# Nothing is New challenge **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 10, 2020, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nothing-is-new-challenge/853542 "2020-05-10T15:59:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![cornflakes2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/53a042/32.png) [@cornflakes2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cornflakes2)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nothing-is-new-challenge/853542/21 "2020-05-12T01:26:48Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > I guess the University systems stopped awarding PhD’s in what year? Especially since no original research is being done according to the OP. You are on a roll today. Scientific research is not the same as philosophical concepts. You sound like an atheist. You can get all the PhDs you want. It doesn’t mean you have discovered anything new under the sun. I’ll say it again, you can’t discover something more evil than evil. You can’t discover something more loving than love. You may have unique ways of displaying it in ways it hasn’t been shown before, but that doesn’t mean you’ve discovered something more beyond evil or love (as examples). Philosophically, we still struggle and ask the same questions we’ve asked two thousand years ago. We just have different terminologies and re-branding and re-packaging methods to present them. ---
**Author:** ![cornflakes2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/53a042/32.png) [@cornflakes2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cornflakes2)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nothing-is-new-challenge/853542/22 "2020-05-12T01:29:10Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > My wife teaches at a community college, and periodically she will ask her class questions such as what their goals are. I remember one time a student said his goal was to have an original thought. > > Was a pretty unique answer. Not sure how you would go about achieving it. Wow. That’s a great answer. Yes, the question is, maybe to him it’s going to be an original thought because whatever he doesn’t know or didn’t know, once becomes discovered may disguise itself as an original thought only to find out later on that someone already thought of it 1500 years ago lol. I’ve commonly experienced this thinking I came up with something nobody else had and found out it’s actually an old idea lol. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nothing-is-new-challenge/853542/23 "2020-05-12T17:25:33Z")
> [@cornflakes2](#): > > Scientific research is not the same as philosophical concepts. Do you even know what PhD stands for? Look it up. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nothing-is-new-challenge/853542/24 "2020-05-12T19:54:36Z")
I would think that emergent systems theory as a model for consciousness would qualify, there are also a huge intersection between physics and philosophy raised by quantum mechanics, but these may be rejected by the OP seems to be argue that anything that in any way involves something that someone else thought of doesn’t count. So the physics of black holes has been old hat ever since Aristotle talked about why things fall. Perhaps he should consider the philosophical question of whether Scotsmen like salt in their porridge. ---
**Author:** ![Delayed\_Reflex](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/delayed_reflex/32/3172_2.png) [@Delayed\_Reflex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Delayed_Reflex)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nothing-is-new-challenge/853542/25 "2020-05-12T21:30:22Z")
> [@cornflakes2](#): > > But it’s actually not new. The idea or question of determining what is considered “human” has been around for a long time. We’re just re-packaging it in new terms calling it A.I. The issue is about what is considered to be life? A sentient being is life? Do animals have a soul? Are they sentient? Does it have to be living and breathing to be considered a life or only being self-aware the criteria for life? And then we will repeat the cycle of using AI to do our labor and work…like slaves…so the issue of civil rights, racism, and slavery will come back and we will be debating this all over again except under new words and terms. The philosophy is not new. The packaging or re-branding of it is. I guess I disagree that the idea that someone manufactured by humans could possibly be considered sentient is something that philosophers of historic times really contemplated. When do you think the “original concepts” formed for some of the following fields of study?: -Gender theory -Macroeconomics -Gene editing -Cryptocurrency -Rocket science -Climate change To say that people thousands of years ago had already contemplated these concepts seems to be taking such a broad definition of a concept that it is meaningless. When is the last time that you think “original” thoughts actually occurred? Did philosophers from early civilizations even have any original thoughts if cavemen contemplated why they should or shouldn’t steal from their neighbour, or whether there was an afterlife? > [@Velocity](#): > > I was thinking about this topic a year or two ago, but in a more negative way: There is pretty much no atrocity that hasn’t been committed already at some point in human history. The technology may be different (prior to the Holocaust, you didn’t see people getting put in gas chambers en masse) but by and large every cruel deed or method of killing one can think of has already been done. Human history has been one long display of cruel creativity. > > In a more positive vein, I largely agree with the OP that all things that humans can think of have been done, just not by today’s technology. For instance, humans have sought relationships and marriage for millennia, it’s just that now we have online dating and all that tech stuff like Tinder. Well, nobody (that I know of) has tried to kill all humans on Earth though, which might be close to do-able with nuclear weapons today. I’d consider that an atrocity greater than anything that’s happened in history. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nothing-is-new-challenge/853542/26 "2020-05-12T22:14:32Z")
I think I have a new and original philosophy regarding social media free source collaborating. None of the aspects of my philosophy are new but when put together they become somewhat of a new culture. Have just about given up hope of finishing my novel screen play on this as I am not much of a writer but I feel the philosophy contains solid and proven premises that when applied right could become a world force rivaled by none. The concept is based on motivations coming from an improved source of identity creating a culture of highly motivated individuals very passionate about what they do and very loyal to the cause. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2020, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nothing-is-new-challenge/853542/27 "2020-05-13T14:42:40Z")
Cornflakes2, Your OP limits the discussion to issues of philosophy - value judgements on stuff people make up. I agree, that’s a well worked field. Around 4 centuries ago we began the transition from making stuff up to the process of discovery. That transition has resulted in our current ability to do things like communicate and accurately navigate over the entire face of the globe, read the human genome and accurately predict the gender of unborn children. So, perhaps you are correct. If Philosophy offers nothing new it belongs on the trash pile of outmoded activities along with alchemy, astrology and the pre-natal prediction of gender using chicken guts. ---
**Author:** ![cornflakes2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/53a042/32.png) [@cornflakes2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cornflakes2)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2020, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nothing-is-new-challenge/853542/28 "2020-05-14T02:08:21Z")
> [@Delayed\_Reflex](#): > > I guess I disagree that the idea that someone manufactured by humans could possibly be considered sentient is something that philosophers of historic times really contemplated. > > When do you think the “original concepts” formed for some of the following fields of study?: > -Gender theory > -Macroeconomics > -Gene editing > -Cryptocurrency > -Rocket science > -Climate change > > To say that people thousands of years ago had already contemplated these concepts seems to be taking such a broad definition of a concept that it is meaningless. > > When is the last time that you think “original” thoughts actually occurred? Did philosophers from early civilizations even have any original thoughts if cavemen contemplated why they should or shouldn’t steal from their neighbour, or whether there was an afterlife? > Well, nobody (that I know of) has tried to kill all humans on Earth though, which might be close to do-able with nuclear weapons today. I’d consider that an atrocity greater than anything that’s happened in history. I think this sort of proves of what is happening in our world. Most of you are assuming that all these new theories are new philosophies but they aren’t. Yes, they are new scientific discoveries or information, but they do not or cannot create new philosophies that weren’t already in existence. The focus we have has shifted from being philosophical to technological/scientific. This is supports the notion of “moving away from God” or man’s independence as he thinks he no longer requires God’s help or wisdom. If you really think about it, if you are saying that we can invent or come up with things that even God never knew, you are ultimately saying that man is God and that God is not infinite or all-knowing. Now of course, this always gets into a religious debate because not everyone believes in God (whichever God you believe in). This also connects to another debate (not in this forum) that I have always shared for over a decade and that is, humanity vs technology. What I mean is, if you think about how far humans have evolved into terms of technological advancements, it is massive. We go from creating simple tools out of stones and wood carvings to creating nuclear weapons and spaceships that can travel into space. It’s a massive gap. But if you think about how much humans have evolved or grown in the moral sphere (humanity), not much at all. We still struggle with the same things our cave men ancestors did…jealousy, anger, deceit, violence, stealing, lying, etc. So while it is wonderful that technology has advanced so far, we humans have not. So instead of putting a sharp object into the hands of a fallen human being which is dangerous in itself…we are just increasing the stakes by putting WMDs into the hands of that same fallen human being. This why I came up with my own “escalation theory”. The basic premise of it is that no matter how much knowledge, technology, advancements we come up with…the fact that human depravity itself has not been dealt with means we are not better off than we actually think we are. You’re just playing higher stakes poker, that’s all. Ultimately, humanity is bent inward in itself, we WILL lead to our own destruction because it is in our nature until this can be dealt with, it is really a pointless game to play this “progress/advancement” game which is just an illusion of improvement and evolution. We are too focused on how to put a man on mars, or how to build self driving cars, but yet we don’t even know how to love and forgive one another…the simplest and oldest concepts known to man. It’s wonderful that we humans know such advanced new theories like: -Gender theory -Macroeconomics -Gene editing -Cryptocurrency -Rocket science -Climate change as you put it… but while u do this, you (not specifically you but rhetorically), don’t even know how to love your parents and say I love you or I’m sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2020, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nothing-is-new-challenge/853542/29 "2020-05-14T13:20:32Z")
That’s a bit different than the ‘nothing’s new’ proposition of the OP. Social interaction has not kept pace with technology. Is that the topic you wish to discuss? ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2020, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nothing-is-new-challenge/853542/30 "2020-05-14T14:45:07Z")
:rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nothing-is-new-challenge/853542.md?page=1)