What kind of person are you?
I have always wondered what category I fit into. I know I am marginally unique but I knew there had to be a name for the kind of person I am. Today I found out a possible group of people I might be like-minded to: Objectivists. But I don't think I qualify as a complete objectivist. I am wondering if my personal philosophy would have to be put into a subgroup with a name like Pragmatic Objectivist or Realistic Objectivist. More information is needed. More information is forthcoming. I will have to return to this concept.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Here I begin
So we begin,
I was just reading some stuff and began wondering. Is there such a thing as permanent uniqueness? People say that a person is unique. You can clone a person. People say art is unique. It can be forged well enough to fool the eye and, with enough care, to fool a computer. So is it possible to make something or do something that cannot lose its uniqueness?
One could argue that the original has greater uniqueness because it was the first. What is somewhat of a sub-meaning of this is that it is unique because it is the only first. The problem is that the copy is equally unique because it is the only object that can be the second object. The same logic can be applied down the numerical line.
Another could argue that in the case of art that the first holds its uniqueness because it comes from the imagination of its creator. (same could be said of a person according to some) But the second one is no less based on its creators imagination. The person who creates the copy creates it based on their perception of the original.
I was just reading some stuff and began wondering. Is there such a thing as permanent uniqueness? People say that a person is unique. You can clone a person. People say art is unique. It can be forged well enough to fool the eye and, with enough care, to fool a computer. So is it possible to make something or do something that cannot lose its uniqueness?
One could argue that the original has greater uniqueness because it was the first. What is somewhat of a sub-meaning of this is that it is unique because it is the only first. The problem is that the copy is equally unique because it is the only object that can be the second object. The same logic can be applied down the numerical line.
Another could argue that in the case of art that the first holds its uniqueness because it comes from the imagination of its creator. (same could be said of a person according to some) But the second one is no less based on its creators imagination. The person who creates the copy creates it based on their perception of the original.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
