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.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.).

---

It is impossible to put Marxism into practice in real life without denying people's freedom. Period. I has not been done because it cannot be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

It is impossible to put Marxism into practice in real life without denying people's freedom. Period. I has not been done because it cannot be done.

---

But first, Marx is not only this. Second, back in the Middle-Ages, who would have thought about a political system like ours (even though they had democratic examples from the past, it only applied to a city-state, and we have plenty of small-scale examples of communist-like communities that are working very well). Marx saw communism as a natural evolution through the democratic process. Do I think it will happen one day? To some extent, yes I believe it will. Do I hope it will happen? No I don't, but mostly for philosophical reasons, not because "it can't work". Oh and saying that communism (even in stalinism, castrism, maoism, etc) doesn't work is putting your head in the ground. It does work, it might not reach our values, but it is a workable system for a State (in the cold sense of the term).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

But first, Marx is not only this. Second, back in the Middle-Ages, who would have thought about a political system like ours (even though they had democratic examples from the past, it only applied to a city-state, and we have plenty of small-scale examples of communist-like communities that are working very well). Marx saw communism as a natural evolution through the democratic process. Do I think it will happen one day? To some extent, yes I believe it will. Do I hope it will happen? No I don't, but mostly for philosophical reasons, not because "it can't work". Oh and saying that communism (even in stalinism, castrism, maoism, etc) doesn't work is putting your head in the ground. It does work, it might not reach our values, but it is a workable system for a State (in the cold sense of the term).

---

If you read my post entirely I said:

Quote:

---

It is impossible to put Marxism into practice in real life without denying people's freedom. Period. I has not been done because it cannot be done.

---

Yes, it can be put into practice, but not without "denying people's freedom" as I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

If you read my post entirely I said:

Yes, it can be put into practice, but not without "denying people's freedom" as I said.

---

I know, the second part of my post wasn't directed at your post, I should have pointed it out. The first part still applies however.

But my main point lies exactly OUTSIDE of the communist, or even political considerations, Marx also brought insights and theories that are applied in the study of other fields. So if you had talked about communism instead of Marx then we could have agreed, but Marx political theory is not any form of communism attempted (and any of these regime did not try to follow Marx's guidelines, they were inspired or influenced at best) and you should approach his writing with a broader perspective to get his full value, which I repeat once more, is not limited to communism. Simply the concept of class struggle, for example, has a much broader implication than the political aim of a society without classes but is also a perspective of observation. The fact that the only times you've heard of marx was when it was linked to communism doesn't mean that Marx's thoughts is limited to that.

Anyways, I've just been repeating the same things all over again, and all you've been answering is: communism does not work. That's not my point, and I think you can understand that, or am I mistaken?

:lol: OK, I understand. I think we've distorted the original intent of the thread. Sorry Anastasja.

I recommend a paper and speech on Graham Greene's Monsignor Quixote because it deals with modern day philosophical conflicts and encompasses religious and Marxist issues.

It features many interesting quotes and is a thorough delight.

There are two main issues involved in the subject of this thread.

(1) Is approaching the exercise looking at philosophy from a personal point of view, and by that I mean idealistically, mainly because it is a human tendency to see points of view to which we align ourselves as idealistic - otherwise why would we accept them with such fervour.

(2) As this is an academic exercise, then what has to be considered is that it is approached from what is the one most likely not to hit discord in the small select, highly critical, readership.

My advice is to 'bury' the first option, at least until the second one has been given prime consideration to narrow down the choice. I would further recommend that little if no emphasis is placed on political, or religious inferences.

I stress the latter because they can be very emotive to someone with strong beliefs in this area which may be at variance with the slant of your presentation, which has come across, however unintended.

Few, and I mean very few, really understand politics, or even particular religious beliefs for that matter.

In fact, I leave this with a quote from someone very much on the 'inside' and holding a very high position of the time.

D'Israeli was the British prime minister at the height of that nation's power, and where she ruled the largest Empire the world had ever seen. Her navy roamed the high sees unchallenged to protect that empire - not for the British people, but for its merchants.

He said

Quote:

---

'This world is run by far different personages than is generally believed by those on the outside'.

---

Now read that quote again and take it in, because there is the key.

You may, or may not understand what he was saying, you may not see it as important. But, if you did you would leave your, or any political reformer's
ideas, no matter how elevated or accepted is that reformer, well alone.

Better to get the individual right first, before trying to change the world, or even a nation. And the place to start is with self.

This is my honest opinion for what it is worth.

Once again - good luck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anastasija

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.

---

interesting assignment, anastasija. iyou mentioned Hegel so it raised a thought where i had left off in my own research days---
there's some incredible potential for a great thesis or dissertation on Martin Heidegger's notion of "Care" through contemporary philosophical writings (non-continental). see works of Kant (books on moral imperative), Hegel, Schliermacher, Levinas, Sri Aurobindo. a topic very ripe for analysis, but i don't know what your intention is as far as time and length.

as far as inter-disciplinary work goes, i highly recommend that you start with Edward O. Wilson's Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, which may trigger some interesting research questions.

good luck to you in your studies.

Anastasija,

Perhaps you could write a treatise on semantics, which is a really interesting part of philosophy; or choose an influential modern philosopher, Wittgenstein, for example?

I think that the best thing for you to do, however, is to choose a general direction for your study, and to advance from this point.

And really, Wittgenstein and semantics are very interesting indeed.

/K.

In the philosophy of music there has been and maybe still is a debate concerning the problem of calling music a fine art. Kant among others have written about this. They believed that for something to be a fine art it had to reflect the human condition, humanity, etc. Literature does that: it emulates human speech through words, dialogue, etc. Music however is a far more difficult thing to call a fine art: it does not emulate a observable aspect of humanity. (When music philosophers talk about music, they generally mean absolute music as in music without vocals.) ( A Introduction on A Philosophy of Music by Peter Kivy contains a chapter in which this is explained very well. A good place to start your research if you choose this topic.)

This topic isn't too broad but you can still write something about it.

Thank you everybody for your suggestions. :)

About marxism - I won't get into discussion of it here since I doubt I know enough about it to discuss it properly; being 17, I was born in the time when communism was falling apart so I de facto did not live in communist country, what I lived in were countries in transformation from one system to another. Practically all I know about communism in practice is second-hand, by older people; and as far as marxism and theory is concerned, I studied very snippets of it at school in four different subjects (History, Sociology, Politics and Economy, Philosophy), all of which shed a different light on it and focused on different aspects of marxism.

The problem with writing about marxism is also somewhat of practical nature, though. It is virtually impossible to write about marxism without bringing up Hegel first (and that is mainly what I try to avoid :D). Furthermore, the sole "marxism" is a topic too broad. It is greatly preferred that we take one aspect, or one problem, and then discuss it, as "marxism" itself covers a whole lot of things. As I write my thesis under "Philosophy" class, I am - even though I can go little interdisciplinatory - limited by the subject; therefore, what I would have to focus on would be marxism as historical materialism, and where it came from (thus a whole lot of Hegel before introducing Marx), and not on economic or historical implications of the word "marxism" today (if I wrote about that, I would have to shift the field of writing - and that is irreversible, since it is too late for it now and my thesis must go under "philosophy").

Similar problems exist with some other potentially cool stuff.
I cannot write about Shakespeare, for example, for that would get me into having to do art/philosophy distinction first (and that itself would take half of the thesis :D); and Shakespeare itself would fit much nicer into the English or Literature. I can go interdisciplinatory, but my main theme must belong to philosophy, I cannot choose something which is technically mainly another thing. Another problem would be literature and references - this is a formal paper, I cannot really write an impressionist essay off the top of my head, and as far as I'm aware, there isn't much literature seriously linking Shakespeare with some philosophical streams (at least not available here).

I basically need something I have a lot of literature on, something I could write 30-50 pages on, and something I could write well, because unless my thesis is marked with highest grade, I must defend it in front of comission. And I am newbie at school, in foreign country, with foreign language, and that is not quite what I would look forward to. :( Not that I do not speak the language, but there is great difference between being fully functional in language in terms of everyday life issues, reading books and attending school; and being academically fluent in terms of being able to write and defend a dissertation using academic 'slang' (:D) and doing it all quite formally.
That is the main reason why I refrain from authors such as Hegel, because even though their topics are insanely interesting, their language is just too much of an obstacle for me even in Russian/Croatian, save other languages. Certainly, I could read it in one language and write in the another, but it would be even more of the trouble. That is why I need something legible. :D

Professor gave me more time for thinking when we spoke (:D), plus he is on some conference now, which means I have time by the next Friday.
I am really considering this Wittgenstein thing, though. :) There is a lot of logic in it, I think I might nicely go in that direction (language/semantics).

Thank you everybody for your suggestions, they mean a lot to me. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeroun

In the philosophy of music there has been and maybe still is a debate concerning the problem of calling music a fine art. Kant among others have written about this. They believed that for something to be a fine art it had to reflect the human condition, humanity, etc. Literature does that: it emulates human speech through words, dialogue, etc. Music however is a far more difficult thing to call a fine art: it does not emulate a observable aspect of humanity. (When music philosophers talk about music, they generally mean absolute music as in music without vocals.) ( A Introduction on A Philosophy of Music by Peter Kivy contains a chapter in which this is explained very well. A good place to start your research if you choose this topic.)

This topic isn't too broad but you can still write something about it.

---

I was writing my previous response so I did not notice yours, but... you know how things sometimes just 'click'?:idea:
I am so getting to research this, it sounds amazing. :)

Anastasija, If I read correctly, you are just 17 years old, and you are from Eastern Europe so your native language is not English. Therefore may I compliment you on your English.

I feel you will have little problem in presenting a very acceptable paper on whichever topic you choose (assuming, as you say, you keep away from politics and religion in this particular situation).

It is not because I doubt you could produce a well researched, and enlightening, paper on these topics, but it just might send a discord that would shift the emphasis, and attention, in the minds of the examiners from where it should be. It is a risk to be avoided when there are other options.

" Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. "
(Ludwig Wittgenstein)

Bon Chance, Midas

I would pick Hegel.Centering my thesis on his perspective of the teleological and dialectical movement of the History according to the reason and probably analizing the rol of the individual on this human spirit development.

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.

---

I am sorry to divert again from the main topic,but I have to answer this.Virgil,why does communism hurt you so much?First of all,communism is not Marxism,it is Stalinism,Maoism etc,etc.The communist leaders of the erea interpreted Marx their own way just as some(and I repeat,only some)Muslims interpreat Mohammed nowdays.And then,it is more than certain that Marxism influenced the western world.Why do you think women today have the right to vote?Why do you think capitalism accepted the 8 hours day?Why do you think child labour is banned?Just answer this questions to yourself...

And,as about your thesis,Anastasja,I think you could use this topic:"I think,therefore I am".It doesn't neccecarily have to be related to Decart,you could write about many other aspects of philosophy.

Marx lived his last years in England, the only country were he felt safe to write and to expose his ideas, for the benefit of humanity, as the previouss post express all improvements on worker rights, as the hours to work, the right to have holidays, the salary according to theyr needs.etcetc. were Marx ideas.
If many european countries have the actual level of life and comodities and social peace its exactly for having in mind Marx ideas.Smart leaders feared to social revolts or revolution( pushed by unhuman situation of the working class men...and theyr families...most of the population by the way...)leaded them to create Legal parameters to benefit workers , and keep things calm.
As the previouss post express the current situation and standard of life its somehow product of Marxist ideas.
Remember his friend, Engels was very rich owner of Industries,and help Marx to develop his work, and even support him monetary.
Not all Marxist are violent resentfull ones and not all Rich men are Fascist Canibals!!!;)