Original thoughts

[Absurdity]

In the past month or so I've made the drive from Los Angeles to San Francisco and back three and a half times. The quickest way is to take the 5 freeway for 200-odd miles through the barren wasteland of central California, which can be hypnotically dull. Since I'm not cultured enough to have a broad library of music to keep me entertained for such a long drive, I've been downloading philosophy podcasts to listen to by the guys at The Partially Examined Life.

On the whole they are very well done and usually manage to be simultaneously entertaining and thought-provoking. Some of my favorites have been their episodes on Nietzsche's The Gay Science (#84, which compelled me to buy the book), Schopenhauer's essays on reading writing and thinking (#94), Kierkegaard's thoughts on the self (#29), Heidegger on being (#32), Foucault on power (#49), and Cormac McCarthy's novel No Country for Old Men (#63).

Several of the episodes I've listened to recently, specifically on Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Emerson, and Thoreau, focus to vary extents on authenticity and originality, and in particular on having original thoughts. All of them deal in different ways with being a critical reader and not allowing yourself to be influenced to oppressively by those who have come before you and other authors who have been canonized (which is ironic since all of those thinkers have subsequently be canonized). I remember in their discussion on Schopenhauer saying that he even praised a sort of bold naivete that wasn't afraid to labor long and hard to arrive at some insight that had been discovered before by someone prominent, that it is a good in itself to ditch the road on occasion and hack your own way through the jungle.

Of course, the enveloping irony of my reflection on this is that I am driven to it by the influence of these great thinkers, perhaps even to the point of anxiety that I have not been original enough, that I stand on the shoulders of giants to frequently and it's causing the muscles in my legs to atrophy and render me an intellectual cripple who can't even take a step down the paved road, let alone clear dense brush and fight off the jaguars.


The tl;dr of the matter is this: What value is there in ignoring those who have come before you and trying to start from some level ignorance? How do you keep a critical distance an avoid losing yourself in your influences? Do you need some practice figuring things out without the insight of the old masters in order to surpass them?

 

[Analyzer]

I think reading works from those who have come before you is necessary to acquire an experienced mind. Before the democratization of education, students learned mostly from the classics. The value is similar to like the intellectual "not re-inventing the wheel".

Originality or being original is more of an attitude or approach than something that is real. Most ideas are just concepts rehashed into different forms that go back to ancient history. The League of Nations, UN and others are just modern attempts in the establishment of ancient Greek "leagues". Einstein recreated Parmenides theories into universal laws of physics.

 

[Kuu]

What value is there in ignoring those who have come before you and trying to start from some level ignorance?

Deeper understanding? Proving / disproving? And perhaps most importantly: entertainment? Getting all the answers from the start is such a killjoy.

How do you keep a critical distance an avoid losing yourself in your influences?

You can't. You just learn to stop worrying and love the herd. The thing is to not mindlessly fall into a herd. Is being original more important than being right?

Do you need some practice figuring things out without the insight of the old masters in order to surpass them?

Often I just think you need to hack through the jungle just to fully, really, understand what they were talking about. To genuinely internalize some ideas, just reading about them is often not enough.

 

[k9b4]

In the past month or so I've made the drive from Los Angeles to San Francisco and back three and a half times. The quickest way is to take the 5 freeway for 200-odd miles through the barren wasteland of central California, which can be hypnotically dull. Since I'm not cultured enough to have a broad library of music to keep me entertained for such a long drive, I've been downloading philosophy podcasts to listen to by the guys at The Partially Examined Life.

On the whole they are very well done and usually manage to be simultaneously entertaining and thought-provoking. Some of my favorites have been their episodes on Nietzsche's The Gay Science (#84, which compelled me to buy the book), Schopenhauer's essays on reading writing and thinking (#94), Kierkegaard's thoughts on the self (#29), Heidegger on being (#32), Foucault on power (#49), and Cormac McCarthy's novel No Country for Old Men (#63).

Several of the episodes I've listened to recently, specifically on Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Emerson, and Thoreau, focus to vary extents on authenticity and originality, and in particular on having original thoughts. All of them deal in different ways with being a critical reader and not allowing yourself to be influenced to oppressively by those who have come before you and other authors who have been canonized (which is ironic since all of those thinkers have subsequently be canonized). I remember in their discussion on Schopenhauer saying that he even praised a sort of bold naivete that wasn't afraid to labor long and hard to arrive at some insight that had been discovered before by someone prominent, that it is a good in itself to ditch the road on occasion and hack your own way through the jungle.

Of course, the enveloping irony of my reflection on this is that I am driven to it by the influence of these great thinkers, perhaps even to the point of anxiety that I have not been original enough, that I stand on the shoulders of giants to frequently and it's causing the muscles in my legs to atrophy and render me an intellectual cripple who can't even take a step down the paved road, let alone clear dense brush and fight off the jaguars.


The tl;dr of the matter is this: What value is there in ignoring those who have come before you and trying to start from some level ignorance? How do you keep a critical distance an avoid losing yourself in your influences? Do you need some practice figuring things out without the insight of the old masters in order to surpass them?

What point is there of wasting time thinking about something that someone else already knows the answer to? Far easier to ask them the answer. Of course, going through all the steps to think of the answer for yourself would probably lead to a better understanding of the answer.

 

[wilsonwatson]

It's good to gain influence from past thinkers, but I do see your point. Often I feel that all my colleagues think in the same way because we've all read the same books and had the same influences. This can't be good for moving forward. The world needs original thinkers, and no matter how original we all THINK we are, we are heavily influenced by our past experiences and in this case past philosophers.

However reinventing the wheel would take us back a step, and it's beneficial to see what's already thought out. There's not a perfect solution to finding original thought in a world where everyone is influenced by the same progression of ideas, however I've found that reading things by people who are NOT generally accepted is a good way to "derail" the monotonous flow of mental thought in today's society. I'm not saying you have to agree with what they say, in fact in most cases I would hope you don't, but finding people who thought about something differently can foster new ideas.

I hope that made sense, or helps in some way, but I definitely agree with your problem.

 

[Cognisant]

I encounter references to various AI models, I look it up on Wikipedia and at first the terminology is indecipherable so I navigate a few pages to the foundational concepts with intent to work my way up from there but the more I come to understand it the more I disagree with it and eventually I can't be bothered anymore.

It all seems to be the work of brilliant mathematicians with bizzare ideas of what a mind actually is, in particular there's a large subset who seem convinced that random variables are an absolutely essential part and just jam them in wherever it seems to do the least damage.

Point is the problem itself may not be the problem but rather how the problem is percieved and when reading other people's thoughts you may learn about their solutions but you also risk learning their misconceptions.

 

[wilsonwatson]

Point is the problem itself may not be the problem but rather how the problem is percieved and when reading other people's thoughts you may learn about their solutions but you also risk learning their misconceptions.

You also run the risk of making your own misconceptions; misconceptions are unavoidable because humans are biased and imperfect. It's just a matter of having original ideas (and misconceptions) that other people can see and hopefully perfect.

 

[whatstheMATTER?]

I think a repetition in conclusions by thinkers working independently and separated from other such thinkers by time and geography is a sort of empirical validation in the truth-value of these conclusions.

The only problem is I also think otherwise abstracted ideas have a way of materially spreading into the collective spirit of a community, and a member within the community, though perhaps never having had the idea explicitly outlined to him, might pick up on its influences subconsciously and form his own conclusions based off observations of patterns which were inspired by the idea. So it's kind of cyclical and a so-called original thinker will likely be paraphrasing someone of a prior generation whom had an indirect influence on his personal experiences. Kind of like how relativism is all the rage even in people whom don't ponder such questions at all, thanks to the influence of postmodernism on our artistic culture (and thus, through art, society at large).

 

[Yellow]

The tl;dr of the matter is this: What value is there in ignoring those who have come before you and trying to start from some level ignorance? How do you keep a critical distance an avoid losing yourself in your influences? Do you need some practice figuring things out without the insight of the old masters in order to surpass them?

The philosophy of others serves to expand our world views and get us thinking. I think that if you get a good smattering of philosophies, it is hard to get lost in them. We simply weave the different ideas together in a way that fits us as individuals. Then, we are ready to shine on our own.

I guess I'm saying that we are like rockets and philosophies of the past are like expendable launch systems.

 

[ae1905]

Are there any great thinkers who never read a book or studied in their field? If you think of knowledge as an edifice, then reading great books is like walking up the steps, each book taking you higher and closer to the top. Once there, however, it is up to you to build on what they erected, using their accomplishments to raise the edifice up to new heights. That's one way to see the relation between you and the great works.

 

[Mithrandir]

The philosophy of others serves to expand our world views and get us thinking. I think that if you get a good smattering of philosophies, it is hard to get lost in them. We simply weave the different ideas together in a way that fits us as individuals. Then, we are ready to shine on our own.

I guess I'm saying that we are like rockets and philosophies of the past are like expendable launch systems.

*cringe*

...can't.....take.......self-serving........hubris.......!

The moment we don't see our own philosophy as expendable at any given moment, there is no hope.

 

[Yellow]

*cringe*

...can't.....take.......self-serving........hubris.......!

The moment we don't see our own philosophy as expendable at any given moment, there is no hope.

In order to make sense of the world, we have to place some value on our own thoughts and observations.

But you're right that we should remain open to new ideas, contradictions, and evidences as they arise, or our personal philosophies will become distorted.

 

[Mithrandir]

I guess what strikes me the most is the idea that the philosophies of the past are expendable, when I see them more as indispensable. A more appropriate analogy to me would be the pillars of the house we are trying to build. If they collapse, then everything we are working toward collapses.

 

[Polaris]

Good thread.

I think the difference between reading something as opposed to experiencing things and thereby reaching perhaps similar conclusions or coming up with similar ideas, is the engagement of various emotions that comes with dealing with different situations.

What you read you can understand intellectually, but it does not actually 'hit home' until you experience it on a deeper and more complex emotional level. Memory is linked to emotion, so memory assists us in the construction of belief systems and the philosophies supporting them.

I have had many deja vu moments upon reading different philosophers that I had never read before at a later point in life. The progression of events and experiences will eventually result in similar logical progressions of thoughts in similar types, perhaps. That last part is pure speculation though.

So, in a contextual sense, the thoughts you develop independently are still "original"...and you can usually tell by the way people express.

 

[thoughtfully]

There is a choice. You may read about the thoughts of these writers and participate second hand in their experiences. They don't have to be philosophers. They can be your roommate buddies or if your lucky some mentor. They are all guides that can show you short cuts. The drawback is this is second hand and not you. You have to find your own way. If there are guides that helps. Everything that happens is original. Just as no two people are alike, each is original and your path with the help of those guides will be original.

 

[marv]

Paving through the jungle yourself is essential to be a great rational, free thinker. You acquire tools and methods on the way that are very very important. Reading scientific and philosophical texts are also quite important, but you have to be the one who evaluates all information in the end.

 

[QuickTwist]

Currently listening to the new Smashing Pumpkins album. Just posting in this thread so I can find it later.

 

[scenefinale]

What point is there of wasting time thinking about something that someone else already knows the answer to? Far easier to ask them the answer. Of course, going through all the steps to think of the answer for yourself would probably lead to a better understanding of the answer.

Because sometimes a fresh perspective is "better". E.g. What if we just stopped at Newtonian gravity? Your question seems to assume that there is some "absolute" answer for any given question, which is not always the case.

 

[JPS]

What value is there in ignoring those who have come before you and trying to start from some level ignorance? How do you keep a critical distance an avoid losing yourself in your influences? Do you need some practice figuring things out without the insight of the old masters in order to surpass them?

I don't believe originality is about establishing ignorance and then proceeding from there.

If anything, ignorance begs more similarity than knowledge; those who act as though they know nothing will get similar answers, while those who act as though they already have some base of knowledge will often reach widely divergent conclusions.

So, paradoxically enough, the trick to originality is a willingness to accept the ideas of others as given. If everybody started from scratch we would all have exactly that: starts, but no finishes; there would be no opportunity for 'branching out' and forming different paradigms of thought, and we would all be stuck with the same sort of antediluvian nihilism.

This still doesn't fail to raise the question of degrees of separation though, and of how adherent to the 'greats' we can be without becoming mere shadows of greatness. It also begs the question of arbitrariness: how are we to decide whose ideas to build upon?

My answer to the first question is this: as long as we see the established ideas as tools, as a means to an end and not as the end itself, then we are good to go. It is when we start to adhere for the sake of adherence that originality dissipates.

Nietzsche, to use your own example, would have said that originality is a matter of building on the labors of others, not trying to come up with everything oneself. We can't get stuck justifying the basics; we just have to roll with them.

This brings us to the second question, the question of arbitrariness. I think that there will always be a degree of arbitrariness, both in originality and in the pre-established. We can't really pick what to build on except by virtue of our intuition; it is often more a matter of what fits us than of what is true, reasonable, just. Originality and individuality share a common ancestor.

 

[QuickTwist]

The tl;dr of the matter is this: What value is there in ignoring those who have come before you and trying to start from some level ignorance? How do you keep a critical distance an avoid losing yourself in your influences? Do you need some practice figuring things out without the insight of the old masters in order to surpass them?

I can't say I'm doing anything that hasn't been done, but I will say that there's no one quite like me and I am leaning my own Way of doing things and its an uncommon path. At its root's its basically doing what works best for myself though it has a lot of underpinnings that can be tied to certain conventions that are know but not popular or at all standard. I would say I get ideas from anyone and everyone but it takes a while for the method to register in my brain to be used and expressed; I have to see it some times being done before I can execute it well.

 

[gmt.hfoc]

is it selfish to bring life into this world? i.e have children

 

[Grayman]

is it selfish to bring life into this world? i.e have children

Yes, unless you do it for your spouse. I can only imagine a selfish reason being fruitful in that one is more attentive to the child as long as the individual eventually sees them as an adult who has their own needs.

 

[gmt.hfoc]

thanks for the answer..
but is doing it for your spouse a good enough reason?

 

[Grayman]

thanks for the answer..
but is doing it for your spouse a good enough reason?

No it can yield bad results for the child, but you asked if it can only be selfish.

 

[Leicht]

Of course, the enveloping irony of my reflection on this is that I am driven to it by the influence of these great thinkers, perhaps even to the point of anxiety that I have not been original enough, that I stand on the shoulders of giants to frequently and it's causing the muscles in my legs to atrophy and render me an intellectual cripple who can't even take a step down the paved road, let alone clear dense brush and fight off the jaguars.


The tl;dr of the matter is this: What value is there in ignoring those who have come before you and trying to start from some level ignorance? How do you keep a critical distance an avoid losing yourself in your influences? Do you need some practice figuring things out without the insight of the old masters in order to surpass them?

I think that you're just second-guessing yourself, doubting that whatever you have come up with isn't original enough.

True, it may be inevitable to have some influence by the old masters--but that would be something that you have LET happen, is it not? If it's something you don't agree with then you don't let it influence you-- if it is something you'd agree on then you take on that influence-- everything is still up to you.

Insights of the old masters are there, each presenting their own truth. I think it's not a matter of keeping distance, it's just being more aware of your own thoughts-- whether you're really using your own intellect in making your own observations and formulating your own truth. OR, have you stopped thinking for yourself and just began to parrot whatever philosophers you have already come across?

On the matter of originality though... how can you possibly be so sure that what you've come up with is original if you have no idea on what has already been done? There is nothing much to gain in staying ignorant, in my opinion anyway.

What point is there of wasting time thinking about something that someone else already knows the answer to? Far easier to ask them the answer. Of course, going through all the steps to think of the answer for yourself would probably lead to a better understanding of the answer.

Unless it's math, there really isn't any fixed answer. I think the moment you just simply accept that whatever-else-person's answer is the truth, is the moment you had stopped thinking for yourself. You should at least pause and think, ask yourself if that answer even has some truth to it-- or is there not?

 

[The Introvert]

The tl;dr of the matter is this: What value is there in ignoring those who have come before you and trying to start from some level ignorance? How do you keep a critical distance an avoid losing yourself in your influences? Do you need some practice figuring things out without the insight of the old masters in order to surpass them?

I can't speak holistically because I am far from well-read.

But, of the authors you've mentioned, I know at least that Thoreau writes about objectivity, or looking at things clearly and without the spectacles of society quite often. As for whether or not you should keep your distance from the greater minds, he was under the impression, basically, that being influenced is inevitable for most, and that being naive, or childlike, as he might say, is a trait reserved to children and the very lucky few that manage to keep a pure spirit. He often refers to Homer and Confucious, and the importance of being a scholar, but warns that what we conventionally call "wisdom" should be viewed critically.

I say: read and listen to your heart's content, but be wary; think critically, and try not to let what you've already heard color your perception.