Kalyn Floyd
Professor Spencer
Writing 150
11/20/11
Zeal without Knowledge
In Zeal without Knowledge Hugh Nibley uses quotes and analogies to argue to his LDS audience that without knowledge our zeal is for not. Though the idea is simple enough the method he chooses to support it causes the audience to get lost in his words.
Through out the paper Nibley quotes the the Scriptures (both book of Mormon and the Bible),the prophet Joseph Smith, as well as scholarly books. Normally this would lead to a solid support system for the theories that are presented however, in this case, it does not. For example Nibley quotes the Bible when he discusses the narrow mindedness of the people in regards to how God thinks,
“My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, said the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are...my thought than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9)
In what way does this convey that idea? Should not quotes improve the readers understanding of the text and not make them more confused?
In another instance Nibley does the same thing with a quote from Joseph Smith, “ The mind or the intelligence which man possess is co-equal to with God himself” While this quote is much more simple in regards to what it means its relevance is yet to be decided. As the reader continues they realize that the idea presented in the paragraph is that one should expand their knowledge. However just prior to this revelation a contradiction is exposed. Too much knowledge can lead to an excess of zeal and thus one will not appreciate any more intelligence that they could gain. If this is the case why then would Joseph Smith say that the mind is equal to that of God?
Then there are the authors. Nibley quotes Nigel Calder, William James, Nicolas Malebranche, Arthur Schopenhauser,Arthur C. Clarke, and Carl Sagan just to name a few. approximately every few sentences Nibley throws in a quote that should, in theory, support his claims. Some do just that but others lead the reader scratching their head not entirely sure what the point was. The extensive use of quotes makes the reader feel overwhelmed with facts that don’t one hundred percent support the claims and, even when they do, the claims seem irrelevant.
In his second paragraph Nibley describes the act of putting on a set of glasses with two different colored lenses. He says that our mind does not see both colors at once but rather both colors one at a time in quick succession. This is to prove that the mind can only focus on one thing at a time. While this is true again relevance is called to question. If, as both the title and the entire second half of his article lead us to believe, his point is to say that without knowledge zeal is worth nothing this idea doesn’t matter and only tacks on length to his article. By doing this Nibley causes the reader to have to pause and reread which disrupts the flow of thought and distracts the reader from the ultimate point of the article.
Nibley’s thoughts seem to be scattered which make them difficult to read and understand. If he had stuck to one main idea the article would have been much simpler and much more effective. However because he chose not to do this the article is convoluted and difficult to read even for an educated audience.
Works cited
Nibley, Hugh. “Zeal Without Knowledge” Readings for Intensive Writers. 5th ed. Comp. Susan Jorgensen. Provo: BYU Academic Publishing, 2007. 207-217. Print
Interesting take. I think you needed to make it more clear in the first paragraph that Nibley was ineffective in convincing his audience of.... whatever. I had to re-read the first paragraph a few times before I understood what you were trying to say.... but maybe that's just me being slow. Probably.
ReplyDeleteRhetorical questions are not very effective in a Critical Analysis paper, because it makes the reader question the validity of your words. It weakens your analysis by questioning things, you need to make an analyisis and give evidence to support your analysis.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you, I thought it was very well written. It was a little dragged out, but everything connects eventually. Your take was interesting though, thanks for you're point of view though.
I feel like it's a bit short for a Critical Analysis. It isn't a very effective argument.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely a different way to think about this article.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned the audience briefly in the first and last paragraphs, but it might have helped if you mentioned the audience throughout the paper.
I agree with Seth about the rhetorical questions.
I think it also might have helped if you had more evidence and support for the argument you were making.
I think a lot of the problems in the essay could have been avoided by proof reading a few times, and getting someone else to read this. I had a hard time following what you wanted your readers to be following. I don't really agree with you about his failure; however, I also appreciate your take on it. Maybe combine some paragraphs and add more examples and it'll more effectively argue your point.
ReplyDeleteI also did not agree with your stance, I thought it was written very well. He introduced his topic very well and in a very intelligent matter. I would make your point more clear and concise with the way you wrote it. I wasn't even sure that it was a critical analysis because I wasn't sure what you were trying to prove. Also, I would re-read it and revise it more because it was a little confusing to read.
ReplyDeleteAubrey Bennett
I hate to be repeatitive but I too disagree with you take on the article. I think that he did a very good job convincing me. You need to make a clear thesis statement. It will give you an outline to write about and it allows the readers to follow better
ReplyDeleteI am sorry that I am posting this after wednesday. However, I hope that you might be able to use these comments in the future.
ReplyDeleteI like your short paragraphs. They make the paper easy to read and they make it not intimidating. I really appreciate writers that use short paragraphs and short paragraphs every once in a while. I would, however, add some longer paragraphs in with the shorter paragraphs. The shorter ones will be more effective if you do that because it will give the reader a little breather.
I also don't think that questions prove a point at all. I would stick to plain and simple analysis of why his method didn't work.
Your introduction should be longer. I usually make my introduction one of my longer paragraphs. I think that it shouldn't be too long, but yours is too short. Also, you didn't really have a thesis that explained what tools the author used ineffectively.
Furthermore, the essay is a little short. It is not long enough to prove your point.
should you menton literary devices, pathos, ethos, logos, etc. throughout you paper? in thesis?
ReplyDeleteThis draft seems very informal and when I read it I feel as though you didn't get a chance to edit it before submitting. Not only is it shorter than it should be, but you don't have much of a structure either. Your topic sentences could use some work. You should include three tools in your thesis, not just two.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really good start, but I think it needs more revising before the final draft. You have the basic idea though!
ReplyDelete