Originality does not mean thinking something that was never thought before
Hiii:
this is my essay on this topic: would you mind to rate?
Originality is not such a concept that can be categorized in the first group or the other. Arguing about the fact that, whether an idea is original If and Just If that was not thought before, Or how significant the new combination of the old ideas should be, to be named Original is not simple and that much clear to discuss and I believe it is also not that much black and white.
The word Original itself, refers to s.th new, something comes from a pure creativity and novelty. The output of that novel creativity can be varied in both of those extremes, no matter it is old or new, adding an inspiration will cause originality. The argument will be on how much inspiration should be added to create something Original?
In fact, it doesn't seems possible that an idea arises, without any background or previous attempts. And Of course everything in this world is a chain of progresses and it is developed in a consecutive order. So if Originality interpreted as something never thought before, nothing in this world can be labeled Original. On the other hand, all the amalgamations of previous thoughts in a new way, cannot be considered as original. It seems that a considerable Jump or progress needed, to create s.th new. We can assume that the minimum amount of the novelty is depended on the public ability of creativity. The original idea is the one that is much further from the public wisdom accessibility. So when it is presented to the public it is going to seems novel to the others. No matter if it is a new way of looking to the previous matters or something that no one thought before.
In sum, I believe that evaluating the level of originality is so depended on how far the new idea is from the borders of the community imagination and it is not that much related to how much old that.
Hiii:
this is my essay on this topic: would you mind to rate?
Originality is not such a concept that can be categorized in the first group or the other. Arguing about the fact that, whether an idea is original If and Just If that was not thought before, Or how significant the new combination of the old ideas should be, to be named Original is not simple and that much clear to discuss and I believe it is also not that much black and white.
The word Original itself, refers to s.th new, something comes from a pure creativity and novelty. The output of that novel creativity can be varied in both of those extremes, no matter it is old or new, adding an inspiration will cause originality. The argument will be on how much inspiration should be added to create something Original?
In fact, it doesn't seems possible that an idea arises, without any background or previous attempts. And Of course everything in this world is a chain of progresses and it is developed in a consecutive order. So if Originality interpreted as something never thought before, nothing in this world can be labeled Original. On the other hand, all the amalgamations of previous thoughts in a new way, cannot be considered as original. It seems that a considerable Jump or progress needed, to create s.th new. We can assume that the minimum amount of the novelty is depended on the public ability of creativity. The original idea is the one that is much further from the public wisdom accessibility. So when it is presented to the public it is going to seems novel to the others. No matter if it is a new way of looking to the previous matters or something that no one thought before.
In sum, I believe that evaluating the level of originality is so depended on how far the new idea is from the borders of the community imagination and it is not that much related to how much old that.