lol what 'thinking' have you done in your life A-Fool?
newton was a great thinker. enstein. any of the Greek philosophers. anyone who postulises a theory not based on what they may have been exposed to in the past. the list of truely great thinkers is probably unfathomable in it's number. you? not so much. you're an ape. an ignorant just using the tools others have made.
lol @ you being a critical thinker. your no more a critical thinker than a student in grade 5 reciting his times tables.
if anything your a critical regurgitor, a parasitic flea on the balls of the intellect who have formed every idea in that vast cavernous void you call a consciousness.
don't flatter yourself by 'thinking' your anything more.
Once again, the same accusation repeated again and again, perhaps if you had of read my initial response to your unoriginal assertions, you might have stopped repeating yourself looking like a complete tool. I will re-post again, I doubt you will read it though, as it is quite long and requires the attention span of a functioning adult. But here goes anyway.
The irony is I am being asked to demonstrate original thinking by someone who is yet to demonstrate their ability to do so. I would be interested to learn whose opinions you think I am repeating. Rather than pointing out others perceived deficiencies, why don't you try explaining what you mean. Offer a convincing argument as to why I lack original thought. Hell, even a simple demonstration of original thinking would be a good start. Original thinking only has value if it is superior to current thinking. I could create an original sentence like the following "are giants gathering nodules for supercilious modifications". Sure it's original alright, but it's just word salad, it doesn't mean anything. I think your desire for wanting to be an original thinker has clouded your assessment of what that actually means, and the path to achieving such a goal. Original thinking does not equal intelligent or meaningful thinking.
And if we look at thoughts in terms of their link to the uniqueness of each moment, then all thoughts are original, as they will never occur again, the context they occurred in is unique and by definition unrepeatable. If we look at original thought in more practical terms, there is no such thing as original thought independant of other thoughts.
Also, we were discussing your false assertion that facts don't exist, nothing to do with repeating the opinion of others. 2+2=4 isn't the opinion of someone else. It is mathematical fact. . In theory, there is no such thing as an original thought, as it is dependant on a chain of thinking and ideas. It may be considered an extension or adaptation of a train of thought, but it is not original as it is dependant on prior information. It is like saying the word 'getbigger' is original because prior to getbig it has never been uttered before, but it is simply a modification of the word 'getbig' using a grammatical principle to change the word 'getbig' from a noun to a verb. It's so called originality was dependant on other previously discovered principles.
All your propositions are absurd, the suggestion that gravity didn't exist until Newton assigned a value to it is the most imbecilic thing I have ever heard. Gravities existence is independant of anybody knowing about it. Even if gravity was never discovered it would continue to exist. I think part of your problem is you incorrectly assess reality. When you say 'think of what else is out there that doesn't exist, that is waiting for an original thought to give it life.'. If something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, no amount of thoughts can make it exist.
The discoveries of say something like gravity isn't due to original thinking. Human beings would have always understood that it exists, as the consistency of which it could be observed would have been undeniable. All that Newton did, using the collective knowledge that had been accumulated until that point in time, was find a way to articulate what it was and how it worked. This wasn't because he was an original thinker, most of the knowledge needed to explain the law was thanks to other great thinkers before him. He simply collaborated that knowledge, used his intellect to expand upon it and utilised scientific principles to explain his discovery.
You are deluded if you believe your thinking is independant of everyone elses. You are a product of the same environment every human being is.
Your acquired body of knowledge and opinions is a due to a web of interdependence. From the time you were born you have been taught ideas that you have modified to make your own. Just as the top floor of a skyscraper couldn't exist without the foundations below it, your thinking, your ideas couldn't exist without the historical foundations of collective knowledge and wisdom that came before it.
I think you misunderstand how great minds from the past developed their original ideas, they first learned the way everyone else does and then they added to that. Their genius didn't come from making a decision to think original thoughts. Their knowledge and wisdom was the accumulation of learning from countless great thinkers before them. Just as Hawkings Discoveries couldn't have happened without Einsteins discoveries that couldn't have happened without Galileo's discoveries and so forth.
I actually think you are seriously deluded, like seriously psychiatrically ill. This absurd notion that others haven't shaped your worldview is the height of arrogance and indication of an inability to assess reality. It is obvious at the very least you are deeply narcisstic, having a deep need to believe you are some type of original thinker and your learning is from some magical source and not from where everyone else gets it, the world around them. Marilyn Manson is original, it doesn't stop him from being a fucking douchebag. Marilyn had the original thought to be the first man to get breast implants (so much for originality). Originality certainly does not equal intelligence. And your posts have descended into common insults, probably the lowest and most unoriginal form of wit known to man. You don't even attempt to explain your strange ideas, you just simply ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. HOW ORIGINAL.
This is why I compared you to Falcon when I read your original word salad post. Don't just take my opinion for it then, go run some of your ideas by the local psychiatrists, and see what they say. Tell the psychiatrist what you have said here, tell them that their life is a movie, that each planet or star in their universe represents an event they either have or have not visited yet. Tell them you believe you don't think anyone can say anything is 'fact'. That there is no 'time'. That the past the present and the future have already happened and are happening now. Get back to me and let me know how that goes for you.
Just because you claim to derive your knowledge from a journey of self discovery, doesn't mean you will come to any correct conclusions. A journey of self discovery is only necessary when you have exhausted the wisdom of others, to take such a journey without the appropriate foundation is like trying to teach yourself algebra without first being taught Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication & Division. For the uninitiated, a journey of self discovery could be the long way around to discovering oneself, it may even prevent you from doing so.
“The kernel, the soul — let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human utterances — is plagiarism. For substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily use by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral calibre and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing. When a great orator makes a great speech you are listening to ten centuries and ten thousand men—but we call it his speech, and really some exceedingly small portion of it is his. But not enough to signify. It is merely a Waterloo. It is Wellington's battle, in some degree, and we call it his; but there are others that contributed. It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a telephone or any other important thing—and the last man gets the credit and we forget the others. He added his little mite—that is all he did. These object lessons should teach us that ninety-nine parts of all things that proceed from the intellect are plagiarisms, pure and simple; and the lesson ought to make us modest. But nothing can do that.” - Mark Twain
