Creativity is dying, but rather the bravery of expression
- SkepticBowtie98
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 0
- Joined: February 4th, 2019, 10:09 pm
Creativity is dying, but rather the bravery of expression
My conclusive distinction from Dr. Peterson is that, it is not so that there exists no people within the gene pool who are creative, rather so that the creative genetic disposition that Dr. Peterson speaks of historically has been suppressed, not diminished, throughout the evolutionary and sociological history. To contradict Dr. Peterson’s claim of diminishing from the gene pool, it is not true that the aforementioned factors extinguished the gene for creativity, rather it extinguished the ability to be creative with the exception of a few outlies brave enough to express that creativity. To be clear, I’m not suggesting in a certain tabula rossa view of human composition or genetics, I understand that some people are more creative than others, or that creativity comes more easily to some than others. Yet, I hold the position that it is timidity, not lack of creativity itself that represses the visual outlook on the topic. I agree with Dr. Peterson that the factors he claims are legitimate. Yet, I negate that they have caused a collapse of creativity but instead a collapse of public bravery. I reject his final claim that there are very few legitimately creative people.
Analyzing Dr. Peterson’s sociological argument, there is definitive evidence that tyrants dislike and will attempt to eradicate, exterminate, and excommunicate revolutionaries. Yet, it doesn’t seem very likely that every creative individual will be taken out of the population just by simply being creative. It does not seem likely that someone who writes a novel and lets it sitting on her desk would be put to death, in any governmental framework in all of history. Instead the people who attract the attention of the authorities possess three fundamental qualities. The self-awareness to construct a belief in contradiction to mass culture, the courage to express such beliefs, and the creativity to provide a vehicle for that critique. These are the people who catch the attention of the authorities, not just creative people, but those creative individuals who express certain other qualities that make them noticeable to unlikely people. I understand Dr. Peterson’s notion that it’s so difficult for artist to thrive on a financial level. Again, the only artists who are visible are those who are courageous enough to take the chance of not being able to thrive and or are so abstained from mass culture that they do not find the ability to thrive imbedded into financial well-being. However, this argument does not negate the existence of individuals who are silently creative or who are not self-aware enough to make themselves stand out as a revolutionary.
Next, Dr. Peterson’s evolutionary argument has one egregious flaw. It suggests a false equivalency between the society of zebras and the society of humans. His argument rests on the fact that if an individual zebra has a distinct characteristic marking, then they will be eaten by a predator. Yet, human societies are nothing of the sort. If a human civilization were to be attacked, the society works together to keep the group safe while as a society of zebras as a group of individuals will make an attempt to escape the grasp of the predator. To really drive this point to the fervency that it’s misconstrued by Dr. Peterson, when he sees tragic videos of the September 11th attacks with first responders and civilians all helping each other escape; does he think that zebras would do of the sort? Human societies are organized as for the individual to act to support both their individual identity and the group identity. So, the objection that one human by being creative would stick out, is vehemently false. Rather the individual’s expression of individuality is a means of survival and reproductivity within the group rather than a dangerous perception from outside the group. The complexity of human social groups exist as protection for the members, so it allows the individualization of members unlike the social structures of zebras. I agree with Dr. Peterson that the existence of oppressive regimes and mass culture is repressing the overall expression of the public. Yet, I strongly believe that this is a misnomer, for there is no evidence that it is creativity that is seen so seldomly but rather the expression and self-awareness to express that creativity.
- juney34
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: June 4th, 2019, 2:43 pm
Re: Creativity is dying, but rather the bravery of expression
- SkepticBowtie98
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 0
- Joined: February 4th, 2019, 10:09 pm
Re: Creativity is dying, but rather the bravery of expression
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Creativity is dying, but rather the bravery of expression
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7094
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Creativity is dying, but rather the bravery of expression
The thing about J.Peterson is that he is a 22ct arsewipe, who would not know creativity if a 10 tonnes copy of Rodin's Thinker was dropped on him out of a 10 storey window.SkepticBowtie98 wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2019, 3:22 am In discussing the evolutionary and social elements of creativity, the ever-polarizing Dr. Jordan Peterson give a compelling argument about why it is that so many ... Yet, I strongly believe that this is a misnomer, for there is no evidence that it is creativity that is seen so seldomly but rather the expression and self-awareness to express that creativity.
Whilst it is true that the International Art Market is a poor exemplar of creativity, this is no indication of a lack in this department.
I see amazing creativity every day.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7094
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Creativity is dying, but rather the bravery of expression
It's false.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 9th, 2019, 12:46 pm In summary, I think the arguments made in the OP reduce to this: creative people (revolutionaries; trouble-makers) are (very) often rejected and outcast by their societies/tribes/etc. Thus there are fewer creative people, and fewer still who will admit to creativity. This seems to ring true....
Creativity has never been foremost in the queue of rewards handed out by society, except in rare instances, yet creativity in all fields is ever present.
There is no weeding out. People are as creative as they have ever been. Evolution of this sort would have to involve the wholesale denial of re-productivity of millions of creatives to make any difference - where are they?
Creativity is a fundamental human trait in all persons, and expresses in a wide range of activities - even accounting!
He might have great skills in argumentation, but what Peterson lacks is imagination.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Creativity is dying, but rather the bravery of expression
I think this is a matter of Maslow's, "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". The issue with creativity today is not about the social points Peterson focuses on, but the fact that when people's lives are busier and it's harder to make ends meet, then there is less time and space to create.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Creativity is dying, but rather the bravery of expression
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023