Individual creativity has been the focus of long-term research in creative industries. However, few studies have explored the impact on individual creativity from social factors. At the same time, the influence of individual creativity on the existence of subsequent factors in the creative industry is also worthy of further investigation. From a social standpoint, this research aims to explore how social norms affect individual creativity, and how individual creativity affects subsequent leadership. The present research takes creative entrepreneurs in creative enterprises (...) as the research objects, and the structural equation model is used to analyze the data obtained from 202 valid questionnaires. Besides, the mediating effect of individual creativity between social norms and individual leadership is verified. The results show that social norms can effectively promote the generation of individual creativity that has a positive impact on both transactional or transformational leadership. It is revealed that social norms are effective tools for enhancing creativity, answering the question of how creative ideas are transformed into creative work and leadership. Individual creativity plays a mediating role between social norms and individual leadership. (shrink)

本书收30多篇文章,共分6部分:“中西哲学会通篇”、“审美意识新论篇”、“语言的哲学思考篇”、“人生境界解析篇”、“杂感琐谈篇”和“学术自述篇”。.

本书收30多篇文章,共分6部分:“中西哲学会通篇”、“审美意识新论篇”、“语言的哲学思考篇”、“人生境界解析篇”、“杂感琐谈篇”和“学术自述篇”。.

Early in Aristotle’s terminology, and ever since, “essence” has been conceived as having two meanings, namely “universality” and “individuality”. According to the tradition of thought that has dominated throughout the history of Western philosophy, “essence” unequivocally refers to “universality”. As a matter of fact, however, “universality” cannot cover Aristotle’s definition and formulation of “essence”: Essence is what makes a thing “happen to be this thing.” “Individuality” should be the deep meaning of “essence”. By means of an analysis of some relevant (...) Western thoughts and a review of cultural realities, it can be concluded that the difference between the attitudes toward things of the natural sciences and the humane sciences mainly lies in the fact that the former focus on the pursuit of universal regularity, whereas the latter go after the value and significance of human life. The movement from natural things to cultural things is a process in which essence shifts from universality to individuality. It is the author’s contention that what should be stressed in the fields of human culture and society is the construction of an ideal society that is “harmonious yet not identical”, on the basis of respecting and developing individual peculiarity and otherness. (shrink)