“Anyone who adopts his belief has a belief that is new to them (functionally new), but not completely original (conditionally new).”
Yes. The “conditionally new” is a very interesting “space” as it were.
Ecclesiastes 1:9-10, the Psalm about Vanity has a great set of lines:
What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is said,
“See, this is new”?
It has been already
in the ages before us.
That is true for so much of human thought. “New for you, but not new to the world” as it were. I still celebrate the “new for you” and I don’t decry it, because the experience of knowledge acquisition and the ‘bubble popping” of realization after realization is an amazing process, one that I enjoy myself and enjoy helping others with, in whatever limited capacity that I can.
But “new new” as it were?
I’ve had many original _combinations_ of things. A new way to look at an existing thing. A novel way to combine existing elements that may not have been published or expressed elsewhere in any way that is known to me or Google or my public library.
But first-time-thought-ever by anyone?
How can one know?
We can only know what’s been published and what we’ve heard.
In our searches for ultimate answers and the debates therein, we’re just pitting one ignorance with another ignorance. Yet because of the functional newness, it’s worth it and it may lead to a combinatorial functional newness that, for all intents and purposes _may NEARLY be_ a conditional newness.