Original Ideas?

[Liar]

Mixing marmalade and lemonade and then giving it to a tiger in a kitty-bowl.

The Earl

A tiger in a kitty bowl? Yeah that's kinda original. Big bowl or small tiger?

 

[McKenna]

Perhaps there are no new ideas in general, but an idea might be new to the author, and because of this the author may be able to inject the idea with a fresh perspective and/or enthusiasm.

Also, just because an idea is "old" doesn't mean it has been written about well; there's always a chance you can do a better job than what has previously been written.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Perhaps there are no new ideas in general, but an idea might be new to the author, and because of this the author may be able to inject the idea with a fresh perspective and/or enthusiasm.

Also, just because an idea is "old" doesn't mean it has been written about well; there's always a chance you can do a better job than what has previously been written.

I think you are very close. There are no truely new ideas and every writer has his own perspective on each idea.

Going one step farther, there are a infinate number of possible perspectives on any one idea, even from the same writer.

Then the argument moves to: Does an alternate perspective equate to a new idea? My answer is that it doesn't matter.

 

[CharleyH]

I think you are very close. There are no truely new ideas and every writer has his own perspective on each idea.

Going one step farther, there are a infinate number of possible perspectives on any one idea, even from the same writer.

Then the argument moves to: Does an alternate perspective equate to a new idea? My answer is that it doesn't matter.

I think it does. There are certainly no new myths or archetypes, but my experience is not like yours and therefore ... an alternate persepecitve does indeed equate a new idea - do we evolve as humans or stagnate? This is what the concept of originality comes down to, no? We have certainly evolve technologically, but have we evolved in ethics for example?

 

[3113]

evolved in ethics for example?

Evolved means adapted and we're running behind. Our science and tech is evolving much faster than we are. Just an example--the obesity problem is related to the fact that our bodies expect to deal with much harsher conditions like famine. We store that fat to get us through harsh winters and such.

Plenty of food and a fat-loaded diet throws us off. Our bodies keep storing the fat but never have a chance to get rid of it because there is no famine. Our bodies have not adapted to the plenty and richness that technology has given us.

Another problem: teen hormones. All well-and-good if your life expectancy (thanks to disease, hardship, etc.) is about 40 years max. You'd darn well better get horny and start having babies at age 13. Because by the time your babies are old enough to take care of themselves and have babies of their own you'll be about ready to die.

But if science and technology, etc. extends the average human life to, gosh at least 60 if not 80 years....now those teen hormones are a problem.

I'll put it another way: Romeo and Juliet has not gone out of style. Teens have acted like teens for a very long time. But there's a vast difference between ancient times when teens acting that way meant marriage and kids and adulthood, and teens being discouraged from acting like that now because they're considered too young to be mothers and fathers and they won't be legal or hold real jobs and have their own homes for another, oh, five years maybe.

We have not evolved physically to match our technology. And if we don't evolve physically to match the tech, we end up having a difficult time evolving ethically, morally and culturally. We end up stuck with old ethics, morals and cultural norms that were created to fit reality in the past--but don't fit it in the present.

Like, protecting virgin girls because sex = pregnancy and that could be valuable. Who gets to impregnate this girl? Well, gosh, sex does not equal pregnancy now thanks to the pill and other birth control methods. In fact, the girl can decide who impregnantes her. Hell, do it in the lab and you know which sperm fertilized which egg and got implanted in the womb. Yet we still, ethically, place a high value on female virginity. Why?

In culture, ethics and morality we're still pretty much in the dark ages, maybe the stone age. These have not changed much to catch up to our technology and science. You can understand why, however. There wasn't THAT much difference between 1600 and 1800 in technology. But there's a HUGE difference between 1900 and 2000. Given an average human life of 50 years, that's only two human lifetimes between early automobiles and the space shuttle, between the invention of the telephone and mobile communications.

And the changes are coming faster and faster. Evolution hardly has a chance to adjust on a physical level let alone a moral/ethical/cultural level.

 

[CharleyH]

Evolved means adapted and we're running behind. Our science and tech is evolving much faster than we are. Just an example--the obesity problem is related to the fact that our bodies expect to deal with much harsher conditions like famine. We store that fat to get us through harsh winters and such.

Plenty of food and a fat-loaded diet throws us off. Our bodies keep storing the fat but never have a chance to get rid of it because there is no famine. Our bodies have not adapted to the plenty and richness that technology has given us.

Another problem: teen hormones. All well-and-good if your life expectancy (thanks to disease, hardship, etc.) is about 40 years max. You'd darn well better get horny and start having babies at age 13. Because by the time your babies are old enough to take care of themselves and have babies of their own you'll be about ready to die.

But if science and technology, etc. extends the average human life to, gosh at least 60 if not 80 years....now those teen hormones are a problem.

I'll put it another way: Romeo and Juliet has not gone out of style. Teens have acted like teens for a very long time. But there's a vast difference between ancient times when teens acting that way meant marriage and kids and adulthood, and teens being discouraged from acting like that now because they're considered too young to be mothers and fathers and they won't be legal or hold real jobs and have their own homes for another, oh, five years maybe.

We have not evolved physically to match our technology. And if we don't evolve physically to match the tech, we end up having a difficult time evolving ethically, morally and culturally. We end up stuck with old ethics, morals and cultural norms that were created to fit reality in the past--but don't fit it in the present.

Like, protecting virgin girls because sex = pregnancy and that could be valuable. Who gets to impregnate this girl? Well, gosh, sex does not equal pregnancy now thanks to the pill and other birth control methods. In fact, the girl can decide who impregnantes her. Hell, do it in the lab and you know which sperm fertilized which egg and got implanted in the womb. Yet we still, ethically, place a high value on female virginity. Why?

In culture, ethics and morality we're still pretty much in the dark ages, maybe the stone age. These have not changed much to catch up to our technology and science. You can understand why, however. There wasn't THAT much difference between 1600 and 1800 in technology. But there's a HUGE difference between 1900 and 2000. Given an average human life of 50 years, that's only two human lifetimes between early automobiles and the space shuttle, between the invention of the telephone and mobile communications.

And the changes are coming faster and faster. Evolution hardly has a chance to adjust on a physical level let alone a moral/ethical/cultural level.

Thank you for your post, but I do have contentions, I hope others do as well. I will wait/see and thanks again, 3113.