On Originality

[KropotkinKomrade]

Can a person have original thoughts? Or are we just repeating what we have learned from others? Basically what constitutes ideas as being original?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Of course, we repeat ourselves. Originality is with respect to the community. If I discovered communist theory, identical to Marx, it is conceivable that I did so without reading Marx. Unlikely, but conceivable. Had I done this, my idea would be original to "me." It would not be original to society.

Originality to society is determined by "who was the first" to popularize an idea. If Marx invented communism, and we research that people before him had the same idea, Marx is still the original. This is a convention we adopt because people want credit for how "their" ideas influence society.

What is original in society is decided by those who wield power. In the individual case, I know I came up with the idea. It's original. In the community case, they don't distrust me, necessarily. However, I haven't added anything to the community knowledge basis. Once I change enough to an existent idea, and society deems the changes significant, I might be called "original."

Originality always draws on knowledge and ideas we already know. Arguably, the only original discovers were those of foundational truths, if such exist.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It is impossible to determine how much of our actions are as you say 'original'. There could be boundless factors which affect each decision. I think that we can be capable but we are never 100% creating an original idea wihtout regurgitating something that has come before.

[black magick hustla]

And this is why philosophy is terrible. Of course thoughts can be original because if there was no "originality" the word would not exist. The definition of originality depends entirely on the context it is used.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

And this is why philosophy is terrible. Of course thoughts can be original because if there was no "originality" the word would not exist. The definition of originality depends entirely on the context it is used.

How could it not exist without originality?

[Rascolnikova]

I think there's a bit more nuance here than is being credited, and the distinction depends heavily on how mechanistic a view one takes of the universe.

It perhaps says something for Marxism that at several points in history, major discoveries have been made simultaneously but quite independently by different people who had no communication with each other. Leibniz and Newton came up with the FTOC at virtually the same time, and eventually spent years fighting over the fact. If one takes a highly mechanistic and material view of historical conditions, this isn't even surprising.

For some definitions of "originality," such a background doesn't matter at all; for others, the determinism of it would render "originality" suspect.

[Pirate Utopian]

And this is why philosophy is terrible. Of course thoughts can be original because if there was no "originality" the word would not exist. The definition of originality depends entirely on the context it is used.
The word God exists doesnt mean God exists.

I agree with Dooga.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

And this is why philosophy is terrible. Of course thoughts can be original because if there was no "originality" the word would not exist. The definition of originality depends entirely on the context it is used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_name

You entitled to continue supporting your claim, of course. Our definition of existence might be different. I'd probably say originality exists as an analytic term, perhaps. However, there is a difference between unicorns, math, observable fact, terms, etc. I think there is, anyhow.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Originality requires information created without causation.
This is a ridiculous assertion. Causality is pretty damn unassailable.

Ergo originality is not a meaningful concept.

[mel]

Originality requires information created without causation.

According to which definition of "originality"? A spontaneous idea might be one which would occur without causation, in which case you would be right that it is a ridiculous concept. However an original idea, as in an idea which has not been thought of before, is obviously possible. "New" ideas arise because the state of the world is changing from moment to moment. New input, and new minds, leads to new output and ideas. I think this concept ought to be pretty clear.

[Il Medico]

Can a person have original thoughts? Or are we just repeating what we have learned from others? Basically what constitutes ideas as being original?
No one can really be original. Given how many people have existed, I doubt that nothing has never been said before or done before. And as for "being original" and sticking out from the crowd, just be your self. I find it ironic that the non-conformist are really just comforting to the societal interpretation of non-conformity. In reality they are just conformist in a different way.

[Bilan]

There are unique aspects to everyone, which were born out of their environment, and so on. Commonality of experience and thought does not equate to uniformity, nor the absence of originality. If you're referring to originality in personality - it's inherent. If you're referring to art, music, etc, then you're asking a completely different question.

[Chapter 24]

I think originality not only depends on the context in which the word is used, but also in the medium in which it is expressed. What makes philosophy different from physical creations is that one can never really be certain that their train of thought or their evaluation on the human condition has never been expressed by anyone before. Who knows whether this guy "stole" the philosophical theory from some other guy? We can't, because thoughts always have been and continue to be almost universal, depending on the conditions the person who made them is living in. Someone who is living in Peru that has never even heard of Marx before could produce the same exact critique as Marx did without knowing so. But then that same person could create a painting very similar to Van Gogh's style, so I guess even then one could say that originality depends entirely on the area in which the person is living in, what kind of access s/he has to certain resources, what type of media they can use for communication, etc. So I guess in reality there can be no universal law for what is original and what's not, it depends entirely on context.
Hell, there are certain fields of study such as the sciences that need people to "rip off" experiments in order to see if the experiments conducted are still valid in the enviornment used.