Katrina's Analysis of "Zeal Without Knowledge"

The Balancing Act: Zeal Without Knowledge Explained

In his work, Zeal Without Knowledge, Hugh Nibley gives a warning not to let desires and passions overpower the need for building a foundation of knowledge. He warns against letting zeal outpace one’s knowledge. In order to affectively warn his audience, Nibley uses strategic italics and rhetorical questions, diction, imagery, and analogy to affectively persuade the reader to heed his warning.

Nibley effectively persuades his audience is through his strategic use of italics. By using italics, Nibley emphasizes simple words such as like; real, something, tested, not, and sought. This gives his writing more of a sense or oral persuasion by “speaking” these words to the mind, leading the reader to link concepts that Nebley feels are important. For example, he states, “overmuch zeal, which must ever prove dangerous.” Here Nibley’s italicized “dangerous” makes it harder for the audience to overlook a relatively common word and leads the mind to link the key point of overmuch zeal to danger. Because of the patterned nature of the italics in simple words the audience is given something familiar to follow throughout the work, grabbing the audience’s attention and making them more aware of Nibley’s warning.

Aside from the strategic use of italics Nibley’s use rhetorical questions further defines his warning, again giving his work an oral persuasive quality. Nibley questions, “Why do it the hard way, they ask at the BYU, when God has given us the answer book?” By asking a question, Nibley draws attention to the fact that knowledge consists of many intricate parts. He uses this to refine his argument that in order for zeal or excitement to be successful it must be balanced with knowledge. Another example Nibley uses at the end of his work is as follows, “If we leave his employ, what will become of us?” The answer is another question, “Don’t you trust the Lord?” He does not answer the question directly but instead sets the audience up to draw his conclusion. It is as if to say to the audience that they already knew the answer. This appeals to logic because the audience feels as if they already agree with the author. This is an effective way to convince the audience to heed Nibley’s warning—to not let their zeal or passions run faster than their acquired knowledge.

Nibley’s diction is expressed through his strong word choice. While explaining how lowering one’s standards produces a notable backlash Nibley comments, “[they] are immediately slapped and buffeted by a power that will not let [them] rest.” By choosing “slapped and buffeted,” Nibley is more effectively able to convey his warning through the use of the onomatopoeic words, helping to create both a visual and oral picture. If he had used “pushed” and “pulled” instead, of the more onomatopoeic words, slapped and buffeted, his diction might have been less effective in portraying the immediacy that Nibley wishes the audience feel.
Likewise, Nibley explains how wasting our time watching TV inhibits our ability to gain knowledge. Nibley affirms that TV leaves “[the mind] drugged in a state of thoughtless stupor.” The connotation of the words “drugged” and “stupor” further the author’s purpose by appealing to pathos. By using “drugged” and “thoughtless stupor,” the author’s diction effectively illustrates the affect TV has on minds.

Not only Nibley’s word choice, but also the connotation of his words presents creative and powerful imagery to the audience. Throughout Zeal Without Knowledge, Nibley creates a series of connective imagery summoning to the mind a logical thought pattern that strengthens Nibley’s warning against letting zeal outpace one’s knowledge. The choice of “game” throughout the paper produces a powerful imagery. Through the metaphor, the audience can see themselves playing a complicated board game where zeal and knowledge are the game pieces. One foal move and suddenly the balance between the two will tip, and it will be game over. As Nibley modifies “game” by adding adjectives such as, “probation game” or by putting it into the phrase, “one who plays the game honestly,” he draws the audience deeper into his imagery—giving depth to his logic by making the “game” parallel the audience’s life. The word choice “game” also invokes a powerful imagery causing the audience to reflect back to the many games they have played. This allows the audience to see how the balance between knowledge and zeal is much like their common board game. Each part must be used with exactness and strategic detail—the right amount at the right time.
Besides the imagery of the game, Nibley begins his work by using the imagery of a person wearing a pair of glasses with lens that are two different colors. The green and red lenses represent one’s thoughts. Nibley comments about the wearer, “[he or she] will not see a grey fusion of the two when [he or she] looks about [himself], but a flashing of red and green.” In other words, the wearer can only see one color or thought at a time. Nibley utilizes the imagery of the glasses wearer to illustrate two facts—the first being that man can only think of one thing at a time, and the second being that man must always be thinking. By using imagery, Nibley appeals to the logic of the reader by acknowledging the current thoughts of the audience yet at the same time inviting the audience to continue to be open to new ideas.

With that introduction, Nibley leads the audience into a logical analogy. He conveys his warning against letting zeal outpace one’s knowledge by comparing the relationship between a car and its engine to the relationship between zeal and knowledge. He explains, “Zeal is the engine that drives the whole vehicle: without it we would get nowhere. But with clutch, throttle, brakes, and steering wheel, our mighty engine becomes an instrument of destruction.” Thus Nibley expresses his concern for the “disastrous” effects of too much zeal with knowledge by using the analogy of the car and its engine. Just like with a car, it is necessary to have zeal or one would not have the drive to accomplish anything; however, just as with a car, pushing forward too fast or forcefully without proper knowledge of something can lead to accidents and possible disasters. Because a car is common to the audience, and because of the familiarity of his analogy Nibley’s imagery becomes more effective. Logos is awaked in the audience because it is easy to relate to the analogy that one needs knowledge to use a car properly and that if the engine of a car is too strong it could break down the weaker parts of the car. Thus the audience can see it equally logical that if one possesses too much zeal, a breakdown or disaster will be inevitable because the foundation of knowledge is not strong enough to support one’s zeal.

Using analogies and powerful images, Hugh Nibely warns his audience of the danger of letting their zeal out stride their knowledge. His use of italics, word choice and rhetorical questions help to establish his powerful diction which enables Nibley to effectively prove that zeal and knowledge must be maintained in balance.