Philosophy as Creativity

Natalia Anatolievna  Tereschenko

doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.288

Authors

Natalia Anatolievna Tereschenko Department of Social Philosophy, Institute of Social and Philosophical Sciences and Mass Communications, Kazan Federal University, Kazan, Russia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.288

Keywords:

Creativity, The New, Progress, “Death of Philosophy”, Russian Philosophy.

Abstract

The main aim of the study is to analyze the phenomenon of creativity, which has traditionally been the subject of philosophical investigation. Moreover, the phenomenon of philosophy itself as a creative process often remained in the shadow of general problems. By tacit agreement the creative nature of philosophy was recognized as obvious, and therefore, as a subject of philosophizing, it was often simply left out of the picture. However, again and again, the thesis about the “death of philosophy” makes the question of its creative nature more than relevant. If the creative potential of philosophy has been exhausted, perhaps it is really dying as a special form of thought in culture. If creativity in philosophy is possible, then its cultural prospects become more optimistic, or cultural elimination of philosophy is associated not only (or not so much) with its creative capacity. Creativity became the object of theorization in the Renaissance and Modernity, when man was initially thought of as its subject. Therefore, the very understanding of creativity bears the mark of Modern thinking. However, the "post-" situation forces us to return to the analysis of the problem and consider it in terms of the impossibility of the new. The problem can and should also be considered on the material of Russian philosophical thought, whose status has always been ambiguous, primarily for Russian philosophy itself. Today, the position of Russian philosophy is becoming even more problematic due to the problematization of philosophy as a particular discourse that claims to be universal, on the one hand, and the specifics of Russian theoretical thought labeled as "responsive", its empathicity – on the other.

References

Badiou, A. 1992. Manifesto for Philosophy/ translated, edited and with an IntroductionNorman Madarasz, State University of New York Press, Albany.

De Man, P. 1997. the Resistance to Theory // Foreword by Wlad Godzich, Theory and History of Literature, Volume 33, p.3-20.

Deleuze, G. 1997. Cinema I. The movement-image / translated by Hugh Tomloson and Barbara Habberjam, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. – Мoscow: Ad Marginem Press, 1997.

Deleuze, G. 1998. Critical and Clinical / translater by Daniel W. Smith and Michael A. Greco, Verso, London, New York.

Deleuze, G., Guattari, F. 1994. What is Philosophy? / translated by Graham Burchell and Hugh Tomloson, Verso, London, New York.

Derrida, J., & Bennington, G. (1993). Jacques Derrida (p. 3). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dimkov, P. R. (2019). An Excursion into Philosophy and Psychology of Creativity. Knowledge International Journal, 30(5), 1313-1317.

Kim, H. (2020). Creativity and wellbeing in music education-philosophy, policy and practice in the context of contemporary Scottish primary education (Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow).

Loi, M., Viganò, E., & van der Plas, L. (2020). The societal and ethical relevance of computational creativity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.11973.

Veale, T., & Cardoso, F. A. (Eds.). (2019). Computational creativity: The philosophy and engineering of autonomously creative systems. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43610-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43610-4