In the piece “On Truth and Lying in a Non-moral Sense” Nietzsche talks about how everything we know as a fundamental truth of the world is in fact a lie or how he likes to put, a metaphor of the truth. This can be seen on pg. 755 in the third edition of the book where he says, “We believe that when we speak of trees, colours, snow, and flowers, we have knowledge of the things themselves, and yet we possess only metaphors of things”. The point that Nietzsche is trying to make is that these words, don’t convey what these objects really are. They are simply substations of the real thing but are never truly able to describe what those objects are in real life. So, in a sense it is only a lie that we tell ourselves about the world, since we have no other ways of expressing what those objects are with our language. Later on in the piece he points the further fallacy in the way that we so heavily rely on language to categorize how we view the world around us, when he talks about how no two leaves can be the same, but we still use the word leaf in order to describe all leaves, since have a word for each leaf in the world would be incredibly redundant. This idea of our understanding of the world being built upon by a foundation of lies is used to show how humans are unable to truly comprehend the truth of the world. Since everything we’ve come to understand has been built upon only half truths, which cannot grasp the whole picture of the world around us. Although, there is truth to what Nietzsche is saying (Ironic, I know), I disagree that our use of language is an outright lie to what the world is. Afterall, lying is stating something the opposite of what it is, but that’s not what language does. I believe much like how Culler mentions in his piece “What is Theory?” that “writing is a supplement for speech” that language in a way is a supplement for the world. Just like how certain aspects of speech can be misinterpreted, which is why there is a need for writing, our world can be misinterpreted by others which is why there is a need for language. Our use of language is a supplement for the world around us so that we can come to an agreed understanding of what the world around us is. Although, it may never fully capture the full experience it can give us a general gist of the world, making all the more comprehensible.

A central feature of this course will be the writing we do on this site.  In what follows, I will outline three things:

• a rationale for why I ask you to blog in the first place, rather than write traditional essays
• a quick primer on how to create your first post
• a simple rubric to guide your writing + an example of a good-looking post

First things first: why blog?

1. Blogging is sharable: rather than have a private circuit between you and me, we have a much more dynamic conversation across the entire class.  
2. Blogging is public, sort of: I like the idea that we are responsible for our ideas in front of broader audiences.  In practical terms, I doubt anyone is listening in most of the time, but I think it’s important that we roll up our sleeves and defend our arguments in an open and public forum as often as possible.  And of course, you can show your family/friends/pets what we’ve been up to in class.  For those who have reservations about privacy, note that a) you can only be identified via firstname+last initial, so you have relative privacy beyond our class; and b) you are free to delete your posts at the end of class.  If anyone has serious reservations despite all this, feel free to contact me.
3. Blogging is sturdy: rather than forget the piece of paper once it’s been handed back, we can link back to prior statements or observations, or to each others’. If you like, you can leave your posts up for future 306ers to see.
4. Blogging is responsive: rather than only getting comments from me, you’ll comment on and get comments on each other’s work.

What makes for an excellent post?  For this class, posts should:

• contain at least 400 words (use word count in WordPress or your word processor)
• explain a given text’s argument (or part of an argument), using quotations and paraphrases of the text with page numbers in parentheses
• engage that argument critically, noting its limitations, its links to other texts we’ve read, its unstated assumptions, etc.

Here’s a simple rubric, adapted from Mark Sample, that I will use to evaluate your work:

What do I write about? You are free to choose any focus you wish and to write about any of the texts we’re reading in any combination. A couple of caveats:

• You may write about what we’re about to discuss our what we’ve just discussed. I prefer that you not write about something we’ve discussed long ago. So, for Friday, you may write about Nietzsche or about Culler’s piece. By the time Blog Post #2 rolls around, I don’t want to hear about Nietzsche, since we’ll have moved on.
• Be careful how much you bite off. It’s better to “do more with less” than the opposite here. So a close examination of de Saussure is probably a better idea than a breezy, loose comparison of Nietzsche, de Saussure, and Derrida, in which each gets a sentence or two.
• The perfect is the enemy of the good. Getting zeroes in the gradebook for the posts is deadly. Better to dash of something that’s not your best work than to leave it blank. And it’s good discipline: no one feels like they “got it” after reading Lacan for the first time, so writing your way towards clarity, no matter how messily, is valuable.
• Use the study questions: it’s perfectly permissible–even suggested–to simply answer one of the study questions in your blog post, or to use it as a springboard for a more complex argument. They’re there, so use them!

Last but not least, here’s an example of a good-looking post.  I’ve annotated it using the hypothes.is tool, so you can see what makes it exemplary.  And remember: it’s not an exercise in cookie-cutting: your results may vary, and there are lots of ways to write an excellent post.