Quote:
<chibiayanami> just curisous, do you think there's an original thought left in the world? I really feel that each "new" thought had some antecedent not so differnt from the new one. everything novel is some old, forgotten idea nuanced for modernity. Everything admired by intellectuals (especially in america, not so much in western europe) references works of those who came before in their field. . .
<chibiayanami> I mean, if you think about it, we're trained to scrounge around in our past for ideas
<chibiayanami> most dissertations require refferences outside your own research . . .
<chibiayanami> I don;t know, I think i'm just dreading my thesis. . . and not finding information that's not already out there. . . ;_;
<chibiayanami> . . . and chib's goin' to bed after much duress (silence) *^^* clearing channel: success! night all!
|
we are trained in the past so that we don't lose our inherited cultural identity.
Antiquity for the sake of antiquity is farce (albeit perhaps a noble one).
Just read Ecclesiastes. That was written several millennium ago probably by an old Jewish hermit and similar sentiments were shared by Nietzsche just recently in the 1800's. What Nietzsche gave to us was merely the relevant perspective and the modern vernacular through which to gain that insight. He gave us something we can understand and relate too. If he couldn't have achieved that then his genius would have been forgotten and squandered. It is mutual societal contribution, passed on since history was first recorded, be it in music, written form, or visual arts.
No thoughts are truly unique, but the ability to observe the totality of ones cultural (and perhaps physical) environment and make those observations relevant not only to the self but to other people is an ability not to be overlooked. Some can to one or the other. Few can achieve both.
This is why the tower of babel story is so fascinating.
What would we be capable of if we all understood each other perfectly?
About Me
