创造力作为自由的实践表现(历史与理论语境)

V. Lymar
{"title":"创造力作为自由的实践表现(历史与理论语境)","authors":"V. Lymar","doi":"10.18523/2617-1678.2021.8.10-17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The study concerns the consideration of creativity in the light of the main philosophical studies of this concept. The activity of the creative process practically proves the presence of freedom in human existence. Views on creativity reflect the attitude of a particular thinker to the question of the opposition of freedom and predestination in general. The polemical moments concerning creativity are considered and the ways of their decision are offered. In particular, two opposing views on the work of Plato and Aristotle are studied, where human talent presupposes divine inspiration (Plato) or, accordingly, only personal efforts. Nikolai Berdyaev tries to resolve the controversy between Aristotle and Plato by combining their views. He endows man with divine properties and thus indicates the source of creativity in the middle of man himself. Philip Hefner gives the individual the status of “co-creator” and puts forward the theory that man is called to improve and complete God’s creation. The study also focuses on the content and purpose of creativity. Creativity for the sake of creativity itself, which Albert Camus wrote about, was criticized by M. Berdyaev, and he offered his vision of this issue: creativity for the sake of a universal goal. Camus’ views were generally shared by A. Bergson. In connection with this last controversy, the actualization of Hryhoriy Skovoroda’s doctrine of “related work” is proposed and the expediency of this actualization is argued. Our domestic philosopher originally balances the pessimism of Camus’s work and Berdyaev’s enterprising approach. Skovoroda supports his conclusions with accurate practical examples. Reasoned conclusions about the need to update the teachings of G. Skovoroda on creativity and «related work» are given.","PeriodicalId":34696,"journal":{"name":"Naukovi zapiski NaUKMA Filosofiia ta religiieznavstvo","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Creativity as a Practical Manifestation of Freedom (Historical and Theoretical Context)\",\"authors\":\"V. Lymar\",\"doi\":\"10.18523/2617-1678.2021.8.10-17\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The study concerns the consideration of creativity in the light of the main philosophical studies of this concept. The activity of the creative process practically proves the presence of freedom in human existence. Views on creativity reflect the attitude of a particular thinker to the question of the opposition of freedom and predestination in general. The polemical moments concerning creativity are considered and the ways of their decision are offered. In particular, two opposing views on the work of Plato and Aristotle are studied, where human talent presupposes divine inspiration (Plato) or, accordingly, only personal efforts. Nikolai Berdyaev tries to resolve the controversy between Aristotle and Plato by combining their views. He endows man with divine properties and thus indicates the source of creativity in the middle of man himself. Philip Hefner gives the individual the status of “co-creator” and puts forward the theory that man is called to improve and complete God’s creation. The study also focuses on the content and purpose of creativity. Creativity for the sake of creativity itself, which Albert Camus wrote about, was criticized by M. Berdyaev, and he offered his vision of this issue: creativity for the sake of a universal goal. Camus’ views were generally shared by A. Bergson. In connection with this last controversy, the actualization of Hryhoriy Skovoroda’s doctrine of “related work” is proposed and the expediency of this actualization is argued. Our domestic philosopher originally balances the pessimism of Camus’s work and Berdyaev’s enterprising approach. Skovoroda supports his conclusions with accurate practical examples. Reasoned conclusions about the need to update the teachings of G. Skovoroda on creativity and «related work» are given.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34696,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Naukovi zapiski NaUKMA Filosofiia ta religiieznavstvo\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Naukovi zapiski NaUKMA Filosofiia ta religiieznavstvo\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-1678.2021.8.10-17\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Naukovi zapiski NaUKMA Filosofiia ta religiieznavstvo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-1678.2021.8.10-17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究着眼于对创造性这一概念的主要哲学研究。创造过程的活动实际上证明了人类存在的自由。对创造力的看法反映了一个特定的思想家对自由与宿命的对立问题的态度。考虑了有关创造力的争论时刻,并提供了他们的决定方式。特别地,两种对立的观点对柏拉图和亚里士多德的工作进行了研究,其中人类才能的先决条件是神圣的灵感(柏拉图),或相应地,只有个人的努力。别尔佳耶夫试图通过结合亚里士多德和柏拉图的观点来解决他们之间的争论。他赋予人神圣的属性,从而指出创造力的源泉在人本身。菲利普·海夫纳赋予个体“共同创造者”的地位,提出了人被召来完善和完成上帝创造的理论。本研究还关注了创造力的内容和目的。阿尔贝·加缪(Albert Camus)所写的“为创造而创造”受到别尔嘉耶夫(Berdyaev)的批评,他提出了自己对这个问题的看法:为普遍目标而创造。加缪的观点得到柏格森的普遍认同。结合这一最后的争论,提出了对斯科沃罗达“相关工作”学说的实现,并对这种实现的权宜之计进行了论证。我们国内的哲学家最初平衡了加缪作品中的悲观主义和别尔嘉耶夫的进取方法。Skovoroda用准确的实际例子来支持他的结论。关于需要更新G. Skovoroda关于创造力和“相关工作”的教导的合理结论给出了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Creativity as a Practical Manifestation of Freedom (Historical and Theoretical Context)
The study concerns the consideration of creativity in the light of the main philosophical studies of this concept. The activity of the creative process practically proves the presence of freedom in human existence. Views on creativity reflect the attitude of a particular thinker to the question of the opposition of freedom and predestination in general. The polemical moments concerning creativity are considered and the ways of their decision are offered. In particular, two opposing views on the work of Plato and Aristotle are studied, where human talent presupposes divine inspiration (Plato) or, accordingly, only personal efforts. Nikolai Berdyaev tries to resolve the controversy between Aristotle and Plato by combining their views. He endows man with divine properties and thus indicates the source of creativity in the middle of man himself. Philip Hefner gives the individual the status of “co-creator” and puts forward the theory that man is called to improve and complete God’s creation. The study also focuses on the content and purpose of creativity. Creativity for the sake of creativity itself, which Albert Camus wrote about, was criticized by M. Berdyaev, and he offered his vision of this issue: creativity for the sake of a universal goal. Camus’ views were generally shared by A. Bergson. In connection with this last controversy, the actualization of Hryhoriy Skovoroda’s doctrine of “related work” is proposed and the expediency of this actualization is argued. Our domestic philosopher originally balances the pessimism of Camus’s work and Berdyaev’s enterprising approach. Skovoroda supports his conclusions with accurate practical examples. Reasoned conclusions about the need to update the teachings of G. Skovoroda on creativity and «related work» are given.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信