PHILOS 191
Variable Topics Research Seminars: Philosophy
Description: Seminar, one hour; discussion, three hours. Variable topics; consult Schedule of Classes or Department Announcements for topic to be offered in specific term. Reading, discussion, and development of culminating project. May be repeated for credit with consent of instructor. P/NP or letter grading.
Units: 4.0
Units: 4.0
1 of 1
AD
Most Helpful Review
Probably the worst philosophy professor at UCLA (up there with Carriero). Another commented claimed that his classes are "intellectual tyranny" -- I could not agree more. Anyone that thinks this man is brilliant needs to take a class with Gavin Lawrence or Sam Cumming. Hsu's points are tangentially connected, he _never_ answers questions in a straightforward manner, his lectures are mishmash of loosely-related claims (note-taking is nigh impossible), and he purposefully chooses the most difficult texts -- in 191, for example, we had to read Strawson's Persons the first week. His deconstruction of philosophical arguments is also abhorrent -- as in, you might as well Google or JSTOR a better explanation. When asked about specific advice on papers, he avoids any sort of direct critique. Once you do get your paper back (with the inevitable B+/A-), his comments are mostly platitudes. I would avoid him. His soft-spoken nature is a facade for intellectual pretentiousness.
Probably the worst philosophy professor at UCLA (up there with Carriero). Another commented claimed that his classes are "intellectual tyranny" -- I could not agree more. Anyone that thinks this man is brilliant needs to take a class with Gavin Lawrence or Sam Cumming. Hsu's points are tangentially connected, he _never_ answers questions in a straightforward manner, his lectures are mishmash of loosely-related claims (note-taking is nigh impossible), and he purposefully chooses the most difficult texts -- in 191, for example, we had to read Strawson's Persons the first week. His deconstruction of philosophical arguments is also abhorrent -- as in, you might as well Google or JSTOR a better explanation. When asked about specific advice on papers, he avoids any sort of direct critique. Once you do get your paper back (with the inevitable B+/A-), his comments are mostly platitudes. I would avoid him. His soft-spoken nature is a facade for intellectual pretentiousness.
1 of 1
