Two things I stumbled upon today that both led me to Google the word "Innovation". Of course the results for both were Wikipedia. But there was an interesting piece in the article that caught my attention: A distinction is typically made between invention, an idea made manifest, and innovation, ideas applied successfully.
The reason that's so interesting to me is that 1) I always thought that they were closely related, 2) I think that innovation is the best form of invention, and 3) if I had to choose which word was my favorite, I would undoubtedly choose "innovation".
In my mind, innovation is a type of invention; it's the way in which we look at the current world we're working in (be it the actual world or the world of online media or the world of politics, etc) and imagine a different outcome. It's about being able to think differently, push the envelope, have foresight, and shape the future.
Invention to me seems to be the solution to a current or existing problem.
Don't get me wrong, I think that these can both exist together, and in reality, I think they must in order to continue to advance socially, politically, etc. But does it seem like one is addressing our past while the other addresses our future? If you ask me, I would fall on the side of the future any day.
I mean, it's not like these two words are going to war. And we certainly don't have a lot of philosophical minds debating to determine the future of these words in a world where only one can exist. But why invent when we can innovate? The suffix -ent literally means "to form"; meanwhile the suffix -ate means "to do".
I say, just "-ate" it!
The paradox of insular language
2 years ago