Thread: No Such Thing As An Original Thought?

What you are saying amount to this. There is an alphabet. There is no such thing as an origional "a". It is from the alphabet that we construct words, it is from the "blocks" of thought that we create our expressions in life.

So, may as well say there is no such thing as an original lego--even though the possible constructions are endless.

The absolute is the absolute--it means no difference. The relative is the relative--meaning always a difference. Together the absolute boundaries on differences construct things--even that thing we call our life.

I posted Language and Experience on the internet archive, granted there is no new ideas there, they are probably new to this period of history--at least they are interesting and potent.

The foundation of language is simply naming what you percieve. Originality comes from not what is possible, but in what one has accomplished. .

There's a difference between a car an the materials a car is made of... you do realise that car factories are a little more complex than blenders?

Internal combustion engines don't occur in nature.

Originally Posted by Xei

There's a difference between a car an the materials a car is made of... you do realise that car factories are a little more complex than blenders?

Internal combustion engines don't occur in nature.

I work for General Motors. Let me think about this.

there is really no such thing as an "original thought."

Has there ever been?

The statement presupposes an infinite regress. I.e. It is not consistent with the principles of grammar. Every thing has a boundary. The elements of a thing, one is a boundary and the other is the meatieral difference in that boundary. Therefore, to say something, predication must be the inverse function of abstraction--in this case, then nothing was said.

I don't believe in forms before birth or anything like that so I would agree that nobody could come up with a concept that hasn't been experienced. We can't make a completely different color. We can take different things and put them together. I wouldn't say that there's no such thing as a new thought. If there was no such thing as a new thought, progress wouldn't exist. Just because a painter is using colors that other people have used, it doesn't mean their art isn't original.

Originally Posted by Drokens

I don't believe in forms before birth or anything like that so I would agree that nobody could come up with a concept that hasn't been experienced. We can't make a completely different color. We can take different things and put them together. I wouldn't say that there's no such thing as a new thought. If there was no such thing as a new thought, progress wouldn't exist. Just because a painter is using colors that other people have used, it doesn't mean their art isn't original.

The error in thought is the claim that the different is the same and the same is different. This is the foundation of the statement by both Plato and Aristotle that if one cannot keep these concepts clear in their mind, they were asleep (Plato) or could think no better than a veggie (Aristotle). The reason for the statement is because logic is binary--same and different.

Very cool idea. I agree, that you can't make any new thought, as any new thought is a recombination of previous thoughts... but you can make new recombinations which have never been combined before, and this is what you might call an original thought.

For example, this combination is original until some else will copy it: "Jkdjfkljflkdsjflksdjflkjdskjflkdsjfkjslkfjldsjflk jslkfjé"!è'àç!à'ç!"éàç'!"éàç!'rjfskjfj!"'ç!r!çufoi jsdf!esuf!jcfijslcj!àç'!ur àç!'éàçr!uhlisjdlcjdkljfç'eèçè"érà'!uoifjsijoihjso hlihfluz"!è'!"urèus!ojfcklsh!"'çrè'é!y!rzoufiojozi eur!"àçrèzèrufoigfhudqhypç"è!uàé!çuiljfosjàç"!r"'é çà"àifçsqjàcfcsçàsàçzçu"çriseuouiàcçu!eouesiljfsoi hliefupsoj!fui"

Tada, an original thought!

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

The error in thought is the claim that the different is the same and the same is different. This is the foundation of the statement by both Plato and Aristotle that if one cannot keep these concepts clear in their mind, they were asleep (Plato) or could think no better than a veggie (Aristotle). The reason for the statement is because logic is binary--same and different.

Can you give a concrete example of how the different is the same and the same is different? I don't get it.

Do you think that mankind as a complex species and civilisation just sprang into existence without any slow, evolutionary progression of thoughts and biology? Of course everything is related. We necessarily stand on the shoulders of giants. Everything is the same, but different because of projections of conceptualisations.

I'm drunk, so...yeah.

Imagination and fantasy has limits, but I think this is the only problem.

You might be right that it is hard to find an idea that does not relate to other ideas, but the fact that it is "new" should make it original in my opinion.

My friend had the theory that there is no original thoughts but we pull all thoughts from a source of infinite knowledge or something

Your friend sounds deep.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

The error in thought is the claim that the different is the same and the same is different. This is the foundation of the statement by both Plato and Aristotle that if one cannot keep these concepts clear in their mind, they were asleep (Plato) or could think no better than a veggie (Aristotle). The reason for the statement is because logic is binary--same and different.

I don't understand. Could you please explain?

The error in thought is the claim that the different is the same and the same is different.

The claim that the different is the same, here is the error that I see in it, if something different is the same, then it wasnt different to begin with. The claim that the same is different is the same way, if the same is different, then it wasnt the same to begin with.

I agree with a lot of the repliers. Our brains put memories together and use reasoning to form original thoughts. Yes, there's the type of original thought that can be formed by putting memories together, like imagining a new animal by putting together many real animal body parts. Whether or not you want to disclude putting memories together to make an original collage from the definition of ‘original thought’ is up to how you choose to define it.

But there's also the type of original thought that can be formed through our reasoning and questioning ability. We can take any fact, any perception, and wonder something about it. For example, if I run across a statue I might wonder 'who made that?' Is that question an original thought? The facts are, I’ve had experiences of seeing objects and knowing that manmade objects have certain features, so I know that someone must have made the statue. I don't know who made it, and am curious who did, so I ask the question. Those are the mental processes involved, although you could get more detailed. If you want to argue that our ability to reason things out like this is only a set feature of our brains, and that therefore any thought developed through that reasoning ability isn't original; then under that definition we don't have original thoughts, but I wouldn't define it that way.

It's very interesting that I found this thread because about 6 months ago I had drawn that exact conclusion, "No original thought." A scenario I had come up with at the time was if 'Hypothetically' a person, from conception never had the ability to feel, touch, hear, see, smell, or move (excluding the necessity to survive); practically no external input of stimuli, would it then have the capacity to think at all?

Person 1: There is no such thing as original thought.
Person 2: How so?

Person 1: Because I've thought really hard about it, and I can't come up with one.
Person 2: Well just becuase you can't, doesn't....

Person 1:...Doesn't mean it can't be done? Yeah I know that, but I've already taken that into consideration. What I meant was that not only can't I come up with an original thought, I've never known anyone else who could, or has. It's more of a philosophical statement anyway.
Person 2: Well just because you've never known...

Person 1:... Never known anyone, yeah I know that but I've already taken...
Person 2: SCIENCE!!

Peraon 1: Wha..

I understand like most other people here that we take thoughts we already have and make combinations to create new ones.

What about our very first thoughts we ever have as conscious beings in this world? If we need already existing thoughts to blend in order to create new ones there had to be an original to build off of.

This is a different version of Aristotle's unmoved mover theory to prove gods existence essentially.

1. There exists movement in the world.
2. Things that move were set into motion by something else.
3. If everything that moves were caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
4. Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
5. From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
6. From 4, there must be an unmoved mover.


St Thomas Aquinas also elaborated on this same idea in his five ways which were set forth to prove gods existence.

You could probably have an original thought if you hooked your brain up to a random electrical input. It's possible however that your brain might simply perceive it in terms of what you've already experienced.

Originally Posted by MindGames

It's possible however that your brain might simply perceive it in terms of what you've already experienced.

Any other way would prove the existence of god, don't ya think?

What's your reasoning?

Oh no, not this thread again. I thought it would be long gone by now. I just started it as a simple curious idea(not an original one of course) and it turned into a battle of religion and science?