Module Type: Seminar

Class Size: ~17

Lecturer: Professor Abelard Podgorski

Grading Structure:

• Attendance & Participation - 15%

• Weekly Reading Responses (10 in total) - 20%

• Hot Take Presentation - 25%

• 3000 word Final Essay (4000 words for PH5430) - 40%

• Short essay for HM students - Additional 25%

Review #1

Module Content:

This iteration of PH4203 is about the relationship between different types of value, and their relationship with time. Some questions we explored were: Is it better for life to start poorly and end well, or start well and end poorly?; Is it rational for us, in the present, to show care/preference for our future children?; Is it rational to preemptively punish someone for a future crime?; Is it rational to preemptively forgive someone for a future wrong action?; Is it rational to consent to an action that has occurred in the past? etc.

Assignment Structure:

Weekly reading responses are to be submitted at 2359 the day before the seminar. Responses typically consist of briefly summarising the paper, followed by making some sort of response to the paper (critique a claim/refute author’s position/provide more reasons why author is correct etc.). Abelard will give you full marks for each assignment if you put in a decent amount of effort to do your response (I found out the hard way by half-assing one of them). Rough guide should be around 1-2 pages per assignment (I wrote about 400-500 words per response).

Two students were to do a ‘Hot Take Presentation’ each week. The presentation could be about anything ethics related. A handout accompanying the presentation was to be prepared by the student presenting (the quality of the handouts varied greatly between each student). I suspect that Abelard graded the presentation very liberally and it was meant to be a free 25%.

Final Essay was due on the Wednesday of reading week. Abelard gave plenty of paper ideas at the end of every seminar.

The short essay for HM students was due at the same time as the final paper. It was sort of a hybrid between a final essay and a reading response. 1200-1500 words.

Tutor Feedback:

Abelard Podgorski. I took his 2k Greek Philosophy class and I quite enjoyed it. However, I found his 4k class a little too free flowing and loosely organised. I understand that it is a seminar, but I would have preferred it if there was a little more structure and moderation of student discussion.

Weekly Workload:

Quite manageable, readings were relatively short. The amount of essay writing was also quite okay for a 4k class.

Expected Grade: A

Actual Grade: A+

Recommended For:

Those interested in ethics.

Module Type: —

Class Size: ~10

Supervisor: Prof Abelard Podgorski

Grading Structure:

• Honours Thesis Presentation

• Honours Thesis Submission

Review #1

Module Content:

Independent research project focused on a philosophical topic of your choice.

Assignment Structure:

1 year-long module. HT presentation in the first semester, thesis submission in the second semester.

Tutor Feedback:

Overall, Prof Abelard's style as a supervisor works best if you are a person who is disciplined in taking the initiative to do the research and meet milestones in your HT process.

Prof Abelard, for the most part, will avoid trying to stress you by chasing you to write drafts or asking you for updates. As such, it is up to you to track your own progress and seek help when necessary (of which he is more than willing to meet up/give you feedback).

He offers very good advice in structuring your thesis and is willing to brainstorm ideas with you/offer new perspectives to your arguments that you may have missed.

(Approached him to do a thesis on ethics in video games, so if you are interested in that area you can find him!)

Weekly Workload:

_

Expected Grade: A-

Actual Grade: A+

Recommended For:

For those who wish to delve deeper into a particular philosophical topic and experience what is required to research and formulate an original concept.

AY20/21

Module Type: —

Class Size: ~10

Supervisor: Prof Ben Blumson

Grading Structure:

• 30min Thesis Presentation, 15min Q&A. 12,000 word maximum thesis. Percentage breakdown not revealed to students.

Review #1

Module Content:

Pick a topic in philosophy and discuss it substantively (argue for something)

Assignment Structure:

Depends on your prof. No weekly assignments, meetings as and when.

Tutor Feedback:

10/10 if you are into aesthetics, metaphysics, and you know what you want to write about and don't like being pressured. Blumson doesn't push you for deliverables because 1. you're an adult 2. it's your thesis 3. you probably already know when its due. Gotta be an independent student / scholar to excel in this module. One thing though is that Blumson will always give you frank advice and opinions that you've asked for, but he won't always give you directions on where to take the thesis. The direction has to come from you.

Weekly Workload:

You have the freedom to decide which readings are relevant to your thesis topic. Thesis is a huge timesink though, because there's always more to read. I wouldn't recommend doing this module with other high intensity modules.

Expected Grade: A

Actual Grade: A+

Recommended For:

Students who want the freedom to thoroughly explore a philosophical topic in depth, with a professional philosopher's advice, opinions on minute details, and comments on drafts available throughout the process. (Comments on drafts probably depends on which profs you have as your advisors)

Other Comments/Tips:

Pick your advisor early! As in, before week 0! Have an idea of what you want to write your thesis on before reaching out. Professors have no obligation to advise honours theses so keep that in mind before reaching out!

Module Type: Seminar

Class Size: 2 🤣

Lecturer: Professor Lavinia Picollo

Grading Structure:

• Two Essay Questions - 25%

• Problem Set - 25%

• Participation - 10%

• Essay - 40%

Review #1

Module Content:

Prof. Lavinia's iteration of the module is about logicism in the first half of the module, and neo-logicism (abstractionism) in the second. The first half mostly dives a little deeper into Frege's logicist project, something I think one would have encountered in an introductory philo of math course, Russell's Paradox, as well as learning a little formal stuff (second-order logic and most importantly, Frege's Theorem). The second half basically discusses how some philosophers (i.e., neo-Fregeans/neo-logicists) seek to establish a project that Frege himself kinda rejected. So very crudely, the module is about attempts to reduce arithmetic to logic. The primary motivation for this is to show *one possible way we can come to learn about mathematics* (assuming that we are "endowed with" logic), which is a key issue in the philo of math. A secondary interesting motivation, I think, is also because quite a bit of classical mathematics (or at the very least, mathematical analysis) can be "built up" from arithmetic, and so if such attempts are successful, then it would be quite a feat indeed. But this is not without question though, because we do not seem to have a clearly defined idea of what logic is as well. So questions like this would also be touched on during the course, notwithstanding the main topics that include the epistemology and metaphysics of logicism/neo-logicism, and the problems that Frege identified with the core tenets of neo-logicism. There is also one section of the course that delves into philosophy of language - analyticity/syntheticity and definitions within the context of logicism/neo-logicism.

Assignment Structure:

The two short "essay" questions were very short and only 300 words each. The problem set was very short too. Both were very manageable. The last essay is about 2500 words, which I think is somewhat shorter (thankfully) for a Level-4000 module (?), and you can write about anything you want, as usual!

Tutor Feedback:

Prof. Lavinia is a very good facilitator and teacher. She is very knowledgeable and able to explain ideas and concepts clearly and precisely. Seminars are structured well and the flow of topics is purposeful. However, I think she may have overestimated students at times (or at least I personally felt that way 🤣).

Weekly Workload:

The readings were without question the most difficult philosophical readings I had the opportunity to read so far (though some were really meaningful where I could somewhat understand them!). Special mention goes to one reading that was basically a math paper (iykyk). The readings drew upon many many areas of philosophy, logic, and mathematics, so it is a very holistic course. Seminars were largely participation-based as we followed clear handouts prepared by Prof. Lavinia, and I was very grateful that there were auditing students who spoke up frequently. Many a time I didn't really know what to say or ask mostly because I did not understand or did not have enough time to read the readings, but these students made the learning experience much much better. Hence, one ought to take into account that while the first two assignments are relatively straightforward, much much much much more time ought to be allocated to the readings in order to have a better learning experience during the physical seminars (an online forum is also set up to ask questions and post memes!). Additionally, a possible hiccup one might face with the problem set is that there are seemingly next to none introductory resources on second-order logic, so do pay attention in class, though I don't think anyone should have much trouble as it is quite similar to FOL and Prof. Lavinia was kind to pick questions that are basically similar to introductory logic questions, only with second-order notation. For the final essay, some big obstacles were coming up with something to write about and actually, really, properly attempting to understand the topics you want to write on. She doesn't really provide essay prompts but you can feel free to bounce your ideas off her. In sum, assignments are manageable, but the content is really difficult.

Expected Grade: B+

Actual Grade: A+

Recommended For:

Recommended for Fregeans and anyone interested in the intersections of philosophy, logic, and mathematics. The topics in the second half of the course are particularly recent.

Other Comments / Tips:

Anyone attending Prof. Lavinia's classes might wish (or rather, ought) to re-study FOL just a little bit more formally and thoroughly, and refresh/learn classic ideas and concepts in the philosophy of language and metaphysics (or analytic philosophy in general).

Module Type: Seminar

Class Size: 20

Lecturer: Professor Abelard Podgorski

Grading Structure:

• Participation - 15%

• Essay 1: 30%

• Essay 2: 40%

• Class Presentation: 15%

Review #1

Module Content:

The module focuses on the ethics of nudging. The first few weeks will introduce the concept of nudging and how it has been integrated into society through public policies. Various behavioural biases will then be explored to demonstrate the mechanisms of nudging. Students will explore existing arguments for and against the backbone of nudging - paternalism.

Assignment Structure:

Essay 1 - 1.5K words (Prompt Given)
Class Presentation - around 20-30 mins (Group-based)
Essay 2 - 3K words (DIY Topic)

Tutor Feedback:

Prof Abelard Podgorski. Overall, it is a very chill module especially since it is a 4K module. Prof Abelard is rather laidback, during my sem it was his first time teaching the module, so he was still figuring out the contents as we went along (literally typing the slides out as he taught). He is very open to questions but there are times where he may digress if he fails to understand your question or is unable to come up with an answer. The class is better when people are chattier and more participative, if not sometimes awkward silences are to be expected as he waits for our responses. He occasionally gives prompts of what could be a final essay idea throughout the seminars so if you are paying attention and need ideas this is helpful.

Weekly Workload:

-

Expected Grade: A

Actual Grade: A+

Recommended For:

People interested in philosophy of politics that concern free will, equality and the ethics of public policies.

Other Comments / Tips:

Prof Abelard tends to prefer papers that present a clear logical argument (e.g., If P then Q arguments). Focusing your paper along those lines will most likely give you a better grade.

Module Type: Seminar

Class Size: ~20 students

Lecturer: Professor Moonyoung Song

Grading Structure:

• Participation - 10%

• Short Written Response One - 15%

• Short Written Response Two - 15%

• Presentation - 15%

• Final Long Paper - 45%

Review #1

Module Content:

Prof. Song's iteration of PH4203 is about how moral reasons work. Topics, as far as I can remember, include stuff like moral particularism and generalism, the aggregation of reasons, the weights of reasons, and the comparability of reasons. For instance, one of the motivating questions asks why we ought to think that there are general moral principles like utilitarianism at all. We would then check out arguments by moral particularists to find out why we might not aspire to think so. Next, we might want to ask what is it that gives reasons weights, or what makes a fact about the world a reason or stuff like that. We also kind of want to understand what is it that ties reasons together. We seem to be working with some assumption in our daily decisions that reasons can compile together (additively? or other ways?), or that they can even be 'compiled' together in the first place. We might then check out frameworks that aim to structure answers to these motivating questions. However, I also can't really remember the topics very well, and am being super super sloppy with my words here, so as usual, check out the SEP on moral particularism/generalism and perhaps Ruth Chang's papers on comparability to get a more accurate and precise taster of the topics.

Assignment Structure:

The main assessments to complete were the short responses (about 500-1000 words) to complete, plus a long final paper (about 3000-3500 words I think since I wrote something like that, I'm sorry I can't really remember). We also had to create a handout for a presentation, which would start and motivate the relevant discussions for class. Short reponses were about picking out and formalising a specific argument from a specific reading, and making a short evaluation. The final paper offers a more substantive opportunity to develop a response to just one specific reading, or to questions posed by Prof. Song that ties together different readings and topics together. I think Prof. Song encourages the latter sort of attempt --- it is more challenging afterall!

(Editor’s note: Moonyoung doesn’t have a maximum word limit, but minimum word limit, and for the final paper, it ranged from 1500 to 2500 depending on whether you did the second short paper and whether it was an expansion of an earlier paper, etc)

Tutor Feedback:

Assistant Professor Moonyoung Song. Prof. Song is very friendly! Given that seminars were largely discussion-based, she was a good facilitator and made sure to focus our discussions precisely and to clarify any mistaken assumptions we were making. Discussions were a little quiet as times, no thanks to people like me as well hahahaha, but I think it would only get better as it was Prof. Song's first semester teaching! Also, the class format was like a hybrid part-Zoom, part-physical thing as well due some of us being at risk of COVID infections, so this might be a contributing factor to sometimes-a-little-quiet/disconnected discussions. But again I believe this will not be an issue in the future.

Weekly Workload:

Readings were really heavy for me! Assigned readings were initially about two 20-40 pages readings per week, but it was not so much about the length, but maybe about the new topics and concepts that made it a little tedious at times, and there do not seem to be much solid groundwork laid or any structured end goals in sight, but this may be a plus point in itself, as I write below. Prof. Song also recognised that the readings were too heavy as well, or at least we did not have enough time during seminars to discuss them in depth, and made only one reading compulsory per week, which was helpful! However, I only managed to barely skim the compulsory readings as well hahaha, but I think it was good enough to participate in the discussions, or at least understand what was going on. All else fails, just ask questions no worries!

Expected Grade: B+

Actual Grade: A

Recommended For:

I am not sure if Prof. Song will repeat this module's topics, but those who are interested in moral reasoning may find the module appealing! Further, the topics discussed were relatively 'new' or 'modern' in the sense that debates are still ongoing, and largely started quite recently maybe within the last few decades I think haha maybe even 1990s or 2000s, so quite a few opportunities to discuss new stuff not really talked about in common undergraduate philosophy modules. In addition, I have not taken any moral philosophy class before (whether normative or meta), and was able to somewhat follow the class, so do not worry about the new topics! Prof. Song was also kind enough to let me into the class even though I had not met the pre-requisites for the module, so feel free to email her if you are interested in it!

Module Type: Seminar

Class Size: ~20 students

Lecturer: Professor Neiladri Sinhababu

Grading Structure:

• Attendance and participation – 20%

• Short paper – 1500 words – 25%

• Final paper presentation – 5%

• Final paper – 3000 words – 50%

Review #1

Module Content:

Going through some of the more famous works by Nietzsche, ranging from Daybreak, to Thus Spoke Zarathustra, to Twilight of the Idols. Examine the history and writings of one of the earliest proto-existentialists from the 19th century (unlike what you've heard, Nietzsche is not a nihilist, unless you take some of his first writings out of context).

Assignment Structure:

Show up to the seminar. Ask questions. As I'm sure you've heard, Prof Neil doesn't really have much of a structure to his seminars and he tends to direct things towards his own research. But if you have something you're interested in or an aphorism you think is interesting, bring it up and try to force an answer out of him.

Writing papers on Nietzsche will be quite different from your standard analytical philosophy papers - a lot of the writing is dedicated to interpreting Nietzsche's work. But the interesting papers will also connect these interpretations to more interesting topics like Nietzsche's metaethics (Neil's favourite), his conception of the ubermensch, or anything that you may find interesting that seems to have an overarching structure in his works.

The presentation is quite lax, just go up there and present what you have to the class and they'll give you feedback. When others are presenting, make sure to try to give good feedback too. Don't see this as a sort of thesis defense where you have to have a substantial defense of your paper, go there to fish for ideas and objections.

Tutor Feedback:

Prof Neil is, admittedly, one of the more relaxed professors who doesn't focus on his teaching skills. That might be offputting for a lot of people, and I understand. If you're the type that needs a bit more guidance, try not to take his classes. You will benefit the most from his classes only if you are a little more aggressive with your questions to him. Tailor your questions so that he will answer in the way that you want, and to tease out some of the more interesting connections, otherwise he'll just go on a spiel on his own work. Of course, don't be too aggressive and make sure other people get a turn to ask questions as well.

Weekly Workload:

Readings are pretty long and incredibly vague or 'deep'. This is one of the criticisms of Nieztsche, that he writes so terribly even when he criticizes other philosophers for being vague. Prof Neil will pick a few chapters for you to read, though sometimes it can be up to a hundred or more pages. Don't let this discourage you though. It's enough for the class to just skim through the readings to pick out a few aphorisms that you find interesting and would like to try making connections between. Nieztsche often writes in aphorisms, meaning short truisms or stories, and they are often a paragraph or sometimes a sentence long. They are also often self contained, meaning you can read them on their own without losing too much of the content, although a more thorough reading would definitely make connections between the different aphorisms.

Expected Grade: A-

Actual Grade: A

Recommended For:

Anyone who wants to be an ubermensch

Anyone who's sick of people trying to be an ubermensch and wants to prove them wrong

Those who are more inclined to the continental type of philosophy, or are interested in literature and interpretations of works

People who can't spell Nietsczhe correctly

Other Comments / Tips:

N/A

Module Type: Seminar

Class Size: ~15 students

Lecturer: Professor Ethan Jerzak

Grading Structure:

(I forgot the percentages and it's not on LumiNUS sorry!)

• Attendance and participation

• Short paper XOR Presentation on one of the topics

• Final paper presentation

• Final paper

Review #1

Module Content:

The module content is split into 3 units:

Unit 1 was about the semantics of conditionals. We examined the usual basics for philo of lang, Frege and Russell, then went into the disadvantages of using the material conditional to model the English "if... then". Several other theories for modelling it like Stalnaker and McGee were examined, and McGee even gave a counterexample to Modus Ponens, which was interesting.

Unit 2 was about the semantics of attitude reports. Basically how we might use possible world semantics to model statements about other people's beliefs and desires, and whether or not they presuppose different things. Very fun stuff if you're a philosophy of language nerd like me.

Unit 3 was a combination of both the first units: How do attitude reports interact with conditionals in weird ways? Are there any theories of attitude report semantics that don't work when embedded under conditionals? Is it weird to say: "If Bill is at the airport, then Sue is surprised."?

Assignment Structure:

During the seminars, Prof Jerzak will go through the readings and then call for discussion or clarification. He's not super structured in teaching but he explains the material very well and answers questions passionately.

As this was one of his first classes teaching, he left a bit of it up to us, hence there was the choice for a short essay (exclusive) or presenting one of the papers. Personally I chose to present one of the papers because I thought it was pretty interesting and was one of the papers I wanted to read to supplement my thesis. So if you're presenting, you'll basically replace Prof Jerzak for the first part of the class for about 30mins and talk about the paper, and he'll take over for discussion and clarification. This means that your deadline for the presentation can either be much earlier or much later than those doing the paper, since it depends which reading you chose to do the presentation on. It also means that you'll be tested more on your explanation and interpretation skills rather than argumentation.

If you chose to do the paper, then he'll give a list of questions that you can attempt and you just do one of those, pretty standard stuff. He tends to have a page rather than word limit and is a little bit more flexible on that if you have pictures/graphs. Doing a paper also helps yu gain more feedback for the final paper.

Final paper presentations are the usual lax presentations in philosophy: it's mainly just to gain feedback. No need to go there having your whole thing written out and having to defend it.

For the final paper, you get to choose whichever topic you'd like, even if it's not explicitly covered in the module, as long as there's some relation to the units. Personally I chose to write against Prof Jerzak's paper which was... challenging.

Tutor Feedback:

Prof Jerzak is a really fun guy and is incredibly passionate about philosophy. He can go off on a tangent sometimes, but he does his best to answer questions and to make class interesting for everyone. He also loves Beyonce and keeps bringing her up as an example.

Weekly Workload:

Readings are pretty short, but can get quite confusing if you don't give it a good read. It will help to have a good background in logic, since a lot of the authors use logical notation to illustrate things. Also be sure to read up a little bit on possible world semantics, since it will be important to understand some of them.

Expected Grade: A

Actual Grade: A+

Recommended For:

Philosophy of language nerds

Linguistics majors or anyone who is interested in formal semantics

Other Comments / Tips:

Side note: There was this life-changing reading where Stalnaker talks about propositions with a response from someone called Lawrence Powers who absolutely destroyed Stalnaker, go look it up

Module Type: Seminar

Lecture Size: 9 students

Lecturer: Dr Ben Blumson

Grading Structure:

• 40% Assignment 1

• 60% Assignment 2.

(It was supposed to be 20% Assignment 1, 30% Assignment 2, and 50% Final Essay, but things changed during the semester)

Review #1

Module Content:

Higher Order Modal Logic, and it's applications in modelling different types of modalities, such as Deontic Logic, Doxastic Logic, Epistemic Logic. The ultimate goal of the module however, is to equip students with the theoretical apparatuses necessary to be in a position to assess arguments involving Modal Logic, particularly, Gödel's ontological proof for God's existence.

Assignment Structure:

We were introduced to new logics every week, closely following Graham Priest's textbook "An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic: From If to Is", at a pace of roughly 1 chapter per week.

Assignment 1 involved creating a parody of Gödel's ontological proof for God's existence. Assignment 2 involved solving 10 philosophical problems involving modal logic. This includes completing the proof, and following up with a short write up on the significance of the results (the focus of course, depends on the question and the subject matter).

Tutor Feedback:

Dr Blumson is, I find, one of the most supportive and patient professors I have met. I went in knowing nothing but Natural Deduction style First Order Logic from GET1028, but by the end of the course I found myself quite comfortable with Tableaux style Second Order Modal Logic proofs. Seminars consisted of a small group, and I was able to ask questions as necessary and Dr Blumson was always more than happy to entertain our questions.

Weekly Workload:

Very manageable. The module content is a little different from other 4k modules because learning how to complete proofs seems to me to be an almost 'kinesthetic' modality of learning-- that is, I had to DO the proof, to understand the content, rather than read about it.

Perhaps it's more appropriate to say that since assessment was crammed into the assignments which took up almost all of the assessment criteria, I was able to calmly enjoy seminar which was honestly just devoted to learning and asking questions and trying to get all the details of the proof system down, and so the seminars were not stressful at all.

That is not to say that the assignments were easy though.

For the first assignment, I needed to pay very close attention to the logical moves made by Gödel's ontological proof, and that included various, I think, subtle moves and corollaries. To take that and to present a compelling parody argument takes effort.

For the second assignment, I would caution against being relieved on the grounds of it consisting of "only 10 questions". Each question tends to have multiple parts, and the proofs build on the introduction of new content, making them challenging. The most difficult questions involved higher order modal logic proofs which took at least two pages. And on top of the proofs, you are expected to provide some philosophical discussion of its significance based on a prompt each question provides.

On the flip side though, being able to handle the assignments means being able to handle the module, and so it was very manageable for me.

Expected Grade: A

Actual Grade: A+

Recommended For:

Possible world semantics is a very useful tool not just for reasoning about metaphysical questions regarding possibility and necessity, but also for reasoning about different kinds of modals such as deontic, doxastic, and epistemic modals, and this module forces you to engage and familiarize yourself with possible world semantics in the gentlest, most supportive way possible.

It goes without saying that anyone interested in logical systems would find this module fruitful, but it should also be emphasized that the takeaways are much broader than simply learning several logical languages, since Dr Blumson is always eager to apply these logics to different topics in philosophy and discuss whatever insights one may potentially glean from such applications.

Other Comments / Tips:

I did learn a significant amount about Gödel's ontological proof for God's existence, but it seems that that wasn't really the focus of the module. It was more like we were presented the proof in the beginning, wrote a parody argument about it, and came back to it at the end. But nevertheless, everything else I learnt more than made up for this.

Also. Do seek help from your peers. The assignments can be quite daunting alone, but I find that working on the proofs with a peer who is just as lost as you, and who is just as willing as you to try, is more than sufficient to be able to work through the assignment. Dr Blumson is okay with (and in fact, encourages) cooperation for the proof part of the assignment, and that played a large part in taking away the pressure I faced during this module.

Module Type: Seminar

Lecture Size: 15-20

Lecturer: Professor Bob Beddor

Grading Structure:

• Attendance/Participation (15%)

• First Paper (30%) ~1000 words

• Individual Presentation (15%)

• Final Paper (40%) ~3500 words

Review #1

Module Content:

Since there's already a review from when the module was taught by Prof. Barnett, I'll focus on how Prof. Beddor teaches the module differently.

The previous review says that Prof. Barnett's module is suited for people "who want a bit of a break from stuff about justification and knowledge" and that it focuses "focuses a lot on rationality and credences". Prof. Beddor's module is definitely NOT like this. In fact it is very much about justification and knowledge that Prof. Barnett is shifting away from. The main text from Prof. Beddor's module is Knowledge and its Limits (KAIL) by Timothy Williamson--so the module is very much primarily about knowledge. I doubt Prof. Beddor will change his syllabus anytime soon, so those seeking something 'non-traditional', maybe reconsider. (Anyway, Prof. Barnett also teaches PE3101P Decision Theory which also focuses on rationality and credences. I suspect Prof. Barnett will not repeat his PH4211 syllabus anymore (if he does teach this module again) since the same stuff is taught in PE3101P.)

Assignment Structure:

No final exam. Weekly readings (and optional recommended readings) and forum posts (for participation).

Tutor Feedback:

Prof. Beddor was an effective teacher. He gave timely feedback on our papers and actively encouraged people to share their opinions during seminars.

Weekly Workload:

The required reading is manageable but if you choose to read the optional readings as well, they can be quite a lot in total.

Expected Grade: A-/A

Actual Grade: A

Recommended For:

Aspiring epistemologists who DO NOT want a bit of a break from stuff about justification and knowledge. This module DOES NOT focus on rationality and credences.

AY18/19, Semester 1

Module Type: Seminar

Lecture Size: ~10

Lecturer: Professor Zachary Barnett

Grading Structure:

(Too long ago, I'm sorry I forgot the percentages)

• Participation

• First Paper (1500-2000 words)

• Second Paper (1500-2000 words)

• Comments on Others' Papers (2 each)

• Term Paper Presentation

• Term Paper (2500 - 3000 words)

Review #1

Module Content:

This module focused on rational beliefs and credences (subjective probabilities). We covered many theories of the subject, including but not limited to theories on Epistemic Uniqueness vs. Permissivism for beliefs and credences, Sharp Credences vs. Mushy/Fuzzy Credences (yes that's an actual term), and whether Irrelevant Influences should affect the rationality of a belief. The module also introduced me to different interesting puzzles in Epistemology like the Lottery Paradox, Preface Paradox and Dutchbook arguments.

Assignment Structure:

This was one of Prof Barnett's first classes in NUS, so he initially wanted to give us 4 papers in total. Luckily we managed to convince him that 3 papers was more than enough. Furthermore, he said that we could take one of the first two papers, polish it and add more content, to use for our term paper.

Participation wise, he was pretty accommodating and asked those who were a bit more shy to email him and they could arrange something to replace in-seminar participation. I didn't exercise this option myself but it was nice to know it was available for those who tend not to speak out mroe during class.

We also had to provide comments for each others' papers, of about 1-2 pages long. Nothing too fancy, just comment on their representation of the subject and what you thought of the argument, just in a bit more formal manner.

Tutor Feedback:

Prof Barnett is great at explaining the material in an interesting way. His handouts are very succinct and also helped to encourage discussion. There was one time he actually made us do an activity together using some string to illustrate one of the points, which I thought was pretty fun. His voice is also quite soothing to hear if you're into that.

Weekly Workload:

Readings are short but can be quite dense and difficult to interpret. Luckily his handouts make understanding the readings a lot simpler. Participation is highly encouraged so there are a lot of chances for that as well. The comments on the paper might take a while since you need to read the other person's paper as well, sometimes in tandem with you preparing for the next paper. The workload might be better now that we've given him the feedback.

Expected Grade: A-

Actual Grade: A

Recommended For:

Aspiring epistemologists who want a bit of a break from stuff about justification and knowledge. This module focuses a lot on rationality and credences, so it may be related, but the literature and argument types in this field can be quite different.