Akeel Bilgrami

Bilgrami is obviously a very smart man, but his teaching style is horrendous. For a "seminar" course, he treats it like a lecture, usually engaging with the class only once during the entire two hour session, and even then only with one student whom he picks on to embarrass by showing that their thoughts on whatever topic are ridiculous and stupid. He is habitually late and never makes any effort to engage with students. Needless to say, he is extremely boring to listen to. His voice is very quiet and he is hard to hear in class. If you need an easier class, this might be it, but if you want to gain remotely anything from CC, do not take Bilgrami.

HE IS THE WORST PROFESSOR IVE EVER HAD THIS MAN SHOULD NOT BE TEACHING, NOR DOES HE CARE ABOUT TEACHING. I had him for CC, and it may have been his first time ever teaching the course because the man had not a clue about what to do/what to teach. He’s a philosophy professor, so most of the semester (scratch that, ALL of the semester) was him ranting about different philosophies/methods/miscellaneous material that has no correlation to CC. If you’re into philosophy, idk, take his class. But do so knowing a few things. 1. He is habitually late, and makes no small talk what so ever. He arrives almost 10 minutes late to every class, almost slams the door open, begrudgingly sits down, harshly commands a student to turn off the monitor/open the window/etc., and then begins mumbling about some philosophical concept. There is NO syllabus for the course, and if you ask him, he’ll stare at you incredulously and then reprimand you for opening your mouth and asking him such a stupid question. There was no syllabus, and he would have us refer to readings on the CORE website that correlated to CC. He would tell us which chapters to read about 48 hrs or so before the class. That said, you do not have to read because what is discussed in class (or rather, what he rambles about for the entire time) is hardly every related to the course. He offers no chance to engage, and if you have a comment…

Akeel Bilgrami is one of the most fascinating and passionate professors I have had at Columbia. This was the first philosophy class I'd ever taken, and I really enjoyed the way he presented it. It was essentially a survey course on important topics throughout philosophy, essential philosophers' writings on Values, Freedom, Philosophy of Language, etc. The syllabus was extremely poorly defined, and he did a terrible job of even sticking to that. Out of the 6 proposed topics we had to cover, we covered about 4. He'd walk into class 10 minutes late for every class, and end his lectures abruptly, but what happened in those 60 mins was oftentimes nothing short of magic. His previous theater background can clearly be seen in the way he talks and carries himself. He would walk through concepts that seemed impossible to understand in the readings very slowly and carefully, repeatedly checking with the students if they were understanding each concept before he proceeded to the next one. He would often present long stories from his life (which always related to the philosophical topic at hand) with a gentle, dry sense of humor, which I always enjoyed. I looked forward to going to each lecture because of the way he would just capture the entire class' attention when he was in front of it. That being said, he can be quite blunt with students. If you ask a question, he will try to answer i…

This is for Bilgrami's language course. I'll separate this into PROS and CONS. PROS Bilgrami's class is very interesting if you are very interested in philosophy and/or very interested in linguistics. The texts can be challenging sometimes but Bilgrami does a very good job in explaining them (he has a tendency to mumble early on but finds his groove after 10 minutes of lecturing). It is indeed a fascinating look at some of the more interesting open questions about language (how do meaningless sounds become meaningful communicators? is language inherent or learnt? can we fully understand language without fully understanding cognition?). Its definitely the sort of course which you come out with more questions than answers, but I do believe this is healthy. It's also cool that Bilgrami is very opinionated. Philosophy is about debate and Bilgrami doesn't just lecture you about the texts but provides his own insights about when he does or does not agree with something. Faculty-student relationship was very good. Robbie (TA) held regular office hours and gave very helpful pre-examination revision lectures. Bilgrami's OH were upon requests but (unlike previous reviews) I found him very inviting of student questions and dissent. He does indeed still arrive 10 minutes late but will hang around for a few minutes answering people who approach him. CONS There was a very large amount of mi…

It's tough to review Bilgrami - he's brilliant but frustrating. He clearly knows his stuff but ended up ranting half the time during lectures. The class was an undergraduate class but he couldn't help but approach it as a graduate class. The topic was moral philosophy but the content was Bilgrami's theory and thoughts, not a survey or overview. That was very interesting except he bristled at some questions as if they were attacking his philosophy. Didn't handle questions well, tended to criticize them rather than explain or provide context. He assumed alot of prior study and work in philosophy. He'll explain things to a point but gets frustrated if students continue to not understand or think he's wrong on a point. He leaves most students feeling stupid but I think it's more an indication of his teaching style and vocabulary than students' intelligence. Very difficult for him to downshift and teach at times, he was definitely in new theory mode. If you think you have an objection or question get ready for a lively response. Overall, I recommend him for advanced philosophy students (late Juniors or Seniors). Others should stay away.

This course is great, very fun/intellectually stimulating without being demanding. Would recommend as an elective for anyone that likes philosophy. 1 Columbia University: Arts & Sciences Spring 2025 Course: PHILUN1101_001_2025_1-METHODSOFPHILOSOPHICTHOUGHT : PHILUN1101_001_2025_1 - METHODS OF PHILOSOPHIC THOUGHT Instructor: Taylor Pincin

Considering you will never have a chance to speak, actually reading the books is not necessary. Exam questions are distributed beforehand and are usually somewhat tangentially related to the action book and more directly related to his irrelevant in class discussion. As long as you take good notes on his opinion in class and regurgitate it on the exam, you will get an A. Not that you will know how you're doing, as he does not grade anything until after the semester is over. Midterm and final, no paper.

Bilgrami lectures without notes, yet he is still able to pick up approximately where he left off from the last class. This is a pretty good trick and creates two impressions: that he is paying to attention to what he is saying and that the class is going somewhere. Both are true. His favored class format is a mutation of the Socratic method made popular by televangelists everywhere. Bilgrami will present and defend an seemingly crazy argument until a majority of the class agrees with him, at which point he will change his mind and begin arguing the other side until the majority agrees with him again. Slightly unnerving, this is also a good trick which clearly demonstrates the techniques of philosophical argumentation and, of course, the fact that he is much smarter than any of you. On a good day, he may wax eloquent while standing on one leg for a full hour. The Methods and Problems class is a good introduction to philosophy and a great chance to sit back, listen and learn. Other classes demand quite a bit more, but will probably follow his own work very closely. Regurgitation is always appreciated and well rewarded. Lectures make detailed use of the readings and expect snappy, indignant answers to stupid questions. This man needs and deserves a talkshow.

My thoughts on Bilgrami changed constantly throughout the semester. Should preface this that I am a philosophy major already, so no matter what my thoughts were on the class, I'm pretty committed to that fact. Bilgrami, as other posters have wrote, is very quick to shoot people down. I asked a question on the first day of class, he condescendingly commented on how I phrased the question and (without answering my actual question) moved on. After this, I did not speak the rest of the semester. This is important, because I found his class not only enlightening but incredibly amusing. For example, telling a student that they "bring no distinction to class" was funny (because it wasn't me he was saying it to). The way he constantly show down kids, again to the quiet kid in class, was fun to watch. YOU NEED TO HAVE THICK SKIN TO SURVIVE. He can be quite pompous but once you look at his large body of work, you see that he has every right to be. It's a great class and I felt like I walked out of every class with more questions than when I walked in (which to a Philosophy major, is a good sign). My only complaint was the lack of communication he had with the TAs. If we mentioned something that the TAs had said during the review session, we would sometimes be marked down because it wasn't correct. The grading on the exams, to me, seemed pretty strict for a class with no set course (no p…

There are two basic kinds of philosophy courses at Columbia: Ones that show you what philosophers have said on a certain topic and ones that show you how philosophers have come to those conclusions. Professor Bilgrami's "Philosophy of Language and Mind" (lecture) course falls under the second category. If you are looking for a systematic introduction to PLM, which involves a textbook that has more than 3 editions, a syllabus that gives you the page number for the reading for your 16th class, and a professor who spoon-feeds you with the materials, do yourself a favor and look elsewhere. The review below that begins with "Professor Bilgrami is not an instructor for the faint of heart." perfectly captures my experience in the course, therefore I am not going to repeat my fellow reviewer. Instead, I would like to make a few clarifications: You have to have a certain collection of expectations and characteristics to appreciate the brilliance of Professor Bilgrami: 1) a thick skin 2) the understanding that - similar to math - a philosophy course (for philosophers) is more about how to approach a problem than about how the problem is solved 3) the belief that in class one-on-one debate with the professor is a fantastic opportunity to refine one's arguments and thoughts, even if that means you have to "lose" every time in front of your classmates 4) the attitude that small things (e.g…