Worst Phil subject I've ever done. Lectures had no proper form or structure. Andrew didn't do a good job lecturing as it was both bland and boring. Readings were often too long and taken out of context thus impossible to have a cohesive understanding. The only redeeming quality was the tutor, as she was both helpful in group discussion and assignment feedback. DEFINITELY NOT a wam booster, not recommended for anyone to take this subject.

The hardest subject I've ever done content-wise. Unforuntately it was over zoom, and Andrew's electoral style was quite difficult to appreciate in that context. The texts, although interesting at times, were incredibly dense and hard to understand, especially since they were almost all chapters from books and as such the context of the ideas is lost a little bit. The content being so hard also meant that nobody had anything to say in the tutorials since nobody ever knew what was going on. I think at least half the content needed to be scrapped in order to give appropriate time to the texts.

So confusing and very content heavy. Mainly focused on 4-5 philosophers. First half is about their philosophies, second half is the application of their philosophies onto concepts like freedom, ethics, art ect I'm a philosophy minor and found this subject really difficult to wrap my head around. More abstract than usual, I think you need a lot of theoretical knowledge to do this subject well