Just a casual, slightly frustrated post wondering about whether I’ve plagiarised any philosophical ideas or concepts without giving proper acknowledgement. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking alone and “reinvented” many ideas along the way, most if not all have already been said by some other philosopher at some point in time.
I started to have doubts about whether anything I came up with could even be said to be mine, given that others have thought of it first, even wondering whether there was any point to me thinking about anything at all if those who came before me have already invented the proverbial wheels.
Especially after reading Pinker’s Enlightenment Now, a lot of the ideas in Chapter 21 align with what I’ve already thought of before, but does the fact I’ve read the book mean that stating these ideas now constitutes a copying of his work? After all, I cannot possibly deny any influence it may have had and the book does elucidate these ideas with far more erudition and sophistication than any of my writings have done in the past.
Perhaps what this all boils down to is my lack of understanding of what “plagiarism” means, as different sources seem to have their own definitions with some including the rephrasing of ideas and concepts or even making a counterargument that someone else famous has already said before.
Supposedly, the onus is on me to verify that my own ideas have not already been thought of by someone else, and that I have to credit them for these ideas if they happen to have written them down first… I don’t understand plagiarism. This is illogical, there must be some misunderstanding.
If I come up with an argument against something, only to realise afterwards that someone, somewhere in history has already said it in the past, then I’ve plagiarised them, right? No, that’s different, as long as I can prove I’ve never met them nor seen any of their works and thus could not possibly have been influenced, I can’t be accused of unconscious and unintentional plagiarism, right?
But in the case of the book I’ve read recently, I can’t prove that I already had these ideas in the past (okay, maybe I can, but they’re hidden away in the scribbles of my personal notes with manually-entered dates, easily susceptible to the accusation of retroactive falsification). Of course, I cannot recognise that I’ve already had the same idea a new book I’m reading also has if I did not already have that idea, but once I’ve read it, I can’t prove afterwards that I hadn’t copied them, right?
Or, what if, like in this case, I’ve learned something from it, and used the finished knowledge to present my take on the idea? Of course, I might credit as a matter of courtesy and gratitude for helping me figure it out, but the main concern I have is with plagiarism. After all, I could not have found the last few pieces of the puzzle in my head without the help of what I’ve learned, and the result may be an idea similar enough to be mistaken for perhaps an attempt at liberal paraphrasing, differing only slightly in my interpretation and understanding of it.
There is also a very real possibility that I never actually had these ideas to begin with—I merely think I had them because of self-delusion and wanting to believe there weren’t such chasms in my knowledge to begin with. Perhaps, no amount of time without having read the book will have led to me writing these ideas down, as I would have never developed them on my own.
Plagiarism and lack of gratitude… are they the same thing? Perhaps, there’s a lot of grey areas in plagiarism, given how everyone seems to define it slightly differently, and what constitutes “common knowledge” may not always be so easy to define, especially with philosophical concepts that more than one may independently arrive at themselves following a basic line of reasoning—what’s “obvious” need not always be so obvious.
Perhaps anyone who’s reading this is scoffing at this ludicrous drivel, but I do not know if they’re frustrated by the fact what I’m describing is obviously plagiarism, or if it’s obviously not plagiarism.
Of course, I never copy verbatim unless I’m quoting someone, but there are many cases where I could’ve gone “According to Author A…” for what I’ve written but omitted them due to not wanting to attribute any of the shortcomings in my interpretation to them—it would almost be slander. Imagine misinterpreting something and claiming that “According to Author A, Q logically leads to P” when that author never actually said anything like that and my claim was based on a fundamental misunderstanding on my part. How far of a deviation from the original idea is enough for it to become “my own” interpretation?
Most of what I write is never referenced on the spot, and it’ll be difficult to find any passages that directly correspond to the original sources of inspiration given how bad I am with verbatim (I can easily remember gists, but rarely verbatim, if ever), but I cannot deny that I have not been influenced by them.
I can’t comprehend this idea of plagiarism. I understand what it’s for, but I can’t seem to put two and two together and properly delineate learning and plagiarism. If I understand the gist of something and write my understanding of it down, and if I would never have understood that idea if not for the things I’ve read, then is not giving credit to these sources considered plagiarism? It should still be, right? Am I “stealing” their ideas?
So what now?
I’m hoping I can still continue thinking and writing down my thoughts freely without worrying that I’ve unintentionally stolen someone else’s ideas for my own, but I cannot read my own mind and cannot, with full honestly, declare what my intentions really are due to the limits of conscious thought and awareness—my consciousness does not encompass the entirely of my motivations and I cannot be aware of literally everything that motivates me as a result.
I will try and cite as much as possible, specifically in cases where I have the source material beside me and need to directly quote something from it, but in other cases I have no choice but to risk accidentally (or coincidentally) “copying” ideas and conclusions I may not necessarily have heard of. I also wonder if it would be dishonest to credit someone else for an idea I came up with just because they came up with it first without my knowledge, regardless of how much either of us have expanded on it.
This whole situation is ridiculous. I’ve never seen anyone think of plagiarism in this way, which means I must have interpreted some part of it incorrectly and proceeded to spew an incoherent ramble on the basis of that lack of understanding. Perhaps the answer is staring at me in the face but I’m too oblivious to notice it; perhaps there really is a grey area and I just so happen to have entered it.
Once again, a lack of formal education has served to my detriment. Such a simple, obvious question should not need this many words to describe.
N.B. I appreciate the irony in asking a question to a closed comments section, but this is just a rant; I will find the answer by myself someday.