TestMagic Forums - View Single Post - 173 Originality does not mean thinking something that was ne

kala15 · 05-23-2008, 09:27 PM

The writer of the prompt believes that originality does no mean inventing something new; it simply means putting old ideas together in novel form.
The author makes a sweeping generalization about the definition of the word originality. It does not have to be one way or the other. It could be a novel twist to an existing idea or it could also be something that has never been thought before.

First and foremost, i tend to believe that the word 'originality' should be strictly reserved for thoughts and inventions that conjure human emotions. Originality is something that was not visualized before and something that crosses the borders of human imagination. It does not have to be a 'new' idea altogether, it could very well be a 'new' twist to an existing one. The later usually does not elicit the same response of astonishment and is rarely regarded as something original. Though there are instances in history where some of the original ideas have sprung by innovating on an existing knowledge. James Watt, the inventor of steam engine, simply harnessed the power of steam to an extend that was not thought of before and came up with this great invention. Then again history is full of evidences of inventions that were just sprung out of thin air with hardly any prior evidences and theories. For example, Newton's invention of the theory of gravity. So many before him had seen the apple drop from a tree and it was his mind that could conjure up the all important theory.

In addition i believe that originality is different from being inspired by someone else's work. The later often borders on the thin line of plagiarism and does not often inspire the same sense of astonishment. There are tons of artists and engineers who are working day in and day out innovating and finding a better way to represent a musical score or having a more efficient implementation of an algorithm but none of them are remembered for the 'Originality' of their work.

One might argue that 'how original can an idea be?' After all human knowledge is limited and it has been built on by centuries of discoveries and innovations. It is a process of augmentation and every great inventor has to rely upon past knowledge. However, this argument holds little water since every time the boundary of human knowledge is stretched we term those discoveries Original.

To summarize, i believe that the idea of originality does not necessarily have to be a novel thought process; it could very well be a novel angle to an existing one. As long as it crosses the bounds of human imagination, we can categorize it as being original.

05-23-2008, 09:27 PM	#7 (permalink)
kala15 Trying to make mom and pop proud Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1	The writer of the prompt believes that originality does no mean inventing something new; it simply means putting old ideas together in novel form. The author makes a sweeping generalization about the definition of the word originality. It does not have to be one way or the other. It could be a novel twist to an existing idea or it could also be something that has never been thought before. First and foremost, i tend to believe that the word 'originality' should be strictly reserved for thoughts and inventions that conjure human emotions. Originality is something that was not visualized before and something that crosses the borders of human imagination. It does not have to be a 'new' idea altogether, it could very well be a 'new' twist to an existing one. The later usually does not elicit the same response of astonishment and is rarely regarded as something original. Though there are instances in history where some of the original ideas have sprung by innovating on an existing knowledge. James Watt, the inventor of steam engine, simply harnessed the power of steam to an extend that was not thought of before and came up with this great invention. Then again history is full of evidences of inventions that were just sprung out of thin air with hardly any prior evidences and theories. For example, Newton's invention of the theory of gravity. So many before him had seen the apple drop from a tree and it was his mind that could conjure up the all important theory. In addition i believe that originality is different from being inspired by someone else's work. The later often borders on the thin line of plagiarism and does not often inspire the same sense of astonishment. There are tons of artists and engineers who are working day in and day out innovating and finding a better way to represent a musical score or having a more efficient implementation of an algorithm but none of them are remembered for the 'Originality' of their work. One might argue that 'how original can an idea be?' After all human knowledge is limited and it has been built on by centuries of discoveries and innovations. It is a process of augmentation and every great inventor has to rely upon past knowledge. However, this argument holds little water since every time the boundary of human knowledge is stretched we term those discoveries Original. To summarize, i believe that the idea of originality does not necessarily have to be a novel thought process; it could very well be a novel angle to an existing one. As long as it crosses the bounds of human imagination, we can categorize it as being original.