For several years I have been plagued by bouts of depression. I think the reason for this lies in how I percieve the talents of my own mind, a mind which can easily understand most abstract thought which would be challenging or impossible for some others to grasp. But at the same time a mind incapable of forming any thoughts of true originality itself.
Furthermore, this conviction led me to ask the question: what is the purpose and value of such a mind? To a craftsman, this question is not important. The craftmans product will be just as useful regardless of its originality.
This is why I arranged for an apprenticeship with a craftsman several years ago, avoiding the troublesome question all together. But losing this apprenticeship and failing to get a new one, I once again turned to intellecual pursuits and the the question returned stronger in its force than ever.
Can the production of philosophical ideas devoid of originality have any value? This is the question (bizarre though it may seem to many) this blog seeks to answer. It is not a topic that will be discussed directly, but posting my thoughts here and observing the reaction (or lack thereof, which might be more likely) of others to them will help me answer this question to myself, hopefully enlightening both myself and others in the process too.
-GD
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The main goal of this blog is for me to explore, evolve or modify my own personal convictions and the basis they are built on. This can be achieved to a certain degree by simply putting the words to paper, but it is my hope that someone may find these thoughts interesting enough to comment on and thus, through support or criticism, helping me on my road towards understanding.
I dont intend this comment to answer your main question, but feel that I have some ideas that have some relevance...
ReplyDeleteI am going to attack this question from another angle. Why the need for being original? Are the people who crave originality original? Is the idea of having to be original an original idea in itself? If the idea of having to be original is not original. Then I feel that perhaps the problem disappears?
I am not content with this however.
The ideal of being original or to transcend gives air to human existence. A human longing propels us beyond our confinement and makes us realize ourselves. Perhaps the ideal of being original is the most creative and original idea of them all?
I feel there is a need for air when we think... Closure is terrible as I realized when I wrote the first paragraph...
One thing else... "Old" ideas have utility. Cultivating understanding makes us maintain those ideas. "New" ideas however is a different thing. Can anyone know they are creative? Perhaps one could say that they could, because no perspective is identical... That leaves us with the problem that "anything is creative" which obviously doesn't hold. Perhaps one is creative only when one is dynamic? Static and dynamic in Pirsigs sense, I mean...
ReplyDeleteTo expound on what I have already said one could perhaps uphold that what you are talking about is the question whether use has value... If use has value, then we could be content, if use has no value then originality has no value either, or rather the value is only there for the originator... What I am trying to say is that thinking whether it is original or not might best be regarded as having value in that it keeps ideas circulating. Unless we can accept the value of "old thought", there is from an altruistic perspective no need to think because it would only gain ourselves...
ReplyDeleteI think true originality usually only reveals itself after some passage of time. I don´t agree with Pirsigs static vs. dynamic dichotomy. I believe any truly original creation is both static and dynamic in his sense of the words.
ReplyDeleteAny piece of music, for instance, that seems fresh when you hear it the first time, but quickly loses its appeal as you hear it more, only seems to be original. If there is any originality at al, it is only on the surface.
The old music that has withstood the test of time and is still being played and listened to today is usually also music that was in some way different to the music being normally played when it was written.
Does use have value? Yes I think so. A piece of furniture has a very real and straightforward type of value regardless of what it looks like. That is why I enjoyed being a craftsman, I could aspire to create original designs, but if I was unable to, what I made would still have value in its practical usefulness.
ReplyDeleteThis question does not have an obvious answer when it comes to the production of works of art or philosophical ideas. If you attend any courses of philosphy or the history of ideas or something similar, the thinkers you meet will be chosen because their ideas represented something new, and thus had an effect on the direction other thinkers at a later time would take in their thinking.
So that is my main point. An idea that has no influence on other thinkers, does it have value? You can not sit on it, so to speak.
Yes, I agree. Perhaps originality has to do with depth then? If you penetrate deeply into something that is when you really create. If you get a little inspiration you can create beautiful things, but beauty is skin deep. Take for instance Tom Waits, not really polished music, but with great depth and beauty through that...
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't solve the question though. What is the purpose of an uncreative mind? Is mind uncreative?
Lets go back say 40000 yrs. At that time people probably had a simpler language, a language that was very well suited to being a hunter/gatherer but not a language that had any idea about say invention. Then suddenly someone invented the bow and arrow, perhaps around 25000 yrs ago in Africa. Then you have different theories: According to Jared Diamond large-scale invention is in need of large groups of people. That is why Eurasia is the cradle of culture according to him.
Other theories might be new resource situations, use of drugs etc. But someone must have been the first one to think: "Ill make a bow and arrow"... Or more generally Ill do things in another way? How could that happen? If creativity is in need of large groups of people, the question is perhaps: How does mankind's "hive-mind" evolve? I can try and explain why I think this idea at least is entertaining later...
I think I might write a post about the link between originality and depth later. I have been trying to reply, but the answer just keeps getting to big to be put here. I do think there is a link between the two, but I think the picture is more complicated than that one necessarily leads to the other or that they are the same thing.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I like to think that originiality and creativity are not the same thing. Now, this is only a semantic point, and does not really touch on the real issue, but I just wanted to clarify my definitions, so there are no misunderstandings.
To me, creativity is really the drive or wish to create, something you find in all people, though to a different degree. I see myself as a creative man, because i have a strong wish to create, and so I spend much of my time planning big or small projects and realising some of them.
Originality, on the other hand is about the quality of the results of that creativity. Do you create something new, or are you just copying what you have seen or heard elsewhere before.
I´m sorry if this seems pedantic or anything, I just felt I had to make this clear.
I would like to hear more about the ideas og Jared Diamond (as I haven´t read him myself), and about your own thoughts on the matter, it seems fascinating. What is the link between invention and population, how does he argue?
ReplyDeleteOriginality is about origin. If it originates within you it is original. I think that the only way to be original is not to succumb to what "ought" to be said for instance. In a way we are just vessels for something else that speaks through us - Writing this isn't for instance planned - If the origin is placed outside of you: If you think that it ought to conform to something that is external to yourself, like the history of philosophy then originality is a problem. It will never happen. The thing is therefore I think to "allow"...
ReplyDelete