Citations and Originality
I remember during my time in public schooling how much we were told to "cite all of our sources" in the proper annotated format approved by the teachers and administration. None of the students really questioned this idea as it was assumed it was for the sake of preventing plagiarism. The intention, like many other things was good, but to me it seemed rather inauthentic like a pleading to authority, in a word—spurious.
Now, there's nothing necessarily wrong with giving credit to authors or anything else your inspiration branched out of. I just think it's worthwhile to observe how ideas come about to see why annotating authors and have sophisticated bibliography is mostly a posture.
Reading the works of an author who uses an exhaustive list of annotations gives off, at least to me, the impression that the writer is lacking commitment to his own thoughts and instead has to rely on authorities for verification. This is not even mentioning how as readers we are suppose to take it as truth independent of further questioning, and like lawyers, anyone can present their case with counter arguments. Which genuine person really finds the noted citations crucial and impressive besides the already supporters?
When I write about freedom, individualism, political organization, education, literature, among other topics, I am borrowing from countless numbers of ideas from hundreds of authors I have read through the years; and these authors have borrowed ideas from preceding authors, after a while it's hard to tell where an idea was first conceived. There's no doubt I am in intellectual debt toward many thinkers, artists, and other great minds who have pushed my curiosity to engage in the world of ideas.
What separates one writer from the other is style. Sure, having something to say and saying it as well as one possibly can is a given, what is unique to each is how one stands out in contrast to their cohorts by crafting and arranging words to however the writer thinks will be most effective toward his ends.
Besides the presentation of the words I use, I don't claim to be original about my information in any way. In fact, I would go so far to say that originality is merely a front or an attitude we have taken with our creative spirits. You may notice whether something is more "original" than the next thing, perhaps important nevertheless, it's still an aesthetic judgment.
Getting labeled as original should then be taken with a grain of salt; because although in a very vague sense some creations can be new and fresh, they're made up of disparate pieces stringed together in a long and forgot chain of events.
"Nil Posse Creari De Nilo", said Lucretius, and for the few who understand this knows how it absolutely also applies in the realm of ideas.
I would not have expected this to receive so few attention. Well written and just my kind of world view.
Didn't expect much attention really, besides from people like you who are of similar disposition; it's not really written for your average content consumer. Thanks for reading+now following you!
Well I guess I had a different kind of community in mind when joining the network. I am glad though content like yours exists. Maybe when the community grows the demand will grow too.
Don't get it wrong though, there is plenty of good material on here, you just have be on the look out. High value content tends to "stick" compared to appealing to the lowest common denominator, so it will always have demand especially as the community grows.
I'll try my best to find it :) Still trying to get the hang of things here.
I thought the same thing when I was writing my essays at university, that it was an exercise in building a case by appealing to authority, rather than really trying to arrive at the truth.
Looking back I do see value in the exercise though, but more in an indirect way. I think writing like this helps develop your mind by training you to weigh up and critically analyse different opinions, and come to your own conclusions and interpretations of them.
Doing this, I believe, did help me become a more critical thinker, and get me used to automatically seeking out and filtering through a large volume of information on any given subject.
Yes, exactly!
Makes sense, perhaps that can help certain people, I just find it a lot of extra unnecessary work for nothing. I reference have various kinds of books, essays, and other writings, but I don't feel the need to cite them unless it's something I want to point out goes more in depth than what I can or wiling to do.
I can definitely understand that if writing is something you do professionally. I'm sure it does get annoying having to do all the extra work. I guess that's why I gave up on academic study after I finished university. I've been studying the natural world, plants, diet and meditation since, looking for a different kind of knowledge.
"When I write about freedom, individualism, political organization, education, literature, among other topics, I am borrowing from countless numbers of ideas from hundreds of authors I have read through the years; and these authors have borrowed ideas from preceding authors, after a while it's hard to tell where an idea was first conceived."
Yes, many times I exactly have thought that. So good to see that others feel the same.
In the free realm of formulating your own stories, articles and art citing is nothing to crack ones mind about.
Today I postet my first article WITH citation and it was a hell lot of work. Why? Because I want entry in the steemstem room. Either I commit to the rules or I leave it.
Now as I experience both styles - the free one and the not so free one - I can say that both have their advantages and disadvantages. Fun aspects and boring ones.
Thank you for bringing this up, it always bugged me, too.
P.S. I came here from @laylasophias post and saw your comment which made me curios.
Thanks for the comment.
I'm not sure what steemstem room is but I assume it has to do with posts on scientific or technical matters. If you have to use citation to be part of the community than I understand your choice; it's like a lot of things in life, you either commit to the rules or be apart from it.
To me the fetish with annotation and citation comes from Academia which is the so-called institutional authority of knowledge. Interestingly, people complain about how things are at the present moment with Academia and other organizations in society but continue to use the same methods.
some of the academic members just forget that they are normal people:) as I see it many are swimming in shark tanks. As Rupert Sheldrake, for example, pointed this out so humorously about his fellow academics who never would admit officially that his unconventional approach is refreshing and unusual.
Only behind the curtains.
Nevertheless there is so much fear of loosing reputation. Though Sheldrake himself is strictly scientific. But what he means is that bringing up non heard theses, questions or subjects of science became dogmatic. Which I feel seems to be true somehow.
So the "open mind" to a so far non proven subject which is THE principle in science became rare in one way.
I guess the method is not so much the problem but the established reputations which are threatened when a new kid on the block turns things upside down.
Well said.
This post has received a 0.52 % upvote from @drotto thanks to: @banjo.