Honors Thesis Colloquium 2009-10

Noia,
What you wrote on your peer evaluation form for the first comment works well as your claim: “Both psychoanalysis and Deconstruction appeal to the recognition of Otherness as the basis of their ethical goals.” Your proposal draft, however, is still too much in the middle of an argument that you are going to make about certain writings of your three key theorists, Freud, Levinas, and Derrida. For your revision, turn more to the process you will undertake to investigate the issue at hand, indicating your supporting reasons for this working hypothesis about the role of the Other for all three thinkers, the approach you will take to isolate the function of alterity in each (as a reader/thinker), and the arguments that go against your claim. Be as clear and precise as possible in organizing this as a proposal for research.

To some extent, your research is geared toward gaining an understanding about the ethical impulse of all three theorists and theories. Since there are many works on their writings, much of what you will be doing is indicating basic categories of thought for each one, with a specific concern on the ethical dimension of Otherness for each one. You will also indicate your agreement or disagreement with certain critics on what the theorists are saying. The struggle I imagine you to be having is what you can add to this great and lively debate. If you know at this point, then say so. I may be missing it. But I am also not worried at this stage of the project about whether you are adding something entirely new or refining certain insights. It does seem that using the Encounter by way of Levinas is promising for the study of Freud and Derrida and for showing their theories to be more compatible than some have said.