I mean, sure, the dictionary definition says “created directly and personally by a particular artist; not a copy or imitation”, and I agree with that, but hear me out, I like these philosophical rabbit holes.
The definition says “not a copy or imitation”, so we are presupposing that those things exist, so something original is the antithesis of a copy or imitation.
Now imagine if absolutely everything is original, wouldn’t the word lose its meaning? Isn’t something original the opposite of a copy? If no copies exist wouldn’t it be the opposite of nothing? Or even itself?
Original things wouldn’t be original, they would just be.
I mean, sure, the dictionary definition says “created directly and personally by a particular artist; not a copy or imitation”, and I agree with that, but hear me out, I like these philosophical rabbit holes.
The definition says “not a copy or imitation”, so we are presupposing that those things exist, so something original is the antithesis of a copy or imitation.
Now imagine if absolutely everything is original, wouldn’t the word lose its meaning? Isn’t something original the opposite of a copy? If no copies exist wouldn’t it be the opposite of nothing? Or even itself?
Original things wouldn’t be original, they would just be.
No, you’re just overthinking it.
that was… the whole point… overthinking the meaning of something
There’s always a copycat