PHIL V3801

Two papers (midterm + final), 7-10 pp. each. Lots of question topics to choose from. The grading (done by the TA's) was fair, but hardly easy.

I was surprised to read the previous harsh review. Oran was a good TA. I actually requsted to transfer to his group midway through the term (I was initially assigned to another TA) after hearing good things about him from another student in his group. His discussion sessions were well-organized and interesting for the most part, and my conversations with him during office hours were especially helpful. He was also very generous with his time. He did seem a little inexperienced as a discussion leader, but nothing too bad.

This course was unlike any philosophy course I've taken. While I can't say that it met my expectations (I expected to read Adorno and Cassirer and stuff) I really enjoyed the class. And the variety and relevance of the texts was impressive. The professor encouraged class discussion- I only wish that we had had more time. The movies were a fun way to bring life to philosophical ideas (and, by the way, provided a pretty great introduction to modern classics of American film)! In short, a fun course. If you are interested in some diverse food for thought, classic film, and an opportunity to engage creatively with the class material, then you'll appreciate the opportunity. Her quirky teaching style takes some getting used to, but she is very approachable. I felt very comfortable expressing my thoughts, both in and out of class. The workload was very light- I'd almost liked to have had the opportunity to write more.

Excellent class, if somewhat superficial philosophically. Prof. Goehr is an GREAT lecturer, and the subject matter was fascinating for the most part. I'd recommend the course, especially if you just want to get a taste of what philosophy is like and are not too concerned with great philosophical depth.

I hate to be harsh on a TA, but I have to say that having Oran Moked for an otherwise incredible class was a disheartening, frustrating experience. He's probably a smart guy, but he can't express himself coherently and can't lead a discussion. He is absent-minded and confusing. Knowing that he and not Professor Goehr would be reading my papers was just depressing.

Two painful-to-write, 10-page papers, normal amount of reading, terrible discussion sections

If only reviewing the professor I will agree that she is amazing. She's brilliant, funny and quick, and obviously knows what she's doing. I wish the subject matter had been different however. Her lectures were not difficult to follow, although the readings were a bit painful because I hated the material. The class made me realize I want to do human rights because aesthetics (to me, I realize some love it) seems so inconsequential, comparatively. If you want to sit around and talk about whether or not a work of art is immoral and how that affects its aesthetic value, take the class. Not for me.

2 papers, about 5 pages each. 3 TA-led discussions.

While charismatic and witty, Goehr is merely good, not phenomenal but good, as a professor when it really comes down to it. She re-words the assigned readings to make them easier to understand, which is helpful to a degree, but leaves a little more to be desired. I would always leave the class feeling that I understood the readings thanks to Goehr's outlines, but that an intelligent debate (and by that I am not refering to what seems to be the prevailing consensus among Columbia students that a debate or discussion requires using every multisyllabic word you have ever encountered or needlessly dropping names of every philosopher you've ever read) brimming just under the surface of the lecture was avoided in favor of Goehr's interpretation alone. I think its important for professors to understand that teaching does not so much require presenting their personal views, but providing varied ones which are left open for students to interpret and discuss. Goehr's love of her own opinions and interpretations is cemented by the fact that she includes one of her own essays in the course packet and constantly refers to lectures she has conducted around the world or to great minds that she has met over coffee or wine or whatever high-bow intellectuals are drinking these days. Be prepared to hear of some chat she and Danto had at least every other class. Her sly remarks about politics wer…

2 easy papers- but beware the TAs! They have serious inferiority complexes and grade more sloppily and more severely than professors.