Ordinary language is all right.
One could divide humanity into two classes:
those who master a metaphor, and those who hold by a formula.
Those with a bent for both are too few, they do not comprise a class.
A gloss on what attracts 'the weak' in Genealogy I, 13 to 'the best doctrine on earth', the existence of 'the subject', 'an unbiased "subject" with freedom of choice': they need there to be a me who has nothing to do with me.
You can imagine that a lot of people saw Socrates coming and said, ugh, that guy.
Do something or do nothing, do it all or do nothing at all; a good and a bad principle.
'A book of philosophy suitable to what Thoreau envisions as "students" would be written with next to no forward motion, one that culminates in each sentence. This sounds like a prescription for a new music, say a new discourse, and hence like a negation of poetry as well as of narrative, since it implicitly denies, in a work of literary originality, the role of the line; the sentence is everything.'
'... his own wish to write (to fish with the poet in him) interrupts his wish to read, which would, according to his way of thinking, mean that his writing is continuously a matter of interrupting writing, genuine writing being a matter of breaking in upon something, call this meditation, or silence, or call it language, or the present.'
With whom, for whom, to whom, do others do what they do? Us, sometimes; but also others still. So our interest in what others do may range far.
Caring what others do means being interested in knowing what they do.
Can you make good on a confession?
You might try to set things right or make things even to make good on an apology. In confessing, what you owe is the truth. To whom is it owed?