Writing Style (mind-writing-style)
Mind prizes prose that makes a rigorous argument easy to follow. Authors are explicitly asked to
present arguments so they are accessible to a broad readership among philosophers, and where
technical material appears, to accompany it with informal exposition. This skill is about clarity
and economy at the sentence level — not about generating claims (that is mind-thesis-and-argument).
When to trigger
- Drafting the introduction or doing a final clarity pass
- A reader said the prose is "dense," "hard to follow," or "only specialists can read it"
- A formal passage needs an informal gloss
- Over the word limit and needing to cut words without losing the argument
Write for a broad philosophical readership
-
Plain, exact prose. Short declarative sentences for the key moves. Say the claim, then support
it. Avoid ornament that hides the inference.
-
Gloss every technicality. When you introduce symbolism, a formal definition, or a term of art,
immediately restate the point in ordinary language. A philosopher outside your subfield should
follow the argument.
-
Argument-first sentences. Lead with the claim, then the reason — not a wind-up that buries it.
Make the logical connective explicit ("so," "because," "but," "therefore").
-
Define on first use; one term per concept. Do not let a concept drift across two words, or one
word cover two concepts (guards against the equivocation
mind-conceptual-analysis-and-method flags).
-
Quote sparingly and purposefully. Use a quotation to fix the target view precisely, not to fill
space; analyze every quotation you include.
Mechanics
- Prefer the active voice and concrete subjects; name who claims what.
- Numbered premises or labeled claims (P1, P2, …) aid the reader when the argument is intricate.
- Keep footnotes for genuine qualifications and sources, not for a parallel essay.
- One consistent citation style throughout (full conversion to MIND house style happens in
mind-citation-and-style).
Fit the ~8,000-word limit
- Cut hedging, throat-clearing, and re-explanation of views the reader knows.
- Replace a long paraphrase of an opponent with one precise sentence (or a short quotation).
- Every sentence should advance or clarify the argument; delete decoration.
- Tighten footnotes — discursive notes are where the word count quietly grows.
Anti-patterns
- Dense, clause-stacked sentences that hide the inference
- Formalism with no plain-language gloss (against Mind's stated expectation)
- Burying the thesis in qualifications before it is even stated
- Long block quotations left unanalyzed
- A term that shifts meaning mid-paper
Style execution pass for Mind
Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the target thesis, argument map, objection sequence, and dialectical payoff; then test whether the manuscript addresses analytic-philosophy reviewers who expect a precise thesis, live objection, argument structure, and contribution to an active debate.
-
Primary move: Rewrite the opening and transitions so the venue-level claim, evidence object, and contribution are visible before technical detail.
-
Decision ledger: return
claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
-
Neighbor test: compare against Philosophical Review for broader top philosophy, Nous for analytic breadth, Ethics for normative/political theory; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
-
Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open
resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.
Output format
【Reads for a broad audience?】jargon glossed / formalism explained? [Y/N]
【Thesis clear early?】[Y/N]
【Argument-first prose?】connectives explicit? [Y/N]
【Within ~8,000 words?】[Y/N] — where to trim
【Quotations purposeful + analyzed?】[Y/N]
【Next】mind-citation-and-style
Supplementary resources
