Ideas for senior thesis!

I attend the last year of classical lycée (after which I am off to university, cannot wait! :D), and it is tradition here that students in their last year write their first lenghty formal paper, in the subject they desire and of topic they desire. Though in many schools it is mere formality, in mine it is not and it is rather serious, a lot of stuff depends on how well you do it, and I really wish to avoid having to defend the thesis in front of comission, which means I must get an A from it.
I am new in school too, which is another obstacle (so professor cannot offer any topic to me since he does not know me well, and I must decide until the end of next week), and in country, which is one more obstacle. How cool.:crash:

So, yes, the subject is Philosophy. Some of you might argue - and be right - that it was somewhat silly of me to choose such a subject to write my first formal paper in, in a language I am still not academically fluent in, but it is irreversible, and, after all, I wanted that challenge.
What I am worried about is the choice of topic. In all honesty, I have absolutely no idea what to write about.

I can choose anything from the field of philosophy, as long as the theme is not too broad (a "Commentary on Hegel's opus" would be an example of such mistake :D), and it is generally preferred that we do not take one philosopher or one work and write a paper on it, but do something with some continuity, perhaps even inter-disciplinary thing; I basically need some interesting problem to discuss in some 30-50 pages (I am not sure of the definite range we can write in, but it should circle around this, from my own estimate).

Even though I do not know what I want to write about, I am pretty sure about things I do not want to write about. They would be the following:
1.) The philosophy of classical antiquity
This is my 8th year of classical education, have mercy on me, I shiver at thought of dealing with something Roman or ancient Greek for a project I have full freedom of choosing topic. So, no Plato and the rest of the crew, I have been hearing enough about them in the past years;
2.) Marxism and political philosophy of it
Not interested in it, plus I come from post-socialist country and the last thing I would want over here is the choice of my theme to be viewed as sort of provocation;
3.) Hegel
His lofty blabbering is really too much for me, I need to be drugged if I wish to concentrate on anything more than excerpts of him;
4.) Existentialism
We are studying it intensely right now, it would be seen as taking an easy way out, I suppose, if I choose to do it for my thesis; plus I am not that interesting in it.

Other than these four, pretty much everything else is an option.
I am really desperate, I have gone through all my histories of philosophy, chrestomathiae and other stuff I have been using over years, and I cannot seem to find an interesting theme, or philosopher, or work, I would want my first formal paper to deal with.

If you have any suggestions, anything; particularly any cool topics, I will be grateful to you a lot.:sick:
Thank you in advance.

What about the translatio studiorum? It's how the philosophy developped in the Middle-Ages, very interesting and it mixes history with philosophy. Check the topic out, it's basically how philosophy almost died in latin europe but survived in Greece with the Byzantine Empire, then spread out to the middle-east, and then through the arabs went back by the Maghreb until moorish Spain, and came back in latin Europe after the reconquista. And it's also how the philosophy wrapped itself with cultures and thinkers as it went.

Well, here's one that would be reasonably 'original' and one I would love to do in such a position - 'Shakespeare the philosopher'.

To me all his works ooze with good solid philosophy. People, many who have never read one of his books, or seen the play, continually quote from Shakespeare for he has something for every occasion, and he is spot on. You feel he has experienced all the corners and dark recesses. He uses his plays as a genre for getting across his thoughts on life.

I will go so far as to say that take the philosophy out of Shakespeare and we would never have heard of him today.

Another positive is his knowledge of history from the ancients to his contemporary. He is therefore able to weave his philosophy into any era, any situation, and make it relevant, and understood.

One or two have picked this up, but, so far, those who have studied Shakespeare get so wrapped up in the man as a playwright, a dramatist, that they permit it to overshadow the man as a philosopher. And, for myself who took philosophy along with psychology, of all the philosophers, I place Shakespeare at the top. He makes philosophy live, to him it is life.

good luck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anastasija

2.) Marxism and political philosophy of it
Not interested in it, plus I come from post-socialist country and the last thing I would want over here is the choice of my theme to be viewed as sort of provocation;

---

Why is it that anyone who has lived in a communist country knows that Marx is a bunch of crap, but the so called intellectuals of the west still think that Marx is relevant? Marx is a bunch of garbage.

Philos - Sophia, a philosopher is a lover of wisdom. The question becomes what is wisdom? What do you really believe is wise? Why? Whose wisdom is it? Why? Does not the Bible teach that the principle thing is wisdom? Is there a philosophy is truely kind, or mercyfull, or does it simply parade cynacism? When I look for inspiration to get me thinking, sometimes I turn to the following speech given unto Portia incognito Balthasar, by Shakespeare, in "The Merchant of Venice":
The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice.

-- William Shakespeare

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Why is it that anyone who has lived in a communist country knows that Marx is a bunch of crap, but the so called intellectuals of the west still think that Marx is relevant? Marx is a bunch of garbage.

---

Perhaps because Marx contributed so extensively to western thought which has permeated (to some degree) throughout literature/sociology/politics/economics? Whatever the failings of Marxist societies (though I can't think of a single country that has practised genuine Marxism), it is almost impossible to deny Marx's influence on culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

Perhaps because Marx contributed so extensively to western thought which has permeated (to some degree) throughout literature/sociology/politics/economics? Whatever the failings of Marxist societies (though I can't think of a single country that has practised genuine Marxism), it is almost impossible to deny Marx's influence on culture.

---

Has he really? I guess negative influence is still influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Why is it that anyone who has lived in a communist country knows that Marx is a bunch of crap, but the so called intellectuals of the west still think that Marx is relevant? Marx is a bunch of garbage.

---

Marx is not just communism. Marx is still relevant as a philosopher for ideas he brought forth. I personally am not particularly interested in Marx, but you don't have to be a communist to get something out of him. Sociology, or anthropology, for example have used his ideas creating new school of thoughts with very valid points. It's his observations on society, that are probably the most important. Note that his view on communism is absolutely not what has been done, but he saw it as a natural evolution, not a revolution.

In this light I do think that Marx is still relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Marx is not just communism. Marx is still relevant as a philosopher for ideas he brought forth. I personally am not particularly interested in Marx, but you don't have to be a communist to get something out of him. Sociology, or anthropology, for example have used his ideas creating new school of thoughts with very valid points. It's his observations on society, that are probably the most important. Note that his view on communism is absolutely not what has been done, but he saw it as a natural evolution, not a revolution.

In this light I do think that Marx is still relevant.

---

Yeah, yeah, yeah. No matter how many times it fails in real life, there is always a hard core who will never see the light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Yeah, yeah, yeah. No matter how many times it fails in real life, there is always a hard core who will never see the light.

---

What fails in real life? Communism? But that's not Marx, that's what you don't realise. Marx is not just a political program. Did you even read my post? I am by no mean a communist myself, even less a hardcore and am not particularly interested in Marx, but I'm kind of tired of people who make judgments by associating Marx with communism and put a dot after that, and this is more a proof of ignorance then a sign of wisdom, I'm sorry.

Also, do you think philosophers are studied only for practical purposes? Why study Plato then? Why study Al-Farabi? Why study Spinoza?

By the way saying that people who lived in a communist country are against communism is false. In russia, Stalin has a very high approval rate.

This is not a deviation on the thread theme, though I am sure some may like to make such an observation, but a comment on the way it is progressing, and the probable cause.

Philosophy like many words has a number of interwoven meanings brought about by use and changing times. But there is a basic core - however, even this is still open to misinterpretation by many due to the pull of connotation with which they have become familiar and influenced.

It is an understandable human failing, or trait.

Another word that stands out here in the latter posts is 'Communism.' China is still viewed by many (conditioned by their media) as 'communist'. But the way China has progressed politically, and Russia, and Marx's teachings; are hardly correlative.

It is so easy to get drawn into unnecessary arguments when the opposing
views are based on confused word meanings. It happens here again, and again.

Over the years, I have come to a conclusion that all writers are, to some extent, purveyors of philosophy. In some it is merely more transparent, than in others, that is if one is consciously aware of the 'whole' writing process than merely what is, or what may appear to be, the actual motivation for the writing.

My reason for this is that a writer, to be accepted professionally as such, has to have an insight into life as he/she sees it, as well as the various views held by others. If for no other reason the writer must be conscious of the need to reach as broad a potential market as possible.

Both consciously, and unconsciously writers will bring into their writings aspects of their own life, particularly events that have had some strong emotional impact. Why? Because of a number of reasons, one being
he/she is drawing from easily accessed personal knowledge and feelings.

Think, whenever you write, is it not influenced by your personal view of life, of some event - unless it is in some work that calls for an impartial view and you are making every effort to be unbiased.

We tend to think of philosophers as ones who have been accepted by academia as those 'thinkers' for whom seeking to understand the universal truths, and also the unanswerable questions of life, became their main pursuit and whose teachings were recorded either by themselves or their student followers for posterity.

These, passed down through time lend to them a certain credence - of course not all are ancient. However, the accepted ones that followed kept their genre for presenting their ideas to 'papers' or treatise in one form or another.

But then there are those who have chosen a more subtle way, and, perhaps cunningly, to reach the young, in their most formative years. For example Hans Christian Anderson; the Bros. Grimm; A A Milne; Lewis Carroll et al.

Philosophical ideas can be presented simply as well as in an academic, 'scientific' format. But, if it is simple, from conditioning in our adult years we cannot raise these indirect, or subtle, philosophers to the acceptable pedestal that we can those blessed by the ' hallowed halls' of learning.

In fact, to conclude, I could probably go so far as to say that we are all walking, talking philosophers to some degree, even though we can't put pen to paper. We all view the world through our eyes, and we are what we think, and we impart to those with whom we relate, directly, or indirectly, our views.

You see philsopher comes from two Greek words meaning loving and wise - literally meaning 'lover of wisdom'. I think if all were asked did they love wisdom' I am sure the answer would be in the affirmative. Unfortunately, not all the 'wisdom' people acquire is based on, or even near, accepted truth. And to many questions there are no truthful, definitive, answers. So, as Shakespeare might say, philosophically - ' that's the rub.'

Sorry, I have corrected the word 'informative' to what was intended - 'formative'.

Quote:

---

.......to reach the young, in their most formative years. For example Hans Christian Anderson; the Bros.........

---

But you assumed the correct one didn't you - say yes, and smile.

WOW, all these topics are so interesting! I should go research and write on one of these. :idea:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Has he really? I guess negative influence is still influence.

---

I'd hardly describe his influence on, say, literary criticism as a negative influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Yeah, yeah, yeah. No matter how many times it fails in real life, there is always a hard core who will never see the light.

---

The point is a valid one. Genuine Marxism has yet to be experienced in any country in the world - more often than not it turns to oligarchy before getting anywhere near achieving a communist state(see Cuba, etc.,etc.).