Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?
| Abstract | Weaver birds create intricate nests; sculptors and other artists and artisans also create intricate, ingenious constructions out of similar materials. The products may look similar, and outwardly the creative processes that create those processes may look similar, but there are surely large and important differences between them. What are they, and how important are they? The weaverbird nestmaking is ‘instinctual,’ and ‘controlled by the genes’ some would say, but we know that this is a crude approximation of a more interesting truth, involving an intricate interplay between genetic variation, long-term developmental and environmental interaction and short-term environmental variation–in opportunities and materials accessible at the time of nest building. And on the side of the human creator, a similarly complex story must be told. Genes play some role surely (think of the likelihood of heritable differences in musical aptitude, for instance), but so do both long-term and short-term environmental interactions. The myth of the artist “blessed†by a spark of ‘divine genius’ is even cruder and more distorted than the myth of the birdnest as a simple product of a gene–as if it were a protein.                Our thinking about human creativity is pulled out of shape somewhat by a famous contrast introduced to the world by Darwin. One of his earliest–and most outraged–critics summed it up vividly:   In the theory with which we have to deal, Absolute Ignorance is the artificer; so that we may enunciate as the fundamental principle of the whole system, that, IN ORDER TO MAKE A PERFECT AND BEAUTIFUL MACHINE, IT IS NOT REQUISITE TO KNOW HOW TO MAKE IT. This proposition will be found, on careful examination, to express, in condensed form, the essential purport of the Theory, and to express in a few words all Mr. Darwin's meaning; who, by a strange inversion of reasoning, seems to think Absolute Ignorance fully qualified to take the place of Absolute Wisdom in all the achievements of creative skill.. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesPeter Carruthers & Elizabeth Picciuto (forthcoming). The Origins of Creativity. In E. Paul & S. Kaufman (eds.), The Philosophy of Creativity. Oxford University Press.
Peter Carruthers (2011). Creative Action in Mind. Philosophical Psychology 24 (4):437 - 461.
L. Briskman (1981). Creative Product and Creative Process in Science and Art. In Denis Dutton & Michael Krausz (eds.), The Concept of Creativity in Science and Art. Distributors for the U.S. And Canada, Kluwer Boston.
Maria Kronfeldner (2010). Darwinian 'Blind' Hypothesis Formation Revisited. Synthese 175:193--218.
Hugh Williams (1996). What is Good Forestry?: An Ethical Examination of Forest Policy and Practice in New Brunswick. Environmental Ethics 18 (4):391-410.
Larry Briskman (1980). Creative Product and Creative Process in Science and Art. Inquiry 23 (1):83 – 106.
Gordon D. Kaufman (2007). Special Topic: Confucian and Christian Conceptions of Creativity. Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 6 (2):105-113.
Bence Nanay (forthcoming). An Experiential Account of Creativity. In Elliot Paul & Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), The Philosophy of Creativity. Oxford University Press.
David L. Hull, Rodney E. Langman & Sigrid S. Glenn (2001). A General Account of Selection: Biology, Immunology, and Behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):511-528.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-12-22Total downloads36 ( #32,993 of 549,067 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,067 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
