What 60 page paper of mine would you read?

[Achwienichtig]

Hello Everybody,

As some of you might remember, I am working on my masters degree in philosophy. Whelp, all my coursework is done (I hope. I'm still waiting to get a couple things signed off.) All I have left are my logic exams and my masters thesis. I am currently looking into topics for my thesis, and here's where you can help me.

I am posting in the politics section because I am planning on writing a thesis on what will be a political topic. I want my paper to address current affairs and be relevant. I know I'm not the first philosopher who has grown tired of philosophy for philosophy's sake. Honestly, philosophy can be quite, how can I say this? . . . mastubatory. I really want to be done with isolated philosophizing. This is not the place to go into all that, but that is an interesting subject for some other time.

So how can you help? Well, I want to get a rough estimation of what topics are relevant. I also want to know whether what I write would be a topic of interest to other people. If I wrote a 60 page paper any a particular topic, would you be willing to read it?

So my poll is above. These are the topics I have come up with. I ask that you consider the following criteria.

1. Is it a relevant, current topic?
2. Is it a topic you would want to read about?
3. Is it a topic where philosophical discussion would be useful?

Ultimately, I'm making my own decision on this one, but I want to see where you all would gravitate towards.

Lasty, if you have any reading suggestions for any topic, please feel free to share. I'm interested.

Thanks in advance.

ETA: You will notice I gravitate towards educational topics. That is a chief interest of mine.

 

[ksen]

topic: the fascist philosophy underpinning modern day American liberty warriors

yw

 

[Achwienichtig]

topic: the fascist philosophy underpinning modern day American liberty warriors

yw

Perhaps more political than I wanted. Hope that doesn't make me a copout.

 

[ksen]

I'll get back to you on that.

 

[ronburgundy]

I picked the topic on a national school curriculum. My second choice would be whether the benefits of college are over-estimated. These are both topics on which reasonable minds can disagree and for which reasoned, evidence-based arguments can be made for their core assumptions.

I don't think the same is true of any of your other topics. A common weakness among the others is the centrality of terms that are either too vague (e.g., hero and patriotism), or all the disagreement lies in how the term is defined and/or the most reasonable definition makes the answer easy and definitionally true (e.g., political correctness, which historically and currently is used to describe pressure to suppress words and ideas merely for a political dogma, regardless of whether they are true or unethical).
The one on "unschooling" is purely a moral question, thus all disagreement is a matter of subjective preference and goals. It doesn't lend itself to reasoned analysis until your identify and constrain the particular goals or consequences that you are going to analyze "unschooling" in relation to.

Philosophy is already too rife with pointless never-ended arguments that ultimately come down to semantics and how words are defined. Pick a topic where there is widespread reasonable agreement on what is meant by the question. The fact that the two good ones I mentioned are plausible topics for a thesis in an empirically based science is a good sign that it will allow for the type of philosophical analysis that is actually useful. While you'll also want to discussion the consequences and goals of education in relation to these two topics, they entail enough issues of fact and relevant evidence for those facts, that the result can be more than a circle jerk.

 

[ksen]

Along the lines of a national curriculum you could also examine whether or not the US should have national policing standards rather than the patchwork we currently have.

 

[Achwienichtig]

I picked the topic on a national school curriculum. My second choice would be whether the benefits of college are over-estimated. These are both topics on which reasonable minds can disagree and for which reasoned, evidence-based arguments can be made for their core assumptions.

I don't think the same is true of any of your other topics. A common weakness among the others is the centrality of terms that are either too vague (e.g., hero and patriotism), or all the disagreement lies in how the term is defined and/or the most reasonable definition makes the answer easy and definitionally true (e.g., political correctness, which historically and currently is used to describe pressure to suppress words and ideas merely for a political dogma, regardless of whether they are true or unethical).
The one on "unschooling" is purely a moral question, thus all disagreement is a matter of subjective preference and goals. It doesn't lend itself to reasoned analysis until your identify and constrain the particular goals or consequences that you are going to analyze "unschooling" in relation to.

Philosophy is already too rife with pointless never-ended arguments that ultimately come down to semantics and how words are defined. Pick a topic where there is widespread reasonable agreement on what is meant by the question. The fact that the two good ones I mentioned are plausible topics for a thesis in an empirically based science is a good sign that it will allow for the type of philosophical analysis that is actually useful. While you'll also want to discussion the consequences and goals of education in relation to these two topics, they entail enough issues of fact and relevant evidence for those facts, that the result can be more than a circle jerk.

I see where you're coming from. For one thing, I would consider it part of my responsibility to define terms coherently. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what Wittgenstein said was the purpose of philosophy. I used these terms, not because I think they are semantically set, but because they are in vogue. I don't think we should avoid arguments just because they're semantic in nature. In fact, it seems to me we should do the exact opposite. The question is, if these terms were set and coherent, would there still be room for reasonable disagreement? I think there generally is.

I think it is very interesting that you think the topic of a national curriculum is worthy of discussion, but not the topic of unschooling. After all, unschooling denies set curriculum altogether. I see them as closely related topics. Besides, I certainly don't want to avoid a topic just because it is a moral topic. Moral reasoning can be done well or poorly, just like any other reason.

 

[Achwienichtig]

Along the lines of a national curriculum you could also examine whether or not the US should have national policing standards rather than the patchwork we currently have.

Yes, I think that is a good topic (or subtopic) as well. One of the major themes that dominates philosophical discussion of education is the following problem. If education is put into the hands of national bureaucrats, then the people have no effective way of raising objection to problems with the system. On the other hand, if you put it into local hands, the people have more say, but then localisms, including prejudices and biases, tend to go unconfronted. This is a problem that every philosopher of education has to deal with.

 

[fromderinside]

I picked the topic on a national school curriculum. My second choice would be whether the benefits of college are over-estimated. These are both topics on which reasonable minds can disagree and for which reasoned, evidence-based arguments can be made for their core assumptions.

I don't think the same is true of any of your other topics. A common weakness among the others is the centrality of terms that are either too vague (e.g., hero and patriotism), or all the disagreement lies in how the term is defined and/or the most reasonable definition makes the answer easy and definitionally true (e.g., political correctness, which historically and currently is used to describe pressure to suppress words and ideas merely for a political dogma, regardless of whether they are true or unethical).
The one on "unschooling" is purely a moral question, thus all disagreement is a matter of subjective preference and goals. It doesn't lend itself to reasoned analysis until your identify and constrain the particular goals or consequences that you are going to analyze "unschooling" in relation to.

Philosophy is already too rife with pointless never-ended arguments that ultimately come down to semantics and how words are defined. Pick a topic where there is widespread reasonable agreement on what is meant by the question. The fact that the two good ones I mentioned are plausible topics for a thesis in an empirically based science is a good sign that it will allow for the type of philosophical analysis that is actually useful. While you'll also want to discussion the consequences and goals of education in relation to these two topics, they entail enough issues of fact and relevant evidence for those facts, that the result can be more than a circle jerk.

I see where you're coming from. For one thing, I would consider it part of my responsibility to define terms coherently. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what Wittgenstein said was the purpose of philosophy. I used these terms, not because I think they are semantically set, but because they are in vogue. I don't think we should avoid arguments just because they're semantic in nature. In fact, it seems to me we should do the exact opposite. The question is, if these terms were set and coherent, would there still be room for reasonable disagreement? I think there generally is.

I think it is very interesting that you think the topic of a national curriculum is worthy of discussion, but not the topic of unschooling. After all, unschooling denies set curriculum altogether. I see them as closely related topics. Besides, I certainly don't want to avoid a topic just because it is a moral topic. Moral reasoning can be done well or poorly, just like any other reason.

I also chose national curriculum education mainly because societies are joined together by unifying principles, understandings and practices. Whether a society should be unschooled would be a society as a principle, understanding or practice rather than an education discussion. National curriculum limits one to discussing fractured, piecemeal, education versus unified to national education consistent with national principles, understandings, and practices.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'd go with #1 and here's why.

The key thesis behind that one is whether or not you can respect and admire certain aspects of a person while despising and condemning other parts. The Founding Fathers did remarkable things worthy of respect while also doing bad things worthy of condemnation. You can have them as national heroes for what they did right, despite what they did wrong. You don't want to ignore the negatives or brush them aside, but at the same time, those negatives don't need to undercut the positives.

That sort of thing has direct relevance to the situations today. If someone has been a champion of worthy causes all his or her career, but yet has an affair or makes a poor decision which they regret in retrospect, is that sufficient to undercut all their good and derail their entire career? The pressure to avoid a scandal not only stops people from taking risks but also dissuades lots of qualified people who could make a difference from ever getting involved in politics in the first place and we all suffer as a result of not having them as a choice. Also, having the environment where everybody needs to watch what they say all the time creates frustration and opportunities for Trump types to come in and not give a shit about that and end up being what a number of people are looking for, simply because he feels free enough to speak his mind and the content of what he's actually saying when he does that is only of secondary importance to the listener due to their being glad that somebody is actually saying something.

I think that would make for an excellent thesis.

 

[fromderinside]

Wouldn't one first have to determine whether current practices and understandings are the only essential ones necessary for judgement by current extants before looking at those not of the current era.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wouldn't one first have to determine whether current practices and understandings are the only essential ones necessary for judgement by current extants before looking at those not of the current era.

No, I think it would be better for him to ignore that aspect of it and then stumble and stutter over trying to think up a response when asked about it while giving his thesis defence. That would make the professors' judging him feel smart and important and that's the attitude he'd want them to have when deciding whether or not to give him his Masters degree.

 

[Bronzeage]

Pick the topic which you can exploit and defend. It doesn't matter if you personally agree with what you write. You need a topic which has plenty of sources on both sides, which can be cited. However, the most important factor in choosing a thesis topic is whether or not your faculty adviser likes it.

 

[ronburgundy]

I picked the topic on a national school curriculum. My second choice would be whether the benefits of college are over-estimated. These are both topics on which reasonable minds can disagree and for which reasoned, evidence-based arguments can be made for their core assumptions.

I don't think the same is true of any of your other topics. A common weakness among the others is the centrality of terms that are either too vague (e.g., hero and patriotism), or all the disagreement lies in how the term is defined and/or the most reasonable definition makes the answer easy and definitionally true (e.g., political correctness, which historically and currently is used to describe pressure to suppress words and ideas merely for a political dogma, regardless of whether they are true or unethical).
The one on "unschooling" is purely a moral question, thus all disagreement is a matter of subjective preference and goals. It doesn't lend itself to reasoned analysis until your identify and constrain the particular goals or consequences that you are going to analyze "unschooling" in relation to.

Philosophy is already too rife with pointless never-ended arguments that ultimately come down to semantics and how words are defined. Pick a topic where there is widespread reasonable agreement on what is meant by the question. The fact that the two good ones I mentioned are plausible topics for a thesis in an empirically based science is a good sign that it will allow for the type of philosophical analysis that is actually useful. While you'll also want to discussion the consequences and goals of education in relation to these two topics, they entail enough issues of fact and relevant evidence for those facts, that the result can be more than a circle jerk.

I see where you're coming from. For one thing, I would consider it part of my responsibility to define terms coherently. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what Wittgenstein said was the purpose of philosophy. I used these terms, not because I think they are semantically set, but because they are in vogue. I don't think we should avoid arguments just because they're semantic in nature. In fact, it seems to me we should do the exact opposite. The question is, if these terms were set and coherent, would there still be room for reasonable disagreement? I think there generally is.

I think it is very interesting that you think the topic of a national curriculum is worthy of discussion, but not the topic of unschooling. After all, unschooling denies set curriculum altogether. I see them as closely related topics. Besides, I certainly don't want to avoid a topic just because it is a moral topic. Moral reasoning can be done well or poorly, just like any other reason.

I'll preface by saying that I think that anything smacking of moral objectivism is and intellectual farce (not implying you argued for that).
The thing about moral positions is that they require no reasoning and reasoning often does not make a moral position objectively better any more than a taste preference for chocolate over vanilla is made better by a supporting argument. Reasoning can matter in morality if a starting preference (itself not subject to rational scrutiny) is wrongly presumed to be causally served or harmed by a particular action whose morality is in question. If the difference in moral stance lies in that reasoning, then its fruitful, if it lies in the starting preferences, then not much.

I would say that most disagreement over the morality "unschooling" and slave-owners as heroes lies in the staring premises in the form of differences in foundational preferences and goals, such as whether places more subjective value on the things afforded by unschooling than on the things afforded by schooling, or whether one has a preference for historical "heroes" as perfect in all areas or just heroes with relation to particular things.
It seems to me that a philosophical contribution would be more in line with explicating the source of the disagreement and the values entailed rather than your phrasing of the question which is more about which position is "correct".

The reason I prefer the national curriculum question is that while there are some moral issues involved, there are also factual issues to be explored and sources of disagreement among people who hold the same values but differ in their assumptions about what a national curriculum would do in relation to those values.

My least liked of your options is the one about PC, because I think that is 100% about definitions and there is no room for reasonable disagreement that something that meets the original and intended definition of PC automatically is anti-free-speech and free-thought. The whole point of the term is to point to authoritarian efforts to impose rules based upon their service to a political agenda without regard to factual or moral validity. If you want to focus on how conservatives abuse the term to attack criticism of their racist position, that's fine, but it seems once you define how you are going to use the term "PC", there is little left worthy of a Philosophy dissertation.

 

[Achwienichtig]

I see where you're coming from. For one thing, I would consider it part of my responsibility to define terms coherently. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what Wittgenstein said was the purpose of philosophy. I used these terms, not because I think they are semantically set, but because they are in vogue. I don't think we should avoid arguments just because they're semantic in nature. In fact, it seems to me we should do the exact opposite. The question is, if these terms were set and coherent, would there still be room for reasonable disagreement? I think there generally is.

I think it is very interesting that you think the topic of a national curriculum is worthy of discussion, but not the topic of unschooling. After all, unschooling denies set curriculum altogether. I see them as closely related topics. Besides, I certainly don't want to avoid a topic just because it is a moral topic. Moral reasoning can be done well or poorly, just like any other reason.

I'll preface by saying that I think that anything smacking of moral objectivism is and intellectual farce (not implying you argued for that).
The thing about moral positions is that they require no reasoning and reasoning often does not make a moral position objectively better any more than a taste preference for chocolate over vanilla is made better by a supporting argument. Reasoning can matter in morality if a starting preference (itself not subject to rational scrutiny) is wrongly presumed to be causally served or harmed by a particular action whose morality is in question. If the difference in moral stance lies in that reasoning, then its fruitful, if it lies in the starting preferences, then not much.

I would say that most disagreement over the morality "unschooling" and slave-owners as heroes lies in the staring premises in the form of differences in foundational preferences and goals, such as whether places more subjective value on the things afforded by unschooling than on the things afforded by schooling, or whether one has a preference for historical "heroes" as perfect in all areas or just heroes with relation to particular things.
It seems to me that a philosophical contribution would be more in line with explicating the source of the disagreement and the values entailed rather than your phrasing of the question which is more about which position is "correct".

The reason I prefer the national curriculum question is that while there are some moral issues involved, there are also factual issues to be explored and sources of disagreement among people who hold the same values but differ in their assumptions about what a national curriculum would do in relation to those values.

My least liked of your options is the one about PC, because I think that is 100% about definitions and there is no room for reasonable disagreement that something that meets the original and intended definition of PC automatically is anti-free-speech and free-thought. The whole point of the term is to point to authoritarian efforts to impose rules based upon their service to a political agenda without regard to factual or moral validity. If you want to focus on how conservatives abuse the term to attack criticism of their racist position, that's fine, but it seems once you define how you are going to use the term "PC", there is little left worthy of a Philosophy dissertation.

I think you make some good points. I am a little more open to objective morality than you, but I get where you're coming from.

On the PC topic, I think you are right. I want to believe that there is some way to break the mold in this debate, but I don't know how to do that without just being tossed into a camp and being assimilated into the rhetoric.

The national curriculum question is one I find extremely fascinating. I am working my way right now through some books by E.D. Hirsch, who is one of the leading proponents of a national curriculum. I think his work is absolutely fascinating, and he is largely responsible for my interest in educational philosophy (though Dewey was an earlier influence on me).

 

[Achwienichtig]

Interesting. Lots of interest in the question of the importance of college. I actually had an inkling that would generate the most interest.