Introduction The sources of people’s creativity, as well as the reasons for our thinking processes, are quite diverse. However, there is something in common between the two phenomena. Some people claim that everything has been created already by others before us and that we only repeat their achievements in a modified way. Others say that people steal ideas from each other, condemning such activity and calling it plagiarism. Still, others think that external ideas find their way to us using inner thoughts or even inner conversations with ourselves or other people. As there exist so many diverse opinions on these issues, it seems justified to contemplate them more thoroughly. The questions that this assignment will work through are as follows: What do the processes of thinking and creating have in common, and how are they impacted by external and internal ideas? Understanding the World through Perceptions of Other People In trying to explain his viewpoint on people’s inability to create anything purely new, David Shields notes that there is “no such thing as originality” (Shields). He is convinced that everything we invent is merely a recycled use of something that has already been designed. Thus, Shields opposes the necessity to cite everything we take from other sources since it is obvious that the ideas are not new. Indeed, the author even remarks that the citation “domesticates” and “flattens” the work and deprives it of its “excitement, risk, and danger” (Shields). In defense of the fact that writers and inventors constantly borrow their predecessors’ ideas, Shields says that the line “between fact and fiction” is too fuzzy for people to understand (Shields). The author emphasizes that there is no real distinction between the works of fiction and non-fiction writers as both of them employ memory and imagination simultaneously. Shields calls these two notions “Siamese twins” and says that no writer has the power to separate them (Shields). Thus, the core idea of Shield’s article is that no one should be punished for plagiarism as everyone plagiarizes others’ work to some extent. At the other end of the spectrum, Peter A. Rinck is disturbed about the plagiarism habits of modern writers and calls them a “copy-and-paste” generation (Rinck 13). He does not defend writers’ right to use other peoples’ work, calling plagiarism “a striking lack of scientific competence” (Rinck 13). However, Rinck does not place all of the blame on the writers themselves; instead, he says that it is the fault of their teachers and supervisors who underestimate the need to explain to their students the basics of proper writing and citation rules (Rinck 13). The damage caused by using other people’s ideas, according to Rinck, is multidimensional. First of all, plagiarism causes financial losses for the original writers. Secondly, the educational and scientific systems are negatively impacted. Plagiarists are unable to perform their research, and they also face the risk of being discovered and disqualified (Rinck 13). Thus, Rinck argues that there is nothing good at borrowing others’ ideas. Students’ perceptions of plagiarism depend on their university policy and their tutors’ dedication to pro