The problem of creativity - arguments and composition. intellectual gifted child psychological
One of the most important trends in science, philosophy and culture last decades is a change in the forms of rationality and ideas about it. In the modern world, the understanding of how the rational and the irrational are related, as well as how they influence certain forms of human activity, is radically changing. Currently, ideas about the place and meaning of creativity are changing. After all, it is in this phenomenon of human existence that the irrational and rational principles merge and integrate in an inextricable connection as opposite manifestations of a single whole. Therefore, philosophical understanding and study of various aspects and forms of creativity not only enriches empirical knowledge about nature and man, but can also serve as the basis for the creation of complex methods for analyzing complex philosophical and psychological categories.
Throughout the entire historical period of development of philosophy, ideas about creativity have changed significantly. Within the framework of mystical views, it was viewed primarily as the implementation of a divine plan, where man, at best, was destined for only an “executive role.” Despite criticism of the mystical approach, it dominated philosophical ideas about creativity for a long time. Each subsequent stage of research into this category enriched and expanded our knowledge both about it itself and about the possibility of independent creative activity of a person.
Interest in the problems of creativity among ancient thinkers arose almost simultaneously with the advent of systematized philosophical knowledge. Ancient philosophers believed that creativity can exist in two forms: divine and human. If divine creativity is represented in the acts of creation of the cosmos and life, then human creativity is represented in the form of art and craft. Human creativity was made dependent on divine plans, when a person only realizes the divine will in “earthly affairs.”
During the ancient period, thinkers made the first assumptions about the role of the exchange of ideas in cognition and creativity. So, Socrates also pointed out the importance of the dialogical method of generating new knowledge - maieutics. The search for truth was carried out through overcoming contradictions. With the help of specially formulated questions, the interlocutors had the opportunity to identify false ideas and abandon them, as well as advance along the path of searching for the truth. Socrates repeatedly pointed out the importance of the influence of thinkers on each other in the process of communication, when favorable opportunities are created for the exchange of ideas, thoughts, and considerations.
Aristotle also paid attention to the problems of creativity. R. Mayer considers him not only “the father scientific approach to an explanation of thinking and creativity,” but also a representative of the “associationist philosophy” on which many scientific theories of creativity were based [Mauer, 1992]. Attaching quite a lot of importance to a person’s feelings, Aristotle emphasized the extremely important role of art in his life.
In Christian philosophy, the problem of creativity is reflected in the writings of such prominent representatives of this historical period as Augustine the Blessed and Thomas Aquinas. Their works again declared the divine nature of creativity. In the Middle Ages, there was a common belief that talent or special abilities (which were attributed primarily to men) were manifestations of “divine choice.” The bearers of these abilities were still perceived as “conductors” of the divine creative plan.
Augustine describes creativity as the act of the divine person to “call forth being from non-being.” At the same time, he distinguishes the will as a function of the personality, dealing with what does not exist and creating something, in contrast to the mind, which deals with what already exists. Augustine emphasizes not only the “control” of human creative activity by God, but also the influence of religious institutions on it. In his opinion, in the discovery of the creative power of man decisive role Christianity will play.
One of the factors that determined the contribution of medieval philosophers to understanding the meaning of creativity is that. that they were beginning to view it in many ways as a “creation of history,” representing the creative active activity of a large number of people. It is obvious that such activity can only take place in conditions of interaction between its participants.
The next notable stage in the philosophical understanding of the nature of creativity is the Renaissance period (F. Petrarch, G. Boccaccio, B. Telesio, M. Montaigne, etc.). One of the most important features of this period in the development of human civilization is the shift in emphasis from God to man. This, of course, could not but be reflected in the change in priorities in the field of views on the meaning, sources and process of human creativity. In that historical period human creative activity ceases to be considered only as a manifestation of the divine plan. He “frees himself” from God and begins to create on his own. During the Renaissance, creativity was understood primarily as its artistic form. Therefore, the originality and unusualness of the author’s creative output began to play a special role, which was a prerequisite for the special attention paid to these characteristics of creativity in modern philosophical and psychological ideas about it.
In the modern period, human freedom began to be considered as one of the fundamental values, denying any forms of pressure from the state, religion, as well as social restrictions (F. Bacon). In the light of these ideas, the idea of creativity and the various aspects of its study is changing. Thus, T. Hobbes was one of the first to point out the enormous importance of “creative imagination.”
Disputes about the content and boundaries of the concept of creativity and creativity people during this period led to the emergence of the postulate that the potential of genius and its manifestation depend on the socio-political atmosphere. By the end of the 18th century, many philosophers noted that neither genius nor talent could survive in repressive and totalitarian societies, where the free exchange of ideas between people was difficult. The importance of external, especially social, support is also noted creative activity. A significant impetus in understanding the importance of exchanging the products of human creative activity was given by the appearance of the first scientific journals during this period. This made it possible to increase the organization of the exchange of ideas to more high level and created the prerequisites for understanding the benefits joint creativity.
During the period of the New Age and the Enlightenment, an additional impetus was given to the development of the associationist approach to the study of human creativity already mentioned above. This happened mainly thanks to the efforts of J. Locke and T. Hobbes. Some provisions of the teaching they developed have been continued in the psychology of creativity at the present time.
During the development of German classical philosophy, a relatively harmonious concept of creativity was created by I. Kant and developed by F. Schelling. Kant views creative activity as “the productive faculty of the imagination.” At the same time, he links this idea of creativity with the Protestant idea of it as an active activity that changes the surrounding reality and connects the sensory and rational worlds. The relationship between the emotional and intellectual components of creative activity was further studied by psychological researchers [Vygotsky, 1998, 2003; Tikhomirov, 1975,1984].
A certain place in the development of the problems of creativity within the framework of German classical philosophy is occupied by the study of the importance of its unconscious aspects. According to F. Schelling, creative imagination is a synthesis of conscious and unconscious human activity. Genius is considered as a special type of creativity, since it is assumed that genius mainly creates unconsciously, being subject to a special influence from above, a divine impulse. At the same time, it is noted that the creative activity of a genius takes place in the subjective reality of the person himself.
The end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century is marked by the emergence of several philosophical movements that pay special attention to the spiritual and irrational aspects of life and, in particular, creativity. These approaches developed mainly in opposition to the mechanistic and technocratic tendencies associated with the achievements of the natural sciences. A special place among them is occupied by the philosophy of life and existentialism.
The philosophy of life considers creativity as a phenomenon of human life, determined by the very biological essence of man. One of the brightest representatives of this trend, who proposed a detailed concept of this category, is A. Bergson. Creativity, in his opinion, is closely related to irrational intuition, which is a divine gift, is not characteristic of every person [Bergson, 2001] and is characterized by integrity, non-violence, and organicity. As one of the main characteristics of creativity, A. Bergson recognized openness to the world as a willingness to interact with it. In the philosophy of life, creativity is considered not only within the framework of bio-natural determinism, but also as the creation of culture and history, which is impossible without joint efforts large number of people.
Within the framework of another direction, which is one of the most popular in this historical period - existentialism - the paramount importance of the personal and spiritual essence of creativity, which is possible in the philosophical, artistic and moral spheres of human life, is emphasized. N.A. left a clear mark on the understanding of its meaning. Berdyaev. The cross-cutting theme of all his quests and hobbies is Homo creatus, a creative person [Berdyaev, 2002]. “For the philosophy of creativity, the main thing is the consciousness that man is not in a complete and stabilized system of being, and only because of this is the creative act of man possible and understandable. Another basic position is that the creative act of man is not only a regrouping and redistribution of the matter of the world and is not only an emanation, an outflow of the primary matter of the world, nor is it only the design of matter in the sense of imposing ideal forms on it. A new, non-existent, not contained in the creative act of a person is introduced. this world, in its composition, breaking through from another plane of the world, not from eternally given ideal forms, but from freedom, not from dark freedom, but from enlightening freedom” [Berdyaev, 1995, p. 247-248]. An emphasis on educational freedom means recognizing the social and humanitarian importance of a creative act that changes not only the person from whom it comes, but also other people.
The orientation of philosophers of the late XIX - early XX centuries towards the search for the meaning of human creativity and recognition of its existential importance means highlighting and including into the framework of philosophical analysis not only its target and effective, but also procedural aspects. This prepared the basis for posing, already within the framework of the science of psychology, the question of the mechanisms of creativity and those ways of interaction between a person and the surrounding reality (primarily sociocultural) that determine creative process and make possible the existence of various forms of exchange of ideas between people.
One of the most important distinctive features modern philosophy is a refusal to focus on the strict canons of science and even greater attention to man. In the sense of increasing attention to man with his own ideas, thoughts and experiences, the period of modern history in the development of philosophy is in many ways, in our opinion, similar to the Renaissance.
Origins modern understanding the meaning of human creative activity can be found already in the works of M. Heidegger and H.G. Gadamer, in their philosophical hermeneutics. Human freedom in their understanding is manifested in his own interpretation of the text. Both the author and the interpreter of the text act as equal “creators” of a single and integral creative product. The exchange of thoughts and ideas mediated by the text between the author and interpreters of the text ensures its semantic flexibility, and also provides the basis for the emergence of original ideas not only at the stage of its creation, but also at the stage of reading and interpretation.
Yours further development The idea of “liberation” of a person in creativity was found in post-structuralism (J. Deleuze, J. Derrida, J. Kristeva), when the object of study becomes not order, but chaos, which lies beyond the boundaries of all kinds of structures. In this chaos, which ensures the existence and clash of the most diverse opinions and efficient exchange ideas, boundless prospects for creativity and all kinds of interpretations open up for a person.
To a significant extent, tendencies towards the liberation of man in his work also manifested themselves in the postmodernist direction in philosophy (J. Baudrillard, J. Bataille, J. Deleuze). Within the framework of this philosophical direction, this happened primarily due to the denial of the rigid natural-scientific picture of the world, built on identifying cause-and-effect relationships. Avoiding the canons formal logic and recognition of the equality of almost any opinions and judgments means involving an infinite number of co-authors in a single creative process. The growing popularity of postmodern and poststructuralist trends in the philosophy of creativity at the end of the 20th century occurred in parallel with the growing popularity of Eastern and mystical approaches to understanding its essence, in which elements of the divine determination of creativity and latest developments Western philosophy (Sri Aurobindo, Osho Rajneesh, etc.).
In general, an analysis of the main philosophical approaches to understanding the nature and role of creativity showed that the understanding of its essence and significance in human life changed from one historical era to another. Mystical ideas gave way to realistic ones, which focus on human interaction not with higher powers, but with himself and others like him. As philosophical thought developed, attempts were increasingly made to solve narrower philosophical and psychological problems associated, for example, with the role of the unconscious in the creative process, with the importance of social assessment of the products of the subject’s creative activity. Philosophical prerequisites were created for the emergence and development of a sociocultural paradigm that made it possible to fit the creativity of an individual into a broader context. In this regard, in various historical eras and at various levels, attempts were made to philosophical and psychological analysis of various forms of creative activity. This problem has become more higher value in the context of the development of concepts of post-industrial and information society.
Plan
Introduction
Chapter 1. The problem of creativity in the history of philosophy and psychology
§1.1. The problem of creativity in the history of philosophy
§1.2. The problem of creativity in foreign psychology of the 19th-20th centuries
Chapter 2. Development of the problem scientific creativity in Russian philosophy and psychology of the twentieth century
§2.1. Potebnitsa concept of artistic creativity
§2.2. Reflexological theory of creativity
Conclusion
Introduction
The problem of creativity has been of interest to philosophers for a long time; and attitudes towards him have always been ambiguous. Traditionally, there are two approaches to understanding creativity:
1. Philosophical - it can be divided into philosophical-methodological and its manifestation in the sphere of creative thinking. This method considers human thinking as a high form of human reflection of the surrounding world, and creativity in this case is understood as the formation of micro, through reflection and transformation of the surrounding world.
2. Logical – considers creativity from a scientific-psychological point of view, as a way of expressing personal qualities, and not as a transformation of the universe.
In this work, I want to build research on the consideration and comparison of these methods, since they are complementary.
The topic of my work is “The Role of Creativity in the History of Philosophy”; from my point of view, this topic is relevant due to the fact that philosophy itself is scientifically creative, focused on the constant search for something new and more perfect. The relationship between philosophical and creative thinking is obvious. In addition, today society has a rather biased opinion towards creativity, perhaps due to the fact that modern education is one-sided and highly specialized. I believe that such an attitude and creativity in the future can lead to the spiritual degradation of society and therefore it is necessary to pay attention great attention creative personality development.
The goals of my work are to consider the problems inherent in the understanding of creativity, from the point of view of philosophical and psychological approaches; determine the philosophical essence of creativity, explore the influence of creativity on the individual.
To achieve my goals, in the first part of my work I explore the problem of the creative process within the framework of the development of philosophy and psychology, and in the second I explore the development and change in attitudes towards creativity in world and Russian philosophy.
The structure of my work consists of an introduction, two chapters divided in pairs into paragraphs, a conclusion and a list of references.
Chapter 1. The problem of creativity in the history of foreign philosophy and psychology.
§1.1 The problem of creativity in the history of philosophy
A philosophical consideration of creativity involves answering the questions:
a) how creativity is generally possible, as the generation of something new;
b) what is the ontological meaning of the act of creativity?
In different historical eras, philosophy answered these questions differently.
1. Antiquity.
The specificity of ancient philosophy, as well as the ancient worldview as a whole, is that creativity is associated in it with the sphere of finite, transitory and changeable being (existence), and not the being of the eternal, infinite and equal to itself.
Creativity comes in two forms:
a) as divine - the act of birth (creation) of the cosmos and
b) as human (art, craft).
Most ancient thinkers were characterized by the belief in the eternal existence of the cosmos. Greek philosophers of various directions argued:
Heraclitus with his doctrine of true existence as eternity
changes.
The Eleatics, who recognized only eternally unchanging existence;
Democritus, who taught about the eternal existence of atoms;
Aristotle, who proved the infinity of time and thereby, in essence, denied the divine act of creation.
Creativity as the creation of something new and unique is not involved in the realm of the divine. Even Plato, who teaches about the creation of the cosmos, understands creativity in a very unique way:
1. The Demiurge creates the world “...in accordance with what is cognizable by reason and thinking and what is not subject to change.”
This pattern of creation is not something external to the creator, but is something that awaits his internal contemplation. Therefore, this contemplation itself is the highest, and the ability to create is subordinate to it and is only a manifestation of the fullness of perfection that is contained in divine contemplation.
This understanding of divine creativity is also characteristic of Neoplatonism.
Likewise, in the human sphere, ancient philosophy did not assign primacy to creativity. True knowledge, that is, contemplation of eternal and unchanging existence, is put in first place by her. Any activity, including creative activity, in its ontological significance is lower than contemplation, creation is lower than knowledge, for a person creates the finite, transitory, and contemplates the infinite, eternal.
This general formulation of the question is also reflected in the understanding of artistic creativity. Early Greek thinkers did not distinguish art from the general complex of creative activities (crafts, plant cultivation, etc.).
However, unlike other types of creative activity, the artist’s creativity is accomplished under the influence of divine inspiration. This idea found clear expression in Plato in his doctrine of eros. Divine creativity, the fruit of which is the universe, is a moment of divine contemplation.
Likewise, human creativity is only a moment in the achievement of the highest “smart” contemplation accessible to man. The desire for this higher state, a kind of obsession, is “Eros,” which appears both as an erotic obsession of the body, the desire for birth, and as an erotic obsession of the soul, the desire for artistic creativity, and, finally, as an obsession of the spirit - a passionate craving for pure contemplation of beauty .
2. Christianity.
A different understanding of creativity arises in the Christian philosophy of the Middle Ages, in which two trends intersect:
1) theistic, coming from the Hebrew religion, and
2) pantheistic - from ancient philosophy.
The first is associated with the understanding of God as a person who creates the world not in accordance with some eternal model, but completely freely. Creativity is the evocation of being from non-existence through a volitional act of the divine personality.
Augustine, unlike the Neoplatonists, emphasizes the importance of the moment of will in the human personality, the functions of which differ from the functions of reason:
The will is characterized by motives for decision, choice, agreement or disagreement, independent of reasonable discretion (which, apparently, is associated with the body - B.S.). If the mind deals with what is (the eternal being of ancient philosophy), then the will rather deals with what does not exist (the nothing of Eastern religions), but which is first brought to life by an act of will.
The second trend, which almost most of representatives of medieval scholasticism, including its largest representative - Thomas Aquinas, in the matter of creativity comes closer to ancient tradition. The God of Thomas is goodness in its completeness, it is the eternal mind contemplating itself, it is “...a more perfect nature than will, which makes itself perfect” (Windelband V. History of Philosophy. St. Petersburg, 1898, p. 373) . Therefore, Thomas’s understanding of divine creativity is close to Plato’s understanding of it.
(One gets the impression that this understanding is transitional to the pantheistic, because it comes from “self-improving nature, the product of which is the human will - B.S.)
However, regardless of the predominance of one or another tendency among Christian philosophers, they evaluate human creativity in a completely different way than it was evaluated by ancient philosophy. It appears in Christianity primarily as “the creation of history.” It is no coincidence that the philosophy of history first appears on Christian soil (Augustine’s “On the City of God”): history, according to the medieval view, is the sphere in which finite human beings take part in the implementation of God’s plan in the world. Since, further, it is not so much the mind as the will and the volitional act of faith that primarily connects a person with God, a personal act, a personal, individual decision acquires significance as a form of participation in the creation of the world by God. This turns out to be a prerequisite for understanding creativity as the creation of something unprecedented, unique and inimitable. At the same time, the sphere of creativity turns out to be primarily the area of historical action, moral and religious action.
Artistic and scientific creativity, on the contrary, appear as something secondary. In his creativity, man seems to be constantly turned to God and limited by him; and therefore the Middle Ages never knew the pathos of creativity that pervades the Renaissance, modern times and modernity.
3. Revival.
This kind of “limitation” on human creativity is removed during the Renaissance, when man gradually frees himself from God and begins to consider himself as a creator.
The Renaissance understands creativity primarily as artistic creativity, as art in the broad sense of the word, which in its deepest essence is considered as creative contemplation. Hence the cult of genius, characteristic of the Renaissance, as the bearer of creativity par excellence. It was during the Renaissance that interest arose in the very act of creativity, and at the same time in the personality of the artist; that reflection on the creative process arose, which was unfamiliar neither to antiquity nor to the Middle Ages, but is so characteristic of modern times.
This interest in the process of creativity as a subjective process in the soul of the artist also gives rise in the Renaissance to interest in culture as a product of the creativity of previous eras. If for the medieval worldview history is the result of the joint creativity of God and man, and therefore the meaning of history is something transcendental, then, starting from the end of the 15th and 16th centuries. There is an increasingly clear tendency to consider history as a product of human creativity and to look for its meaning and the laws of its development in itself. In this regard, Vico is extremely characteristic, who is interested in man as the creator of language, morals, customs, industrial art and philosophy - in a word, man as a creator of history.
4. Reformation.
In contrast to the Renaissance, the Reformation understands creativity not as aesthetic (creative) content, but as action. Lutheranism, and to an even greater extent Calvinism, with their harsh, rigoristic ethics, placed emphasis on objective and practical activity, including economic activity. The success of an individual in practical endeavors on earth is evidence of his chosenness by God. Ingenuity and ingenuity in the implementation of affairs were sanctified by religion and thereby took over the entire burden of moral and religious action.
Understanding creativity in modern times bears traces of both trends. The pantheistic tradition in the philosophy of modern times, starting with Bruno, and to an even greater extent with Spinoza, reproduces the ancient attitude towards creativity as something less significant in comparison with knowledge, which, ultimately, is the contemplation of the eternal God-nature. On the contrary, philosophy formed under the influence of Protestantism (primarily English empiricism) tends to interpret creativity as a successful - but largely random - combination of already existing elements: Bacon's theory of knowledge, and even more so Hobbes, Locke and Hume, are characteristic in this regard. Creativity, in essence, is something akin to invention.
5. German classical philosophy.
The complete concept of creativity in the 18th century is created by Kant, who specifically analyzes creative activity under the name of the productive ability of imagination. Kant inherits the Protestant idea of creativity as a subject-transformative activity that changes the face of the world, creating, as it were, a new, previously non-existent, “humanized” world and philosophically comprehends this idea. Kant analyzes the structure of the creative process as one of the most important moments structures of consciousness. The creative ability of imagination, according to Kant, turns out to be the connecting link between the diversity of sensory impressions and the unity of concepts of the mind due to the fact that it simultaneously possesses the clarity of impressions and the synthesizing, unifying power of the concept. The “transcendental” imagination, therefore, is, as it were, the identity of contemplation and activity, the common root of both. Creativity therefore lies at the very basis of knowledge - this is Kant’s conclusion, the opposite of Plato’s. Since in creative imagination there is a moment of arbitrariness, it is a correlate of invention, since it already contains a moment of necessity (contemplation), it turns out to be indirectly connected with the ideas of reason and, therefore, with the moral world order, and through it - with the moral world.
Kant's doctrine of imagination was continued by Schelling. According to Schelling, the creative ability of imagination is the unity of conscious and unconscious activities, because whoever is most gifted with this ability - genius - creates, as if in a state of inspiration, unconsciously, just as nature creates, with the difference that this objective, that is, the unconscious nature of the process nevertheless takes place in the subjectivity of man and, therefore, is mediated by his freedom. According to Schelling and the romantics, creativity and, above all, the creativity of the artist and philosopher is the highest form human life. Here a person comes into contact with the Absolute, with God. Along with the cult of artistic creativity, romantics have an increasing interest in the history of culture as a product of past creativity.
This understanding of creativity largely determined a new interpretation of history, different from both its ancient and medieval understanding. History turned out to be the sphere of realization of human creativity, regardless of any transcendental meaning. This concept of history was most deeply developed in the philosophy of Hegel.
6. Philosophy of Marxism.
The understanding of creativity in German classical philosophy as an activity that gives birth to the world had a significant influence on the Marxist concept of creativity. Interpreting the concept of activity materialistically, eliminating from it those moral and religious prerequisites that existed in Kant and Fichte, Marx views it as objective-practical activity, as “production” in the broad sense of the word, transforming the natural world in accordance with the goals and needs of man and humanity. Marx was close to the pathos of the Renaissance, which put man and humanity in the place of God, and therefore creativity for him appears as the activity of a person creating himself in the course of history. History appears, first of all, as the improvement of objective and practical methods human activity, which define various types of creativity.
(We cannot agree with Marxism that the main thing in creativity is the subject-practical transformation natural world, and at the same time himself. After all, here, indeed, the “essential” is lost sight of - the “instinct of humanity” in the individual. According to Marx, it turns out that the level of humanity is determined by the level of development of the production of material goods. We believe that this “instinct of humanity” was realized by man and humanity somewhere in primitive society, for it is not for nothing that the same Marxism claims that the main way to govern the ancient human community was morality. Therefore, the task of human and human survival is to consciously strengthen the moral foundation human existence and protect it from the hobbies of the body and from the absolutization of the objective-practical determinant of B.S.)
7. Foreign philosophy of the late 19th - early 20th centuries.
In the philosophy of the late 19th and 20th centuries, creativity is considered, first of all, in its opposition to mechanical and technical activity. Moreover, if the philosophy of life opposes the creative bio-natural principle to technical rationalism, then existentialism emphasizes the spiritual and personal essence of creativity. In the philosophy of life, the most developed concept of creativity was given by Bergson ("Creative Evolution", 1907, Russian translation 1909). Creativity, as the continuous birth of something new, is, according to Bergson, the essence of life; creativity is something that occurs objectively (in nature - in the form of processes of birth, growth, maturation; in consciousness - in the form of the emergence of new patterns and experiences) as opposed to the subjective technical activity of design. The activity of the intellect, according to Bergson, is not capable of creating new things, but only combines the old.
Klages, even more sharply than Bergson, contrasts the natural-spiritual principle as creative with the spiritual-intellectual as technical. In the philosophy of life, creativity is considered not only by analogy with natural biological processes, but also as the creativity of culture and history (Dilthey, Ortega y Gaset). Emphasizing the personal and unique nature of the creative process, in line with the traditions of German romanticism, Dilthey in many ways turned out to be a mediator in the understanding of creativity between the philosophy of life and existentialism.
In existentialism, the bearer of the creative principle is the personality, understood as existence, that is, as some irrational principle of freedom, a breakthrough of natural necessity and rational expediency, through which “nothing comes into the world.”
In the religious version of existentialism, through existence a person comes into contact with some transcendental being; in irreligious existentialism - nothing. It is existence, as a going beyond the limits of the natural and social, in general, the “this-worldly” world - as an ecstatic impulse that brings into the world that new thing that is usually called creativity. The most important areas of creativity in which the creativity of history appears are:
Religious,
Philosophical,
Artistic and
Moral.
Creative ecstasy, according to Berdyaev ("The Meaning of Creativity", 1916), the early Heidegger, is the most adequate form of existence or existence.
What is common to the philosophy of life and existentialism in the interpretation of creativity is its opposition to the intellectual and technical aspects, the recognition of its intuitive or ecstatic nature, the acceptance as carriers of the creative principle of organically mental processes or ecstatically spiritual acts, where individuality or personality manifests itself as something holistic, indivisible and unique .
Creativity is understood differently in such philosophical directions such as pragmatism, instrumentalism, operationalism and variants of neopositivism close to them. The sphere of creative activity here is science in the form in which it is realized in modern production. Creativity is considered, first of all, as invention, the purpose of which is to solve a problem posed by a certain situation (see J. Dewey “How We Think” - 1910). Continuing the line of English empiricism in the interpretation of creativity, considering it as successful combination ideas leading to the solution of a problem, instrumentalism thereby reveals those aspects of scientific thinking that have become a prerequisite for the technical application of the results of science. Creativity acts as an intellectually expressed form of social activity.
Another version of the intellectualistic understanding of creativity is represented partly by neorealism, partly by phenomenology (Alexander, Whitehead, E. Husserl, N. Hartmann). Most thinkers of this type, in their understanding of creativity, are guided by science, but not so much by natural science (Dewey, Bridgman), but rather by mathematics (Husserl, Whitehead), so that in their field of vision it is not so much science in its practical applications, but the so-called "pure science". Basis scientific knowledge it turns out not to be activity, as in instrumentalism, but rather intellectual contemplation, so this direction turns out to be closest to the Platonic-ancient interpretation of creativity: the cult of genius gives way to the cult of the sage.
Thus, if for Bergson creativity appears as a selfless deepening into an object, as self-dissolution in contemplation, for Heidegger - as an ecstatic transcendence of one’s own limits, the highest tension of a human being, then for Dewey creativity is the ingenuity of the mind, faced with the strict necessity of solving a certain problem and exit from a dangerous situation.
§ 1.2The problem of creativity in foreign psychology of the 19th-20th centuries
1. The problem of creative thinking in associative psychology.
Associative psychology was almost unable to explain the patterns of not only creative thinking, but even the process of conscious thinking, since it did not take into account the important circumstance that this process at every step is regulated by the correspondingly reflected content of the problem for the solution of which it occurs.
The process of interaction between the content of a problem reflected in consciousness and the thinking process until its solution occurs is becoming more and more complicated.
Typically, such difficulties occur in cases where the solution to a complex problem is achieved in a sudden, that is, intuitive way.
In simpler cases, towards the middle of the process of solving a problem, this relationship becomes complicated, but then it begins to simplify when the subject consciously entrusts its solution (or participation in the solution) to the subconscious and unconscious levels of the psyche.
Intuition (from the Latin intueri - to look closely, carefully) is knowledge that arises without awareness of the ways and conditions of its acquisition, due to which the subject has it as a result of “direct discretion”.
Intuition is also interpreted as a specific ability to “completely grasp” conditions problematic situation(sensual and intellectual intuition), and as a mechanism of creative activity.
Representatives of associative psychology could not perceive the dialectical relationship between the reflected content of the problem being solved and the thinking process, which is essentially feedback. However, it should be noted that the laws of associations established by associationists are the greatest achievement of psychological science X! X century. The only problem is how these laws are interpreted.
Let us dwell briefly on the basic principles of associative psychology.
The determining reason for its inability to correctly solve problems of thinking is the absolutization of the rational side of thinking, or intellectualism.
The basic law of the association of ideas in its psychological formulation says that “every idea evokes either an idea that is similar to it in content, or one with which it often arose at the same time, the principle of external association is simultaneity. The internal principle is similarity."
When explaining complex mental processes this representative of associative psychology notes four factors that determine the course of ideas in a person:
1) Associative affinity - all types of associations and the laws of their functioning;
2) the distinctness of the various memory images entering into the struggle (in associations based on similarity);
3) sensual tone of representations;
4) constellation (combination) of ideas, which can be extremely changeable.
Ziegen, mistakenly absolutizing the associative function of the brain, states: “Our thinking is subject to the law of strict necessity,” because the previous state of the cerebral cortex determines its subsequent state.
Associationists deny psychophysical unity, arguing that only physiological processes that are in no way related to mental ones can occur under the threshold of consciousness. Significant disadvantages of associationists should also be noted:
Lack of general correct installation:
Determination of the thought process; that is, “The problem of determination, characteristic of the psychology of thinking, is replaced by another problem: how connections between already given elements determine the reproduction of these elements” (Rubinstein S.L. About thinking and ways of its research. M., 1958, p. 16).
The roles of the problem situation in this process;
Roles of analysis and synthesis;
The associative principle of explaining mental phenomena (including thinking), if it is not absolutized, can play a large role in understanding the patterns of thinking, especially “subconscious” thinking, when the subject no longer has direct dialectical interaction with the content of the problem situation.
For example, associationist A. Ben expressed valuable thoughts (for understanding creativity):
a) Creative thinking requires a radical change in point of view on the subject being studied (a fight against established associations);
b) that the well-known fact of successful creative work of young scientists who do not yet have encyclopedic knowledge in this field can receive a rational explanation.
However, the original principles of traditional empirical associative psychology did not give it the opportunity to study complex mental phenomena, in particular intuition. She recognized only “conscious thinking” (induction, deduction, the ability to compare, relationships), subject to associative laws. So, the contribution of associative psychology to the study of creative thinking is insignificant.
2. The problem of creativity in Gestalt psychology.
Each psychological direction, one way or another, answers the question: how a person, through thinking, comprehends something new (a phenomenon, its essence, as well as thoughts that reflect them).
Historically and even logically, Gestalt psychology occupies the first place among psychological teachings about thinking. It was she who laid the foundation for the systematic study of the mechanisms of creative or productive thinking. Basic guidelines of Gestalt psychology:
1) the principle of integrity and direction of thinking;
2) distinguishing gastalts:
Physical,
Physiological,
Intellectual - as a way to solve a psychophysical problem.
This school arose as an antithesis to the psychological atomism (elementarism) of the associationists. Initially, the very indication of the fact of integrity was important: if the problem is solved, then the gestalt turned out to be good (integral); if it can’t be solved, then the gestalt is bad. Since the actual decision always includes both successful and unsuccessful moves, it was natural to assume a change in gastalts or integrity. Integrity itself can be interpreted as functional, that is, as a certain structure characterized through a function. This is how an understanding of thinking was formed as an activity of consistent restructuring, continuing until the gestalt (structure) necessary for the situation is found, which was called “insight” or “illumination”.
Empirical "atomist" psychology absolutizes the associative principle.
Gestalt - the principle of systematicity, integrity (which is especially important for studying the problem of creative thinking, since the process of creativity is the process of synthesizing a holistic picture of a certain part of the material or spiritual world.
Modern psychologists see truth in the synthesis of both. Gestaltists convincingly believe that in learning it is not accumulation that is much more important true rules and proven knowledge, but the development of the ability to “grasp”, understand the meaning and essence of phenomena. And therefore, in order to think, it is not enough to fulfill the usual three conditions:
a) Obtain the correct solution to the problem;
b) reach a solution using logically correct operations;
c) the result is universally correct.
The reality of thinking is not yet felt here, because:
a) Each logical step is taken blindly, without a sense of direction of the entire process;
b) when receiving a solution, there is no “illumination” of thought (insight), which means a lack of understanding (Wertheimer, Duncker, etc.).
In the process of creative thinking everything structural transformations ideas and thoughts occur as an adequate reflection of the structure of the problem situation, determined by it.
Gestaltism recognizes the role of the subject’s previous cognitive experience, but refracted through the current problem situation, its gestalt.
He correctly emphasizes the need for a preliminary conscious in-depth analysis of the problem (or “re-centering the problem situation” in Wertheimer).
The process of thinking and its result, from the position of Gestaltism, are significantly determined by the properties of the knowing subject.
Requirements for the mental makeup of the creator:
Don't be limited, blinded by habits;
Do not simply and slavishly repeat what you have been taught;
Do not act mechanically;
Do not take a partial position;
Do not act with attention focused on a limited part of the problem structure;
Do not act with partial operations, but freely, with a mind open to new ideas, operate with the situation, trying to find its internal relationships.
The most significant shortcomings of the Gestalt understanding of the thinking process are:
a) In the system of interaction between the “problem situation” and the subject (even in the second scheme), the subject is predominantly passive, contemplative).
b) They ignore the natural hierarchy of connections that exist in a problem situation, i.e. essential and non-essential connections between elements of the problem are equalized.
Gestaltists note the following stages of the creative process:
1) The desire to have real understanding leads to questions being asked and research begins.
2) Some part of the "psychic field" becomes critical and focused, but it does not become isolated. A deeper structural point of view of the situation develops, including changes in functional meaning and groupings of elements. Directed by what the structure requires from the critical part, the individual comes to a rational foresight, which requires direct and indirect verification.
3) Various, successive stages of solving the problem, firstly, reduce the “incompleteness of its analysis”; secondly, the result is achieved at each stage through the “illumination” of thought (insight).
4) Discovery (insight) can only occur as a result of the scientist possessing certain abilities to perceive facts, consciously perceive and pose problems, and sufficiently powerful subconscious thinking that complements analysis and “incubates” a solution.
5) If the development of science does not allow a scientist to consciously study a certain set of facts sufficient to detect at least a partial pattern in the phenomena being studied, then no “objective structural integrity” of phenomena can lead to complete self-detection.
6) From the moment when a subconscious picture of a phenomenon is formed, it necessarily directs the thinking process simply because it exists as an active mental experience of the subject or “intellectual intuition.”
7) A purely logical approach to solving scientific problems is unpromising.
8) In order for a scientist to maintain a “sense of direction” of mental activity, he must continuously work on scientific problems (in this case, similar problems are apparently preferable) in order to acquire those logical and substantive elements that are necessary and sufficient to prepare a discovery. The presence of mental stress associated with incomplete knowledge of a certain phenomenon leads to the formation of a peculiar desire for mental balance.
Creative individuals constantly yearn for the harmony of their spiritual powers, so for them there are no limits to the processes of cognition.
Thus, the Gestalt approach to the study of the creative process in science, despite serious methodological shortcomings, in a certain sense touches on the very essence of the problem and is of great importance for the development of this area of psychology.
Modern foreign and Russian psychology of creativity continues to develop the positive legacy of associative and gestalt psychology, trying to find answers to fundamental questions:
What are the intimate psychological mechanisms of the creative act;
Dialectics of external and internal conditions that stimulate and inhibit the creative process;
What are creative abilities and how to develop them, are they hereditary or acquired; and if both factors play a role, then what is their relative importance;
What is the role of chance in creativity;
What are the psychological relationships in small groups of scientists and how do they influence the process of creativity.
Chapter 2. Development of the problem of scientific creativity in Russian philosophy and psychology of the twentieth century.
§ 2.1. Potebnist concept of artistic creativity:
The pioneers of the emerging psychology of creativity in Russia were not psychologists, but theorists of literature, literature and art.
The prerequisite for the development of this direction was the philosophical and linguistic works of A.A. Potebni. Potebnya considered the semantic principle to be the main approach to the consideration of grammatical categories and studied grammatical form primarily as meaning.
In terms of developing the principles of the psychology of artistic creativity, the most famous Potebnists are D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, B.A. Lezin et al.
They interpreted artistic creativity in accordance with the principle of “economy of thought.”
The unconscious, in their opinion, is a means of thought that saves and accumulates strength.
Attention, as a moment of consciousness, spends the most mental energy. Grammatical thought, carried out in the native language unconsciously, without wasting energy, allows this energy to be spent on the semantic aspect of thought and gives rise to a logical thought - the word turns into a concept.
In other words, the language spends much less energy than it saves; and this saved energy goes towards artistic and scientific creativity.
The principle of the potebnist Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky: Give, perhaps, more with the least waste of thought.
Lezin the Potebnist names, in his opinion, important qualities of an individual that allow him to become a creative subject. The first sign of the genius of a writer or artist is an extraordinary ability of attention and perception.
Goethe: Genius is only attention. He has it stronger than his talent.
A genius is a great worker who only distributes his forces economically.
Newton: Genius is persistent patience. Talent sees things in essence, knows how to grasp characteristic details, and has great perceptiveness and impressionability.
Pronounced ability of fantasy, invention;
Exceptional, involuntary observation;
Deviation from the template, originality, subjectivity;
Extensiveness, knowledge, observations;
The gift of intuition, premonition, prediction.
According to Lezin, one can only judge the personality qualities of a creator through introspection.
He distinguishes the following stages of the creative process:
1. Labor. (Lezin does not share the point of view of Goethe and Belinsky, who downplay the role of labor in relation to intuition).
2. Unconscious work, which, in his opinion, boils down to selection. This stage is unknowable.
3. Inspiration. It is nothing more than the “transfer” of a ready-made conclusion from the unconscious into the sphere of consciousness.
In 1910, Engelmeyer P.K.’s book was published. “The Theory of Creativity”, in which its author touches on the problems of the nature of creativity, its manifestations, looks for essential features of the concept of “human creativity”, considers the stages of the creative process, classifies human talents, explores the relationship of “eurylogy” to biology and sociology. He contrasts creativity with routine as new to old and names its specific characteristics:
Artificiality;
Expediency;
Surprise;
Value.
Human creativity is a continuation of nature's creativity. Creativity is life, and life is creativity. The creativity of an individual is determined by the level of development of society.
Where there is guesswork, there is creativity.
He indicates a number of stages of the creative process:
1) The first stage of creativity: - intuition and desire, the origin of the idea, hypothesis. It is teleological, that is, actually psychological, intuitive. Here intuition works on past experience. It takes a genius here.
We share Engelmeyer’s idea that already the first stage of creativity requires the subject to have the ability to unconsciously think in order to see the problem where, on the basis of past experience
others did not see her.
2) Second stage: - knowledge and reasoning, development of a scheme or plan, which gives a complete and feasible plan, a scheme where everything necessary and sufficient is available. She is logical, proving.
The mechanism of this act consists of experiments both in thoughts and in practice. The discovery is developed as a logical representation; its implementation no longer requires creative work.
It takes talent.
3) The third act is skill; constructive execution also does not require creativity.
Diligence is required here.
The work of the subject here comes down to selection; it is carried out according to the law of least resistance, less effort.
We cannot agree that already at the second stage there is a “complete and feasible plan, where everything necessary and sufficient is available.” As will become known later, such a solution plan is discovered primarily by a “retrospective analysis” of an already completed solution to the problem.
In addition, Engelmeyer unjustifiably, contrary to the actual logic of the creative process, reduces two functionally and temporally separated varieties of intuition into one:
Intuition working on past experience and discovering a problem and
Intuition, over the material of preliminary conscious “incomplete analysis”. - This is again an act of unconscious mental activity, which transfers a ready-made solution to a problem from the unconscious to consciousness.
In general, many of Engelmeyer’s provisions have not lost their scientific significance and today.
Among the first works in the post-October period, the book by M.A. Bloch should be noted. "Creativity in science and technology." He shares many of Engelmeyer's ideas (in particular about the nature of creativity) and proposes the following stages of the creative process:
The emergence of an idea;
Proof;
Implementation.
In his opinion, only the first act is psychological; he is unknowable. The main thing here is the introspection of a genius.
The main feature of a genius is powerful imagination.
The second circumstance of creativity is the role of chance.
Observation;
Comprehensive consideration of the fact.
The need for what is missing. Genius is not determined biologically and is not created by upbringing and training; geniuses are born.
A genius is attracted not so much by the result as by the process itself. The optimal age for creativity is 25 years.
Here he is contradictory: while rejecting Joly’s biodetermination, Bloch at the same time claims that genius is inherent in everyone, but to varying degrees. Then this degree is still determined by genetics, therefore biological.
In 1923-1924 he published his works (“Psychology of Creativity” and “Genius and Creativity”) O.S. Gruzenberg. He distinguishes three theories of creativity:
1) Philosophical type:
Epistemological is the knowledge of the world in the process of intuition (Plato, Schopenhauer, Maine de Biran, Bergson, Lossky).
Metaphysical - revelation of the metaphysical essence in religious and ethical intuition (Xenophanes, Socrates, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Schelling, Vl. Solovyov).
2) Psychological type.
One of its varieties: - rapprochement with natural science, associated with the consideration of creative imagination, intuitive thinking, creative ecstasy and inspiration, objectification of images, creativity of primitive peoples, crowds, children, creativity of inventors (euryology), unconscious creativity (in dreams, etc. .).
Another variety is a branch of psychopathology (Lombroso, Perti, Nordau, Barin, Toulouse, Pere, Mobius, Bekhterev, Kovalevsky, Chizh): genius and insanity; the influence of heredity, alcoholism, gender, the role of superstitions, characteristics of madmen and mediums.
3) Intuitive type with aesthetic and historical-literary varieties.
a) Aesthetic - revealing the metaphysical essence of the world in the process of artistic intuition (Plato, Schiller, Schelling, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Bergson). The following questions are important to them:
The origin of artistic images;
Origin and structure of works of art;
Perception of the listener, viewer.
b) The second variety is historical and literary (Dilthey, Potebnya, Veselovsky, Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky):
Folk poetry, myths and fairy tales, rhythm in poetry, literary improvisation, psychology of the reader and viewer.
The subject of the psychology of creativity, according to Gruzenberg:
The composition, origin and connection of the peculiar mental phenomena of the inner world of the creator of intellectual values. Study of the creative nature of genius. The artist's creativity is not a product of arbitrariness, but a natural activity of his spirit.
§ 2.2. Reflexological theory of creativity.
a) V.M. Bekhterev;
b) F.Yu. Levinson-Lessing;
c) Initial interpretation of the problem of intuition by Soviet psychologists.
d) the concept of giftedness B.M. Teplova;
e) the concept of the creative process by A.N. Leontyeva and Sumbaeva I.S.;
The science of creativity is the science of the laws of the creative nature of man and his imagination.
It is impossible to reproduce the creative process in experience, to cause inspiration arbitrarily. Based on biology and reflexology.
The reproductive method - reproduction by the reader, listener, spectator of the creative process of the individual is itself co-creation. Genuine creativity is intuitive, but rational creativity is low-grade. You can't teach creativity; but one must know the conditions conducive to it; and therefore this phenomenon should be studied by the psychology of creativity.
A small work by V.M. Bekhterev is of well-known scientific interest. "Creativity from the point of view of reflexology" (as an appendix to Gruzenberg's book "Genius and Creativity").
For Bekhterev, creativity is a reaction to a stimulus, the resolution of this reaction, the release of tension generated by this stimulus.
Actions of the stimulus:
The stimulus excites the concentration reflex;
This gives rise to a facial-somatic reflex;
Raises the energy level associated with the action of vascular motors and endocrine hormones that stimulate brain activity.
Concentration, together with the facial-somatic reflex, forms a dominant in brain activity, which attracts the excitations of all other areas of the brain. Around the dominant, by reproducing past experience, all the reserve material, one way or another related to the stimulus-problem, is concentrated.
At the same time, all other processes of brain activity that are not directly related to the stimulus-problem are inhibited. The material is selected, analyzed, synthesized. For any creativity, according to Bekhterev, one or another degree of talent and appropriate education are necessary, which creates skills for work. This upbringing develops a tendency towards identifying natural talents, due to which in the end an almost irresistible desire for creativity arises. The immediate definition of its tasks is the environment in the form of given nature, material culture and social conditions (the latter in particular).
Main theses of V.M. Bekhterev was shared by physiologists from the school of I.P. Pavlov - Savich V.V. (his work: “Creativity from the point of view of a physiologist” 1921-1923), V.Ya. Kurbatov, A.E. Fersman and others. Creativity , in their opinion, there is the formation of new conditioned reflexes with the help of previously formed connections (Bloch, Kurbatov, Fersman, etc.).
Article by F.Yu. Levinson-Lessing "The Role of Fantasy in Scientific Creativity" is devoted to logical and methodological research in science. Fantasy is interpreted as intuition, as the unconscious work of the conscious intellect. According to the author, creative work consists of three elements:
1) Accumulation of facts through observations and experiments; this is preparing the ground for creativity;
2) the emergence of an idea in fantasy;
3) testing and developing the idea.
Another student I.P. Pavlova, V.L. Omelyansky, in his article “The Role of Chance in Scientific Discovery,” comes to the conclusion that chance alone does not exhaust the entire content of a scientific discovery: its necessary condition is a creative act, that is, the systematic work of the mind and imagination.
The overwhelming majority of Soviet psychologists, until the beginning of the 50s, resolutely rejected the very phenomenon of the “unconscious”, expressed in the concepts of “illumination”, “intuition”, “insight”. So, for example, P.M. Jacobson in the book: “The Process of the Creative Work of an Inventor,” 1934, emphasizes that it is impossible to directly cause inspiration, but there are well-known indirect techniques with the help of which an experienced scientist and inventor can organize his activity in the right direction, master his complex mental operations in order to achieve set goals.
Vyacheslav Polonsky - ("Consciousness and Creativity", Leningrad, (1934), pursuing the goal of debunking the legend of the unconsciousness of creativity, however, he still did not consider it possible to completely abandon the recognition of the reality that was usually associated with the term "intuition". He defines intuition not as the unconscious, but as an unconsciously arising element of consciousness.Polonsky writes that the unity of sensory perception and rational experience is the essence of creativity.
Similar views were developed in those years by S.L. Rubinstein (“Fundamentals of General Psychology”, 1940). He believed that surprise greatest discoveries It can not be denied; but their source is not “intuition”, not a kind of “insight” that arises without any difficulty. This phenomenon is only a sharply striking, unique critical point that separates a solved problem from an unsolved one. The transition through this point is abrupt. The sudden, “intuitive” nature of creative activity most often appears where a hypothetical solution is more obvious than the paths and methods leading to it (for example: “I have had my results for a long time, but I just don’t know how I will get to them”, - Gauss once said). This is a kind of anticipation, or anticipation of the outcome of the mental work that still needs to be done. But where there is a developed method of thinking, the mental activity of the scientist usually appears systematic, and anticipation itself is usually the product of long-term preliminary conscious work. “The creative activity of a scientist is creative work,” concludes Rubinstein.
The understanding of the problem of developing creative abilities was greatly influenced by the article published in 1941 by B.M. Teplov "Ability and talent". The author of the article sets the following goals for psychology:
1. Find out, at least in the most approximate form, the content of those basic concepts with which the doctrine of giftedness should operate;
2. remove some erroneous points of view regarding these concepts.
Teplov argued that only anatomical and physiological inclinations are innate, but not abilities that are created in activity, and the driving force for their development is the struggle of contradictions. (See: Abilities and giftedness. - Problems of individual differences. M., 1961).
Individual abilities as such do not yet determine the success of an activity, but only their known combination. The totality of abilities is talent. The concept of giftedness characterizes a subject not from a quantitative, but from a qualitative side, which, of course, also has a quantitative side. Unfortunately, these valuable thoughts of Teplov were classified as unscientific. The 50-60s turned out to be beneficial for Soviet psychology in reviving interest in the mechanisms of creative activity, which was facilitated by the appeal of psychologists to the ideas of I.P. Pavlova.
So, A.N. Leontiev, in his report “Experience in the Experimental Study of Thinking” (1954), firstly, emphasizes the decisive importance of experiment in the study of creativity, and secondly, he offers his interpretation of the stages of the creative process:
1. Finding an adequate principle (method) of solution;
2. its application associated with verification, transformation of this principle in accordance with the characteristics of the problem being solved.
The first stage, in his opinion, is the most creative link in mental activity. Main feature This stage “consists in the fact that after initially fruitless attempts to find a solution to the problem, a guess suddenly arises, a new idea for a solution appears. At the same time, the randomness of the circumstances in which such a sudden discovery of a new idea, a new principle of solution occurs is very often emphasized” (see: Reports at a meeting on psychology (June 3-8, 1953, p. 5).
A significant contribution to the history and theory of the problem of scientific creativity was made by the book by I.S. Sumbaeva (Scientific creativity. Irkutsk, 1957), which for the first time (for Soviet psychology) recognizes the division of the human psyche into consciousness and subconsciousness.
He outlines three stages of the creative process, close to the positions of Engelmeyer and Bloch:
1. Inspiration, the activity of imagination, the emergence of ideas;
2. Logical processing of an idea using the processes of abstraction and generalization;
3. The actual execution of the creative concept.
Intuition, as involuntariness, imagination, fantasy, conjecture, dominates at the first stage, when the vision of the future result dispenses with recourse to language and concepts and is carried out directly, figuratively and visually. Here is a conclusion from the premises without a conclusion.
In scientific creativity, in his opinion, it is important:
Focusing on a specific topic;
Accumulation and systematization of relevant material;
Summarizing and drawing conclusions, monitoring their reliability using this material.
Sumbaev is against identifying ideas and concepts. The idea is holistic and imaginative. The content of the idea cannot be determined precisely enough. It is closely connected with feeling, has a personal identity, and has subjective authenticity. Therefore, logical work on the plan is necessary.
The concept is a product of dissection and generalization and lacks clarity.
Traits of a creative individual:
Love of truth;
Ability to work; - love of work;
Attention;
Observation;
Ability to reflect;
Critical mind and self-criticism.
The main thing is hard and organized work. - 1% inspiration and 99% labor.
Conclusion
Creativity, in the global sense of the word, plays a huge role not only in the history of philosophy, but also of all humanity.
Throughout history, the attitude towards creativity has changed, it was considered from a purely scientific, psychological, philosophical point of view, but the enormous importance of creativity as a process of creation and transformation of the surrounding universe, through the work of human consciousness, has always been emphasized
In our time, there is an extremely skeptical attitude towards this phenomenon of the human personality. Already at the beginning of the twentieth century, many thinkers began to call art “an absolutely useless and meaningless thing,” forgetting that it was with the help of art and creativity that a person was able to develop intellectually. At the moment, many people do not see any value in art and creativity, and such a trend cannot but frighten us, because it could soon lead to the intellectual degradation of humanity.
The purpose of my research was to consider the creative process from the scientific, psychological and philosophical sides and to determine the positive and negative aspects of each of these points of view, as well as to explore the problems of artistic creativity in philosophy.
As a result of my research, I concluded that despite different attitude to creativity among different thinkers, they all recognized its value, and therefore the process of creativity can be considered the driving force that determines the development of mankind.
1. Asmus V.F. The problem of intuition in philosophy and mathematics. M., 1965
2. Bunge M. Intuition and science. M., 1967
3. Vygotsky L.S. Psychology of art. - M., 1968
4. Glinsky B.A. etc. Modeling as a method scientific research. M., 1965
5. Kedrov B.M. Dialectical analysis of the great scientific discovery. - "Questions of Philosophy", 1969, number 3.
6 Brief psychological dictionary. M., 1985
7. Mazmanyan M.A., Talyan L.Sh. The role of inspiration and intuition in the implementation process artistic design. - "problems of ability." M., 1962, pp. 177-194.
8. Ponomarev Ya.A. Psychology of creative thinking. M., 1960
9. Ponomarev Ya.A. "Knowledge, thinking and mental development" M., 1967.
10. Ponomarev Ya.A. Psychology of creativity and pedagogy. M., 1976
11. Rubinshtein S.L. About thinking and ways of its research. M., 1958
12. Scientific creativity. Edited by: S.R. Mikulinsky and M.G. Yaroshevsky. M., 1969
13. Problems of scientific creativity in modern psychology. Edited by M.G. Yaroshevsky. M., 1971
14. Luk A.N. Psychology of creativity. M., 1978
15. Tsiegen T. Physiological psychology. St. Petersburg, 1909
16. World Encyclopedia. Philosophy. XX century Mn., 2002;
17. Newest philosophical dictionary / Comp. A.A. Gritsanov. Mn., 1998.
Problems of creativity
“Is blood beautiful? Can the world rely on beauty as salvation? After all, beauty is holiness,” “Can evil do good?” These are the main questions of Anatoly Korolev’s creativity. “The dual nature of all the usual and, it seems, long ago values established in the consciousness of humanity - man himself, his language and his freedom, beauty and goodness, God, finally, who, it seems, is the source of beauty and goodness, but why then good is sometimes deadly, and evil is so beautiful that a person cannot morally resist this disastrous beauty? - Korolev writes in one of the stories.
What motivates a person when he commits crimes that are incompatible with the concept of humanity, with philanthropy, and mercy? These questions arise especially acutely in one of the most amazing and profound works modern literature- story "Gogol's Head".
"Gogol's Head" - a verdict or justification for humanity? Poetics of evil in the story
This story has everything: starting with the brightest signs of postmodernism in literature - dialogism, intertextuality; ending with the eternal questions of world literature and the universe as a whole (naturally, without an answer, because the author follows the tradition of the geniuses of Russian literature and leaves the reader the opportunity to choose their own answers).
Drawing the beauty of evil, raising it to aesthetics, the author takes us to revolutionary France. This is where you can truly “enjoy” the exquisite aesthetics of death, the aesthetics of killing, only here you can meet real aesthetes and connoisseurs, where “an object is born new beauty...: the head of the enemy of the people must be shown to the citizens of free Paris."
Even at the very beginning of the story, when it would seem that the conversation is about the fate of Russia, the author talks about the presence of Turgenev at the execution in France. A certain Troppmann was executed for committing the brutal murder of an entire family. He writes about Dostoevsky’s indignation at the fact that Turgenev, having agreed to contemplate the outlandish spectacle, did not find the strength to finish watching it, turning his “face, eyes, thought and soul away from death.” "You can't turn away, you can't..."
Turning away, he had not yet seen something significant: “two Frenchmen broke through the cordon and, crawling under the guillotine, began to soak white handkerchiefs in the blood that flowed to the ground through the plank cracks of the platform. All of France, with its pathetic relish for death, is in this gesture ... a scene completely impossible in Russia.
So, Korolev begins to compare France and Russia. It would seem, what could be different in the two most famous and bloodiest revolutions that have ever shaken the world? But the master of thought and words looks for these differences - and finds them in the most unexpected places.
If in France executions and the triumph of revolutionary revelry, bloody and merciless, are a gesture of a new, bloody in essence, but pure thanks to this blood, Freedom, then in Russia the situation is not quite like that. Russia, either with a revolutionary or with Satan himself, pays homage to the October Revolution of the Great French Revolution. Stalin is the master dead souls(hello to Nikolai Vasilyevich) - here for God. Executions, death, horror are also exaggerated, brought to the point of absurdity, but on Russian soil all this is seen and sounds somehow different: instead of the high pathos and aesthetics of Evil in France - in Russia Corpus mysticum, exuding only poisons, denunciations, envy and malice. And at the same time, there is a glimmer of hope, and even a manifestation of spirituality. Only in a conversation about Russia do concepts appear on the pages of the story: pity, compassion, thoughts about God, although in the sense of their absence. But still, this is not the cold, insensitive aesthetics of France, people here still feel pain and experience torment.
But the main idea in the fact that both there, in cold France, and here, in the cruel and elusive bird-three - Russia - there is that same absolute Evil, Satan, who tempts the people and forces them to commit unthinkable crimes against themselves human heart. But does it force, or is this the essence of human nature itself - at the first call of the tempter - to plunge into the most unnatural that only exists on earth - the murder of one's own kind for the sake of glory, for the sake of one's own good? What if this is not your own good, but the good of future generations? What if you can’t survive otherwise?
What does Gogol have to do with it?
We should not forget that we are talking about a postmodern work, where Gogol is just a tool, although the main key to understanding. Let's consider how Korolev uses the figure of Gogol.
Satan is present in the work, constantly appearing in different guises, taking on different guises, identifying with different characters, but most often with Gogol, perhaps because of his devilish mystery. Or maybe due to the fact that Gogol was the first to show all the ugliness of the world (the Russian hinterland) in his own, Gogol’s, mirror reflection, in which he “increased with his imagination the sum of evil things in the world.” Gogol, like the devil, serves as a magnifying lens, “which, as soon as it looks at someone, immediately magnifies the person to the essence of the issue,” and “there is nowhere for a person to hide in Gogol’s desert.” The basis of the plot is a retelling of the myth about Gogol: his nervous nature, suffering from mania of persecution, love of devilry and at the same time almost fanatical faith in Christianity, an intractable and incomprehensible illness that “clouds the mind with inexpressible forebodings,” the circumstances of his death and, finally, terrifying rumors his burial alive still excites the imagination.
Why is Gogol held responsible for the fate of Russia? Gogol - Great master words. And the word has enormous power. Korolev says that language is an ordinary fascist, that the power of the word is too great and the deity of the verb thirsts for blood, that the shadow of a round phrase becomes the head of an enemy of the people, severed on the guillotine of the revolution. War can be not only a war of guns, but also of phrases. Phrases crave offerings. "Dead men become exclamation points in a phrase. The deadly flowering of phrases bears fruit."
In his assessments, Korolev reveals this tendency towards postmodern duality, towards the search for absolute objectivity. A word can create both good and evil, but the line is so thin that you can never know exactly how the spoken word will respond - this is the pathos of the French Revolution (as well as the October Revolution and the revolution in general) - in the fact that just the word Freedom turned heads, and their owners rushed forward to defend their Freedom, so that later, once at the top, they would lose these heads in the most ordinary sense - on the guillotine, under the fierce cries of a crowd drunk with the smell of blood. And again we see duality, opposite poles of the same phenomenon, which, despite the polarity, easily transform into one another, once again recalling the famous French proverb that opposites converge. There is inconsistency and duality in almost every phrase of the story: evil is beautiful, beauty is good, but beauty is generated by evil. Everything is ambiguous: Stalin, who commits lynching, is actually trying to attract the attention of God in order to find salvation; The severed head of John the Baptist is "the red fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
Problematics (rp. problema - something thrown forward, that is, isolated from other aspects of life) is the writer’s ideological understanding of the social characters that he depicted in the work. This comprehension consists in the fact that the writer highlights and strengthens those properties, aspects, relationships of the characters depicted, which he, based on his ideological worldview, considers to be the most significant.
Defining the main tasks of art, Chernyshevsky emphasized that “in addition to the reproduction of life, art also has another meaning - an explanation of life” (99, 85). Agreeing in principle with this idea, it should be noted that the word “explanation” is not entirely suitable for works of art; it is more appropriate in science. Writers rarely and usually make little effort to “explain” their ideas; almost always they express their understanding of the characters in their depiction.
So in Pushkin’s poem “Gypsies” the characters of the “wild” gypsies wandering in the steppes of Bessarabia are depicted, and the character young man Aleko, who previously belonged to the educated and freedom-loving circles of metropolitan society, but fled from the “captivity of stuffy cities” (“he is persecuted by the law”) to the gypsies. This is the theme of the poem, unusual, until then unknown to Russian readers. This is a new theme of the poem was generated by a new, romantic problematic.The latter lies in the fact that the poet in every possible way emphasizes in the image gypsy life her complete freedom, the complete absence of any coercion in her (labor, civil, family), and in Aleko’s character - the desire to join free life gypsies, to become “free like them,” and the failure of such aspirations, caused by an outbreak of selfish passions in his soul, brought up “by the captivity of stuffy cities.”
The problematic, to an even greater extent than the subject matter, depends on the author’s worldview. Therefore, the life of the same social environment can be perceived differently by writers who have different ideological worldviews. Gorky and Kuprin portrayed in their
based on the production of a factory working environment. However, in the awareness of her life they are far from each other. In his novel “Mother” and in his drama “Enemies,” Gorky is interested in people in this environment who are politically minded and morally strong. He notices in them those sprouts of socialist self-awareness, the development of which will soon make this class environment the most active and socially progressive force opposing the entire degrading bourgeois-noble system. Kuprin, in the story “Moloch,” sees in the workers a faceless mass of exhausted, suffering, people worthy of sympathy, unable to resist the capitalist Moloch, who devours their strength, mind, health and causes the most bitter thoughts among the humanistically minded democratic intelligentsia.
But the social characters themselves depicted in the work and their emotional understanding on the part of the author may be in different relationships. In many works of literature of antiquity, the Middle Ages and the beginning of modern times, the understanding of characters, the identification and strengthening of some of their most significant ones. properties were often more important for the authors and readers themselves than the depiction of these characters in all their integrity, in all their versatility and reality. At the same time, the character traits recognized by the author were so highlighted and intensified that they overshadowed and subordinated all others. As a result, the characters became, as it were, only carriers of these most essential properties - heroism, selflessness, wisdom or cruelty, flattery, greed, etc., and these properties themselves therefore received a broad generalizing meaning. The images of characters in works, based on such an understanding of their characters, easily acquired a nominal meaning.
This is how Shakespeare portrayed it Danish prince Hamlet, highlighting and sharply intensifying moral fluctuations in his character, a difficult internal struggle between the sense of duty to avenge the death of his father on his murderer, who had seized the throne, and the vague consciousness of the impossibility of standing alone against the evil reigning around him; Therefore, this image received a common noun.
Moliere in the comedy “Tartuffe”, portraying in the person of the main character a swindler and a hypocrite who deceives straightforward and honest people, depicted all his thoughts and actions
as manifestations of this basic negative trait character. Pushkin wrote about this: “In Moliere, the Hypocrite drags after the wife of his benefactor, a hypocrite; accepts the estate for safekeeping - hypocrite; asks for a glass of water - a hypocrite" (50, 322). The name Tartuffe became a common noun for hypocrites.
When analyzing such images and entire works, one must pay attention not only to their very acute problematics, but also to the socio-historical essence of the characters depicted in them, which made it possible to comprehend them in such a way. U Moliere Tartuffe- this is not a random upstart who penetrated the noble environment. He hypocritically covers up his deceptions with the preaching of religious morality, which was characteristic of the reactionary churchmen of France in the era of Molière. In later eras, especially towards the beginning of the 19th century, leading writers from various European countries began to penetrate deeper into the essence of human relations, to more clearly understand the connection of human characters with a certain environment, certain conditions life. Therefore, the awareness of the characters of the heroes they portrayed became more and more versatile and multifaceted. The problem with the works now lay in the fact that the most important properties of the characters' characters stood out among many others that were related to them, but sometimes contradicted them.
IN realistic works The issues can be especially difficult to analyze, since these works often contain a very broad range of ideas. versatile portrayal of characters; and in the versatility of their images, those essential features that are most important for the writer are revealed. An example of this is the depiction of some of the main characters in “War and Peace” by L. Tolstoy. Thus, Prince Andrei is shown by the writer in the most different connections and relationships with many heroes both in peaceful life and in war. A variety of qualities are manifested in his personality - intelligence, education, ability for military and government activities, a critical attitude towards the world, sincere sympathy for his father and sister, love for his son and Natasha, friendly attitude towards Pierre, etc.
But this versatility of Andrei’s character still conceals a certain author’s understanding. Tolstoy focuses attention on those features that seem to him the most significant in moral and psychological
In a theoretical sense, this is an overly developed personal principle and a certain rationality, the predominance of the mental sphere of consciousness over the emotional and the ensuing skeptical attitude towards life. The presence of characters with integrity of behavior, worldview, and experiences is a necessary condition for the existence of full-fledged epic and dramatic works 1 .
When analyzing problems, one must keep in mind that writers very often resort to comparing characters and revealing traits that interest the writer through contrast. At the same time, it is precisely those facets of characters that seem to writers to be the most important, significant and in which lies ideological problem works. So, even in folk tales, the good witch was contrasted with the evil stepmother, smart older brothers - younger brother Ivan the Fool, who turned out to be smarter and luckier than them.
The antithetical nature of characters is usually sharply emphasized in the works of classicism. Antitheses constitute an essential aspect of the problem in realistic works. They reflect and refract the real contradictions of reality itself with even greater clarity. Thus, Lermontov’s story “Princess Mary” is built on the antithesis of the character of Pechorin, with his deep and hidden romantic aspirations, and the character of Grushnitsky, with his feigned and ostentatious romance; Chekhov's story "The Man in a Case" - in contrast to Belikov's political cowardice and Kovalenko's free-thinking; “Russian Forest” by Leonov - on the antithesis of citizens
"In modernist literature, there was a widespread misconception that the concept of “character” was outdated, since in the consciousness of modern man it represents something unstable and chaotic. Such thoughts, based on the experience of “stream of consciousness” literature (J. Joyce, M. Proust), persistently expressed by representatives of the French "new novel" (A. Robbe-Grice, N. Sarraute). The subject of artistic depiction is proclaimed to be the "pure" consciousness of a person who has lost his personality under the pressure of impressions from the outside. The character is considered only as a "prop" (optional, in the end considered even unnecessary) to reproduce this “pure" consciousness. The denial of character means at the same time the denial of the entire system of artistic development of life, characteristic of epic and drama. Hence the slogans of “anti-novel”, “anti-theater”, etc., common in modernist aesthetics.
Vikhrov’s honesty and Gratsiansky’s careerism and corruption; “The Living and the Dead” by Simonov is based on the contrast of the deeply conscious patriotism of Serpilin, Sintsov and many other representatives of Soviet society with the cowardly egoism of people like Baranov.
The problems of literary works can reflect different aspects public life. It can be moral, philosophical, social, ideological-political, socio-political, etc. It depends on what aspects of the characters and what contradictions the writer focuses on.
Pushkin in the character of Onegin, Lermontov in Pechorin were mainly aware of ideological and political dissatisfaction with the reactionary way of Russian life. Turgenev in " Noble nest"reveals in Lavretsky, first of all, a sense of civic and moral duty to Russia and its people. In Turgenev's "Fathers and Sons" the main attention is focused on the philosophical positions of the heroes, especially on the materialistic views of Bazarov; That’s why philosophical debates between
What is especially important is how deep and significant literary works on its issues. The significance and depth of the problem depends on how serious and significant are the contradictions of reality itself, which writers can recognize thanks to the peculiarities of their worldview.
Such, for example, are the differences in the depiction of peasant life between Turgenev and Nekrasov. Turgenev, with his liberal-enlightenment views, sees in the life of the peasants their suffering under the yoke of the landowners and realizes that the misfortunes and sorrows of the people stem not so much from the cruelty and frivolity of individual nobles, but from the slavish position of the peasantry in general. But he is interested mainly in the moral dignity of individual peasants and shows that often peasants, to a much greater extent than landowners, can have not only a kind heart, but also a deep mind and aesthetic inclinations, and sometimes even the capacity for social discontent. The very revelation of the high moral qualities and human dignity of people from the people was an expression of the writer’s protest against serfdom.
Nekrasov, with his revolutionary democratic ideals, understands the life of the people much more deeply. In his portrayal, the peasant, oppressed by the landowners and officials, is, first of all, a worker, a “sower and guardian” of his native land, the creator of all material values on which the whole society lives. And at the same time, his peasantry is an independent social force that can resist its enslavers.
From the above we can conclude that the problem represents a more active side ideological content works rather than their themes, and that the themes are largely determined by the issues.
A writer always chooses certain characters and relationships for his depiction precisely because he is especially interested in certain aspects and properties of these characters and relationships.
What is creativity? What activities can be considered creativity? Can we consider that this is only “the birth of a wonderful novelty”? These are the questions that arise when reading the text of the Soviet journalist and writer E.M. Bogat.
Revealing the problem of creativity, the author refutes the generally accepted point of view on creativity as “the emergence of new great artistic and material values that adorn the world. According to the journalist, creativity is possible in the most modest, most everyday form. For example, he analyzes the letter of a young draftsman who experiences great joy from books or events.
Sitting at the drawing board, she sees blushing maples outside the window and rejoices at this, as if she had received a gift. Both the housewife, who created a special coziness in the apartment, and the teacher, who goes to class with a readiness to pass on the best treasures of the soul to children, have a creative approach to life.
The author's position is as follows: creativity is the activity of not only poets, composers and scientists, but also the most ordinary people who create and see “wonderful novelty” in the most ordinary surroundings.
The author's position is close to me. Undoubtedly, creativity broad concept and applies not only to the elite, but also to ordinary people who know how to see the beauty of the world and have a creative approach to solving both professional and everyday problems.
Let's look at the evidence. Yuri Nagibin has an amazing story called “Winter Oak”. Fifth-grader Savushkin was systematically late for school. During the Russian language lesson, the students gave examples of nouns, and the boy named the phrase “winter oak” and insisted on his own. After classes, Anna Vasilievna decided to go with Savushkin along his school route and find out why he was late. This walk forced the teacher to be stricter with herself. She saw a winter oak tree, as majestic as a cathedral, and understood a lot. Before us are two creative person. A boy who is able to see the beauty that many pass by every day without noticing it. This is the teacher who thanked Savushkin for the wonderful walk and condemned herself for speaking dryly and coldly about words and language.
I can’t help but remember here the hero of L. N. Tolstoy’s epic novel “War and Peace,” Andrei Bolkonsky, who was struck by spring oak At first, the oak looked like a contemptuous monster among the smiling birches. It seemed that he did not succumb to the charm of spring and did not believe in spring, or in love, or in life. But the next day the oak blossomed its young foliage and seemed to melt in the rays of the spring sun, convincing Prince Andrei that one must live, one must believe, one must love.
We came to the conclusion that creativity is characteristic of those who are able to see beauty in the most ordinary things.
Effective preparation for the Unified State Exam (all subjects) -
