Suppose one wishes to write an argumentative philosophical essay. What does this mean?
First, as an essay, it is some kind of an attempt to find an answer. I mean “essay” in the most classical sense, literally meaning “attempt.” More specifically, it is the attempt to honestly find the answer to some question. This involves being fully aware of one’s own ignorance and short-sightedness, and to some extent, admitting these frailties to one’s audience. In modern papers, a good scientific paper is far closer to the model of a true essay than almost every polemic, editorial, or privately held view. In the end, an essayist should make clear and reliable progress toward an answer, and follow reason and common experience as far as the writer can see: but also be fully aware of all the additional questions that are still left unanswered, completely or partially.
Second, as an argumentative essay, it must strive to be based from secure, objectively true reasons and evidence, and it must aim toward a controversial or contentious statement, called the thesis: the “tip of the spear.” Everything else about the essay should show what problem the thesis provides a solution or answer to (the function of a good introduction), or supports the thesis by relying upon reasons and evidence. The argument must rely on objectively and universally accepted reasons and evidence, in order to appeal to a rational audience member who likewise seeks the truth.
Third, as a philosophical argumentative essay, it aims at some objective truth, and generally (perhaps universally) aims at the critique or deconstruction of some other idea or framework of ideas. This depends not on trains of thought that feel convincing or spectacular, but rather on the rigorous use of logic: being clear on what claims follow necessarily from established evidence, what claims follow possibly, and what claims cannot follow. When possibly, what are the other possible conclusions? Even if we do not have objective, logically grounded starting points, what logically follows if we assume certain starting points are true? The philosophical project aims to become partners with the reader in uncovering some truth. Generally, philosophy specialists concern themselves with a sub-set of subjects such as the nature of God, reality, knowledge, the mind, ethics, language, or the works of previous philosophers, but philosophical inquiry can be pointed at anything, and by anyone. Finally, it also presumes that ultimately, in Socratic fashion, “I know nothing,” but seek to explore the arguments that might justify one conclusion or another.
In order to do this, it must be assumed that such things as universal and objective truths exist. Is this assumption a true one? That is actually beside the point. I believe it is true, and this has helped me fall in love with philosophy. But even if you are a relativist, one must accept the assumption in order for the argument to find force, and in order to validate any and all cultivations of the mind, with the possible exception of those arts that rely entirely on taste. I actually doubt these exist, but sometimes people classify cooking, dance, painting, music, and other such things in this category. That is a possibility. At the other extreme, sometimes people classify history, politics, the sciences, mathematics, or technology in this category. What a confusing mess that mind must be.
Sometimes, people claim that “truths differ from person to person.” As suggest in the previous paragraph, this may or may not be true. But if it is true, then all argumentation is impossible. All writing is merely useful for (1) reaffirming and fortifying one’s former beliefs, or reaffirming the beliefs of like-minded individuals, and (2) expressing one’s self so that others can know what different kinds of beliefs exist. But under such a framework, there is no such thing as a difference between valid and invalid arguments or stronger and weaker arguments. All arguments possess the same weight. And if all arguments possess the same weight, then (1) we must accept everyone’s beliefs, and the actions that they carry out from those beliefs, and (2) all education, the sciences, and critical thinking projects become redundant and useless expenditures of time.
Natural Causes 
Hey Kamran, great thoughts on what it means to compose an essay. I want to prod you a little on your ideas of truth.
It seems to me that you are creating a dichotomy between absolutists and relativists, but I believe there is a lot of room in the middle. Moreover, this middle is more practical than either of the extremes.
An example should illustrate. Newton devised a theory of gravity that is good enough to solve many practical problems, like charting the path of a projectile. Einstein showed that this model was incomplete and expanded it so that it could solve more complex problems, like the paths of interstellar bodies. So who is right? Well, Einstein’s model can account for everything that Newton’s could and more. But it is also more complex. So if you just want to launch missiles, you needn’t bother with it. Stick to good old Newton.
We see that both truths have value. One is simple and explains a lot. Another more complicated explains even more.
But that’s not to say that any old statement is a useful truth about the world. If I say that gravity lifts things off the ground, then I have composed a truth of very little utility indeed.
The Newton Einstein distinction is an easy one to pick apart, but we can get to more tangled territory if we think about biology and evolution. Consider that every animal may be thought of as a solution to the biological imperative, how to survive.
So what is the right way to solve the problem of survival? Clearly this is subject to some debate as we see a great diversity of strategies, from trees to grasshoppers. But that’s not to say that any solution will do. The grasshopper that cannot jump may find himself at the losing end of a debate with a hungry sparrow.
Like humans, biology finds the need for consensus. Each mating can be viewed as an exchange of survival strategies between the mother and the father resulting in a new set of strategies embodied by the child. Within a species ideas are exchanged, but between species ideas are siloed. Within a species truth is rather absolute. Between them quite relative.
I find this all so very interesting. Especially Kamran’s section. It resonates with one of my papers. I used to be quite the relativist, but one that transcended so that I even saw relativism as relativism, and as explained near the end, I did find everything, in this way, useless or at least unstimulating.
I like the comment because under certain states of mind, you realize the melding and how there doesn’t have to be a strict dichotomy.
I’ve come to see more into universals, but I always question how much is coming from me. Sometimes, it’s really confusing. In greatness is all too clear.