Mark Lilla

Mark Lilla is an exceptional professor. Yes, his teaching requires our deep and thorough engagement with the readings—which are challenging and dense—yet extremely rewarding. Lilla does a great job at contextualizing these philosophers within their own era but also broader intellectual frameworks. While his intelligence is undeniable (he truly is an index of knowledge), the true success of the class really depends on the students—our own drive and curiosity. He encourages us to think critically, challenge his views, surprise him, and take the lead in discussions. In response, he guides us toward deeper interpretations within the text that make us question our own thinking.

I had no idea what to expect going into the course because I didn't know what the Philosophical Life was, and even after having taken the course I still don't know what the Philosophical Life is. Professor Lilla is an incredibly intelligent professor, no doubt, but at times he struggled to keep the course focused on the "philosophical life," whatever it is. We veered erratically between the epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, and aesthetics of various philosophers, but it was never clear to me how these pertained to the philosophical life itself. In fact, I would do the readings, but then when it came time for the seminar, Professor Lilla would have an interpretation of a passage that seemed to come out of left field because the interpretation came from a broader context of the passage within the work or other scholarly work. This is exacerbated by the fact that Professor Lilla demands that we not utilize outside sources to help us. I think the course is incredibly ambitious in its scope, but it comes to the detriment of the students being able to effectively engage with the material when it seems that a proper understanding of the material isn't possible until Professor Lilla provides other scholarly interpretations of the work in the seminar that would've helped us earlier. Because of this, it's less of a seminar and more of a mini-lecture with sporadic call-outs to discuss…

Content: This class depends a large amount, if not mostly, on the text Lilla picks, which varies from semester to semester. If you don’t want to spend a whole semester reading one author or even just one work by the author. Don’t take the class. On the other hand, the texts are important and compelling texts and if you want to really understand the way an author thinks or the way the argument develops, changes then follow your interest and immerse yourself for a semester. Grades: You will not receive any formal feedback until you receive your final grade. This is an unusual but important rebuff to constant reaffirmation in other classes. Though Lilla will highlight the “papers” or comments he thought were good at the beginning of class and you will have a sense of how he feels about your comments in class but you will know have concrete feedback until you receive your grade. It is worth nothing: the weekly posts are 50% of your grade and your final paper (which you will have lots and lots of time to write) will be the other 50%. Overall: If you want to improve your critical thinking skills, writing skills, speaking skills––all of your skills you should take Lilla’s class. The students who take Lilla’s classes are intelligent, thoughtful and hardworking; you will learn as much (if not more) from them, their posts and their thoughts as you do from Lilla.

The seminar entitled “History of the self: Tocqueville” offers the opportunity of a close reading of Democracy in America by Tocqueville. It certainly helps one improving his analytical skills and critical thinking while expanding his/her knowledge in political science. The main focus is on French and American history of the 18th and 19th century as well as political philosophy from Montaigne to Tocqueville. This class helps understanding European and the US political regimes through a refreshing comparative approach. Mr Lilla is incredibly cultivated and mixes theory with anecdotes and contemporary analysis to make students commit more easily to Tocqueville. His appreciation of French and American cultures is very thoughtful. He also opens the discussion to numerous contemporary debates without imposing any particular view and students have room to express and challenge their opinions. I might have actually enjoyed the class to be a little more theoretical at times. I felt some students were running away from the fascinating political science and close reading through raising contemporary issues poorly.

Taking Professor Lilla's class for Lithum was the best decision I made as a freshman. Lithum lives or dies with your professor, and few teachers are more qualified than Lilla to teach the western classics. Even a cursory perusal of any of his books or articles for the New York Review of Books reveals his astounding facility with western literature and philosophy. Lilla's method of teaching Lithum is "old school." In class Lilla's focus was primarily on uncovering and discussing the "timeless philosophical themes" of the texts we read, and little time was spent doing textual or literary analysis. If you are interested in discussing the iniquity of a curriculum composed of "dead white males" then Lilla is certainly not the professor for you. Lilla has little patience for contemporary notions of political correctness, though he never discounts the opinions of his students. More than anything Lilla strives to stimulate debate in class and would often challenge students to motivate their arguments or ideological presuppositions. Besides being supremely knowledgeable, Lilla was a remarkably caring teacher as well. He arranged for every student to meet with him personally during office hours solely in order to get to know his students better beyond the classroom.

Reading these CULPA reviews made me skeptical of taking this class at first. But let me tell you, I couldn't be happier that I did. First of all, Professor Lilla treats his students with the respect and expected us to perform at a college level. I'm sure many Freshmen were intimidated by this, but I really think this class was a great introduction to what college courses are like. We engaged with the texts in this course at a much higher level than other LitHum classes. Our classes were basically an open forum for discussion of higher themes and philosophical concepts that made us challenge our beliefs and get outside of our comfort zones. As someone who took AP Literature in high school, I was so sick of spending copious amounts of time analyzing symbolism, metaphors and other basic stylistic tools. In Lilla's class, while we did discuss and break down the writing styles of various authors, the objective was to get to a larger level of understanding about specific cultures and the moral progression of western civilization. I loved this spin on LitHum and appreciated the chance to think at a higher level like this. I also learned so much from my peers in this class and I think we all reached a level of understanding and respect for each other. So in short - do not be intimidated at first by other reviews or by the first class in which Lilla tells his students that "this is not…

This class was co-taught with Alan Brinkley, but Lilla generally facilitated most of the discussion. He was extremely effective in generating thoughtful discussion. He's not afraid to challenge you if he thinks you're on the wrong track, and will follow up on what you say in case it is unclear what you meant. At times though, I felt that the conversations we were having started to drift away from historical analysis, focusing merely on whether or not the particular conservatives we were reading were right or wrong in what they believed. Lilla is concerned primarily with the history of ideas, and so it seemed to me that he was more interested in the ideas themselves than (as I often wanted to discuss) what made this or that idea possible or relevant at this or that particular time. I think I definitely benefitted from his approach, though, even though I might have wanted to take things in another direction. In general I think the readings (mostly Lilla's choices, it seemed) were very appropriate and interesting, expressing most of the important thought in each area/period of conservatism we covered. Many might disagree with me, but I would have liked actually to see more secondary sources on the syllabus, but that's just my interest in not-exclusively-intellectual history talking.

Like Professor Lilla warned us at the beginning of the course, it is NOT a history class. I would only recommend this class to people who are curious about the author in question for the content of what they wrote rather than their contributions to history. 1 Columbia University: Arts & Sciences Fall 2024 Course: HISTGU4363_001_2024_3-PascalandtheModernSelf : HISTGU4363_001_2024_3 - Pascal and the Modern Self Instructor: Mark Lilla

Everything you could want to know about Tocqueville's Democracy in America, the democratic psychology, and the grim future for our democratic society. You also acquire great life skills and sage wisdom from an incredible professor and scholar.

If you happen to be browsing Culpa for history professors and randomly find Mark Lilla, or are remotely interested in his provocative class titles, or already have experience with his thought via the New York Review of Books, you’re in luck. You’ve found Columbia’s secret sauce. Prof. Lilla’s teaching convinced me that studying history was the right way to go, but more importantly defined my academic existence as junior unsure of his next academic steps. It is admittedly hard to provide anything more than a gestalt review of Lilla’s classes; taking a course with him (and the cohort of undergraduates and graduates who religiously enroll in his seminars) is really an experience in itself. I’ll try my best. Professor Lilla structures his classes in the following way: He identifies an important theme or author in intellectual history (Pascal, Rousseau, Montaigne, the self, education, etc.), and provides a hyper-focused syllabus aimed at investigating this topic. The key is depth, not breadth, and the assigned readings every week are usually short yet demanding. In his Pascal class, we read the entirety of Pascal’s Pensées and some of Montaigne’s Essais for context. While the assigned readings may only have been 50 pages or so per week, the material required a lot of time and contemplation (the Rousseau readings, it should be said, were considerably longer). If you are not interest…