How Phil’s Day Off was an Elaborate Scheme to Go To Science World
For my Phil’s day off, I really wasn’t sure how to quite approach my topic. How does one go about proving whether or not original ideas or things even exist? It really is an impossible task. However, I had to do something, so I opted for a sort of experience. The plan was to go to Science World with Jasmin then hit up an art gallery and see if anything was out of the ordinary in an “I’ve never seen something like that before” kind of of way. Ironically enough, I had just so happened to stubble upon an installment gallery with juxtapoz art style. This art style in particular usually recreates or uses many pop culture references. For example, this is one of the pieces of art on display:
It is very obviously Big Bird from sesame street alongside various other cartoon characters holding a rather satirical sign which took me ages to successfully blur out. From this, I wasn’t really able to gather the information I needed answer my question with “facts”. Though it was a little frustrating that my Phil’s day off didn’t really shed light on the topic that I discussed, It did help define my personal opinions and define my answer to the question: Do original ideas exist? My answer to that question is no. I have concluded this through my Phil’s day off. The art gallery I went to had art that had all been inspired by pop culture and found objects. That means all the art pieces had be derived from something that had previously existed. Basically, everything is derived from everything. Though that might be a confusing thought, allow me to confuse you more by attempting to explain my logic. Basically, all your ideas have borrowed aspects or ideas of something else. Even by using language to describe your idea, language is a thing that existed, therefore your idea is derived from something else. Or if you create something to prototype your idea or actualize it, using materials that exist mean you are deriving or portraying your idea through the use of other already existing things, ultimately making it unoriginal.
However, looking back to my original post on metaphysics, and what it all means, my sub-questions are where some hypothetical holes are poked in my conclusion. The question where my thinking gets real messy is one that refers to Descartes theory of “I am a thing that thinks”. In his theory, the only thing known to be true is “I am a thing that thinks”. Basically with this logic, one can disprove or deny the existence of everything other than the thing that thinks. Meaning, any thought or idea one has would hypothetically be original to oneself. However, if your ideas are derived from the perceived world around you, would you not still be deriving your ideas from something? Even if your ideas are derived from your own past thoughts and ideas, would they not still be derived from something, making it unoriginal? I know it’s a contradictory idea, but this is sort of where I ended up with after my readings, discussions and Phil’s day off. I was able to conclude that original ideas do not exist in the world that I perceive. However, I can discredit their existence in any other perceived world, including ones such as Descartes.
Knowing my conclusion may be false in the eyes of someone else or someone else’s perceived world is a much broader topic of perception/appearance and existence. Through my topic I was ultimately lead to the understanding that most things in metaphysics can relate, and that through the exploration of such topics, pursuit for a “right” answer is lost, while new questions and personal answers can be developed. The metaphor that I think best explains metaphysics is a treadmill; just when you think you’re progressing, you realize you haven’t really moved.