The human mind is incapable of a truly original thought.

[Real_Magi]

I can do a chain from The Doors to the first instrument ever documented in recorded history.

Precisely my point, glad you understand it. So what's the issue?

 

[Josh]

Listen, we are one, and as such, anything I do is what you do is what we all do. Take some responsibility for your actions.

Can't argue with that. You deserve the rest of the day off man!

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I could say that, and I would be correct.

Paranoid academia, why are you so territorial?

You would be, but then I wonder if you'd extend the analogy and then say that studying science doesn't make your empirical investigations more efficacious.

I am territorial and (as is fitting with this thread) I don't give much epistemological privilege to experience.

 

[UFCfightman**]

That is true that language has turned thought and sensation into something that it wasn't before. But the fact remains that complex, "super ideas" can be reduced to more basic ideas, which are not original. So while the particular arrangement is original, the parts on their most basic level are not.

Even the most complex philosophical statements can be reduced to basic animal cries.

by that reductive paradigm yes there is nothing that is original in this entire world. everything is comprised of the same atoms and matter but to what end would this discussion serve? certainly no greater truth is ascertained. this is some high school level philosophizing that's going on.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Just because you were the first to do something doesn't make it original. If I were the first person to stub my toe and feel pain, would that make me original? No, it just means I had the luxury of existing first and feeling the sensation. Originality is not merely the absence of replication in this case.

His critique, if I understand it correctly, is that unless you invented the medium itself, you can't claim to be truly original in that medium. Unless you invented the words, you can't claim to have a truly original story. It is nitpicking and overly reductionist but true when defined that way.

Except it doesn't really say anything. "Anything I can do falls within the logical realm of possibility." Well, yeah. And all bachelors are unmarried.

It's a useless truism when you make the definition of originality so strict.

 

[BEER]

Precisely my point, glad you understand it. So what's the issue?

The point is the fact that you're nitpicking.

Originality is defined as: The ability to think independently and creatively.

You saying that no one has an original thought is stupid, and the only way you can back up your point is by nitpicking and using chain logic to make yourself seem right.

Django Reinhardt wasn't the first man to play a guitar. The way he plays the guitar and the sequences and progressions he puts together makes him original. YES, he has influences. People who did things, albeit differently, before him that makes him play the way he does.

Doesn't mean his music isn't original. Originality is making something new from what we already have. Always has been.

But hey. Feel free to stay in your little bubble believing that nothing you think is ever original. I'm sure it's a very cozy, if pessimistic way of life.

 

[Kamishiro Yuu]

Yes because our basic instinct to communicate with each other by using our physical senses is certainly original...

lol

The ability to create a system to do so and for every person to interpret it individually is certainly organic (if not original.) Our very disagreement could be seen to substantiate my point. Our definitions of "Original" is differing and only when we elaborate and collude to create a set definition to discuss can we reach a middle ground, otherwise the conversation would forever be shrouded and undeterminable, almost as though we were talking to ourselves, bro.

 

[JonesBones]

Except it doesn't really say anything. "Anything I can do falls within the logical realm of possibility." Well, yeah. And all bachelors are unmarried.

It's a useless truism when you make the definition of originality so strict.

Well yeah, I said it was overly reductionist and I doubt it has much use. But as stated, it is true.

 

[Kamishiro Yuu]

Anyway, to further denounce this idea that nothing could ever be original, it's simply that we (as human beings capable of learning) look for points of reference. We seek validity in our endeavors through others (not necessarily people) in such a way that one could argue, albeit wrongly, we are only capable of accessing thoughts or ideas present in the natural world.

In other-words, there will be two differing perspectives, one can either argue that almost nothing is original, or that almost everything is original, bro.

 

[AgeofEmpires2**]

I shall sorsunify you into the creshtituous examples of mazanderbeek.

Look up the words you don't know in the Dictionary.

 

[GSPOAB]

I shall sorsunify you into the creshtituous examples of mazanderbeek.

Look up the words you don't know in the Dictionary.

 

[Kamishiro Yuu]

That is true that language has turned thought and sensation into something that it wasn't before. But the fact remains that complex, "super ideas" can be reduced to more basic ideas, which are not original. So while the particular arrangement is original, the parts on their most basic level are not.

Even the most complex philosophical statements can be reduced to basic animal cries.

But is this process itself not original? To reduce complex ideas, do we not have to first acknowledge what they are? And is the deconstruction not an original process whenever we encounter a newly formed "complex" idea? To look at things as being unoriginal is a very droll and quite frankly limited thought process, bro.

 

[AgeofEmpires2**]

I'm serious, google these words.

sorsunify
creshtituous
mazanderbeek

 

[lewisll]

Maybe the people with extreme mental disorders (maybe some forms of autism) can have original ideas but we just can't understand them so we label them as retarded when we are the ones who are infact retarded. Ha, turns out that the extremely "retarded" people are the most original.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Maybe the people with extreme mental disorders (maybe some forms of autism) can have original ideas but we just can't understand them so we label them as retarded when we are the ones who are infact retarded. Ha, turns out that the extremely "retarded" people are the most original.

Unfortunately being original doesn't make them any less retarded.

Which can also be said for many of the threads on this forum.

 

[lewisll]

Unfortunately being original doesn't make them any less retarded.

Which can also be said for many of the threads on this forum.

Yeah if somebody actually came up with original ideas he would probably be thought of as a lunatic or retarded.
If you look at it this way there are probably lots of people that come up with original ideas out there, and most of them wear straitjackets . lol

 

[JonesBones]

But is this process itself not original? To reduce complex ideas, do we not have to first acknowledge what they are? And is the deconstruction not an original process whenever we encounter a newly formed "complex" idea? To look at things as being unoriginal is a very droll and quite frankly limited thought process, bro.

There are certainly parts of the process that are original. But the TS is using a very strict definition where every part of the thought must be original, from top to bottom, from origin to end. I'm not saying I agree with his definition of originality, but if we accept his definition, it is correct.

And yes, it is something called "nothing buttery". Which I generally don't like. Everything can be reduced to "nothing but" this or that. In this case, all originality can be reduced to nothing but unoriginal sensations. Totally ignoring the holistic manifestation of something and those unique qualities, but only diving into its most basic parts.

 

[MortalWombat]

You would be, but then I wonder if you'd extend the analogy and then say that studying science doesn't make your empirical investigations more efficacious.

I am territorial and (as is fitting with this thread) I don't give much epistemological privilege to experience.

If you're going to pee on Tomax, I think it belongs in the other thread.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

if you're going to pee on tomax, i think it belongs in the other thread.

lmao.

 

[adam199]

It's impossible to essentially create an idea that has nothing to do with anything we know. It's all connected.