Crimson Review of Humanity Concentration Continued

While Philosophy is a small field it is a generally good one. It offers a background for a variety of occupations while avoiding the superficiality of other general fields like Sociology. To get anything from Philosophy requires considerable concentration and also work with one's tutor. The tutorial, however, is very good as are the majority of lectures. Therefore the field is to be highly recommended for concentration if you're of a theoretical bent, and for general courses if you want a background of ideas for a more specific field. It is an excellent field to combine particularly with Classics, Fine Arts, English, Sociology, History, Government, or Economics.

Candidates for a degree in Philosophy must pass three three-hour examinations; one on Systematic Philosophy for which the concentrator chooses as his special field either Metaphysics, Ethics or Logic and relates it to at least one of the other two, and two on the history of Philosophy, one ancient and one modern

As a result of this set-up there is a great deal of correlation to be done by the tutor, and also there is a good deal of material which needs clearing up. Since this is true, Philosophy is one of the fields in which tutorial is best, a strong recommendation for majoring in itself.

Philosophy A

Of the three elementary courses Phil. A is far and away the best. It is also the hardest, reading the works of a selected group of philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, etc.) The course is well organized, and Demos is an interesting lecturer. Not only does this course give non-concentrators a sound ground-work in philosophy, but it is excellent for concentrators, because the main stress of their divisionals will be upon individual men.

Phil. B is designed to hand's the problems of philosophy rather than individual philosophies, and is taught by Lewis. Lewis is very able, but he goes awfully slowly and tends to be repetitive. However, you can't miss the points that he is trying to drive home. The reading is not particularly interesting, and by and large, the course takes too long: If you don't want to take Phil. A, it is better to take Phil. C, which is a half course, than Phil. B.

Phil. C classifies philosophies into types, and places its primary emphasis upon metaphysics. The course lectures are excellent, and are given by Hocking. The reading, while including some selections from original works of philosophy, is primarily in Hocking's own book which is clear and well organized. The course is not particularly tough, and, while not so thorough as is Phil. A, it is more rewarding than Phil. B.

The more advanced courses in Philosophy are generally good. Choice depends largely on your interests and the requirements for your divisionals. Below are student opinions on all of these which you can use with the help of your adviser for making our selections.

Logic is a very specialized field, taken only by a few men, but this is no reason to shy away if you happen to be interested in the logical method. Quine is himself a famous logician, and his Phil. 1 is excellently handled. But before taking it, have a good memory and be able to think symbolically.

Phil. 2 is Hocking's new course on Christianity. While the reading to date has not been too good, Hocking is world-eminent in this branch of philosophy, and the lectures are excellent. A further attractive feature is that men from other departments, such as Nock, Pound, and

Perry's lectures in Phil. 4 and 4a are Allport, also give lectures. Though not especially deep, the course is comprehensive, and the student has the chance of selecting a particular aspect of his studies that he is interested in, and going on with special reading. This is and will attract men this way more than it will appeal to philosophy concentrators.

Bixler's Excellent

Bixler's two courses, Phil. 2a, and 2c are likewise recommended for non-concentrators, as well as for concentrators. Bixler is a splendid teacher and wonderful with his students. Though he moves slowly in his lectures, the reading moves fast, and the required papers makes the going rather hard.

Phil. 3a and 3b are not especially difficult, and well-handled by another of the big names of the Philosophy Department, Carnap, who is very likeable and an interesting lecturer.

uninspiring, but meaty, and the courses are carefully organized. Though the subject matter is not intrinsically difficult, the competition in those courses tends to be stiff because of the number of graduate students.

Phil. 4d and 5 are frequently taken by Government majors. In the first you read such men as the Russian revolutionaries, Spencer and Tolstoy. Lewis gives you some good ideas, but on the whole the course is not well organized and not what it should be. In the second, Hocking, as always, gives his own point of view.

Phil. 6 was Prall's famous course, and of course leaves a gap. However, Elsenberg will probably take over, and with Prall's outline, and his own competence, should do a sound job.

With Phil. 9 we come to another Hocking course, which as always means brilliant lectures, but ones difficult to follow. The course is again a personal interpretation of metaphysics, and should be taken as such: don't take it as a review on general Metaphysics.

Auer's Phil. 9a is too new to say any thing about, but Auer is a good lecturer, though frighteningly learned. You probably should be able to read French or German, or both.

In Phil. 10 Lewis moves into his medium. For this and his Kant course he is known. As usual, though, the lectures are slow and lack any pep-appeal. The reading is sound, interesting, but definitely difficult. And if you decide to learn all about Kant, and take Phil. 15, it is a good plan to have a few snap courses to go along with it. The course is absolutely grueling, with a paper every week. But you come out knowing Kant, and this is awfully handy on divisionals

Wild's Courses

Of Wild's courses, 11, 11a, 12, and 14e, it may be said with some uniformity that some like Wild, and some don't. But no one denies that he is stimulating. Each philosopher he teaches he feels he must defend, and his dogmatism if nothing else stirs people up. Also, he is an authority on Berkeley.

Demos' courses on Aristotie are concisely handled, and Demos, vital, clear, and interesting, is universally liked.

As for Williams on Hume, in Phil. 14c, the lectures are good and the course well organized. Williams is popular, and is regarded as one of the up and coming men of the department, and a sound knowledge of Hume is desirable for divisionals