Arbü1237February 28, 2024 at 02:296150 views37 comments
I have a hint of a clue but I cant make up my mind on a definition. Im new to philosophy and I have this question. Is there any books on creativity I should know about?
Unusual I can understand but original seems unimportant. I can be creative with redundant resources. Creative seems like a quality or some possession that attributes unusual and original actions. Creativity is like the bulb and the work is the light it produces.
Unusual I can understand but original seems unimportant.
Does anybody produce 'original' ideas?
PhilosophimFebruary 28, 2024 at 03:04#8841610 likes
Creativity is the ability to come up with ideas that few if any other people come up with. Positive creativity results in a new idea that other people like or benefit from. You can be creative, but it doesn't mean your idea will resonate with others or contribute beyond the fact that its original.
Creative seems like a quality or some possession that attributes unusual and original actions. Creativity is like the bulb and the work is the light it produces.
Creative and creativity are the same word but with different morphological classifications, like beautiful and beautifully, wind and windy.
It's the ability - and willingness - to look at the world, or something in the world, from an unusual perspective and to rearrange that perception and translate it into a medium in a form that communicates the different perspective to other people. I realize that's not a very good sentence; I was trying to avoid 'originality' and 'novelty'.
There is nothing new under the sun; there are no ideas that nobody's ever had. You will never make anything completely different from everything that's been done been before. Creativity is more like being a kaleidoscope; reconfiguring what already exists in a new arrangement.
Reply to Arbü1237
All creation or creativity involves assembling elements in novel configurations. Now, how to do it well? Some suggestions:
Consider looking to nature, and observe her creative process, where existing elements are amalgamated, fused, or 'accreted' to form new entities such as atoms, stars, planets, molecules, cells, etc. Similarly, human creativity follows this pattern, albeit with thoughts as the building blocks that are 'accreted' together to generate innovative ideas and creations.
Long ago, i came across a story about an alchemist who employed a creativity technique consisting of two phases. The initial stage, was the absorption phase, and it involved the alchemist immersing himself entirely in his chosen subject. This entailed extensive reading and engaging with individuals possessing knowledge or insights related to his area of interest. This immersive phase typically lasted several months. The subsequent phase involved deep contemplation, reflection, and experimentation, during which the alchemist meticulously pondered all the information gathered during the absorption phase. It was within this contemplative stage that he purportedly experienced moments of creative inspiration and innovation.
Furthermore, adopt a multidisciplinary approach. Explore how seemingly unrelated concepts can intertwine with your creative pursuits. Embracing diverse perspectives and fields of study can often lead to unique and innovative solutions.
Most importantly have fun with it. Play with ideas as a child plays with toys, and new things will begin to occur to you. Also, always listen to your intuition, and don't let anyone shutdown your intuition; learn to listen to it closely and carefully.
In some contexts it's sufficient to be original or unusual in some way, for example skilled, insightful, inventive. A creative person is not necessarily productive, nor successful.
But there's been a professionalization of the word 'creative', and there's a "creative class" of people working in advertisement, design, entertainment etc. The creativity of these guys is defined by how much stuff or content they produce, exhibit, publish or by how much influence they have or how much money they earn.
QuestionerDecember 03, 2024 at 20:14#9514490 likes
Explore how seemingly unrelated concepts can intertwine with your creative pursuits
This seems to be the key. Einstein termed it "combinatory play" - the secret of genius, and the essential feature of productive thought. Quoted from the article:
Alive and awake to the world, we amass a collection of cross-disciplinary building blocks knowledge, memories, bits of information, sparks of inspiration, and other existing ideas that we then combine and recombine, mostly unconsciously, into something new.
It's worth mentioning, too, that Einstein came up with some of his best ideas while playing the violin.
Yes. It can happen, even it's extremely rare and the person getting the "original" idea won't usually know that actually his or her idea is quite original.
My father had a wonderful saying about medical research: "Everything in medical research has been already been thought in old German medical journals, but as nobody reads them anymore, nobody knows about them."
Creativity is an individual exposing some part of who they are. I heard a comic saying how Richard Prior did sole surgery on stage. He made trying to burn himself alive funny. Writers put themselves in the persona of the characters they create. There is no deviding line between the two. The creation is the creator.
Across place and time, is creativity a reaction to a primal need? Objects of adornment have been found, through archeology, made by the Neanderthals. Is this a common thread?
Creativity is an attribute of mind, it is it's ability to create, whether the creation be new or old. Artwork is creative, but so too is an experiment; there's the logic surrounding the experiment, but so too it's creation in the world. It's the opposite of logic, and most things have both a creative and logical side. Take a tree for example, there is it's being in the world and what created it, and then there is the fact it is green and produces oxygen. Most things need creativity to exist, you cannot produce a theory without knowledge of language and how to use it - the language itself is not the logic but it's intrinsic content is - use of language is purely creative until it is accredited to it's references.
Reply to ssu
Breakthroughs in medical science seem to have been historically rare until we began to use microscopes (or the hypothetical-deductive method seriously) and thus learned about microbes etc.
Across place and time, is creativity a reaction to a primal need?
Or a consequence from the fact that by drawing pictures on the walls of caves etc some of the more human-like primates could preserve and accumulate knowledge, which eventually increased their fitness. I think creativity is basically something that an animal (including human) does in order to solve problems and invent things in order to increase its fitness. However, in many human cultures creativity is oppressed, demotivated, or redirected by distractions.
javi2541997December 04, 2024 at 12:56#9516110 likes
It's the opposite of logic, and most things have both a creative and logical side. Take a tree for example, there is it's being in the world and what created it, and then there is the fact it is green and produces oxygen. Most things need creativity to exist
Do you mean that a tree exists because it is both logical and creative? What if we know about a tree's existence because we are the ones who are creative and logical?
Logic may have a pass; but I doubt whether creativity is an attribute of animals or things.
unenlightenedDecember 04, 2024 at 13:07#9516160 likes
Creativity is the action of the unknown. It is that for which the recipe does not yet exist; it is the unprecedented; that about which nothing can be said, except in retrospect. It is the uniqueness of every moment.
Reply to javi2541997 A human replicates through reproduction, which isn't entirely logical, you don't need to know about how to reproduce, and you probably end up reproducing through desire to have intercourse. At most you supply energy and drive to what then becomes a matter of reproductive logic. Lot's of the procedure are skipped mentally, you do not have to consider the activity of sperm and egg, you just have to have a sexual encounter. My former example about the fact the words I type have no logic to them, and are completely creative, until they are accredited to their references. A tree is also a creative being, it isn't reduced to any or all of its parts, it exists on Earth stand-alone, and there was life force involved in it's generation where a whole lot of the logic involved in that was skipped. Most things are rather a product of simply living, but have enumerable amounts of logic within them. Throwing a ball is creative, you do it without considering the logic; that you grasped it with your hands and swung your arm back and forward, it's more the nature of the human who's wise of throwing, creating this action.
Is "Love" ever experienced stand-alone, above the fact it was chemicals of the body and mind? I would say yes, the mind doesn't force us to reduce love to the chemicals it is. In the same regard as the tree is not reduced to all of its parts - it exists - and it probably doesn't take into account the logic behind the reproduction of itself, the production of oxygen and so forth.
JKOP. If animals use creativity is there a common primal need? Also have I read that in many early languages the same word is used for "change and evil". I assume this is because change was seen as a threat to a groups power structure as it can be today.
javi2541997December 04, 2024 at 13:44#9516220 likes
A tree is also a creative being, it isn't reduced to any or all of its parts, it exists on Earth stand-alone, and there was life force involved in it's generation where a whole lot of the logic involved in that was skipped.
I think I am starting to understand you -- you consider a tree as a creative being because it produces oxygen and for simply standing on Earth.
Yet I still think that the process of a tree's existence is pretty logical to me. I mean, a tree doesn't stand in a forest without following a basic pattern, nor does it produce oxygen randomly. You claim 'a whole lot of the logic involved was skipped' -- are you sure? I fully believe that plants are very logical. More than some humans.
javi2541997December 04, 2024 at 13:54#9516240 likes
javi2541. To me, every idea that crosses the line into something new is creative. If it could be the affect of a primal need, then that need still effects our logic today and that is a line of thought to explore.
unenlightened Creativity is a product of the mind and the ingredients for the recipe are there. They must be arranged in a creative way by the need of the individual.
If animals use creativity is there a common primal need?
We're creative not only when we need to, but also when we want to, or when it's expected of us (i.e. various reasons). Sometimes it's necessity that makes me creative, other times it's boredom.
I assume this is because change was seen as a threat to a groups power structure as it can be today.
Yeah, creative writers, artists, and scientists may have to express their work in ways that reduce the risk of being burned at the stake or ostracized by the group. For example, by the use of metaphor, coded language, jargon, obscurity.
Some creativity involves creating an end product, say a movie, other creativity involves creating a pathway to an end product, that is: problem solving.
Doesn't look like there are many books on creativity, by current conscensus, but Edward de Bono has plenty of books out that touch on creative left field thinking.
There is nothing new under the sun; there are no ideas that nobody's ever had. You will never make anything completely different from everything that's been done been before. Creativity is more like being a kaleidoscope; reconfiguring what already exists in a new arrangement.
Heres a postulate Id like to test out:
There can be no distal goal held by lifefrom bacteria to humanswhich is utterly original and thereby never before held in any manner by any lifeform. Nothing new under the sun in this sense. Yet there can occur utterly original heuristical means of best obtaining a given goal, and, in this, creativity can and does occursuch that, for one example, novel ideas can be devised as just such means toward a pursued end. With one such fairly recent example of a novel idea being that termed meme.
This will then apply to all contexts in which creativity can unfold: artistic, technological, mathematical, scientific (esp. in relation to scientific hypotheses but also in relation to means of testing these), philosophical, etc.
Hence making creativity necessarily dependent on some intent and the intentioning to get there. And, hence, teleological. Purely accidental results are thereby not a product of creativitythough their newly found application or utility can be.
I have a primitive view of creativity. If something is made that didn't exist before, no matter how many millions of other examples of that same thing exist, the making of that something is creativity. If I take a piece of paper and make a paper airplane, to me that is being creative. That particular paper airplane didn't exist before I made it. If the soil accepts an acorn and grows an oak tree, the soil is being creative no matter how many oak trees are in existence, as that particular oak tree had never existed before.
Reply to alleybear Your post brings up the situation that some define the word as a synonym of manufacturing (creating things) and others of novelty (coming up with a "creative" solution).
While you bring up a cogent distinction, Im not familiar with the term creativity being used in the first sense of simply creating things.
For example, if one follows a blueprint to at T so as to create an item, is one then being in any way creative? I get that one here creates the item in the sense of bringing it into existence, but there so far seems to me to be something quite off in expressing that this same act of creation was in any way creative.
How would one then distinguish the creativity of a poet, for example, in bringing a poem into existence from the ability of a non-sentient AI program to via its (fully deterministic) algorithms create linguistic expressions and thereby bring into existence what we would recognize as a poem? Same could be asked of images (AI now being a staple part of Photoshop, for example), sounds, and so forth. And this same train of reasoning can then be further pursued in terms of a non-AI robot in a factory being creative in creating, for example, a certain car part.
Reply to javra I was addressing alleybear's usage of the word in his previous posting, which seems to use the term in just the way you are apparently unfamiliar with.
Comments (37)
Does anybody produce 'original' ideas?
If you are not original, you are not creating.
Quoting Arbü1237
Creative and creativity are the same word but with different morphological classifications, like beautiful and beautifully, wind and windy.
There is nothing new under the sun; there are no ideas that nobody's ever had. You will never make anything completely different from everything that's been done been before. Creativity is more like being a kaleidoscope; reconfiguring what already exists in a new arrangement.
All creation or creativity involves assembling elements in novel configurations. Now, how to do it well? Some suggestions:
Consider looking to nature, and observe her creative process, where existing elements are amalgamated, fused, or 'accreted' to form new entities such as atoms, stars, planets, molecules, cells, etc. Similarly, human creativity follows this pattern, albeit with thoughts as the building blocks that are 'accreted' together to generate innovative ideas and creations.
Long ago, i came across a story about an alchemist who employed a creativity technique consisting of two phases. The initial stage, was the absorption phase, and it involved the alchemist immersing himself entirely in his chosen subject. This entailed extensive reading and engaging with individuals possessing knowledge or insights related to his area of interest. This immersive phase typically lasted several months. The subsequent phase involved deep contemplation, reflection, and experimentation, during which the alchemist meticulously pondered all the information gathered during the absorption phase. It was within this contemplative stage that he purportedly experienced moments of creative inspiration and innovation.
Furthermore, adopt a multidisciplinary approach. Explore how seemingly unrelated concepts can intertwine with your creative pursuits. Embracing diverse perspectives and fields of study can often lead to unique and innovative solutions.
Most importantly have fun with it. Play with ideas as a child plays with toys, and new things will begin to occur to you. Also, always listen to your intuition, and don't let anyone shutdown your intuition; learn to listen to it closely and carefully.
In some contexts it's sufficient to be original or unusual in some way, for example skilled, insightful, inventive. A creative person is not necessarily productive, nor successful.
But there's been a professionalization of the word 'creative', and there's a "creative class" of people working in advertisement, design, entertainment etc. The creativity of these guys is defined by how much stuff or content they produce, exhibit, publish or by how much influence they have or how much money they earn.
This seems to be the key. Einstein termed it "combinatory play" - the secret of genius, and the essential feature of productive thought. Quoted from the article:
Alive and awake to the world, we amass a collection of cross-disciplinary building blocks knowledge, memories, bits of information, sparks of inspiration, and other existing ideas that we then combine and recombine, mostly unconsciously, into something new.
It's worth mentioning, too, that Einstein came up with some of his best ideas while playing the violin.
Yes. It can happen, even it's extremely rare and the person getting the "original" idea won't usually know that actually his or her idea is quite original.
My father had a wonderful saying about medical research: "Everything in medical research has been already been thought in old German medical journals, but as nobody reads them anymore, nobody knows about them."
Breakthroughs in medical science seem to have been historically rare until we began to use microscopes (or the hypothetical-deductive method seriously) and thus learned about microbes etc.
Quoting Jerome
Or a consequence from the fact that by drawing pictures on the walls of caves etc some of the more human-like primates could preserve and accumulate knowledge, which eventually increased their fitness. I think creativity is basically something that an animal (including human) does in order to solve problems and invent things in order to increase its fitness. However, in many human cultures creativity is oppressed, demotivated, or redirected by distractions.
I think yes, it is.
But to what extent does your conception of creativity go? -- either creativity in a literary and artistic sense or in a technical way.
Do you mean that a tree exists because it is both logical and creative? What if we know about a tree's existence because we are the ones who are creative and logical?
Logic may have a pass; but I doubt whether creativity is an attribute of animals or things.
I think I am starting to understand you -- you consider a tree as a creative being because it produces oxygen and for simply standing on Earth.
Yet I still think that the process of a tree's existence is pretty logical to me. I mean, a tree doesn't stand in a forest without following a basic pattern, nor does it produce oxygen randomly. You claim 'a whole lot of the logic involved was skipped' -- are you sure? I fully believe that plants are very logical. More than some humans.
When the leaf of a tree falls down in autumn -- is this a creative or logical move?
Hmm...
We're creative not only when we need to, but also when we want to, or when it's expected of us (i.e. various reasons). Sometimes it's necessity that makes me creative, other times it's boredom.
Quoting Jerome
Yeah, creative writers, artists, and scientists may have to express their work in ways that reduce the risk of being burned at the stake or ostracized by the group. For example, by the use of metaphor, coded language, jargon, obscurity.
Creativity needs a discerning audience otherwise it is just "some more of...".
Creativity needs antecedents but with a distinct or distinguishing gap/leap from them.
And it may be argued, creativity needs to have a "product" with a use that someone else did not have (access to ) previously but will use now.
Just a random question, can it be called creativity by its creator without agreement from others?
hopeful smile
Doesn't look like there are many books on creativity, by current conscensus, but Edward de Bono has plenty of books out that touch on creative left field thinking.
helping smile
Heres a postulate Id like to test out:
There can be no distal goal held by lifefrom bacteria to humanswhich is utterly original and thereby never before held in any manner by any lifeform. Nothing new under the sun in this sense. Yet there can occur utterly original heuristical means of best obtaining a given goal, and, in this, creativity can and does occursuch that, for one example, novel ideas can be devised as just such means toward a pursued end. With one such fairly recent example of a novel idea being that termed meme.
This will then apply to all contexts in which creativity can unfold: artistic, technological, mathematical, scientific (esp. in relation to scientific hypotheses but also in relation to means of testing these), philosophical, etc.
Hence making creativity necessarily dependent on some intent and the intentioning to get there. And, hence, teleological. Purely accidental results are thereby not a product of creativitythough their newly found application or utility can be.
While you bring up a cogent distinction, Im not familiar with the term creativity being used in the first sense of simply creating things.
For example, if one follows a blueprint to at T so as to create an item, is one then being in any way creative? I get that one here creates the item in the sense of bringing it into existence, but there so far seems to me to be something quite off in expressing that this same act of creation was in any way creative.
How would one then distinguish the creativity of a poet, for example, in bringing a poem into existence from the ability of a non-sentient AI program to via its (fully deterministic) algorithms create linguistic expressions and thereby bring into existence what we would recognize as a poem? Same could be asked of images (AI now being a staple part of Photoshop, for example), sounds, and so forth. And this same train of reasoning can then be further pursued in terms of a non-AI robot in a factory being creative in creating, for example, a certain car part.
Or would one not find reason to so distinguish?
Thoughts?