and what has been done
is what will be done;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is,
“See, this is new”?
It has already been,
in the ages before us.”
- Ecclesiastes 1:9-10
Stop Me If You've Heard This One Before
Every day I begin my English classes with a famous quotation. Lately, we've been looking at what figures like Oscar Wilde, Goethe, C.S. Lewis, and Thoreau have to say about originality.
“Most people,” Wilde says, “are other people, their thoughts are the opinions of others, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation,” and most of my students are inclined to agree. They've already been primed with Goethe (“all truly wise thoughts have been thoughts a thousand times already”) and Lewis on the subject, and I think I've fairly convinced them that the themes of human literature and thought are few: love for country, brother, nature, woman, and God, hatred of oppressors, enemies, death, and decay, and desire for immortality, honor, and self-knowledge.
While the list isn't exhaustive, it is startlingly close to being so. No work that is founded on a so-called “unique” idea will ever be great, principally because the great ideas have all been ideas “a thousand times already.”
Of course, it's obvious that Wilde isn't really on the same side of this debate as Lewis or Goethe. While he too admits that there is very little about mankind and our thoughts that can be called revolutionary or unique, this thought isn't the comfort for him that it is for Lewis; rather, it seems to actually disgust him. I'd be tempted to accuse Wilde of a “poor me” attitude, and of entertaining the misconception that he was the first and only homosexual writer to aspire to greatness, but I know he was better-read than that.
Personally, I think more people's passions should be a quotation. My personal passion would probably come from Ecclesiastes, A Midsummer Night's Dream, or the work of Emily Dickinson. Mimicry, in fact, is one of the best habits we can acquire: whether it be of our national heroes, of the saints, of great authors or thinkers, or even of Christ himself, we need models.
My students' final and most desperate plea toward original thinking went something like this: “What about politicians? Shouldn't they be original thinkers? The problems they have to deal with are all new. The oil crisis, atomic warfare, terrorism, the internet- it's all new.”
After reminding them of the striking resemblance that JFK's “Inaugural Address,” which we recently read in class, bears to Barrack Obama's speech at the DNC a couple weeks ago, I told them this:
“Heaven help us if the people running this country are original thinkers. My ideas, even my best ones, have only been churning around in my head for five or six years, yours have only had two or three years. At best, an original thinker has had a decade or two of rolling over the same thoughts. Shakespeare has had over three hundred years, Lincoln over a hundred, Homer over three thousand. If I were to teach you only from my own thoughts, I would have exhausted them about two and a half weeks ago. None of us has a long enough lifetime to comprehend the great truths. Heaven help us if we tried.”
Tomorrow I'm going to use the above quotation from Ecclesiastes, we'll see how they respond.
Let me know what you think.
7 comments:
Okay - one of the tags for this post is "Bible" and I'm going to take a biblical worldview here.
The Goethe quote all truly wise thoughts have been thoughts a thousand times already is what really made me think. Is his observation true because all ideas that we mortals have stem from the original idea or logos, God? One could argue that all ideas that are great are part of the nature and truth about God, therefore, when any idea comes about that is "great" it is also unoriginal in that it comes from God. Such a great thought is a reflection or restatement or reexpression of some aspect of Truth.
I was just thinking wouldn't it have been exciting to have thought that great idea for the first time? But really, even then, even the first time it wouldn't have been "original" in a true sense, because it was really from the originator of all things, God.
I'm not sure if I communicated my thoughts the way I was thinking them. When I try to be philosophical it leads to trouble.
Thanks for the response. I'll be writing a companion post to "Same Old Thing" tomorrow. We'll see how it goes. Hopefully some more people get involved with the discussion.
First of all, I want to come and be an 8th grader in your class after I graduate.
Second:
I looked up a dictionary definition of new, since I'm a language person. And based on that, it seems like things are new in the sense of how they apply to the individual. It is the person that makes something new, because the idea itself can no longer be new. The inherent idea or concept or truth might not be new, but tell it to a person who has never heard it before, and it is new again. That is how ideas have lasted hundreds of years; because people are constantly making them new again. Maybe new in a different way (like, "novel" instead of "unthought," or "unspoken") but nonetheless in a way that fits the definition.
Last year I found myself saying things like, "This (Insert art form here) is so good-so original." But on thinking about it, I realized that originality is autonomous from actual beauty or truth. I think it is a misconception of our age to consider originality as a positive good; at least on par, if not intimately connected, to beauty and truth.
The same message of originality's blessedness is preached in the sciences. Not, of course, that students should find a new way of expressing themselves by denying the force of gravity, but rather the idea that nothing is true unless demonstrable. I'm afraid this point is murky because originality and demonstration don't seem connected, but consider: If demonstration is the only means by which I can know, I cannot know that the world is round. To do so would be to trust not in demonstration (I've never gone to outer space), but in my teachers. Likewise, to be perfectly original, one's experience cannot be tainted by another's knowledge.
You won't find me arguing for 'moderation' or a 'balanced' approach (I am unconvinced of those virtues), but I do think that you can fall off the other side of the horse.
Mimicry for its own sake is worthless. http://www.officeport.com/edu/blooms.htm
If you only memorized the alphabet and never learned to use it to form words to form sentences to express ideas, you've nothing to show but twenty-eight meaningless syllables.
We're working through this stuff in Dr. Whalen's class. It's pretty fun, you know, our effort to "know ourselves and the world...[via knowing] the best which has been thought and said in the world." (Matthew Arnold)
(sorry about that shotgun approach, but I've already spent too long looking at this screen...)
Joy, can you post the entirety of the Matthew Arnold quotation. I remember reading it and I'd like to use it in class.
"Some of you may possibly remember a phrase of mine which has been the object of a good deal of comment; an observation to the effect that in our culture, the aim being to know ourselves and the world, we have a means to this end, to know the best which has been thought and said in the world."
this is from "Literature and Science" but according to my footnotes, he's referring to "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time".
look at page 35 of this-
http://books.google.com/books?id=8GsAAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Matthew+Arnold%22+function+of+criticism#PPA35,M1
Katie, I really liked what you had to say, especially your line "such a great thought is a reflection or restatement or reexpression of some aspect of Truth." It got me thinking, everything is from God, but if you believe there is absolute Truth, then some things are outside of that, right? St. Augustine says sin is the 'part' of anything that is lacking God. Sex, for instance, is one of God's greatest gifts, but when you take God 'out' of it, that's the sin part (this is kind of a twist on the 'sin is a perversion of the good' idea- more like sin is the leftovers). So my question in reference to your statement is, if all ideas are a reflection of Truth because God has them first, what about all those things that fall outside of Truth?
I'm not sure if I'm wrong here, because I suppose it all falls under 'Truth' in some regard, even if the 'truth' of it is that it's wrong...
Post a Comment