16. PHENOMENOLOGY OF CREATIVITY

“The lack of scientific differentiation of the phenomenology of creativity leads to the fact that the definition of“ creative ”becomes applicable to almost any process of activity, except for a narrow circle of extremely automated actions”, is the remark of D. Bogoyavlenskaya [2000, p. 187] should be attributed not only to the psychological science as such, which, in general, is aware of the insufficiency of the definition of creativity only through the novelty of the result, but no less than the sociology and axiology of creativity - for example, the assertion of "novelty", "uniqueness" They are becoming an effective means of shaping public opinion in its purely uncritical, “herd” manifestation: pseudoscience and popular culture in general, with their propaganda apparatus, today use this opportunity very effectively.
Finally, the most “philosophically” obvious creative aspect of activity. It will be about the self-change of man. This aspect of the theory of creativity is very interesting and deeply considered by G. Batishchev. We will not here retell his concept and specifically note both the "points of contact" and serious and very significant discrepancies with it (to a certain extent, however without specific references, this was done in the previous chapter when it came to the immanent creative act). Let's stop only on the following. Of course, any activity has in its effect, to a greater or lesser extent, a change and “self-change” of a person, objectively demanding (also to varying degrees, but always, and always objectively demanding) activity in the application of the essential forces and abilities of the subject, and thus objectively is a process of self-realization of a person as a subject and as a whole as a person. Of course, it represents in different ways and with different fullness, but otherwise as a certain self-realization of the human subject, as the realization of his essential “capabilities and readiness” no activity is possible at all. In this sense, an activity always, in one way or another, in a form objectively “creates” a human subject, always potentially creates an objective opportunity and itself “creates” itself.
But the objective “creation” of a person is not his work in the human sense: it can be a process and result of both the creative and non-creative activities of the person himself (note that the effectiveness of “human creation”, as the efficiency of activity in general, is to a great extent depends on the availability and level of creativity in the activity of a human subject, however, as mentioned in the previous chapter, the “creation of a person” by his activity, including his creativity, is not uniquely positive in the individual vidual and moral and social sense). The fact that a person changes in the course of his activity does not mean either the process of "self-changing" the subject (and even less the subjective will to "self-changing"), or at least the presence of creative elements in his own activity. A person’s own conscious focus on the “disclosure of the depths” of his being, on self-affirmation in activity, on maximal self-realization is not universal in it. As for self-improvement as a subjective goal of an activity, as a conscious personal task, even among people who purposefully strive for creativity and truly manifest creativity in their activity, such a setup is rare: the idea of ​​creativity as self-expression that is widespread, for example, in artistic circles usually involves the manifestation of the “finished”, rather than tending to change the self of the person, and “self-affirmation” is understood as the widest possible public (or ppovoe that sometimes even preferable) recognition as the level of fame as a commercial success, etc.
True, at the level of “life in general” —determining the meaning of life, choosing an appropriate program and system of priorities and tasks, choosing a life path, striving for self-development and self-realization throughout this path — most people show conscious initiative and self-activity. But even in this case, many people, including those in the “most favored” situation, do not show creativity, but follow (it can be argued that they mainly follow) stereotypical standards of the sociocultural microgroup that serves as a role model and infallible arbiter. Those who consistently and "self-seeking" strive to realize their life program are not many at all. “The fright of life” (I. Annensky) often overcomes his life aspirations in a person, whose realization is connected with overcoming the objective difficulties of existence: in this respect escapism, escape from reality into illusory worlds, sociopathies are not only manifestations of discontent with the world as such, but and a sense of their own creative failure to the task of self-fulfillment and unwillingness to non-creative, conformist activism, providing a "social norm"; for most of these “frightened” people, mass culture in its socially acceptable or sometimes extreme forms becomes shelter, for some it is counterculture, for some (especially when “existential anxiety” becomes prepsychotic or psychotic anxiety), the way out is disintegration of personality and physical death. As for the conscious, “meaningful life” aspiration to realize and develop as much as possible in a specific act of activity and in the system of one’s own activity, such a setting is characteristic of rare remarkable personalities, and, as a rule, does not appear in any particular act, not in any form and not in the whole process of activity. In the previous chapter, we called self-creation of a person in the process of activity an “embryo” of creativity, taking such self-creation to an area immanently creative in any activity. In this case, the immanent actualization turns out to be not just associated with a number of conditions, but is carried out in any significant, noticeable, subjectively and objectively significant degree mainly “beyond” the conscious intentions of the subject. So in this, the most probably important aspect, creativity is always potentially inherent in the subject and potentially possible for him, but in reality, even in the aspect of the subject’s self-creation, human activity can be both creative and non-creative. moreover: it is precisely in the sense of conscious self-creation that the activity of the human subject has a real creative character much less often than in all other respects.
TEST 16
1. What is phenomenology?
? This is a selection of the main features of the phenomenon.
? this is a scrupulous description of the phenomenon
? this is a comprehensive study of the phenomenon
? this is something from the field of philosophy
2. What is axiology?
? this is the science of creativity
? this is the science of values
? this is the science of activity
? this is the science of morality
3. Who used the phrase “life scare”?
? Nietzsche
? Aristotle
? Spengler
? Annensky
4. What is existence?
? this is a new art style
? it is human suffering
? this is the torment of creativity
? this is human existence
5. What is escapism?
? this expression of anxiety
? this resort to reality
? it is reality itself
? it's a runaway from reality