Negative Originality

Originality can be a deeply empowering way to discover neglected or previously unknown truths, and it is also manifested in the use of reason to autonomously discover truths that have already been identified.  Often, originality is treated as something positive--and it certainly does show that a person is too independent to be an unwitting hostage to whatever cultural ideas might swirl around them.  It is praised, looked upon as a desirable and admirable trait.

Not all originality of either type is praiseworthy, however.  Every person who has discovered and embraced a fallacious idea without social influence or who has personally embraced a fallacious idea before anyone else even recognized it is original, but they have not used originality in rational ways.  Autonomy and (where applicable) novelty go hand in hand with genuine, thorough rationalism, and any sincere seeker of truth should grasp this, yet neither autonomy nor novelty is an indication that a worldview is true, much less verifiable.

If a metaphysical or epistemological heresy holds any power over a given society or person, there must have been someone who first grasped the idea.  There may also be those who came to the idea on their own even if they were not the first ones to do so.  A denial that either involves originality is outright false.  Nevertheless, this is negative originality, for it reveals the stupidity, inconsistency, or intellectual blindness of the one who discovers it.  Whatever autonomy or novelty is present has not contributed to anything philosophically sound.

Autonomy--at a minimum, the autonomous reflection on logic, basic experiences, and the claims of others--is a mandatory requirement for intellectual soundness.  A person is neither rational nor original if they look to something other than reason itself for incontrovertible revelations about reality.  Nevertheless, even someone who seeks out and identifies with fallacious beliefs due to their own personal contemplation is indeed exercising originality.  It is just that they are not combining the originality of autonomy with the immutable light of reason.