Alan Gabbey

I expect that Gabbey gets mediocre reviews because the majority of philosophy students find the subject interesting to an extent in itself, but rely on professors to make it magical. Gabbey won't be performing any magic. If you're the type of individual who can be made to love philosophy, and you're looking for teachers who will create that fascination in your upper level classes, I might recommend Vogt, the Kitchers, or Bell, among others. And indeed, I wouldn't recommend Gabbey. To repeat most of the reviews on here, he is not a dynamic teacher as "dynamic" is traditionally conceived. If that's what you're looking for, you will be bored nearly to death in this class, and while you'll probably still be able to pull off a decent grade if you're quite smart, you'll get relatively little out of the experience. However, if you find philosophy to be extremely interesting in itself, and are taking this class with the priority of advancing your own knowledge, ideas, writing, and capacity to understand extraordinarily important and complex material, I would recommend Alan Gabbey more highly than any other professor. This man's understanding of early modern philosophy is unsurpassed. He is a scholar in the field, and he is more than willing to share his understandings with his students. You have the potential to gain as much as you want in this class. Far too often, I find that Columb…

I took Professor Gabbey's class Spring of 2009. The class is not the most engaging class I ever took in college, but it was a good introduction to philosophy. I took a more advanced philosophy class at the same time and the topics flowed nicely. Gabbey is a very sweet man who will happily explain anything to you after class. He welcomes questions and will actually help you on papers. If you attend each class and do each paper, you will most likely get at least an A-. I would definitely recommend this class to anyone who is remotely interested in philosophy.

This class was decent. As others have commented - he is not a dynamic lecturer. He speaks softly and it is sometimes hard to hear and follow him. His style is to go through the text in depth reading passages and commenting on them. It's a little dry but it was fine background in these thinkers. He clearly knows a lot about the subject. He encourages class discussion but he's not always able to discern (like many teachers) what the questions being asked are. Take it this way - it fulfills a philosophy major requirement, it's not that painful, and you should be able to pull off an A-/B+ easily. Look at the other professors teaching this period of history of philosophy and you'll see that's not the case. Also, he switches the topics he focuses on for the class per semester. Depending on your interests in philosophy, you might find one semester more captivating than another one.

You don't need me to tell you that this class is not the most exciting - in fact many in my class call it their 'nap time' - nor does he give the best explanations of any of the complex philosophical concepts discussed in class but he does grade better than any philosophy teacher I've ever had. He does not give out A+s or As very often. A- is a sign of an excellent job. But he does NOT pick a 'favorite' essay and then judge the rest of the essays based on that one student's essay. He does make a good attempt at grading each paper on its own individual merit. Now what he looks for and the elements he expects to see in 'good' papers are questionable and definitely not made clear at the beginning of the semester but by the second paper you should get his 'style' -- be clear, be simple, and don't use adjectives (he gets picky about adj.) Don't freak out when he goes on half-an-hour digressions or debates that don't apply to the topic you were talking about--he comes back to the topic...eventually... Also, use the restroom before you come to class -- he gives dirty looks to the kids who disturb the class (aka just him) to use the restroom

True, not the most dynamic lecturer. But, he knows his stuff and the class is not difficult. You can learn a lot from this class, if you put in the energy. A good way to get that history of philosophy requirement out of the way. He's a charming old man. I recommend it.

This is an extremely boring class. Gabbey basically mutters to himself at the front of the class and he's so quiet you can't even hear him from the front row. HOWEVER: he's a sweet old man, very pleasant to talk to, and very friendly. Easy grader. You don't even have to really do the reading for this class and you can still do well. IF YOU WANT AN EASY (but boring) PHILO CLASS, TAKE THIS. The boredom is worth the A.

Not only is the material horribly dull and unintersting, but the fact that Gabbey mutters, never finishes his sentences, and spits does not help either. You just need to show up and write the essays, no thinking, speaking, or listening involved. AVOID AT ALL COSTS. even take history of philos from aquianus to descartes instead, because this is the worst class i've taken at columbia.

I don't understand how Alan Gabbey got tenure, I honestly don't. He is the single worst lecturer it has been my fate to suffer at this institution; he's inaudible in the front row of seats, he's unclear about his expectations (late papers either aren't accepted at all or are accepted until the end of the semester with no penalty, no one knows, not even the TA), his lectures consist of long quotations from the assigned reading interspaced with vague comments on the translation and other, unrelated philosophers, his responses to students' questions are tangential at best. The saving grace is that the grading is generous.

Professor Gabbey's lectures might seem boring if you are not invested in the subject (true of most things in life), but he takes the time to repeat the more important concepts or arguments from the previous night's readings. His lectures are very clear, organized, and thorough. In seminars (Spinoza), he is again very thorough. We basically combed through one of the most confusing texts that I have had to read so far at Columbia, the Ethics, and--heaven forbid--he took the time to explain any point of confusion and to contextualize parts of the text in terms of the philosopher's life and the time period in which he lived. He is not a difficult grader and gives extensive comments on each paper, good or bad, to clarify your understanding of what you wrote about and suggest improvements for the future. REMEMBER TO PAGINATE, and to title your paper. He is a stickler about that, for good reason I guess. Overall, I really enjoyed all of the classes that I have had with him.

I will be honest; I took this class because I imagined it would be Aquinas for athletes. I was partly right in my initial assesment. After all, this 9am thriller attracts Columbia's best and brightest...and people like me who show up to half the classes, write the papers the night before they are due, do not study for the final and end up with an A. If you need a filler class with some man candy and entertainment in the form of overzealous freshmen and those who literally snore in front of you, take this. Gabbey is nice enough if you're a morning person, and not someone who is going to track you down if you're not.