PDA

View Full Version : 173 Originality does not mean thinking something that was ne



Erin
06-26-2003, 07:38 PM
173 Originality does not mean thinking something that was never thought before; it means putting old ideas together in new ways.

bravest
08-17-2003, 12:20 AM
28. Originality does not mean thinking something that was never thought before; it means putting old ideas together in new ways.


Originality, a kind of wonderful and mysterious thing, is very important for the development of our society. Without it, all the innovations, the inventions, and other new things are impossible to achieve. The most significant characterization about originality is that it can always contain something new and useful. However, originality never means thinking something that was never thought before; By keeping the useful parts of the old ideas and adding in them new and creative things, originality is made.

I cannot agree with the opinion that originality can achieve something that was never achieved before, and think something that was never thought before. All of the old ideas or things always contain something that is useful and could be reserved or inherited by new ideas. The ideas of originality could certainly keep these old but valuable parts of the old ideas, which will give us more efficiency. The case is true in almost all the innovations and inventions. For example, the foundation of quantum mechanics is really a system of originality in physics, and it contains much new ideas that were never thought before. However, it also inherits some basic ideas from the old system-Newtonian mechanics. In new system, some basic and valuable principles from Newtonian mechanics are reserved, on which the ideas of originality are founded. Another example is the invention of internet. Internet is a true innovative invention and revolutionizes the mutual communications among people around the world, and brings about many conveniences. However, the idea of internet did not spring out under the inspiration of a flash of human originality, but was the result of thousands of improvement of the initial model-ARPNET which was originally used for military goal. The invention of internet also inherits some value and original ideas from ARPNET, and is not a wholly new thing. So, originality does not means that it must come up with a thing that was never thought before. Rather, originality is the result of improvement of the old things and old thoughts.

Furthermore, innovations could not be made regardless of the old and traditional principles, which is often to a certain extent useful and valuable. The old things and old thoughts, or old systems are often the foundations on which the thoughts of originality are founded. Without any respect to old thoughts, originality could never be made and often is a waste of time. In mathematics, for instance, the new discovery and original ideas are made by recognizing the some old but basic ideas and principles. They can never be achieved when people ignore the basic process of fundamental math, such as plus, minus, multiplication. The case is true for other inventions. In order to come up with new and original ideas, some old, basic, and valuable principles of old ideas should be respected and inherited.

In sum, originality can never come up with a wholly new thing that was never thought before. Instead, innovation is often made by inheriting some valuable things of old systems and ideas, and is also the result of many improvements of the old ones.

minebbs
08-17-2004, 08:24 AM
brasvest you have done a good work
the first paragraph is excellent.

the following paragraphs are well-organized though not so excellent as the first one

vishnu
08-18-2004, 10:48 AM
This is my first Essay on the above topic that is
"Originality does not mean thinking something that was never thought before; it means putting old ideas together in new ways".

vishnu
08-18-2004, 10:59 AM
hi
to every body
i got one doubt in this how this site came to know that is enterd candiadate name with out any registration.

redflute
08-19-2004, 10:05 AM
I guess the answer is cookie.
A kind of cookie file in your PC which remembered the username and password .

kala15
05-23-2008, 08:27 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.

neha.chowdhry
06-14-2008, 09:38 AM
hi
all your essays are dam good!!iv jus started preparing for GRE...have u given ur exam??:)

geek_goddess
06-29-2008, 07:16 AM
This is mine- oddly enough, I thought of ARPANET as a possible counterarg!

Picasso's gigantic mural stares back at you from it's wall; it's black, white and shades of grey reflecting the desolation of the civil war in Guernica. It fills the room with tragedy and pain.Picasso's Guernica is massive, bigger than the norm accepted by artists of his time. It has no oranges or poppy fields. It has a message. It condemns the deaths of people in Guernica, and questioned the concepts of liberty and power. It is original.

Today, the world seems to be out of new ideas. This is one reason why the rehashing of old ideas is referred to as "originality". However, an original idea is significantly different from all of the ideas which it seems to be derived from. Society confers on such an idea or object the title of originality, and values and respects it. If originality was akin to reiterating the lines of a poem in a different order, it would be a simple task to create something original. This would not be considered to be of great value by society.

When do we call something original? When it has an element of 'newness' to it, when it appears that the concept is not a part of our existing schemas. It appeals to us instinctively as something novel. A common counterargument to this is- How can a human create something completely new-we do not have the capacity for seeing hitherto unseen colours, or hearing new musical notes. But one cannot deny the fact that in our worlds there are objects like the personal computer, which was first developed in a single quatum jump, not an increment of steps over a long period of time.

Steve Jobs came up with something no one had dreamed of before. What he did was a startlingly different from what the other geeks had been doing. He did not rehash old ideas. As a result of his brainchild, we now have entire new schemas with which to view the world. This is what originality does.

Since an original idea requires a quantum leap, and has important outcomes for the whole of humanity, society assigns great value to originality.The rehashing of old ideas may lead to incremental improvements to what we know or how we live, but they do not exhibit a giant depart from the existing repository of human knowledge. Such ideas are welcomed, and applauded, but do not elicit the same response as Guernica, or the first personal computer did.

shirindora
05-24-2011, 03:40 PM
Originality of an idea can be judged only if we know how the idea came into existence. We cant talk of all ideas in a single context & conclude that originality is always about remodeling the existing ideas & presenting them. An idea can actually be a first of its kind from scratch or it can be a remodeling of existing ideas.
If we take the instance of advertising industry we can say that originality is just remodeling of existing ideas. Because every add just takes a particular quality of a product into account & tries to show different ways in which it can be useful for us.
However if we think how computer algorithms for various problems are created we realize that every single algorithm is inherently different from other one. Its not that the first algorithm we created has led to the creation of all other algorithms. I agree that we do use some hypothesis for all the algorithms but even the first algorithm developed would have used some surmise & that doesn't undermines the importance of that algorithm in any way. In fact I would like to assert this generically and say that this is true of any science i.e. every science has its original ideas & ideas built on existing theories.
To summarize I would say that its the genesis & the development of an idea that decides whether the idea is original or just a remodeling

Espinosa88
05-25-2011, 12:48 PM
@ shirindora
I consider that your essay is too short (you need to provide more examples)
you can choose a better example from physical sciences in order to prove that you disagree with the statement

"For example, only by building on certain well-established laws of physics were engineers able to develop silicon-based semiconductor technology. And,
only by struggling to reconcile the quantum and relativity theories have physicists now posited a new so-called "string" theory, which puts together the two preexisting theories in a
completely new way." --->these are not my words or ideas.....


I`m sure that you will improve your writing. I recommend you Gre writing book of Kaplan. You can find there 120 topic with their answers, they have good examples even though the essays are very well-done (and sometimes difficult for me to understand them, because i`m an international student)

Just work.....

Radiohead Fan
05-26-2011, 09:41 PM
The originality of a building's exterior facade, an artwork, or a musical piece may be created without the use of past ideas but, in many ways, this is shown not to be true. In various industries and businesses, the act of altering a past idea to create something different is how people create new inventions, musical pieces, and cars and the following paragraphs will discuss why this is so.

Firstly, the music industry is built on altering past ideas to create originality. Many musicians are known for using past ideas. The alternative rock band Green Day is synonymously known for lifting past musical riffs from past bands, only applying different lyrics to their songs. Rappers are synonymous with this as well. Though some artists do attempt to create something original, these same artists apply techniques that were employed by their predecessors that call their originality into question.

Secondly, the automotive industry is burgeoning with the development and production of high concept cars. These cars are able to attain speeds thought impossible only a decade ago. However, the brilliance in the design of these cars is the use of past engines to power the car to such high speeds. For instance, the Pagani Zonda is capable of achieving in excess of 250 miles an hour yet is powered by a small engine used in a Volvo.

Thirdly, the comedy, more specifically the stand-up comedy business, is an industry where performers are encouraged to create something profoundly their own. Performers, though, take inspiration from past performers and develop their own on stage personalities by melding their personality with certain attributes of their favorite performers. The comedian George Carlin, renowned for his caustic jokes would be considered to have an original personality, however his personality has characteristics of Lenny Bruce, a comedian Carlin admired and respected.

In conclusion, the use of past ideas to create something original is nothing new, and has been a part of humanity's continued dabblings in the world to create something we can call our own.

Radiohead Fan
05-26-2011, 09:45 PM
:yuck::blush::eek: I know that was a bad essay. A very bad essay. Honestly, those were the best examples I conjured up after just writing it within a 40 minute time limit.

lastnightilie
05-26-2011, 11:14 PM
Actually it was a pretty good essay I think, like a 5, definitely not lower than 4. The examples were good, but you could have related each one to your thesis a little more clearly (i.e. spell it out). Particularly for the last topic, relate those different personalities to different ideas so that it's more relevant. For example, if you had a specific routine of any comedian in mind, you could then say the specific ideas or topics that they took from others and synthesized to become "original."

You might also want to watch your word choice and grammar. There were a couple of grammatical errors and run-on sentences, and you used the word "synonymously" twice, but I don't think you meant "of or relating to a synonym" or the same... I'm thinking you meant "known for." Not sure what word you were thinking of. I could be wrong though. If you did mean "synonymous," the sentence may be lacking clarity.

Overall though like I said, pretty good for a timed essay!

Radiohead Fan
05-26-2011, 11:29 PM
Actually it was a pretty good essay I think, like a 5, definitely not lower than 4. The examples were good, but you could have related each one to your thesis a little more clearly (i.e. spell it out). Particularly for the last topic, relate those different personalities to different ideas so that it's more relevant. For example, if you had a specific routine of any comedian in mind, you could then say the specific ideas or topics that they took from others and synthesized to become "original."

You might also want to watch your word choice and grammar. There were a couple of grammatical errors and run-on sentences, and you used the word "synonymously" twice, but I don't think you meant "of or relating to a synonym" or the same... I'm thinking you meant "known for." Not sure what word you were thinking of. I could be wrong though. If you did mean "synonymous," the sentence may be lacking clarity.

Overall though like I said, pretty good for a timed essay!

In regards to the use of the word, "synonymously," I did use the word intending it to be used in replace of the words, "known for." I see I used the word, "past" in the first body paragraph twice in one sentence. I have a long way to go, and I'm always unhappy with how my essays come out nowadays. Though I disagree with the score you gave, I do appreciate it. Thanks. I need to elaborate more. I only tangentially touched on those examples. It's unfortunate those were the best examples I thought of when writing the essay, but I guess that's what practice is for. Thanks for reading my essay again.

lastnightilie
05-27-2011, 12:49 AM
Well the scores don't really go by writing skills. If you look at samples by ETS, the 3s and lower go to people with severe deficiencies in their argument. I think your examples were fine for the argument you made, so you will probably do better than you think. Of course it will always be good to work on your writing skills, but this is more about analytical skills. Just don't make terrible errors in spelling and grammar!

Also if you find yourself running out of time, you probably spent too much time brainstorming. Try to go through the list of topics at least once before your test and get an idea of how you would answer each one. One of them will be on your test so it's great practice if you fully write one or two every day. And if you go through half of them, there's a 50% chance you will have already practiced the one on your test!

GREgarious
06-02-2011, 08:25 AM
Please comment on the length, grammar and content along with your personal suggestion.
Thanks in advance!


Originality has it's own dimensions and facets. Its based on the case that a particular piece of gem has to be treated as an Originality, the banal

repetition of a forsaken idea or the revitalization of a lost idea. In all the cases the relation of the previous idea and the new born idea thus matter.

If the definition of Originality suggests that it is any new concept which is sown in the human brain without linking it to any previous thought then their

are very rare instant in the annals of the human development where an inventor had achieved any worthwhile creation without linking it to the previous

thought. A scientist has developed a new object if he was devoid of that facility, due to forced compulsion of another mind who was again expecting a

relinquishment which he was lacking without that object.

And even the philosophy suggests that the mind is nothing but a nexus of neurons which have different thoughts, memories, experiences and feelings garnered

in them. The general thinking pattern suggest that we link two facets two create a new thought.

It is observed throughout the course of history that the inventions where made due to long deductive phase of thought process. Exemplary is the Theory of

Relativity, which is not totally new concept but many of it's concepts restore the basic theory of Newton's Theory. This applies to the field of creativity.

The painters, sculptor are often driven by strong forces of their thoughts to create the wonders through their works. In fact this ability of linking the

most polarized thought in the work of art separates the common person and an artisan.

But this analysis of Originality is limited in the sense that if the previous thought is an antediluvian or is way different from the relevant topic then

linking them may appear to be a genuine case of Originality without linking two thoughts. For example if I states that "the Aliens are not like the

conventional UFO's with two hands and legs, but it's possible that they may be like Clouds or may be just a collection of few heavy metal gases and have very

different language than us, may be they communicate through light." Now this appears to be Original but this is nothing but linking of Aliens and Clouds!

So it is the imagination of the thinker which decides whether the thought is an Original in true sense without involving two old ideas.

lastnightilie
06-02-2011, 03:41 PM
Please comment on the length, grammar and content along with your personal suggestion.
Thanks in advance!


Originality has it's own dimensions and facets. Its based on the case that a particular piece of gem has to be treated as an Originality, the banal

repetition of a forsaken idea or the revitalization of a lost idea. In all the cases the relation of the previous idea and the new born idea thus matter.

If the definition of Originality suggests that it is any new concept which is sown in the human brain without linking it to any previous thought then their

are very rare instant in the annals of the human development where an inventor had achieved any worthwhile creation without linking it to the previous

thought. A scientist has developed a new object if he was devoid of that facility, due to forced compulsion of another mind who was again expecting a

relinquishment which he was lacking without that object.

And even the philosophy suggests that the mind is nothing but a nexus of neurons which have different thoughts, memories, experiences and feelings garnered

in them. The general thinking pattern suggest that we link two facets two create a new thought.

It is observed throughout the course of history that the inventions where made due to long deductive phase of thought process. Exemplary is the Theory of

Relativity, which is not totally new concept but many of it's concepts restore the basic theory of Newton's Theory. This applies to the field of creativity.

The painters, sculptor are often driven by strong forces of their thoughts to create the wonders through their works. In fact this ability of linking the

most polarized thought in the work of art separates the common person and an artisan.

But this analysis of Originality is limited in the sense that if the previous thought is an antediluvian or is way different from the relevant topic then

linking them may appear to be a genuine case of Originality without linking two thoughts. For example if I states that "the Aliens are not like the

conventional UFO's with two hands and legs, but it's possible that they may be like Clouds or may be just a collection of few heavy metal gases and have very

different language than us, may be they communicate through light." Now this appears to be Original but this is nothing but linking of Aliens and Clouds!

So it is the imagination of the thinker which decides whether the thought is an Original in true sense without involving two old ideas.
Your essay was confusing and lacked direction. It seems like you decided your opinion on the prompt as you wrote, a common mistake. You should take 5-10 minutes to discover your opinion. In this case, I think your opinion is: Most original ideas use old ideas in some way because completely new ideas are rare; however, you must link the ideas in a creative way for it to be considered original.

That should have been your first sentence, but you only could do that from planning ahead. Well, it was hard to read because your paragraphs were not formatted properly, but it seems like you don't have organized paragraphs either. You want an introduction, a conclusion, and two or three paragraphs in between. In your case, a good essay would have maybe included one paragraph showing how linked ideas can be original, and another paragraph showing how they can be unoriginal. The examples in science were pretty good for the first part, but you could have focused more by choosing a specific invention and describing the ideas it was based on. The cloud example was a little too vague. I think you would have been better off with something real, such as a genre of music that just puts two things together unoriginally, or a genre of film.

Good luck!

GREgarious
06-05-2011, 10:31 PM
Hey lastnightilie (http://www.urch.com/forums/members/lastnightilie.html), Thanks for the analysis. Even I was not satisfied with the last one and I totally agree with ur points. Although the one I'm posting here now is also not my final essay but better than the last one. I wanted to give more general example for the "Cloud" and thus chosen that as the statement simply demands analysis of originality, thinking and old ideas. Particular examples of discoveries and invention would be be specific and loose the general analysis required.
Anyways pls assay this essay:

"Originality does not mean thinking something that was never thought before; it means putting old ideas together in new ways"

Originality has its own dimensions and facets. Its based on each case whether that particular piece of gem have to be treated as an original, the banal repetition of a forsaken idea or the revitalization of a lost idea. In all the three cases the relation between the previous idea and the new born idea is what thus matter. So it is the human perception which determine the quirk of the thought. Thus by any means the Originality is nothing but the association of two thoughts.

If the defination of Originality suggests that it is any new concept which is sown in the human brain without linking it to any previous thought then there are very rare instances in the annals of the human development where an inventor had achieved any worthwhile creation without linking it to the previous thought. A scientist has developed a new object if he was devoid of that facility. For example the invention of incandescent Electric Bulb was possible because Thomas Edison felt its requirement to the society. He associated the Electric Energy with Light Energy.

And even the human-brain study suggests that the mind is a nexus of neurons which have different thoughts, memories, experiences and feelings garnered in them. The general thinking pattern suggests that we link two facets of thoughts to create a new thought. It is observed throughout the course of history that the inventions where made due to long deductive phase of thought process. Exemplary is the Theory of Relativity, which is not totally new concept but many of its concepts restore the basic theory of Newton's Theory. This applies to the Artwork. The painters, sculptors are often driven by strong forces of their thoughts to create the wonders through their works. In fact this ability of linking the most polarized thought in the work of art separates the common person and an artisan.

But this analysis of Originality is limited in the sense that if the previous thought is an antediluvian or is way different from the relevant topic then linking them may appear to be a genuine case of originality which is fallacious. For example if I state that "the Aliens are not like the conventional UFO's with two hands and legs as depicted in Hollywood movies, but it's possible that they may be like Clouds or may be just a collection of few heavy metal gases and have very different language than us, may be they communicate through light." Now this appears to be Original but this is nothing but linking of Aliens and Clouds!

So it is the imagination of the thinker which decides whether the thought is an Original in true sense without involving two old ideas.

Thanks in advance! :)