Regarding the dissertation, is there a certain way that philosophers should write out their theory to make their positions stronger? IE ontologically? I like ontology and for some reason I'm just comfortable with it.. does this matter to the reviewers? Or is a deontological approach just as good? I just wanna know which approach would help me gain more respect within philosophy.
How you write your arguments, and the methods you choose, should correspond with the subject matter of your works. In general, though, if you are going to make a claim about something, then that claim should be fully supported, and each part should have a visible relation to the overall conclusion. Put simply, “good” philosophical writing is a matter of making explicit any of your implicit assumptions about your subject, thoroughly explaining the grounds for your claims, and ensuring that your argument is consistent through-out. One of the best pieces of advice I can give you is “when in doubt, assume that your reader doesn’t know what the hell you’re talking about.”
As for ontology versus deontology? Deontology is a method and ontology is a set of assumptions about the essence or nature of a thing. Ontological arguments are those arguments that concern the nature or essence of a thing. For example, buddhist interdependence is often called an “ontology of relations,” because it predicates the nature of things as the result of interdependent relations between things that are always shifting and changing, such that nothing has any enduring essence to it. So, in “relational ontology,” relations are the essential nature of a thing.
Deontology, as a method, focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions in conformity with a social norm. Thus, in deontology, “rightness” is more important than “goodness,” which has led some to argue that a deontological framework for ethics will likely lead to moral absolutism and often ignores the culturally grounded nature of “right” and “wrong,” in its attempts at universality. But another way, the result of an action might be generally positive, but how that action brings about the result, if it falls outside of social norms, determines if the action was right or wrong. Kantians are proponents of deontology, especially in the variations of the categorical imperative. Hobbes, Locke, and Aristotle are also deontologists to an extent.
As for which method would allow you to gain more “respect” in the field? I would say that this is a fundamentally wrong way to approach the practice of philosophy: if you ground the suitability of your arguments in their acceptance by the field in general, you’re likely going to be stuck repeating the party line and merely reinforcing the kinds of structures that many philosophers are actively working against. Put another way, your theory should be fully supported by its premises; you should be able to demonstrate the presence of your theory in lived experience, or in the work of the thinker you’re dealing with; and all elements should come together in a unified whole.
Other advice I might give you is to find a particular philosopher whose methodology is one that you find useful, read their work, and come to thoroughly understand it. One you’ve come to understand that philosopher’s theoretical system, and can articulate it in your own words, you should be able to craft theory like them. Basically, I’m repeating the advice of Motoori Norinaga where poetry is concerned: don’t look to imitate the style of the ancients (or philosophers in this case), as their style was appropriate to their situation. Rather, learn how their style expresses the conditions of their situation (or their philosophy), and then try to do the same in your own work.
