Philip Kitcher

Do NOT take this class. Especially if your TA is some guy named Borhane. Yes this class is only based on essays, but if it is on such a subjective topic, that leads way for the TA to say whatever he wants about it. If you don't agree with his viewpoints, he can pretty much just mark you down... and for a class that is based on such a subjective topic, that's what tends to happen.

This class was one of the best academic experiences I've had. Kitcher is a fantastic lecturer; very clear, well organized, and detail oriented. He structured the class in an accessible way, starting off with the "easier" books and working into Ulysses, which took up the majority of the semester. We went one chapter per class through U., which is the only way to really study the book in detail, with all its intricacies and nuance. It's a lot of tough reading, but very rewarding, and I can't imagine that there is a better professor out there with whom to study this material. Kitcher has read all of these books many times (as he admitted in class, and as is evident as well from his depth of knowledge), which is quite an asset in a professor for a first-time reader of Joyce. This literature is unique in that it takes a lot of guidance to even get the basic techniques and premises, not to mention the subtleties and upper-structural elements, and Kitcher did a great job of not losing sight of this fact. He always kept his lectures grounded in the foundations of the three books while also hitting upon more subjective or elusive material. I found that as I became comfortable with the former, the latter started to become more and more interesting and rewarding to study. Take this class if at all possible. It's worth it even for non-lit majors.

Really, you don't need me to add anything to the many glowing reviews already posted here; until he's nominated for sainthood, there really isn't going to be much else to say about this kind and brilliant man. But let me add a couple things to keep in mind when taking a seminar class with Professor Kitcher, especially Lit Hum: (1) If, like me, you are unbearably shy, and the thought of taking a seminar in which "participation" is part of your grade is among your worst fears, then Philip Kitcher is your man. He is exceedingly understanding in this department, and will gladly allow you to submit written responses to readings before class if you ask his permission at the beginning of the semester. Best of all, though, Professor K is so thoughtful and receptive a discussion leader that, by the end of the semester, he'll be able to draw out even the quietest students in class. (2) If you aren't willing to scrutinize every sentence you put into an essay and ask yourself, "What exactly am I saying here?" then Philip Kitcher is most certainly not your man. He is brutal—I mean this in the best way—when it comes to picking apart every aspect of your argument, which means that you will learn more about writing from his red ink and meeting with him during office hours than you'll ever learn in UWriting (which may not be saying much, but you get the point). Don't expect to get away with cl…

I agree that Prof. Kitcher is a mind-numbingly brilliant teacher - certainly one of the best I have met at Columbia. His knowledge of the texts is ABSOLUTELY EXTRAORDINARY. This guy is a magician. His ability to make use of a mere two hours to give us a complete, clear, interesting appraisal of texts must be the envy of the entire scholarly world. The only disappointment was that he wasn't teaching both semesters. But then, hey, who steps in, but his wife! An equal, or even greater superpower in philosophy, but a marginally less-skilled teacher. You would be incredibly lucky to be taught by her, and to be taught by both would prove in most books the existence of a benificent God, had not they dispelled that notion in class. Taken together, this CC sequence is the gem of the department, even Columbia.

Each class was conducted exactly the same. Individuals were required to present their weekly responses regarding the reading to the class. They were then commented upon by Kitcher, other students... and then on to the next person. The format became pretty stagnent early on. However, the weekly responses were an excellent way to be engaged in the reading. Kitcher himself is obviously extremely well read and in touch with the works in this course (Capital, Wealth of Nations, On Liberty, etc). He related his views to the class in what was often an engaging and animated way. However, Kitcher does have a tendency to downgrade opinions and interpretation that conflict with his own -- and he does not do so in a terribly accommodating manner. Rather, you feel as though you cannot pursue your interpretation for fear of a bad grade. This is not to say he that Kitcher is not a good professor. Many professors, especially in the Philosophy department, suffer from this hang up. As an individual, Kitcher is extremely approachable and human (I say this, because I sometimes doubt the humanity of professors -- often out of touch with everything but their field of study)

Really horrible. Kitcher's rhetoric is good so at first it seems like it's going to be a good class. at some point you realize he said absolutely nothing substantial, and you just wasted an hour-fifteen of your life. obviously people seem to like him, there's a little cult around him, but I think the negative reviewers have a point. hate to say - but, nothing but bells & airs. not much more than a pompous Brit. I was bored.

Bearded, gaunt, coming to class each day with hunched back and hat in hand and addressing his congregation in the limpid tones of Received Pronunciation, Philip Kitcher is the walking embodiment of Britannitas. His was a particularly British geekdom - at one point, he claimed to have first read Finnegans Wake when he was in his early teens - and he has fulfilled this kind of depressing promise to become a premiere philosopher of science, a prominent atheist, a Columbia philosophy professor, and now the lecturer for Joyce class. Perhaps a representative anecdote would be useful. On the first day of class, Kitcher ingressed in his usual manner and dress. He went over to the computer and crooned, "I really don't know how to work this thing!" A few pictures - Dublin in the twenties and the nineties, an ontogeny of Joyce - were shown, until the technophobic cry was repeated and someone came to the rescue. This should give you a pretty good idea of the timbre of Kitcher, and the timbre of his class. His intellectual achievements dazzled anyone with the wherewithal to look them up - and, I'm guessing from the composition of the class, this was most everyone - but at core he's just an average White person who's a little smarter than the rest. Of course, this meant that when he lectured about this dizzyingly complicated literature on simple subjects in plainspoken English, the class wa…

I can't believe that there are negative reviews on here. Philip Kitcher was a wonderful professor who knew how to somehow wrap up a text in 2 hours without fail. No matter how complex, the main points were driven home, with some interesting discussion in between. I also do not think that it's fair to say that Kitcher picked favorites. He did call on some people more often than others, but those were the people who tended to raise their hands. Why pick on someone who clearly doesn't want to talk? Furthermore, I think that even if he suspected someone had something not all that intelligent to share, he would still call on them and then go on to move the class effortlessly. His grading is humourously easy. I can't say for sure, but everyone I know got between a 93 and 100 on the midterm, and I woulddn't be surprised if it was the same for the final. The essays (at least in my case) were graded similarly easily. As long as you "showed intelligence" he seemed to like what you wrote. He did like to repeatedly say how good our class was, but it still was a bit unbelievable. Other than that, enjoy yourself and feel fortunate you were/are so lucky to have him as a teacher! One last note, you might want to transfer second semester. See the other Kitcher's reviews for an explanation.

Weekly Responses (graded relatively easily) 50%, Final Paper (expected 10-15 pages) 50%

The review below is an perfect example of a resentful student who is unsatisfied with his/her grade and blames it all on the professor. The first essay was graded relatively harshly, however, if you did well on the second and the third, you would still get an A range grade even if you got a C plus for your first essay. Professor Kitcher and the TAs are all very patient and encouraging. They want you to do well - given that you make an effort - and take something out of this rather large lecture. This was my first philosophy class and I was very grateful of how much I learned about religion and the sophistication of its debate with science. The course is certainly not a belief-changing experience (and shouldn't be), but it definitely helps you appreciate both sides of the debate more and reexamine your own position. Professor Kitcher is a fantastic lecturer: you will also find out that he has the potential of becoming a great actor after listening to his reading of The Brothers Karamazov. In general this is a great and unique into to philosophy. Instead of "avoid[ing]" it, one should seek it out if one can. Before I end this review I would like to point out two fallacies in the previous review: 1) Professor Kitcher certainly did not say "humanity is developing on the right track, and we are becoming more 'moral' and "ethical' as history goes by." Ironically, this was the view h…