Happy New Year! The January Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species. Discuss it now.

The February Philosophy Book of the Month is The Fourth Age by Byron Reese (Nominated by RJG.)

Part 1 of The Runaway Species -- New Under the Sun

Discuss the January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month, The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.
Post Reply
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4264
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Part 1 of The Runaway Species -- New Under the Sun

Post by Scott » January 2nd, 2019, 10:15 am

This topic is for discussing Part 1 of The Runaway Species. Please do not post in this topic unless you have read at least through Part 1 of The Runaway Species.

How did you enjoy Part 1 of the book?

From my reading of it, in this part of the book, assert that creativity always involves at least one of three main components: bending, breaking, or blending. Then many examples are given of each. This providing of many examples both (1) helps explain what they mean by each of three components and (2) helps provide the evidence to backup their assertion that creativity involves bending, breaking, or blending.

Did you interpret the authors' main assertion in Part 1 to be as I have summarized it above? If so, do you agree with it? If not, what did you under the authors' assertion(s) in Part 1 to be, especially regarding "bending", "breaking", and "blending"?

Overall, I enjoyed reading Part 1 of the book. However, I did feel like it was a slow point in the book for me. Going over so many examples started to seem repetitive and less interesting to me the more it went on. Granted, this is somewhat to be expected since the first part of a book like this is presumably providing the foundation of the hopefully more interesting arguments in the rest of the book, such as in terms of creating a foundation of evidence, examples, and background info.

What do you think?
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Tehsorso
Posts: 10
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 3:49 pm

Re: Part 1 of The Runaway Species -- New Under the Sun

Post by Tehsorso » January 7th, 2019, 7:20 am

I think that, rather than discrete categories, at least two processes - bending and breaking - can really be seen as degrees of intensity of a nearly universal creative process: the modification of an initial entity according to the goals of the individual. In other words, there is a point where bending becomes breaking - such as that when the modifications to the original lead to the creation of something entirely different (for instance, in the case of the bull drawing, where the more extreme renditions are beyond recognition).

Blending is a more difficult process to include on this continuum; however, rather than keeping it separate, it can be conceputalized as an underlying prerequisite to both breaking and bending. After all, most creative endeavors can be seen as alternation of a certain thing/situation/concept by drawing inspiration from another thing/situation/concept.

In other words, all creative acts involve a degree of bending, breaking and blending.

I'll check with the book later today, but from what I remember I don't think the authors touched on the potential of the three concepts to be more or less simultaneously present in all creative acts, rather than isolate.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4264
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: Part 1 of The Runaway Species -- New Under the Sun

Post by Scott » January 7th, 2019, 10:22 am

I agree that in the book, as best I recall, the authors weren't clear whether they were arguing that categories were meant to be mutually exclusive or not. I feel the way or presenting implied that they were, but (since I feel that would be blatantly untrue) I gave them the benefit of the doubt and assume they realize that it is a continuum, with different acts of creativity involving different levels of bending, breaking, and blending.

When things are "bent", that could probably generally be considered a form of blending. For example, if you make something bigger, in a sense you are blending the concept of bigness or something big with the original concept. If you take something that's usually red and make it blue, you are blending the things that are blue with something that's usually red. So I don't think the distinction between the three categories is black-and-white, but rather it is a useful construct with useful but arbitrary categorizations of different types creative methods (bending, breaking, and blending).
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Post Reply