While you are certainly free to use other sources in the process of coming to master the texts we read yourself, you should be aware that some of the online and other sources have serious limitations and are no substitute for careful study of the texts on your own. In addition, the use of such resources can be detrimental to the learning process and have some serious problems including their superficial treatment of the material, they are often misleading, incomplete, or just plain inaccurate, and they encourage plagiarism.
Sources like SparkNotes are sometimes useful in getting an overview or a superficial understanding of some text that you don’t have time to deal with. So, for example, when Nietzsche refers to Schopenhauer, it might be perfectly acceptable for you to check out an online gloss of Schopenhauer’s philosophy rather than struggling through it yourself, particularly when all you want is a general idea of what’s going on.
SparkNotes:
Nietzsche disagrees
with this account, suggesting that those to whom "goodness" was shown
did not define "good." Rather, it was the "good"
themselves--the noble and the powerful--who defined the term. They came to see
themselves as good when they came to see the contrast between themselves and
those who were below them: the common people, the poor and the weak. Their
position of power included the power over words, the power to decide what would
be called "good" and what "bad."
This passage is misleading because it suggests that the notion of “good” that the masters have somehow results from the contrast with those who are not masters. However, this very nearly the opposite of what a very important point Nietzsche makes about ressentiment. The idea of “good” originates from the self-recognition that power and its expression are good in-themselves and are what it means to be good, not from a contrast with “bad”.
Granted, Nietzsche does say things in section 2 that might suggest that the notion of good did arise by way of contrast, particularly when he speaks of the pathos of distance. However, context is everything, and here Nietzsche is contrasting his account with those who argue that the concept of good originated with those to whom goodness was shown.
Why this is important: This is important (and completely missed by the SparkNotes commentary) because the primary and self-originating concept of “the good” among the masters marks a striking contrast with the derivative nature of the concept of “the good” among the slaves. Nietzsche points out that rather than first viewing themselves as good, as the masters do, the slaves define evil first as “not us”, as the oppressors, the powerful, etc. It is only after the concepts of “evil” and “not us” get established that “the good” can be defined in slave morality.
This one of the key points
of Nietzsche’s concept of ressentisment, that whereas the slave morality
needs an enemy (the masters) in order to define itself, master morality is
self-defining. The SparkNotes
commentary completely misses this point, and is therefore misleading and
incomplete.
Example 2
SparkNotes:
Nietzsche also remarks
on how "dark" and "black" are used as negative terms,
presumably because of the dark-haired peoples of Europe who were overrun by
blonde, Aryan conquerors. He notes the association of "good" with "war"
and "warlike."
This commentary is inaccurate or at least highly misleading in that it uses the contemporary (racist) sense of Aryan where Nietzsche would have intended the original, linguistic meaning. As even a superficial (but complete) reading of Nietzsche will show, Nietzsche did not have the concept of a (blond) Aryan race of conquerors. The passage that the commentary is referring to is talking about the Greeks, who were lighter in complexion than the Etruscans of the Italian peninsula, which they colonized. They are probably getting “blonde” from Nietzsche’s reference to “the blond beast” which, as Kaufmann points out, refers to the lion and does not refer to blond people.
There are scads more examples like this (and even worse). The point is, if you want an accurate interpretation, the web is not necessarily the best place to go.
I have noticed the following types of plagiarism from such sources:
a) Using text verbatim without quotes or citation.
SparkNotes:
Until now, we have always assumed that the
"good man" is better than the "evil man." But perhaps, Nietzsche
suggests, what we call
"good" is actually a danger, by which the present prospers at
the expense of the future. Perhaps what we call "evil" will ultimately be of greater benefit to
us.
Student Essay:
Until now, we have always assumed that the “good
man” is better than the “evil man.”
However, Nietzsche suggests that perhaps what we call “good” is actually a danger,
and what we call evil”
will ultimately be of greater benefit.
b) Presenting the ideas or analysis of others as your own (without citation). Paraphrase plagiarism. This is trickier, but easy to avoid by dealing with the text on your own first. Write down your own interpretation and your own ideas first. Putting things in your own words is the way you learn. This is plagiarism just as much as is the use of verbatim text.
c) Borrowing the structure of another essay. When an author goes to the trouble to structure an essay in a particular way, this is a reflection of his/her intellectual mastery of the material and creative effort to analyze and represent that material. Borrowing the structure of someone else’s work is using someone else’s work without citation and is therefore plagiarism. It is also highly unproductive for learning since finding the structure for yourself and structuring ideas for yourself is how learning occurs.
SparkNotes:
Until now, we have
always assumed that the "good man" is better than the "evil
man." But perhaps, Nietzsche suggests, what we call "good" is
actually a danger, by which the present prospers at the expense of the future.
Perhaps what we call "evil" will ultimately be of greater benefit to
us.
Nietzsche hopes that we
might gain a broader perspective by seeing morality not as some eternal
absolute, but rather as something that has evolved, often by accident, never
free from error--much like the human species itself. When we can see our
morality also as part of the human comedy and look upon it cheerfully, we will
truly have elevated ourselves.
Student
Essay:
Until now, we have
always assumed that the “good man” is better than the “evil man.” However, Nietzsche suggests that perhaps
what we call “good” is actually a danger, and what we call evil” will
ultimately be of greater benefit. Like
human evolution, we might see the evolution of our morals as a gradual process,
marked by accident and error, which has no driving reason or end goal.
Here, the structure of the essay, the idea of “the good man” followed directly by the comparison to evolution, marked by “accident and error” was plucked from the SparkNotes page and therefore does not reflect the original work of the student.
Academic Honesty
Academic honesty is expected of all Gonzaga
University students. Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to
cheating, plagiarism, and theft. Any student found guilty of academic
dishonesty is subject to disciplinary action.
Disciplinary action against a student found
guilty of academic dishonesty may include, but is not limited to: 1) a failing
grade for the test or assignment in question; 2) a failing grade for the
course; and/or 3) a recommendation for dismissal from the University.
-- 1999 – 2001 Undergraduate Catalogue, p. 37.
Students, when confronted with a
charge of plagiarism, will sometimes say “but this is what I’ve been doing all
semester” or “I’ve been doing this all through college”, so a) “How can it be
wrong?” or b) “It’s unfair for your to penalize me for it now.” I hope you’ll admit that this kind of
argument is a bit like an embezzler claiming that because s/he has been getting
away with his/her embezzlement for some number of years it would be unfair to
be sent to jail for it when they finally end up being caught. There’s no changing the rules here. It’s just that the embezzler managed to
avoid obeying the rules for some time. Just
because you’ve been doing something for a while and your professor hasn’t
managed to catch on yet does not make it right.
Plagiarism is wrong, a violation of your responsibilities as a student and trust implicit in the student-teacher relationship, a violation of university policy, not conducive to learning, and a big pain in the neck for your professors to deal with. Why not just do the work? That’s what you’re here for, right?
Copyright © 2002 by Phillip
McReynolds. All rights reserved.