Honestly I think emotional empathy is a pretty weak justification for any notion of morality. — Pfhorrest

So yours is a sort of intellectual empathy, right? Cognitive empathy.

Whereas on the other hand I feel like doing pretty awful things pretty frequently, but don't (usually, when I'm not in some kind of crisis state losing all self-control), because those aren't the kinds of things I think should be done, — Pfhorrest

Why do you think those things shouldn’t be done?

True, but I need to know what is meant by original. — Brett

In regards to art specifically? — Noble Dust

Because it’s the subject of the OP then yes.

So we’re not talking about an absolutely original act, like an Obsidian cutting tool. Assuming I’m correct there.

Originality in the visual arts seems to be about perception. People are stunned, or intrigued, by the juxtaposition of disparate elements, or unexpected results. But they won’t accept just any result and they have their limits. And for the art specialists and critics they expect to see the old made new, or references to traditions, cultures and social mores they had not previously thought about generating new perceptions.

But I would also like to know just what it was that made Elvis an original.

Sure, but again, I thought we were discussing the idea of original art. — Noble Dust

True, but I need to know what is meant by original.

But the final painting is the original to the audience. — Noble Dust

So does that suggest that originality is a perception?

Sure but that's utilitarian originality rather than artistic, which is what we've been discussing. — Noble Dust

Then that means there are different kinds of original.

You would think that something original could only happen once. From then on the artist or others is imitating the original. Abstract art was a way of breaking away from the representative, but once done everything that followed had to resemble abstract work otherwise it wasn’t abstract.

But assuming an artist has produced something original, are there not scribbles and sketches that trace the path lying around a studio?
And so the final painting is not really the original.

I know we often talk about original but if it’s not something that flared up out of the ether or the mind of the artist fully formed then what is it?

An Obsidian rock with an existing sharp edge is found by man. By chance he observes the effect of its sharp edge. It’s not like he thought that if he struck a rock it would create a sharp edge for cutting. That’s an intentional act he couldn’t have had until he was made aware of a sharp edge. That’s an original act don’t you think?

I’ve just being thinking; why do we use the word original? It seems to me to present the same problems as nothing, as in Why something rather than nothing?

I wrote something out and then disagreed with myself. Touché. — Noble Dust

Very creative.

That’s true too. Hence their question “If they’re just copying what’s in front of them are they being creative?”

I think the answer to the OP question was always there.

Yes art can be called creative, but not necessarily original.

Is that a valid question? . — Noble Dust

In relation to the OP? I think it’s a mistake to use creative and original as synonyms. The answer might be it’s creative but not original.

I guess you could ask at what point a painting is no longer copying, representing or imitating something.

But I don’t know if I would call Monet’s “Haystacks” an interpretation so much as a study of light. On the other hand everything might be considered interpretive.
But what would the subject of a painting be that we called an original. Because whatever the style if we recognised the subject then we could say it’s interpretive, that the artist has treated the subject in a particular way.

It's not a copy. — Coben

If it is just drawing from things that already exist? Wouldn't that just be copying things then and not being original or creative? — Darkneos

I think @Darkneos is just using this term loosely to separate a copy from an original work that, as I said, exists within itself. Call if representative if you want.

It's not a copy. — Coben

What’s a copy? How could we define if enough to say “it’s not a copy”?

Second thoughts:

I think it’s worth remembering, though you may not agree, that all three: religion, philosophy and science were, are, developed from a mind that reasons. They’ve all been ways of understanding the world. So they are in a sense unified in our attempt to understand ourselves and the world, each of them operating differently in trying to reach an understanding. Which suggests there is more to come.

The US never did develop a strong relationship with philosophy because of reliance on religion, and perhaps today that is a problem?
— Athena

The problem is that science doesn't really give us truth, as per my discussion with Jack above. What gives us truth is a particular attitude of honesty, and it is probably the case that religion would be better suited toward culturing this attitude. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think the relationship the US had with religion is not so removed from philosophy as Athena might think. It seems to me that religion was a way of contemplating the world and consequently the idea of reality. It as the truth.

I don’t think myth and religion was used, as suggested by Athena, to process the justification for what people believed, I think it was what they believed, what else did they have? But somehow I don’t think religion can go back to what it was and by that I means particular attitude. Of course people will claim that religion was always a lie. But in time philosophical and scientific ideas are proven wrong, which doesn’t necessarily mean they were a lie.

but truth being associated with correspondence, involves how we employ those principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

The principles of religion, and for my point it’s Christianity, were and still are, if chosen, still as relevant as philosophy is in its relationship to science. I guess I’m saying I still see religion and philosophy as one compared to science.

We seem to have a cultural divide between those who rely on religion and those who rely on science, and science lacks the qualities of cultivating culture, right? Without history and philosophy, I fear we are in deep trouble. — Athena

I don’t know if it’s true that science lacks the qualities of cultivating culture. But then we would need to define culture. Nor do I think there is always a divide between religion and science. If you believe in God then science is an investigation into his world.

Wouldn't that just be copying things then and not being original or creative? — Darkneos

Yes I think so. If it’s a copy of something then it doesn’t exist in its own right. Picasso’s Dora Maar portrait is not a copy of her face or head.

The mere necessities of life have been easily accessible since antiquity, and have resulted in great cultural achievements, without modern technology, since Greece and Rome. — Todd Martin

Interesting that you break technology up into two eras. So what is modern technology, how would we define that and where’s the crossover point?

Basically are we doing more harm having technology — Luke1i1

I think it’s a double edged sword. We may not have the ability to manage what we develop, despite there being useful technologies among what we do develop. Assuming it’s us creating technology of course.

The mere necessities of life have been easily accessible since antiquity, and have resulted in great cultural achievements, without modern technology, since Greece and Rome. — Todd Martin

Probably not for everyone though. Access to clean, safe water has not always been available to everyone. Consequently life is one of physical struggle, disease, high child mortality and early death. If the early death is the male adult of the family then life becomes harder again.

and, btw, we have still not agreed on what “quality of life” means or is — Todd Martin

That’s fine. Maybe we’ll find a ground to meet on.

Can all technology do is give us what is necessary for quality of life, — Todd Martin

This suggests there might be something else technology might contribute. Is that what you mean?

Brett btw, I’m glad you had “no statistics”: statistics in the biggest questions never shed light, only obscurity. — Todd Martin

Word games. My reference to statistics was in regard to the number of people living on the edge, not about the meaning of “the quality of life”.

Is all we need to have a quality life the things that pertain merely to our physical well-being? — Todd Martin

In the beginning, yes.

Can all technology do is give us what is necessary for quality of life, — Todd Martin

Is this rhetorical?

This is a general meaning given to quality: “ the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.”

Probably not very satisfying in terms of your question, but still, a beginning.

Someone sitting in dirt on a street in Delhi, blind and deformed, knows what quality of life is about. It’s that very moment. It’s not a prerequisite to anything, except surviving that moment.

In other words, if you can’t agree on what quality of life means, how can you have a discussion about how it compares b/w different generations? — Todd Martin

It’s not so hard to find a beginning point to the question.

Quality of life for all people would begin with access to food and water, shelter and a feeling of security. I have no statistics but I imagine there are many people still living close to that edge. So how would technology impact on their quality of life? Substantially I think.

In the Darwinian sense we are here because of the benefits our mutations gave us as a leg up. Those that gave no advantage, or found no conditions to benefit from, got no furtherer, falling away with the death of the doomed individual. The biological features contributed to the survival of those who had them.

Obviously giving birth is the key to a species surviving. Those that could not carry a child full term or were susceptible to conditions that harmed the newborn failed to pass on their genes. Evolution favoured healthy births. Why it was necessary I don’t know, but it seems that all life seems compelled to reproduce.

Those things that are beneficial remain. Theoretically only that which is beneficial succeeds, they’re things that are “good” for human life.

You mentioned that you’re not concerned with animals in relation to the OP. Which I take to mean that not being sentient beings they do not suffer in the sense we do. Suffering as human is a specific sort of suffering, so bad for some that they chose suicide over life.

Presumably there was a period in human history where we did not suffer in this way, being a little better than animals, but still operating on our instincts.

At some point that changed. And at some point the reason for reproducing changed. It may be that children being the result of sex brought an adult couple closer and strengthened the bond, or contributed towards ideas of community.

At some point people were born into conscious suffering because it served a purpose or a number of purposes. The fact that people suffered was explained away through religion or cultural myths and stories.

I can’t help thinking that this being born into suffering is a mistake carried-over from the past and 1: creates suffering for the individual and 2: as a consequence creates communities and societies that no longer function properly because of the traumatised members. Consequently we are now forced to live in a dysfunctional society that can never work because we are traumatised creatures.

The community is not bearing the brunt of what it means to live out a life. — schopenhauer1

That’s a very interesting point. Which suggests that collective decisions, I.e. the community, are made for some abstract reason for some abstract idea. So how can anything be justified “for the community”?

The post of yours about people coming to their own conclusions seems to me to suggest that those decisions would be more pure than those forced on people by community norms. Does that mean that it would create or contribute to a better community?

People should come to their own conclusions rather than be forced to accept what would be good for the community to accept. Why? That’s just a premise of mine. No further explanation. — khaled

What sort of community do you envisage existing according to this premise?

We are not supposed to use others as an object or means to our ends. — Andrew4Handel

I presume you’re meaning a woman giving birth to a baby. But I’m not sure if we’re fully aware of all the reasons behind a woman having a baby.

hence the insistence by the group to subjugate the individual. "The good of the many outweigh the good of the one", "the greater good", etc. With the determination of the self, as an independent entity and unattached to the group, comes the threat that said determination may spread throughout the group, reducing the engagement in the group and weakening the group. — Book273

Do you think this is the reason people want to fit in so badly or is there something else going on?

There is no "nothing" which is an alternative to something and would exist if there wasn't something. — Ciceronianus the White

I like this. I’ve been discussing this with a friend who just takes me around in circles. My feeling is that “nothing” only exists as a construct in binary terms. Something cannot come from nothing, and nothing cannot come from something.

However, if there is no “nothing” and only “something” does that mean something has always been something?

and individualism is a recent invention. — Echarmion

I believe that the individual is the fundamental threat to the group, despite being inherently required for the group, hence the insistence by the group to subjugate the individual. — Book273

I think you’re right there, even though I find myself resisting and considering the value of “the individual” as an essential element within the group. But of course, let’s call it “the cult of individuality” would perpetuate the idea that the group cannot survive or grow without the genius of the individual.
Because it does serve the egotism of people, that “I’m important”, simply by being. Which is why business can sell ripped jeans for hundreds of dollars. And of course I don’t want to give up my sense of individuality. In someways it’s a sort of pretentious anarchy. Once again it serves the ego.

From an evolutionary perspective, it seems like some kind of gathering would have had to come first. A random mutation for sociability wouldn't benefit a species unless they were interacting in some way. — Echarmion

What do you mean by “random mutation for sociability”? A mutation of what?

In one of my posts I mentioned “ Before the community, or tribe, he was an animal trying to survive from one day to the next.” But having thought about it that seems a bit far fetched. I had imagined this lone creature struggling alone within an inhospitable existence. But I don’t see how that creature could survive like that. Nor is there any reason for that creature to leave the security of its family. So if a creature is born, already endowed with a sense of empathy, within a small social group, being the family, then I can’t see what sort of mutation might have brought people together. It seems to me that just human warmth would be enough to perpetuate feelings of security among others.

Edit: and of course the natural inclination towards empath thrives in a group that practices it.

Man exists to fulfill himself individually, not to fulfill the will of the community, in fact, it is the individual's own action to be fulfilled that consequently creates the community... — Gus Lamarch

I don’t know about that. It’s the community that creates the environment that enables a person to pursue ideas of individuality. Before the community, or tribe, he was an animal trying to survive from one day to the next. Survival was his intent not his perception of himself as anything.

My apologies if this has already been mentioned.

I’ll address your posts but we’re beginning to go off topic I think. But maybe not.

The economy is wealth which is basically resources. — Outlander

I don’t think that’s really true. The economy is a beast that needs to be fed. It’s also numbers on paper. If we were in control then we wouldn’t have recessions or inflation. I don’t think it’s because lives are so important that the economy has such high priority. Obviously it serves our needs. But the fact that it can hurt us so much suggests we are caught up in something we have little control over. And so your following post is addressed.

Do you not have a job or know someone who does? Do you not have any public parks, sidewalks, roads, emergency services, etc. funded by taxpayer dollars? You don't live in a house? You don't have any new buildings being constructed nearby? You don't have a military that prevents I dunno whatever foreign boogeyman you're been instructed to fear from walking through your streets and calling it their own? It's all there man. — Outlander

Are we really though? — Outlander

You ask if we’re different from serfs in sod huts.

This is my post.

Our perspective on life and morals can change, which in turn affects what we believe to be necessary and how we coexist. — Brett

Yes we are. Time most definitely changes morals and perspective. The very idea of freedom, of Serfdom, of democracy, of womens’ rights, of colonialism, of racism, of patriarchy, of gender, of civil rights, of human rights, all have changed.

Eager to hear any alternate forms of political systems (aside from anarchy, already included) that are outside of this triangle. — Outlander

This is the purpose of the OP, to discuss and develop thoughts that might suggest something. Otherwise you get what you suggested: nothing.

That’s not how it works. A dance is always a collaboration between the dancer and the music - it isn’t simply the dancer expressing what they know. — Possibility

A dancer doesn’t need music to dance. In that case it absolutely is the dancer expressing what they know (and I’m not completely happy with the word “know”). But even if there is music and the dancer is collaborating with the music (and once again I’m not happy with the word “collaborating”) then they are still expressing what they know, laying it over the music. The music can’t respond to the dancer.

Jazz musicians, too, are interrelating unconsolidated potentialities - — Possibility

This is true and that’s what the dancer is doing; interrelating unconsolidated potentialities with every movement. It’s not until the dancer stops that the dance is consolidated and then of course it’s gone.

But you don’t see the creative idea on stage - you only see one possible expression of it, just like with the painting. — Possibility

What you see is the creative idea unfolding in front of you. And yes it is only one expression of it and you won’t see it again, unless it’s filmed. Nor is it like the painting.

What you see is a creative act. — Possibility

What you see is the creative idea enacted out in front of you. The idea and the act happen simultaneously. There’s no time for anything else, it’s too fast. I don’t think you see that in a painting.

You’re still seeing the creative process as a temporal duration, and looking for something before it. — Possibility

No I don’t think I am. I’m looking at the act as a temporal duration but not everything before that. The idea of the dancer creating in front of you might suggest that. But as I said, the dance is not consolidated, or made temporal, until it’s finished. Up until that point it’s the creative idea in action, being born. It can go in any direction. For the painter that part of it is hidden from you, taking place in their consciousness instead of on stage.

Just going back to the amorphous stage, which we haven’t agreed on, my interest is whether at that stage the conscious mind dips into the unconscious, like picking apples from a tree, or the unconscious floods the conscious mind?

Edit: actually painting might be like the dance, but only some painting.