Response to Nicole's first question

I think we should take this question into two perspectives.

Plato might contend that the forms which the person who creates the unnatural objects such as beds or ipods, has in their mind were passed down originally from the gods. So in the Platonic view it seems to follow that one can combine the substances necessary to create the "imperfect" worldly equivalent of the object but the person that fashions such an object would simply be an agent in selecting a preexisting godly form and combining the correct materials as best as her ability allows, not actually inventing the object only attempting to transfer the ideal form of the object from the world of ideas into the real world.

The second perspective, a more modern view, is one that was espoused during the regular A&P Class. Professor questioned human originality in the sense that it seems that the great majority of our "inventions" or "innovations" of any sort rarely result from a spontaneous new idea or understanding that one stumbles upon. I think that instead we tend to work in a sort of computer-like way in that we process millions if not billions of units of data and we are likely to group and combine data in a variety of different ways. The majority of our "new" ideas, inventions, and innovation are simply old experiences, thoughts, and innovations reassembled, recycled, and rearranged in order or alter or combine functions desirable to the new objects. this suggests that our thoughts aren't so much as original as they are complex and that they can be a deep reflection of the centuries of vital data that we of the future can so easily infuse into our brains for our own benefit. I think we are inventors but not in a spontaneous brand-new thought way but by combining and refining past ideas and understandings to come to a greater understanding and application to create objects whose function betters society.