ThinkBlog

philosophy :: psychology :: theology :: technology

28 January 2005

Mental Creativity a Misnomer?

16:13:35 :: [philosophy, cognition] :: 229 words

Can the mind produce genuinely new material ex nihilo? Last week I was reading a bit of philosophy out of a used textbook and someone had written in the margins a note about “creativity” of the mind. That got me to thinking.

Do we use the word “creativity” loosely, however unwittingly? Do all the supposedly novel images we find, for instance, in literature derive from and have their basis in things that have come before? I have always tended not to think so: but rather that the mind can conceive of things that have not come before, things or ideas which are completely unique. David Hume, of course, would disagree. But would I, too, now?

Perhaps it’s a synthesis of things. There is an element of genuine creativity involved in the synthesis and transcension of that which has come before. So we can say that Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings series, for instance, was genuinely creative, even though many of his ideas came from North-Western European mythologies and from Catholicism.

I want to know what you think.

No Responses to “Mental Creativity a Misnomer?”

  1.  Thom Says:

    Fascinating question. Hume is kind of comical about this, like a schoolboy. He makes this grand statement, The mind, even when it tries to assemble the newst and most creative and absurd thing it can think of, is only assembling bits of data garnered from sense experience! Throw anything at me, and I can trace it back to some sensate beginning! Well, first of all, this is a totally unprovable statement. How on earth could you actually prove such a thing? I mean, basically he is saying that there cannot be even one thing in the mind, no matter how small, that does not result directly from sensate encounter. Hume should go back and read the Phaedo. Or he should spend some time thinking about agape. Or he should simply ask, “How is it possible that I am self reflective?”

    Anyway, after demonizing Hume (though you have to admire his pluck) I will have to agree with him. The reason being that creation is ex nihilo, and therefore the only ground of ex nihilo something is the triune God. Our creativity is an extension of our imago dei. If you are really interested in this question, you should Google for the Inklings understanding of creativity and co-creation (and then you should remind me what they said.) Well, this has all been off the top of my head, so I hope I don’t eat it later, but there it is.

Leave a Reply

Mental Creativity a Misnomer?

16:13:35 :: [philosophy, cognition] :: 229 words

Can the mind produce genuinely new material ex nihilo? Last week I was reading a bit of philosophy out of a used textbook and someone had written in the margins a note about “creativity” of the mind. That got me to thinking.

Do we use the word “creativity” loosely, however unwittingly? Do all the supposedly novel images we find, for instance, in literature derive from and have their basis in things that have come before? I have always tended not to think so: but rather that the mind can conceive of things that have not come before, things or ideas which are completely unique. David Hume, of course, would disagree. But would I, too, now?

Perhaps it’s a synthesis of things. There is an element of genuine creativity involved in the synthesis and transcension of that which has come before. So we can say that Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings series, for instance, was genuinely creative, even though many of his ideas came from North-Western European mythologies and from Catholicism.

I want to know what you think.

No Responses to “Mental Creativity a Misnomer?”

  1.  Thom Says:

    Fascinating question. Hume is kind of comical about this, like a schoolboy. He makes this grand statement, The mind, even when it tries to assemble the newst and most creative and absurd thing it can think of, is only assembling bits of data garnered from sense experience! Throw anything at me, and I can trace it back to some sensate beginning! Well, first of all, this is a totally unprovable statement. How on earth could you actually prove such a thing? I mean, basically he is saying that there cannot be even one thing in the mind, no matter how small, that does not result directly from sensate encounter. Hume should go back and read the Phaedo. Or he should spend some time thinking about agape. Or he should simply ask, “How is it possible that I am self reflective?”

    Anyway, after demonizing Hume (though you have to admire his pluck) I will have to agree with him. The reason being that creation is ex nihilo, and therefore the only ground of ex nihilo something is the triune God. Our creativity is an extension of our imago dei. If you are really interested in this question, you should Google for the Inklings understanding of creativity and co-creation (and then you should remind me what they said.) Well, this has all been off the top of my head, so I hope I don’t eat it later, but there it is.

Leave a Reply


[powered by WordPress.]

For the discussion of current and historical trends in the liberal arts, information technology, and religious thought. "Of all human pursuits, the pursuit of wisdom is the more perfect, the more sublime, the more useful, and the more agreeable."

Think.

navigation

categories

search

archives

January 2005
S M T W T F S
« Dec   Feb »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

meta

ThinkBlog.org has been on the web since August 2003, with 292,449 words in 846 posts.

It is presently 10:29:30 on 18 May 2008, server side. All content except where otherwise noted Copyright © 2000-2006 Michael Phillips.

detail of Plato and Aristotle from 'The School at Athens' by Raphael

affiliations

Get Firefox! News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.



Blogarama - The Blog Directory
Listed on Blogwise Listed on BlogShares

Blog Home

Login

35 queries. 1.739 seconds