I took this class as a freshman in fall quarter, as did many others, and I'm sure most of us came in thinking this would be an easy class (as the single review from 2018 seemed to imply, thanks fam). It isn't.

This class is made up of three papers (20%, 35%, 35%) and discussion participation/attendance (10%). Attendance is not required for lecture, and if you know the material/chosen the prompt you want to write for a paper already, it isn't a terrible idea to skip a lecture here and there. No online quizzes as of Fall 2019, so everything really does depend on the papers.

The first part of the class (mostly theory) was not easy at all. The second part was more bearable, as the readings became more modern and thus accessible and easier to take apart. I struggled on the first two papers, receiving low Bs, but managed to get a 90% on the last paper after finally getting the hang of how my TA grades and how she prefers points to be argued. I stopped trying to read the readings before lecture and focused on taking notes and reading only the readings related to the prompt I chose for my paper around week 6, which definitely lessened the stress and improved my performance.

Positives: All the readings are uploaded as PDFs by Armstrong so no money was spent. Armstrong himself seemed like a nice person. While at first, she seemed a bit cold, my TA Piera did try her best to clarify the material during discussion/office hours.

Negatives: As mentioned before, the readings aren't all that easy. Paper prompts aren't really too well explained. Lecture slides are posted on CCLE but don't really make much sense if you didn't attend the lecture itself. Grading guidelines/rubric are on the subjective side, so it's better to figure out your TA and tailor your writing style towards them. Armstrong's voice isn't very engaging so it was difficult to focus in lecture.

I came into this class expecting to do decently because I was good at high school English and liked language. Those two things really didn't help much. I can't say this class didn't teach me a lesson about how to adjust though, so I'm thankful for that.

TD;DR This class was not an easy A. Do not take this class if you're a freshman or just looking for an easy GE. If you have taken a philosophy course before and are genuinely interested in the material, you'll probably do fine in this class.

This is not an easy GE, but it is interesting - it combines philosophy with a little bit of linguistics. I don't know about the other reviews, but I enjoyed this class. I did NOT have Kim as my TA thankfully - I had Piera who I found to be very helpful. With the time we had for lecture, I think Armstrong did his best in explaining honestly quite confusing concepts. He was always open to questions, pausing lecture if necessary when people were confused. There were three papers - one 3-5 pages all just about the philosopher(s) and their ideas, and two 5-7 page papers where we had to give our own thoughts on the concepts in addition to explaining the content we went over. Each essay had multiple prompts we could choose from, which I really liked because some concepts I was much more interested in writing in than others. The two larger papers had the option to make your own prompt if you wanted. The papers were pretty challenging, but going to office hours was super helpful in making sure my analysis was on track. The readings were all on CCLE so no textbook.

This class was a breeze. There are no tests, only weekly online reading quizzes that are very straightforward. There are three easy AND SHORT papers to write that your TA will grade, so you could really afford to miss some lectures, and focus more on attending discussion and most importantly, TA office hours. Very straightforward class, and the topics are interesting. Pretty easy GE.

Again like others have said, your grade will rely on how well you do on the three papers and participation. I was nervous going into this class because I had never taken a philosophy course, but we didn't read anything too intimidating (no Plato, Aristotle, etc). No textbooks was also a plus. Your grade will depend on who your TA is, as will your understanding on the material overall. Armstrong wasn't the best at explaining and his slides were mainly just pictures to go along with what he is saying, but he does take the time to answer questions. You can easily manage to get a B.

Coming into this class never taking a philosophy class was really hard for me. I thought the subject had potential to be interesting, but Professor Armstrong lectured as if everyone had taken a philosophy course already. Although he was very nice, he talked quickly and was often very confusing. I did go to every lecture, but looking back, I really didn't need to, because I usually never knew what was going on.
Pretty much your entire learning experience relies on your discussion and your TA. I had Piera, and although she was kind of intimidating, compared to other reviews, she seemed to be more helpful than other TA's. The subject is confusing, and the texts you read are dense (Piera even said we shouldn't be reading these texts in an intro Phil class). My advice is to go to every discussion and write down pretty much everything your TA says. The only reason I got an A in this class is because I also went to almost every office hour and wrote down everything my TA said there as well. Bring your paper to your TA and and try to work with them. The three papers pretty much make up your entire grade, so ensure you answer the prompt thoroughly. A lot of my paper was rewriting what my TA said in her office hours, and that seemed to be what she wanted. Overall, if you really put in the time and carefully write down everything your TA says, I think it is doable to get an A. But this class definitely caused me unneeded stress my first quarter at UCLA.

I'm a junior transfer and this was my first philosophy class. I took this class solely for units and because I was interested in philosophy, and I quickly learned that this was definitely NOT the right class for those purposes. The readings were very dense and complicated. For each essay, you can pick between 2-3 provided prompts or write your own prompt based on the readings. You're basically expected to write half of the paper summarizing/explaining your chosen article and dedicate the other half to your own analysis/opinion of the article. I found it was pointless to read the articles before lecture because Armstrong would usually give an entirely different interpretation from what one might initially assume. You really need to attend lecture (at least for the article you choose) because the summary portion of the paper is basically just regurgitating Armstong's interpretation.

I did earn an A in this class and recieved high As on the first two essays and a low A on the final essay. Contrary to the advice of other reviews, I really think this is because I attended every single lecture and took extensive notes. If you can't go to every class, try to have a friend send you notes or audio record the lecture. I was also lucky enough to have Amber as my TA and her office hours were a godsend. She was willing to go over every small detail of the essay prompts and even read drafts/outlines for the first essay. If you're looking for an easy A or filler units and you can't get into Amber's section, avoid this class!