiness? He recalls that the problem must bring out the key notions of the subject and the relationship between them which poses a problem. “It’s not just a matter of rephrasing the subject.”
Jean-François Dejours cites another example: does art imitate nature? “The word creation or production does not appear in the subject but that is where the problem lies,” he points out. “In a question of philosophy, there are always several possible answers. We must therefore identify the problem contained in the question.”
4. Think carefully about the structure
A philosophical question calls for “at least two answers that turn their backs on each other”, remarks Jean-François Dejours, but without necessarily being part of the eternal thesis/antithesis. He therefore believes that, depending on the subject, a two-part plan may do the trick.
This is not the point of view of Gilles Vervisch, also author of Can you succeed without effort or talent? The mirages of merit, who considers the three-part plan essential.
“In a first part, we can defend the idea of common sense, which seems the most obvious. To return to the subject ‘can we be happy without being free?’, we could defend the idea that happiness would consist in the absence of constraints.”
In the second part, it is not a question of contradicting oneself, continues Gilles Vervisch. “The second part is an objection, a nuance, another point of view.” In the case of the subject ‘can we be happy without being free?’, the second part could defend the idea that happiness is linked to the feeling of freedom.
As for the third part, according to this teacher, it is a question of “resolving” the contradiction: “The dissertation progresses, gains perspective.” A final part which may be shorter than the first two.
“For the subject ‘can we be happy without being free?’, the idea could be that of the Stoics: the true wise man is the one who is happy whatever the circumstances, because he is free in his head. true freedom would therefore mean making oneself indifferent to misfortune.”
5. Do not juxtapose the parts
Another point that Gilles Vervisch insists on: the construction of the dissertation. According to him, it is not a question of juxtaposing the parts to each other but of a logical sequence: “A dissertation is a sequence of nine paragraphs (three paragraphs per part in the ideal, Editor’s note) which respond to each other The second is an objection to the first, the third a response to the second… So that we end up with a succession of nine responses and objections which respond to each other in a cascade.
As for the total length of the dissertation: not less than four pages, but not more than eight.
6. Don’t neglect the conclusion
Although the third part may be shorter than the first two, it is nevertheless essential to write a conclusion. “The conclusion responds to the subject, which was in our example ‘can we be happy without being free?'” defines Gilles Vervisch.
“An essay is not about answering a question with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or ‘it depends’ but about explaining why the answer is complicated. You don’t answer a question, you explain why you can’t answer. “
Almost like a math problem: the proof turns out to be more important than the answer.
7. Quote philosophers, but wisely
Not too much need. Gilles Vervisch recommends one philosophical reference per part. “It is not necessary to cite an author by heart. It is rather a matter of evoking the idea and developing the thought. Be careful, an author is not an authoritative argument.”
There is therefore no question of quoting, in the same paragraph, several authors in succession. “You don’t write a dissertation saying Plato thinks that, but Kant thinks that and Bergson thinks something else. You can quote Hegel and it’s worthless and on the contrary quote Squid Games and that says something.”
And while it is possible to cite literary works, films or comics, be careful not to overdo it.
“I remember a student who summarized a manga for me on more than one page, it was of no interest,” he continues. “A dissertation is not a reading sheet.”
But for example, evoking the fable The Wolf and the Dog or the movie The Truman Show on the subject ‘can we be happy without being free?’, “that makes sense”, believes Gilles Vervisch. “I even prefer to be told about Batman if we do something with it rather than Proust if we haven’t read it. Philosophy is not name-dropping.”
