Truly new and original ideas?
I am wondering if there are any new ideas which have not been advocated by thinkers already. This is based on my reflection on the way in which I have discovered that any idea which I have, if I do some basic research, seems to have been explored.
It is possible that part of this could be that in the age of the internet we have so much access to possible sources of information and in previous times people may have not been aware of all the range of thinking already or presently taking place. Now it is almost seen as a duty to be aware of research and any duplication of another's view, unless one could not be reasonably expected to be aware of it can be seen as plagiarism.
In some ways a lot of thinking can be seen as a refinement of previous viewpoints and possible new juxtapositions, with some possible original labels. Of course, events of the times may also throw up new aspects of debate and some unusual dialogues between various perspectives. But as time goes on the possibilities may become even less, even within science.
So what is the scope for original possibilities and are there questions which have not been touched upon at all. Or are we coming to a dead end in this post postmodern era.
It is possible that part of this could be that in the age of the internet we have so much access to possible sources of information and in previous times people may have not been aware of all the range of thinking already or presently taking place. Now it is almost seen as a duty to be aware of research and any duplication of another's view, unless one could not be reasonably expected to be aware of it can be seen as plagiarism.
In some ways a lot of thinking can be seen as a refinement of previous viewpoints and possible new juxtapositions, with some possible original labels. Of course, events of the times may also throw up new aspects of debate and some unusual dialogues between various perspectives. But as time goes on the possibilities may become even less, even within science.
So what is the scope for original possibilities and are there questions which have not been touched upon at all. Or are we coming to a dead end in this post postmodern era.
Comments (96)
When I was a philosophy student, I came up with a few philosophical ideas that to this day, I have never seen duplicated. I have chatted about them with other people, and brought them to forums over the years. The number one thing I find is people keep trying to relate them to other ideas they already know.
I have encountered the following metaphorical exchange repeatedly.
Them: "Oh, that's like Locke."
Me: Huh, I don't know Locke's position on this. *Reads* Ok, I can see this one point here, but I diverge greatly on this aspect.
Them: But Locke concludes this based on his particular premises here.
Me: As you can see with my argument, I don't have those particular premises, or go that route.
(Optional final responses)
Them: *Blank stare* *Pause* Well ok then. *Leaves conversation* OR
Them: *Ignores anything in the argument that shows its not like Locke's argument, and insists its Locke's argument*
Them: (Rare bird!) "Oh, I see. Well, continue then."
Most people like to think from the perspective of what they already know. Anything that is too foreign or alien to this base, is most often dismissed, ignored, or derided. Very few people have the actual curiosity and intellectual drive to explore that which is alien. And that is why most of the "new ideas" have some aspect of the "old ideas". While this is convenient for the mind to grasp, it also tends to produce very similar results and thinking to the older ways. Thus instead of having leaps in thought or understanding, change is often very slow and gradual.
And how do you go about exploring that which is alien?
Key word being advocated. Probably. Though the base 'ideas' or 'concepts', essentially everything that has or can be observed, experienced, or pondered have no doubt been established and so any potential 'new idea' is likely to be cast as a simple derivative or "springboard"/"piggyback" . Remember for thousands of years people were just sitting around without TV or electronics. Sure, books, a few games, alcohol, tobacco, etc. Still, they had a lot of free time on their minds, even in labor.
Truth, morality, reality, absolute vs. subjective, value, emotion, wisdom- all these things have been laid out long ago. More than likely, if you look hard enough, there's some variant of anything somewhere back up the line.
It does seem to come down to conformity and thinking about matters within a set agenda and those who think outside certain terminology are seen as the 'aliens'. Perhaps language matters and as far as this forum is concerned the best term for initiating discussion is 'qualia' being mentioned.
New ideas are everywhere, but possibly not in academia they are slow to gestate because of its inertial nature. Academia tends to follow not lead. I always marvel at new techniques that are applied to magic tricks. Original thoughts come forth from our innate ability to create something new.
I hope that you are right because I am wishing to touch upon and create new ideas. My belief about philosophy is that it should embrace, rather than criticize, creativity.
I am most certainly correct. The fun is in finding them or creating them.
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes." [Proust]
Yes, I will try to create my 'new eyes' in order to reinvision a new way of perception, even though some may disdain me for my quest.
The more you read, the more YouTube lectures you watch, the more classes you attend, the more you talk to other people, the fewer new ideas you will come across, and the fewer new ideas you can have. So, if you want to have new ideas, ignore everybody else.
Education is, to a large extent, immersion in the ideas that have already been thought, written down, discussed, advocated, promoted, rejected, been forgotten on the shelf, and so on. Education saves us from having to think of everything ourselves, which is a great mercy.
Does all that mean you won't have "new ideas"? No. But... you probably won't think of any MAJOR new idea that hasn't already been turned up by somebody else. And that's OK.
Does all that mean that intellectuals have reached a dead end? No. There are a lot of great ideas that remain to be implemented, and the means by which implementation can be carried out requires... new ideas.
Take a currently popular topic: POVERTY. There is probably nothing new to think, say, or write about it that hasn't already been thought, said, or written about a thousand times over. Most people, when pressed, think we should not have millions (or billions) of people living in poverty. Unfortunately, we do not know how to ACTUALLY eliminate poverty, because we don't know how to reorganize society (and its wealth) in a way that doesn't make things worse. More to the point, we don't know how to get people to change the way they think.
So, Jack, there is a topic where NEW IDEAS are very much needed.
I can see your point that watching television, using the internet and reading books can prevent us from developing new thoughts. I think these media determines what we think about too much, setting an agenda. So, perhaps if we spent less time engaged with these we would come up with more original ideas. I sometimes feel that talking to others about philosophy can stimulate my thinking more than just reading and writing. And of course the sages relied more on spoken discussion.
But I do think that writing helps and not just writing on devices. I used to write morning pages which were 3 pages written first thing in the day, as advocated in The Artist's Way, by Julia Cameron. I used to find it often enabled me to touch base with what I was feeling and thinking. I admit that I have now got into the habit at looking at my phone first thing in the morning instead.
I would love to come up with some really original thoughts but I am inclined to think that the best way is not just to choose a topic that no one has explored enough. The reason I say this is that I believe that the most original thoughts come from experience, of battling with issues deeply. However, in philosophy there is a need to frame ideas in a way which can make them of use to others too.
I am not sure that others would agree that experiences is necessary for philosophy, because some would say that logic alone is enough. But I am inclined towards the view that passion for a topic of discussion is of great importance.
I came up with a hypothesis last yr and so far i haven't found anyone come remotely close to what I have
And the people that I share it with give me the same responses that you receive.. Kinda frustrating.
I hear ya Mayael. Feel free to post it here again if you would like. I'll keep an eye out for it and promise to give you the good kind of response.
"I try to think but nothing happens." Curly of the Three Stooges said,
My best thinking has occurred when I have been trying to solve a problem about which I was (at least somewhat) passionate. In isolation, one might think one had arrived at a genuinely NEW and IMPROVED idea, only to find that other people (also working in isolation) had come up with the same thing. Damn!!!!
The World draws us into similar thinking. EXAMPLE: In the 1980s the gay community had to find responses to the AIDS crisis. I was an outreach worker for the local AIDS organization, and part of the education and intervention group. I tend to be a loner and do not usually do well at collaboration, so I wasn't very aware of what other people in the country were doing. At an AIDS conference in Toronto, there was a workshop for outreach workers; it turned out that we were all doing very similar things.
Were we all doing similar things because we were unimaginative? Engaged in group think? Stealing each others ideas? No; we were doing the same things--maybe arrived at entirely independently--because the problem we were all working on--finding ways to change high-risk behaviors in high-risk settings--led us to the same approaches.
Granted, intervening in high-risk sexual scenarios isn't philosophy--though a lot of philosophy went into our collective thinking. Like, how much disruption are we willing to impose on our brothers? How does one balance the rightness of individual choice against epidemiology? The fact is that some people are risk averse and others are risk tolerant; how much change can one expect to achieve?
Another problem I wrestled with at the AIDS project was 'pitching information pieces at the right level of vernacular language'. This is a thorny problem because public health people usually avoid blunt vernacular language, and most of the public doesn't use public health terminology. My thinking about this was original to me but of course other people had worked on this problem and had come to similar solutions. (My 'original' solution was to write a computer program to help writers pitch their texts to a broad, low reading level. Original. Oh, slightly. Other people did the same thing, and better.).
WHAT'S THE UPSHOT OF ALL THIS?
Stop trying to be original. IF you have it in you, and IF you give your imagination free rein, you will come up with some ideas that are original to you. Somebody else, somewhere, some time, may have thought of the same thing. That's takes nothing away from your ideas.
It's possible that you will come up with an idea that absolutely no one else in the world has thought of, and therefore may seem like so much of an outlier that nobody will be interested in it. Or, maybe not. But most thinking involves addition and subtraction -- I mean, we add to or carve away parts of others ideas, and arrive at new thinking.
Instead of thinking in boolean terms of ideas that have been had at all or never before, it's perhaps more productive to think in terms of how well-known ideas are. If you independently come up with an idea that is not well-known, or if you just stumble across someone else's mention of a little-known idea, that's still a kind of useful "discovery" in that it strengthens the connection between that idea and realm of well-known ones.
Ever notice the dual meaning of "original"? In one sense, a brand new idea, never before thought of, is said to be original. In another sense "original" is the very first, so that would mean the very first idea, from which all others proceed. The two are sort of incompatible because if there's an original in the sense of first, then all others that follow are some sort of copy of the first, and there is no original in the sense of brand new.
For sure. Here's a video that a guy made that wanted to collaborate on some new topics for his YouTube channel and he really liked the idea but unfortunately like everybody else didn't really have anything to add to it but thinks it's interesting. If you have any questions on it feel free to ask.
https://youtu.be/5RoMmAXEkek
Yes, I see what you mean about the word original, so perhaps what is needed is not just original ideas but ones which give synthesis.
https://www.pocket-lint.com/gadgets/news/137775-20-crazy-inventions-you-won-t-believe-what-you-re-about-to-see
As an example, a functional integral is a concept that might have been difficult to explain to Eudoxus, who in 370BC devised a method of exhaustion to find volumes and areas. Archimedes then adopted this concept. But not until the 17th century did the foundations of modern calculus appear in works of Fermat and others. And Newton and Leibniz might have had trouble in understanding this abstraction of integration.
And then there are modern subjects that use normal language to describe what is being mathematically conjured, like category theory and schema. These areas of study arise from processes of abstraction and generalization.
From a personal perspective, I've recently defined and studied something I call a hybrid path line, which bears similarity to path lines from fluid dynamics or dynamical systems, but is different. It's of no consequence, a mere plaything, but illustrates how one concept leads to another. :cool:
I am afraid I cannot possibly grasp your maths theories although they sound fascinating, so I will reread what you say in the morning as I am reading this in the middle of the night. Besides, I struggled with maths at school but it would have been better if we had looked at theories. I feel the same way about physics, having done reading on physics after not being able to connect with the subject at school.
But the point you are making is that you have found new ideas after being told that there would be no new ideas which is promising. I expect the same is true in philosophy. I would love to be the discoverer but do not necessarily think I have the knowledge and aptitude for this, but I might try. However, I certainly hope that some people will venture forth into new territories.
In fact, on another thread, @Gnomon mentioned the system of thinking he has been developing, called enformationism. So, there are people out there coming up with new ideas.
Sure there are. However, there are none that are completely new. Knowledge is accrued.
I agree that knowledge is accrued. Perhaps the way in which certain viewpoints come and go as the predominantly popular frames of reference is in cycles.
Yes, I think that you make a very important point. The whole set of criteria: 'original, comprehensible, popular or accurate' are competitive ones and I don't think they could possibly be all achieved equally. I have to admit that I would rank accurate and comprehensible as the two top ones.
I would be tempted to say that accurate should be the most important but comprehensible is important in a sense or there is a danger of 'truth' becoming too esoteric. But, there again, perhaps that is what happens when philosophy is constructed into popular means of being written for everyday understanding. Perhaps the truth gets levelled down into being too comprehensible that the essence gets lost in the process.
And, in conceiving of ideas in this way I am not sure that 'original' is that important in the scheme of things. I am probably coming to that conclusion in my discussion thread on cultural relativism too, because I have really raised the whole question of what is truth?
Well, every idea is both new and original since it is idiosyncratic to its context, and no two people can have precisely identical contexts. So you must be talking about a specific kind of idea, one which is in a sense "publicly formatted" I guess.
No, I was not thinking of one specific idea when I dreamt up this thread. I was just feeling daunted by the prospect of needing to be informed by the history of any idea that I think about.
Well, according the Cassirer chapter I read this morning, all historical interpretation is a creative-imaginative project. So in that context, all ideas are constantly being recreated in new forms.....
I think most of the experiences human beings are capable of are usually had in some form, so its rare for a completely unprecedented phenomenon to be noted. The exceptions are probably in quantum physics and astrophysics, where occurrences completely beyond the realm of typical perception are observed.
But there are tons of common phenomena that we don't know how to control or generate yet, and this is where mechanistic thinking that came to full fruition post-Scientific Revolution figures in. We are still only in the initial stages of actually predicting or recreating what we observe at will, which is what theory and modern technology are in the process of allowing humans to accomplish.
An additional area where much innovation needs to happen is in getting everyone cooperating, grasping and accepting the perspectives of fellow humans such that we have enough common knowledge and effective forums for collective action to optimize the rational efficiency of society, as well as making it possible for rare traits to get tolerant recognition and find a niche.
Seems to me we have been doing respectably well in the arena of technology since the European Enlightenment, but with recent declines in our promotion of rationality such that technological development may stagnate in some of the world's regions, and new cognitive traits may tend to be immediately choked out by prejudices and the requirement that human beings conform to stereotypes.
Making provision for rare traits is rational because that's where the most improbable advances usually come from.
Helen Keller didn't even have a self until someone prompted her to conceptualize the sense of touch, and she became one of the most eloquent representatives for the disabled of anyone in history while totally transforming what society believed it was possible for cognition to do.
Think of everything we've learned about neuroscience from accidental deficits in particular regions of the brain that teach us the processes they perform. If we were all exactly the same, brain science probably would have made much slower initial progress because we would have only been seeing what we expected, with experiment mirroring our intuitions.
Its not just rare gifts but rarity in general that is key to support because some progress will be impossible any alternate way. The university system we take for granted began with Medieval universitas which were just a few students meeting with a single teacher at someone's house to read great books. By the
Early Modern period this was an institutional foundation of culture and became the entire world's template. Medicine developed by facing sickness and deformity head on rather than ostracizing it.
And yes, avant garde art scenes are an example of how rarity achieves a respected niche, not always immediately or obviously adaptive, but the principle of it is crucial. Of course civilization shouldn't wander off a cliff with experimentation, but that's probably impossible anyway if we also keep rationality in focus as we craft mainstream institutions.
Of course this or any principle is vulnerable to corruption in any particular case, as I'm sure you can imagine, but that shouldn't be seen to invalidate the principle itself, just as rationality can't be dismissed as an ideal by claiming humans are frequently irrational.
Yes, you are quite right about Helen Keller. She was a very interesting example of someone with rare gifts and the person who sprang to my mind when I was reading your comment was Stephen Hawking. Also, I was wondering in particular about people who have been diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum, because some of them have profound and rare abilities too.
Quoting MondoR
I’m not quite sure what this might mean in relation to the OP?
I’ve being thinking about this in relation to the OP “What is the purpose of creativity”. What are we meaning by original and creating? In one of my posts, in an effort to include intentionality in my thinking, I wrote in relation to every intending having its intended object ( I don’t assume I completely grasp intentionality) that imagining presents an imaginary object. This was in relation to creativity coming before the act. Then I said that in imagining something imaginary we were only creating something imaginary by collating disparate, but pre existing, elements, like an imaginary creature from space. We create it from things we know. How could we create it from things we don’t know?
It seems to me that what we call original is only that. To say that original thoughts come forth from our ability to create something new is is sort of doubling up on the impossible. Even a newborn, with their own fingerprints and DNA, still resembles every other child in appearance and ultimately in consciousness.
In Picasso’s painting Le Demoiselles d’avignon, a radical break away from conventional painting at the time, an ‘original’, he combines tradition with the influences of African masks and sculpture. Nothing in it is original except the throwing together of two cultural representations of people. So isn’t the new or original not a fact but just perception. And if so then can there really be something original?
I think so. So far, mankind has been limited by its own perception. We see things as only a human can see things. Everything we've made so far is based on that.
But we're touching on real phenomenon that are beyond human perception. Quantum physics, dark energy and matter, unifying theories, and whatever else that lies beyond the observable universe... In other words, we might have exhausted our human perception but there's far more that exists beyond that.
and this:
[quote=Wikipedia]Carl Wilhelm Scheele (9 December 1742 – 21 May 1786) was a German and Swedish Pomeranian pharmaceutical chemist. Isaac Asimov called him "hard-luck Scheele" because he made a number of chemical discoveries before others who are generally given the credit.[/quote]
and this:
Heroic Theory of Invention And Scientific Development
and this:
[quote=Wikipedia][The profound significance of Mendel's work was not recognized until the turn of the 20th century (more than three decades later) with the rediscovery of his laws. Erich von Tschermak, Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns independently verified several of Mendel's experimental findings in 1900, ushering in the modern age of genetics] Rediscovery Of Gregor Mendel's Work[/quote]
and this:
Leibniz-Newton Calculus Controversy
It appears that the invention/discovery of new ideas has a Jekyll and Hyde personality. Sometimes, rediscovering/reinventing an idea/invention brings the original discoverer/inventor to public awareness and this becomes the occasion for receiving recognition in their respective fields e.g Gregor Mendel's case. Other times, multiple discoveries result in no-holds-barred fights among the discoverers/inventors, all of whom want to claim primacy in the discovery/invention e.g. the Leibniz-Newton debate.
Speaking for myself, I suppose it's a good idea to do adequate research before one claims that one's idea is a novel one. Two thousand years have passed since the earliest thinkers graced the world and even if one makes a conservative estimate of the rate at which new ideas/inventions are born there should be enough ideas/inventions out there to make the odds of duplication quite high.
Thanks for the references. Actually, a few minutes ago I just bought a book in a charity shop by Christopher Hitchens, (2011), 'Arguably,' after reading your thread about it.
There are so many writers and ideas, and one writer leads onto another. It is like digging up the collective unconscious. For the moment, I am so busy reading recently that I feel that I am doing philosophy full-time, and I would imagine that you spend most of your time reading and writing.
A handy tool in your toolkit should be Hitchens' Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It seems to have attracted some criticism but, to me, it's a burden of proof issue and assuredly, the one who makes the claim must furnish the proof for that claim whatever it is. I believe the Latin equivalent is: quod gr?t?s asseritur, gr?t?s neg?tur (what is asserted gratuitously can be negated gratuitously).
Coincidentally, Hitchens' razor is a good example of an old idea that has been adapted to the modern audience by a prominent social figure who's, among other things surely, a strident opponent of religion.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I suppose ideas that are mutually compatible or mutually supporting clump, to use a biological term, together and a synergy develops among them that, on occasion, becomes the breeding ground for other, newer, ideas. At other times, conflicting ideas experience attrition as they vie for people's attention and adherence and even here too new ideas, either by way of a compromise or a rejection of the inconsistency, emerge from what is essentially the carnage of ideological wars.
As no one has responded to you yet my playful word associated around the idea of levels of consciousness. What also comes to mind is the Avicci track 'Levels', which I associate with levels of consciousness even though I have no idea whether it is about that at all.
If my response is disappointing I am sorry, but you gave so little clues about what your idea of levels is.
However, considering how many people have come before, the technicalities are new, the underlying thought maybe not so much. But one may certainly improve certain ideas, or put them together in a manner that is unique, so in that regard there's plenty of things one could work out. But big questions stuff, have probably been touched on by some person sometime in the past.
It also raises the issue, what are "truly new and unique" ideas anyway? Most of this stuff is discovered by accident as you said. In the humanities, we could speak of "originality" which is distinct from new.
I think its standard usage. As in, if your hypothetical friend, Jones, memorized something, you wouldn't say Jones' brain memorized this information, you'd say Jones memorized the information. Likewise, you wouldn't say Jones legs walk, you'd say Jones walks (using his legs of course). A brain alone leaves out, eyes, nose, ears, etc. not to mention situations, other people, etc. I'd argue that we understand more about people than we do about brains, which is to say very little.
The original "ideas" were not even ideas, but instincts, or irrational impulses. Everything that had been thought of by mankind was no longer original.
This is a fairly old thread in the sense that I have probably started about five since this one.
However, I am interested by your claim that every idea thought by mankind had existed already. If you mean it is based on some instinct, I am not sure that would make sense in the way that I am thinking of ideas. That is because I am thinking of them in a philosophical sense. For example, the ideas of psychoanalysis, postmodernism, the existential, holistic or phenomenological.
Of course, I realise that I am talking of the naming of ideas and that the actual content of ideas goes beyond the surface of mere naming. I can understand that some ideas are discovered by all different cultures independently, such as the idea of time or the idea of religion. In this respect, such ideas could be seen as archetypal. Is that what you mean?
Basic ideas could be seen as existing in that way. but surely, is it certain individual human beings who have developed the specific ideas, such as the philosophical theories or critiques, as we know them.
The concept of ideas can be compared to the concept of inventions.
Most new inventions are just a combination of primary inventions. A wheel being a primary invention, as well as fire in a combustion engine. A motor vehicle is a much newer invention, but is just a complex combination.
I would say most primary ideas have already been thought of. But there is still many ways to combine them and discover something new.
I see that this is your first post on the site, so I hope that you find some interesting discussions. I have been thinking about the issue of ideas since the comment made previous to yours. What I have been thinking is about is how both Plato and Kant saw ideas as part of the objective sphere. Their theory of knowledge was based on the belief that knowledge and ideas exist independently of us, and we are able to discover them.
Yes, it is also interesting to wonder about how inventions are out there in an objective realm waiting to be discovered. I have been engaged with others on a couple of other threads about the process of creativity in the arts. In thinking about this we can ask about whether, for example, the pictures of Salvador Dali or novels of James Joyce were based on an objective realm of ideas awaiting discovery.
This is also an exciting area of thought because it leads us into the direction of how do we find knowledge ourselves? Kant thought it was discoverable, by the principle of reason. I am sure that many think of other means of finding ideas, including psychedelic experimentation. These could be seen as the two extreme approaches as searching for ideas awaiting to be found. At the moment, the world is in need of some outstanding ideas. I am almost starting to think of someone out in the wilderness reaching out for ideas like Moses grasping the ten commandments amidst burning bushes.
I generally like to keep thread discussion as open as possible but I would welcome any suggestions for specifics. I created this thread about 6 weeks ago and it feels more like 6 months ago. I have written lots, but at the moment this one seems to risen again. Unlike some threads which I thought about quite a bit, I wrote this really spontaneously, so I am inclined to the idea of keeping it as open as possible in the spirit of creativity.
No.
What I say is that, the "original ideas" in their essence were not conceived by the human psyche, but were instinctive reflections of the animalistic side that we still have.
For example, the idea of creating energy by means of the use of fire, or better saying, of producing energy by means of cooking food - when human beings learned to "cook" or create more energy to be consumed - was not something idealized, or programmed by the inquiries of the human individual, but by the simple instinct and its irrational impulsivity.
All reflections conceived by the contemporary human logical-rational mind - from 10,000 BC to the present day - were no longer original, as they were based on irrational "ideas" from our ancestors.
I think that you are partly right, but I would say that we are driven by our animal sides and rational aspects, with emotions as somewhere in between. Jung spoke of how we had neglected the animal aspects of our being and how religious and spiritual teachings had spoken in terms of a false dichotomy between lower and higher aspects of human nature.
I would imagine that the whole way of seeing life was different between the earliest people and present day ones. I am sure that they were more practical because they had learned to approach life in that way. There are variations between people and I am one of the worst examples because I sit here writing about ideas and I rely on microwave food.
But I do believe that ideas are not just based on instincts alone. What about the role of art? We are not just concerned with bodily aspects of life, but at the same time it would be foolish to deny these. It is possible that in the original sense ideas were based on survival. It is also possible that the whole processing of ideas was different , as suggested by Julian Jaynes in 'The Origins of the Bicameral Mind.'
I would say that we need to be aware of the instincts, emotions and reason and that ideas occur on all these levels. If anything, perhaps the problem with Plato and Kant was that they made the whole problem of knowledge appear too mystical. However, on some level I would argue that there is still an archetypal and mythical dimension to human existence.
My statement does not say that all human metaphysics is irrational, but that its base was built by the instinctive and irrational minds of our ancestors. I believe that everything after 50,000 BC had already been developed and conceptualized rationally and "philosophically" - in this, understand "philosophically" as the act of questioning and answering yourself -, yet, as time went on, our way of perceiving and idealizing thing got more sophisticated.
Quoting Jack Cummins
As Nietzsche said:
"Apollo and Dionysus. We are made to recognize the tremendous split, as regards both origins and objectives, between the plastic, Apollinian arts and the nonvisual art of music inspired by Dionysus. The two creative tendencies developed alongside one another, usually in fierce opposition, each by its taunts forcing the other to more energetic production, both perpetuating in a discordant concord that agon which the term art but feebly denominates: until at last, by the thaumaturgy of an Hellenic act of will, the pair accepted the yoke of marriage."
In resume, we should live using wisely both our instinctive and rational "Self" to reach Übermensch - yet, we see the trend throught history of times where the rational aspect dominates, and others in which the animalistic irrational takes hold -. We have yet to make the perfect "marriage" between the two.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I don't think you're one of the worst examples. You are simply adapted to the environment in which you find yourself. This doesn't make you worst or better. You just are.
I am sorry that you are finding my post as being not specific enough. Apart from the current discussion which is about ideas and whether they are objective truths, and whether they are based on reason, I would point to another specific question.
One person, Possiblility, pointed to a criteria for evaluating ideas: originality, accuracy, popularity, comprehensibility? You can read her post if you scroll back this thread. However, the question is whether originality is the most important standard for viewing the importance of ideas or one of the other measures? I found this to be a useful question to think about.
I did not take your comment as s personal question. If anything, it helped me to reflect on how I have been writing almost on a manic level.It is the first forum I have been on and I only joined in September and I have been writing so many posts and threads. I think that I need to slow down a bit, and I would imagine that you are being more cautious.
Philosophy is about reflection in many ways. You speak of the question or questions raised by this post as being yes or no. I think it is very hard to find yes or no answers in philosophy. Is this fortunate or unfortunate?
If there are yes or no answers to most philosophy questions, it does not mean that we are able to know them with certainty. The most obvious example here is the question of life after death. That is really a yes or no, more or less, but it is simply that we don't know for certain while we are alive. I don't think that the computers can even help us, except providing a search engine of books and articles.
The way in which ideas began as instincts and became more sophisticated is interesting. Of course, it does still leave questions about the where these stemmed from, such as whether there are objective archetypes behind the underlying ideas, even at the instinctual level. In evolutionary terms it could be biologically based but it becomes more complex when it is about the ideas which emerged in civilisation and philosophy.
The suggestion you make about the importance of a marriage between rationality and instincts raises some important areas for considering too. How do we balance these on a personal and collective level ?, I would say that it is not easy to achieve balance.
I do have an interest in Nietzsche's writings, but I have to admit that when I read them I get caught up in their literary merits and sometimes lose focus on the actual arguments he is proposing. I also believe that Nietzsche struggled deeply and became unwell mentally. I am not sure what happened to him eventually and not sure if he committed suicide.I might be wrong in thinking he did, but I definitely remember reading about his tortured life.
I am extremely influenced by Jung and he spoke of the importance of integrating bodily sensations, emotions, rationality and intuitions in order to achieve wholeness. I do believe that there has been some academic debate on the dialogue between the ideas of Nietzsche and Jung. This is an area I find interesting and would like to read more on in the future.
But I do think that if the balance is not right people get sick emotionally and mentally. I would say that cultural progress has probably gone too far towards Apollo rather than Dionysus. In particular, I think that life has become too pressured. In the last five years , I have thought that this was happening more and more, especially in the workplace. I felt that something was going to break and it has done, because now we have the pandemic. But I believe that there were many signs of collapse before.
One aspect which I do wonder about at times is whether the pandemic has occurred as an evolutionary balancing factor. Perhaps, the planet as a living system could not sustain the lifestyle which the developed nations have become accustomed to for much longer. Obviously, the pandemic doesn't provide long term solutions to problems, such as oil, but it may have been about a breaking point having been reached. Of course, I realise that I may be trying to see meaning in events which may be random and not connected.
Change dictates that novelty must always exist. Consider yourself as a prime example. The insights and awareness of each individual is unique because there is never nor will there ever be, spatially And temporally, another you. You are a new phenomenon to the universe -that will only occur once.
However our similarities ... the human condition... is something we all share; our common emotions, desires, dreams, ambitions, anxieties fears and insecurities.. these things have been in the past and will likely be again in the future due to that which makes a human “human”.
So as for original thought, despite our likeness you provide the world with original thought every day. That is your persona. It cannot be substituted/ replaced.
I agree that you cannot speak of that which you do not already know but that is not to say that these things that are already known cannot be mixed and amalgamated into something unique. If we couldn’t think Independently then self expression, art, discovery and innovation could not be possible.
Consider hydrogen and oxygen. They are separate molecules with unique properties but when combined ... water is formed... which has a combined property unlike that of it’s components. The same is true of human experience. We take from the knowledge of others but how we apply this information is always different. Even if only in a slightly nuanced novel form.
New stories will always be shared, new ideas regarding how to manipulate and utilise the reality presented to us will always be undertaken.but they will likely have a similar vein because we are the same species; we require the same needs as one another.
By assuming a logic that everything is already thought of then the arrow of time would Fail as direction comes from having point A a starting position and point B the destination. If the beginning and destination are ultimately the same thing then progress does not happen.
Anyway.. This is my idea.. putting it concisely.. without the evidence I have acquired.. PLEASE.. LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE COME ACROSS A SIMULAR IDEA.. I would be interested in comparing them.. According to my reasoning.. all the diverse fields we discover in physics.. are simply diversifications in the Primary Field..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion.. what still seems to be missing in physics is a concept of a Primary Field that connects everything together.. so we have a ONENESS.. instead of division. It is our brain that divides everything into parts.. and makes artificial separations.. that do not exist in nature. This PRIMARY Field could serve as a theatre.. for the multiverse to exist in (That is if the multiverse exists.. of course). It also seems probable that when a universe pops into existence..it borrows its energy from the Primary Field and the energy gradually returns by means of entropy. We might speculate.. that most of the Primary Field consists of energy in a dormant (or potential) state. AND.. This is the reason physics cannot detect it... and therefore labels it - NON EXISTENT.
Nevertheless.. it would seem EVERYTHING that exists is simply an activity in the Primary Field... including OUR CONSCIOUSNESS. Physics is the science that detects and describes this activity.. as waves, and particles. Material things have a beginning and an end.. but the Primary Field has no beginning and no end because it is not subject to space- time.. yet it exists both outside.. and inside.. space-time... It is therefore both.. TEMPORAL as well as... INFINITE & ETERNAL
This quote below is Einstein speaking to Schwinger.. (one of the founders of quantum field theory).. about what he saw as a problem of having six quantum fields…. instead of just ONE... - (Primary Field)
“This is indeed a beautiful theory, but it seems there are six separate fields – four force fields and two matter fields. As you know, my hope was to find a single field that comprises all forces and matter. This theory of yours does not meet that objective.”
-
Because I basically have nobody to really explore my ideas with in depth, they remain abstract and underdeveloped. I have joined philosophy clubs but it isn't like I can get anyone to read my essays. Everyone wants to talk about Kant or Zizek or something like that.
But why SHOULD I share my ideas with anyone? If I did have a good idea, it would just be stolen.
I would encourage you to think about exploring your ideas which you have not shared, especially as you feel that you have "no prospects'.
Unfortunately, if we don't share our ideas they remain trapped in our heads. I remember a college tutor saying that idea don't exist if they are not communicated and I thought this was going too far, but I could see his point.
I do believe that we have to find the right arena to share, but sometimes, life involves taking risks. Obviously, we have to weigh them up and you are entitled to keep your ideas to yourself, but oneday you might look back with some what if questions.
Multiple Discovery
But an infinite potential for combination of ideas.
The idea of multiple discovery, as shown in the link is important because it may be that the truly important ideas arise in the understanding of many disciplines rather than any one alone. This may be in connection with systemic understanding, even if a 'theory of everything'. is not possible.
I am afraid that the accounts which I have read of Nietzsche's death have been blurry. I have been left with a muddle of his death as involving organic factors and the existential struggle. The complex tension of this may apply to the life struggle of Nietsche, but also be relevant to that of human beings, but as subjects struggling with suffering, as sentient beings grappling with meaning and ideas.
As my former boss was wont to say, on every occasion, "we all have 100 billion neurons." His message in a nutshell: If Einstein could do it, so can anyone else! Our brains are practically identical.
It may be about brainstorming and finding new ways of focusing, and even alternative ways of seeing and perception. The lens through which we see may change on account of the ideas which are developed. The philosophy of idealism or realism, for example, may alter everything just as the camera did. So, both thought and the sensory basis of perception may alter the way in which all aspects of life are observed or understood conceptually.
The question may be what role do neurons play? I am sure that it is significant, but what is the relationship between neuroscience and ideas. What is intuition and imagination and can they be traced back to the physical wiring of the brain and the human imagination?
Same as "the relationship between" particle physics and chocolate frosting. It's a category mistake to (causally) relate them. :roll:
We're entering into uncharted territory mon ami! Hic sunt dracones. I plucked the low hanging fruit as you can see.
:zip:
As far as I see it, so many do try to look to neuroscience, as if it is 'chocolate frosting'. It does raise big questions about causation. Some may get carried away with the novelty of ideas to thre point where it glosses over the surface so much. The understanding may require greater analysis and that may be where philosophy will remain important in sifting through and making sense of it all, as an elimination of potential nonsense.
It may go back to the issue of the red zones or 'philosophical dangers'. The new may be forbidden territory and feared. On the hand, it may be about exploration and experimentation. Some ideas may be found accidentally and in wandering into uncharted ideas, even to the point of getting lost, or what my mother accused me of, 'going off the planet.' However, if one stays safe in the boxes of tradition what is the scope for innovation and discovery?
That's fine, because the thread which I wrote a long while ago popped up out of the blue again. Perhaps, it is time for me to explore new and original ideas...Keep well, and try not to overthink, because that may be what I do.
Best wishes,
Jack
That is the complexity of it and I am rather amazed when some people seem to see neuroscience as a form of replacement of philosophy. I am not trying to exaggerate, but the emphasis on science, especially in understanding consciousness, almost seems to regard philosophy like an appendix, as if it is some outdated add on aspect to consciousness. It is as if thought itself is not seen as the basis, even though concepts are based on ideas, which cannot be reduced to matter.
I would have thought this was similar to evolutionary science replacing philosophy for many others. Isn't this just how dominant narratives in the current era have unfurled?
Danke for reminding me of red zones (in philosophy). AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY sign on the fence or a :death: DANGER! CLASS I TOXIN! on the book cover - ideas that can cause revolutions, memes that can cause devastating pandemics (re index librorum prohibitorum). Strict control of ideas is practised especially by authoritarian regimes (re thought police); I don't blame 'em though for the simple reason that it's a do/die situation.
My thinking is that ideas are a consequence of perspectives and myths rather than things that simply occur to you, because of reasoning, knowledge accruement, or some rare special trait. Most people share similar worldviews, perspectives, and myths, most of the ideas that can be born out of the major worldviews, perspectives, and mythological structures to the western science and philosophy have come and gone. It's time we have new paradigms, perspective shifts, and myths and then ideas will spring fresh again for a time and then the creativity will wane once again, until another new cultural period occurs that results in new paradigms, perspectives shift, and myths.
It may be that it is hard to find ideas which do not occur in relation to ideas that have gone before. There is the question of how Infinite are aspects of thoughts, images and concepts, to make them so exclusive as to have never been tapped into by any other minds. Thoughts and ideas may evolve, be recycled and occur in crossovers of conceptual thinking. The basic mythical structures may remain and be brought forth in new innovations.
The ongoing aspects of innovation may be essential to creativity and philosophical possibilities. Without this there may be a crisis of culture, equivalent to that of ecology and climate change. The loss of potential original ideas may signify what the postmodernists describe as the 'end of history', as history is not just facts but the underlying framework of interpretation, which is an ongoing conceptual and mythical narrative in the making.
One person's;new idea is someone else's old one. I look forward to the time philosophers consider it part of their job to study the Perennial philosophy, for this is a still a new idea for most trained philosophers. It seems to me that university-style philosophy died some some ago and rigour mortis.is well advanced.
As you say, the internet is a crucial consideration, It is now possible for anyone to examine the facts. This gives me hope that they will see the poverty and ongoing failure of mainstream western philosophy and move on. . . .
Not many of them are truly new, they are mostly either combinations of existing ideas or remakes of other ideas.
I posted that 3 years ago. You have no idea what it's like waiting that long for a reply. Absolute torture.
I never look at the dates, it takes the fun out of things. :rofl:
I had not seen the thread before so it either got missed back them or was of no interest at that moment.
I am now going to look for your posts from as far back as I can find and answer them, just for the fun value.
Hope I can find at least something worth replying to. :wink:
Vaskani
Possibly establishing a link between links between paradoxically ‘original’ questions Meno comes up with, commensurate with predictive signs of parables which have claimed miracles as their ground.
Yup. And even when new thinkers make original contributions to older ideas, we have a bad habit of backwards projecting the new ideas onto the old. E.g., I am a very big fan of Wallace's "Philosophical Mysticism in Plato and Hegel," and yet it seems to me that Wallace's Plato is more the future "Plato" of the "middle Platonist" Jews and Christians (Philo, Origen, Cyril, etc.) and of the "late/Neoplatonists," (Plotinius, Porphyry, Proclus, Augustine, Eriugena, etc.).
Not that the seeds of these ideas cannot be located in Plato, but they seem a lot stronger in those he influenced.
But we also tend to allow a large set of ideas to accrue to "great names," in this way.