NationStates Jolt Archive

Can somebody please help me make it better? Our assignment was to write 800-1000 words about a section from the Gay Science (we had three to choose from) we were supposed to summarize three of the arguments he made and then pick one to discuss in depth and bring in our own ideas about.
I chose to do section 335 (can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/diefrohl7e.htm near the bottom)

At any rate, here's my essay, I'm really dissatisfied with it so any suggestions are appreciated.


Nietzsche makes a number of arguments in section 335 of The Gay Science. To begin with, he argues that one knows oneself least of all. As evidence for this, Nietzsche brings up the issue of the conscience, and how one knows to listen to it and where it gets its information. From this point, he begins to question the value of assigning the same morality to everyone and expecting others to hold to the same morals as one’s own, for, if one does not even know the reason one considers something to be right or wrong, how can one expect others to follow the same ideas of right and wrong. While there is much that seems reasonable in this section, however, one statement, the foundation for the arguments that follow, seems to be inaccurate. For, as little as one knows oneself, one knows even less of others, despite Nietzsche’s claim that it is possible for one to be an expert at scrutinizing others. While one might not entirely know one’s own motivations for everything, there is at least some vague idea, where for others, their motivations, thoughts, hopes and dreams are all hidden from view.

Should one assume that a person is capable of lying to themselves so completely that they truly believe themselves to be someone entirely different than they are, how can one assume that this person would be able to know others better than themselves? How can they detect when another lies, when another hides their own feelings and desires and puts up their own façade, pretending to be something they are not? It appears as though such a person would not be capable of seeing through the deceptions of another person, as they are not capable of even seeing through their own.
Should a person exist who does not engage in any such self deception and attempts to be honest with themselves about whom they are, it may be conceivable that this person may scratch the surface of self knowledge. Complete self-knowledge still seems to be impossible. Such a task appears to be akin to putting a microscope to work in examining itself, it may be capable of seeing a part of its whole, but it cannot bend backwards and examine its entire being.

At the same time, this person with a slight insight into their own mind will still be devoid of insight into the minds of others, for, like the microscope set to observe an amoeba, they can only observe another from the outside, seeing only actions. An observer using a microscope can only see that the amoeba moves towards the light, she can guess about the amoeba’s motivation for doing so, however she cannot see into the thoughts of this other creature, let alone be certain that it has thoughts. The observer at the microscope could at least be aware of the purpose of the microscope and see through its eye but the only one capable of knowing the purpose of the amoeba’s existence is the amoeba. Similar is the task examining another human being. One can observe what the other does and hear what they say, but one cannot be certain they are not lying through their actions and words; no one can be certain of their motivations or see the world through their perspective. As Nietzsche points out, each person has their own perspective on the world, adding their own errors in thinking to the world they observe. (Gay Science, p37) As a result of this, one would at the very least be capable of understanding their perspective on the world, while one would not hope to do likewise of the perspective of another. It also seems that the observations of the actions of others are to be questioned. It is possible that one’s perspective is distorted when it comes to examining others thus perceive others to be as they are not. Consequently, it is not even possible for one with a better understanding of oneself to see the world as another sees it and as a result, will understand even less of another person for the inability to see the world as they see it.

Therefore, despite Nietzsche’s claim that those who are experts at scrutinizing others are incapable of scrutinizing themselves, it seems that it is even less likely to be able to properly scrutinize others. For all the errors and biases one may have in one’s attempts at self-examination, one is at a further disadvantage when it comes to examining others as they are further separated, having two different perspectives on the world. It does not appear as though the rest of Nietzsche’s argument suffers at all from this small discrepancy. It is still true that one does not know where one’s ideas on morals come from or why one decides to act morally and by extension, why one should expect others to act according to their morals.


edit: edited essay posted.

you could indent your paragraphs so that I don't get dizzy reading it.........

you could indent your paragraphs so that I don't get dizzy reading it.........
Sorry... they're indented on word... I'll fix it.

Every essay I've ever written sucks.

The first thing I would do is to is to clearly introduce what the heck you're talking about in an introductory paragraph, first by pointing out what the purpose of the argument being discussed is, then point out clearly and precisely what it is, and then what you find wrong with it. By this I mean say clearly:

A) There was an overarching concern in Nietzsche's work for topic x, which yielded a very specific argument about this matter.
B) Nietzsche presents the following argument, which comprises subpoints 1, 2, and 3.
C) Nietzsche makes an error in judgement in subpoints 1, 2, or 3, and as a result, his views are mistaken.

As is, there is no introduction, and your argument is spread over two different paragraphs. Then, I would follow the schema very closely, which should provide you with a very clear and precise format for your paper.

Additionally, instead of expounding with example after analogy after metaphor, find another philosopher(s) who make(s) points similar to your own: Descartes is a noted philosopher who debated the solipsist attitude you suggest, Frege offers possibilities about whether a common frame of meaning is possible, which lends credence to Nietzsche's idea that we can understand others better than ourselves, etc. Then, you use his points to make your own. So instead of "I am hereby going to talk around the main argument for the next 500 words", you simply introduce the fact that another philosopher faced similar problems, came to solution y, and that solution solves the problem in this instance. Alternatively, you could try to come up with a logical counterexample where everything Nietzsche says is true, but his conclusion doesn't follow. If so, then Nietzsche's argument is incorrect because he didn't account for factor z.

Basically, you're lacking a clear thesis and internal structure to your paper. It might be because you're trying to fill space, or it might be because you are lacking an overall purpose to your paper.

I think it's the purpose bit.
My prof doesn't want us to incorporate other philosopher's ideas, he wants us to make up our own... aside from that I'm not terribly familiar with too many philosophers so that would present some difficulties.

My thesis is basically that it's harder to know others than it is to know yourself...

Nietzsche makes a number of arguments in section 335 of The Gay Science. Most notably, he argues that one knows oneself least of all. As evidence for this, Nietzsche brings up the issue of the conscience, how one knows to listen to it and where it gets its information. From this point, he begins to question the value of assigning the same morality to everyone and expecting others to hold to the same morals as one’s own, for, if one does not even know the reason one considers something to be right or wrong, how can one expect others to follow the same ideas of right and wrong?

While there is much that seems reasonable in this section, [however,] one statement, the foundation for the arguments, seems to be inaccurate. For, as little as one knows oneself, one knows even less of others, despite Nietzsche’s claim that it is possible [for one] to be an expert at scrutinizing others. While one might not entirely know one’s own motivations for everything, there is at least some vague idea, where for others, their motivations, thoughts, hopes and dreams are all hidden from view.

Should one assume that a person is capable of lying to themselves so completely that they truly believe themselves to be someone entirely different than they are, how can one assume that this person would be able to know others better than themselves? How can they detect when another lies, when another hides their own feelings and desires and puts up their own façade, pretending to be something they are not? It appears as though such a person would not be capable of seeing through the deceptions of another person, as they are not capable of even seeing through their own.
Should a person exist who does not engage in any such self-deception and attempts to be honest with themselves about whom they are, it may be conceivable that this person may scratch the surface of self-knowledge. Complete self-knowledge still seems to be impossible. Such a task appears to be akin to putting a microscope to work in examining itself, it may be capable of seeing a part of its whole, but it cannot bend backwards and examine its entire being.

At the same time, this person with a slight insight into their own mind will still be devoid of insight into the minds of others, for, like the microscope set to observe an amoeba, they can only observe another from the outside, seeing only actions. A microscope can only see that the amoeba moves towards the light, it can guess about the amoeba’s motivation for doing so, however it cannot see into the thoughts of this other creature, let alone be certain that it has thoughts. The microscope (or rather an observer using the microscope) could at least be aware of the purpose of the microscope and see through its eye, but the only one capable of knowing the purpose of the amoeba’s existence is the amoeba. Similar is the task of [one set out to] examining another human being. One can observe what the other does and hear what they say, but one cannot be certain they are not lying through their actions and words; nor can one [cannot] be certain of their motivations or see the world through their perspective. As Nietzsche points out, each person has their own perspective on the world, adding their own errors in thinking to the world they observe. (Gay Science, p37) As a result of this, one would at the very least be capable of understanding their perspective on the world, while one would not hope to do likewise of the perspective of another. It also seems that the observations of the actions of others are to be questioned. It is possible that one’s perspective is distorted when it comes to examining others thus perceive others to be as they are not. [As a result] Consequently, it is not even possible for one with a better understanding of oneself to see the world as another sees it and [as a result,] will understand even less of another person for the inability to see the world as they see it.

[So] Therefore, despite Nietzsche’s claim that those who are experts at scrutinizing others are incapable of scrutinizing themselves, it seems that it is even less likely to be able to properly scrutinize others. [For] Due to all the errors and biases one may have in one’s attempts at self-examination, one is at a further disadvantage when it comes to examining others as they are further separated, having two different perspectives on the world.

Well, I may not be able to offer many suggestions in the realm of quality, but being the grammar nazi that I am, I can give advice on mechanics.

Bolded are my corrections. In [ ] are my suggested deletions. The language is slightly repetitive (use 'one' and 'as a result' less frequently).

Please don't flame. I mean well.

Well, I may not be able to offer many suggestions in the realm of quality, but being the grammar nazi that I am, I can give advice on mechanics.

Bolded are my corrections. In [ ] are my suggested deletions. The language is slightly repetitive (use 'one' and 'as a result' less frequently).

Please don't flame. I mean well.
Oh, I appreciate any help, grammatical or otherwise. :) I'll be adding your edits as well as revising my structure.

I use to suck at essays until I found out I'm awesome at essays.

ive never written an A essay, so dont ask me.

Ok, I changed some things around, I'm a bit happier with it, I put all the intro stuff into one paragraph instead of being spread over two (yeah, I don't know why I did that initially) changed the grammar mistakes as per suggestions and added a bit better of a conclusion to the whole thing.

Oh, one thing, in my introductory paragraph, do I have to cite where in the book it came from? I mean, I'm mentioning the section, but do I have to put the page number there too?

Also, titles underlined or italicized?

Ok, I changed some things around, I'm a bit happier with it, I put all the intro stuff into one paragraph instead of being spread over two (yeah, I don't know why I did that initially) changed the grammar mistakes as per suggestions and added a bit better of a conclusion to the whole thing.

Oh, one thing, in my introductory paragraph, do I have to cite where in the book it came from? I mean, I'm mentioning the section, but do I have to put the page number there too?

Also, titles underlined or italicized?

Assuming MLA format is required, whenever you paraphrase information from a source, you must give the author and page number (I think) in parentheses afterwards, and provide a bibliography. But that all depends on the requirements of the assignment. Titles are italicized.

Assuming MLA format is required, whenever you paraphrase information from a source, you must give the author and page number (I think) in parentheses afterwards, and provide a bibliography. But that all depends on the requirements of the assignment. Titles are italicized.
I looked it up to be sure... http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_mla.html

This place says that since I already mentioned both the author and the title of the book, I don't need to mention both of those and just need to put the page number. :)

I looked it up to be sure... http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_mla.html

This place says that since I already mentioned both the author and the title of the book, I don't need to mention both of those and just need to put the page number. :)

It's actually quite well written (your essay), in terms of vocabulary and syntax (whether or not a piece of writing effectively conveys the point, I'm generally a bad judge). Are you in college or high school?

It's actually quite well written (your essay), in terms of vocabulary and syntax (whether or not a piece of writing effectively conveys the point, I'm generally a bad judge). Are you in college or high school?
I'm in university.

I'm usually a lot more confident about my essays, but this one's a bit tougher (the point, proof discuss format is much easier than "come up with your own philosophy loosely related to this section") usually they just kinda flow.

I'm in university.

I'm usually a lot more confident about my essays, but this one's a bit tougher (the point, proof discuss format is much easier than "come up with your own philosophy loosely related to this section") usually they just kinda flow.

Ah well ... I can count on one hand the number of people in my class at high school who have an equivalent writing ability (I'm a senior). Strange as it may seem, I tend to judge people's intellect by their writing ability.

I manhandled your first paragraph, and am scanning it now. You have a thoughtful essay and make good points, but your stile is poor and your development of those points is lacking.

The only cases in which authors' first names are unneccessary is when they don't have one. Use the author's full name when introducing the source, then use the last name for the remainder of the essay.

MLA format requires a title block, and teachers may require numbered and labled pages.

Even if you have only one source, you must have a Work Cited page in MLA format.

Titles are italicised in MLA.

Second paragraph: watch your subject / pronoun agreement. 'They' or 'them' is a ploural pronoun and cannot be used to replace a singular subject. It is generally appropriate, for an subject that could either be male or female, to use the pronoun 'he', but 'he or she', or even 'she' is acceptable if you prefer.

Any paraphrasation or direct quotation of any passage in the book must be followed by a (page ##). The proper placement of this is at the end of the paragraph, before the final punctuation mark, unless multiple passages are used in one paragraph, in which case there should be a parenthetical citation every time you finish adressing a particular passage.

Direct quotes would add to the quality of the essay.

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/29/image8hm.jpg

I replaced your last 'one' with 'a person' because the use of 'one' had grown rather repetative, but the change is unneccessary.

Good luck!

The only cases in which authors' first names are unneccessary is when they don't have one. Use the author's full name when introducing the source, then use the last name for the remainder of the essay.
Okie doke.

MLA format requires a title block, and teachers may require numbered and labled pages.
He hasn't said anything about numbering the pages, so I'm assuming it's not required.

Even if you have only one source, you must have a Work Cited page in MLA format.
Yeah, I'll be getting around to that at some point this evening.

Second paragraph: watch your subject / pronoun agreement. 'They' or 'them' is a ploural pronoun and cannot be used to replace a singular subject. It is generally appropriate, for an subject that could either be male or female, to use the pronoun 'he', but 'he or she', or even 'she' is acceptable if you prefer.
Is this better?

Should one assume that a person is capable of lying to themselves so completely that they truly believe themselves to be someone entirely different than they are how can one assume that this person would be able to know others better than themselves? How can she detect when another lies, when another hides his own feelings and desires and puts up his façade, pretending to be something he is not? It appears as though such a person would not be capable of seeing through the deceptions of another person, as she is not capable of even seeing through their own.

There are two people in question, so I used she for one and he for the other in an attempt to avoid confusion...

Any paraphrasation or direct quotation of any passage in the book must be followed by a (page ##). The proper placement of this is at the end of the paragraph, before the final punctuation mark, unless multiple passages are used in one paragraph, in which case there should be a parenthetical citation every time you finish adressing a particular passage.
Got that. (now I do anyways, I didn't post my most recent edit as I just changed the citing...)

Direct quotes would add to the quality of the essay.
We were told not to quote.

And I will go through your edits...

What do you mean by Title Block, exactly? Just a title? I put one of those on, it's in word though, not on here.

http://www.wordsworth2.net/writing/mlasample.htm

If he said MLA format, he meant that it must look like this, and any deviations will be viewed as faults and dealt with accordingly.


Should one assume that people are capable of lying to themselves so completely that they truly believe themselves to be someone entirely different than they are, how can one also {(for clarity)} assume that such people would be able to know others better than themselves? How can one person detect when another lies, when another hides his own feelings and desires and puts up his façade, pretending to be something he is not? There is no way, for she is not capable of even seeing through her own.

http://www.wordsworth2.net/writing/mlasample.htm

If he said MLA format, he meant that it must look like this, and any deviations will be viewed as faults and dealt with accordingly.
He didn't say MLA format, he said to refer to the book the section is from and put the page number in parenthesis (I should have read the outline on this aspect before just now, shouldn't I have?)

I'm not sure how to do the biblography though, as there's both the author (Nietzsche) and an editor... do I completely ignore the editor/translator and just put it as a normal book with one author?

Lastnameofauthor, Firstnameofauthor. Title. Publishing Location: Publisher, Year of copyright.

Doe, John. Book. Townsburgh, Countristan: Book Publishing House, 1982.

Thank you very much.

I'm going to head off to bed, but I feel much better about my essay now. :)

Here's how i'd have written your first paragraph:
In The Gay Science, Friedrich Nietzsche argues that a person knows himself least of all. Nietzsche cites, as evidence of this, the human conscience and the fact that we neither comprehend nor control it. On these grounds, Nietzsche questions the legitimacy of applying personal moral standards to others. He argues that because a person can make no conscious account of why he believes certain things to be morally right or wrong, he has no basis on which to expect others to share his sentiments.
While Nietzsche’s conclusions seem reasonable, it is not clear that his premise is correct.

I had to stop here because I dont think your thesis holds, I think you're attacking an argument that Nietzsche didn't make.

(I'm not trying to be bellicose, just anticipating what I'd say if I were a professor)

I think that Nietzsche's point about the conscience is the basis for his claim that we know ourselves very little about ourselves, and that he in no way implied that we should somehow be very good at knowing the inner workings of others.

His statement that of all things, we know the least about ourselves is probably a deliberate hyperbole, intended to highlight the fact that we do indeed know very little about ourselves, not as a claim that we know lots about other people.

I think that if you want to continue the line of reasoning that you started with, you should focus the rest of the essay on theories about why we have the conscience that we do.

You shouldnt try to 'disprove' Nietzsche, (since as was famously observed on these forums: he isnt a scientist, he's a philsopher) but rather offer alternative explanations for a conscience, ones that we can clearly comprehend and that would therefore dismiss his argument that lack of self-knowledge implies we cannot expect or insist upon certain values in others.

I didn't dismiss his arguments, except the bit about knowing ourselves less than we know others (which he did mention) I tend to agree with him too much and I can't write 800-1000 words of "I agree with him..."

But yeah, I would really have preferred it if my prof let me pick one of the sections where he spoke about science, Nietzsche doesn't really seem to have a good understanding of science a lot of the time... although it could have been due to the period of time in which he lived.

Hmm. Under light of New Grenada's information, you may wish to rethink and rewrite your essay. Perhaps you could make your essay's primarily target Nietzsche's claim that one cannot know why one believes what one does, and then conclude that one can reasonably assume others to share those beliefs if they came to their beliefs in a manner similar to how you came to yours (IE, both raised in same religion, etc.)

Anyway, good luck, and goodnight.