"The opinion" needs to have a multitude of expressions. Philosophical papers should be able to re-capitulate the point. If the opinion is expressed once and only in the introduction, that is a problem — it looks like a stroke of luck.
Look at Kant's Groundwork or Sidgwick's Method: you have an almost desperate attempt at finding just the right way and right context in which to normatively ground a proposition.
Look at Heideggar, look at Nietzsche. Even look at Orwell. The "opinion" is the "point", and the point has to be teased, flipped, tossed, rejected, restored, restated. A paper that makes its opinion in one statement is like a kid in class who accidentally blurts out the right answer.
Comments
"The opinion" needs to have a multitude of expressions. Philosophical papers should be able to re-capitulate the point. If the opinion is expressed once and only in the introduction, that is a problem — it looks like a stroke of luck.
Look at Kant's Groundwork or Sidgwick's Method: you have an almost desperate attempt at finding just the right way and right context in which to normatively ground a proposition.
Look at Heideggar, look at Nietzsche. Even look at Orwell. The "opinion" is the "point", and the point has to be teased, flipped, tossed, rejected, restored, restated. A paper that makes its opinion in one statement is like a kid in class who accidentally blurts out the right answer.