The Philosophy of creativity: conceptual approaches of V.S. Solovyov and N.A. Berdyaev

Creativity as a cultural phenomenon

The problem of creativity has aroused the close interest of many thinkers throughout the entire historical development of world philosophical thought. From the point of view of various historical and philosophical concepts, creativity was interpreted both as a divine act of invoking existence from non-existence, and as the self-unfolding of diverse natural forms, and as the transcendence of the subject's own and universal boundaries, and as a process of self-creation of a personality. Within the framework of modern research of a socio-humanitarian orientation, creativity is also justified as a phenomenon of everyday human existence. Thus, K. Moruzzi emphasizes that "creativity as a way of solving problems can also be observed in our daily interaction with the environment and in actions that, otherwise, we might consider trivial" ^{[1, p. 5]}. In turn, J. Segalerba and K. Bouvo defend the thesis that "creativity is inherent not only to geniuses, but, on the contrary, to all people" ^{[2, p. 110]}. Current concepts of creativity are also related to its understanding as a source of innovative solutions in an organizational context, as G.T. Boldt and J. S. Kaufman write: "Individual creativity strengthens organizational innovations, and the working environment hinders or cultivates individual creativity" ^{[3, p. 209]}. In this regard, B. Gaut emphasizes that creativity cannot be reduced only to the aesthetic aspect, because "creativity is found in science, craft, business, technology, organizational life and daily activity" ^{[4, p. 1034]}, which is why the philosophy of creativity should be based on various sections of philosophical knowledge. Indeed, as A. Kauppinen notes, aesthetic creativity consists only "in the perception or emergence of some modification of the source material or environment as contributing to a new way of realizing the desired goal" ^{[5, p. 1]}.

Current ideas about the nature of the subject of creativity

Revealing the specifics of the intrapersonal determinants of a creative subject, modern researchers postulate the importance of both emotional and intellectual components of creativity. So, if R. Trnka defines emotional creativity as "a set of cognitive abilities and personal traits associated with the originality and relevance of emotional experience" ^{[6, p. 321]}, then R. Strauch and N.L. King speak of intellectual creativity as the desire of the subject to acquire and translate knowledge in new ways and consider it immanent intellectual virtue: "Intellectual creativity is virtuous when its subject is motivated ... by intellectual goods, experiences appropriate emotional states (for example, delight) in relation to these goods and makes reasonable judgments about when and how to engage in creative self-expression" ^{[7, p. 103]}. At the same time, N. Myshkovsky, B. Barbo and F. Zenasni adheres to a position synthesizing both of the above-mentioned visions of creativity, because the most important features of a creative subject are "a set of key intellectual, personal, motivational and emotional aspects" ^{[8, p. 33]}. It should also be noted that such an approach to creativity, according to which a person is not a unique subject of creativity, since he shares this status with artificial intelligence technologies. This position is taken by N. De Pisapia and S. Rastelli: "Creativity can be not only a human function, but actually a way of functioning of any natural or artificial system that implements the creative process" ^{[9, p. 1]}. However, J. J. Kidd states that "philosophical studies of the merits of creativity should pay attention to how our ideas about human creativity can be based on ideas about human nature or the nature of reality" ^{[10, p. 1]}.

The ontological rootedness of creativity

 It should be noted that the problem of creativity is comprehensively considered from ontological, epistemological, anthropological, ethical, aesthetic and other positions. However, only the ontological aspect of creativity reflects the essential characteristics of the process of generation and transformation of being, as well as the specific features of being of the creative subject himself. In this regard, "the ontology of creativity explores the objective laws of the process of establishing a new being, and creativity itself is justified as an attribute of human, natural or divine being" ^{[11, p. 138]}. It is not for nothing that V. Blok notes that creativity "establishes a new identity for the world and at the same time places itself outside the existing one" ^{[12, p. 10]}. Ontological views on the essence of creativity are held by E.V. Zolotukhina-Abolina, who understands creativity as "the ability to actively be different" ^{[13, p. 77]}, as well as R. J. Sternberg, who interprets creativity as "the ability of a person to show creativity outside cultural boundaries both in space and in time" ^{[14, p. 77]}. 363]. Indeed, by creating a new creation, the subject introduces new formations into various levels of being, as pointed out by S.I. Fiut: "The work is a manifestation of the freedom of the artist, who in himself and in the world – in the orders of being that fall under numerous definitions – has found favorable conditions for his existence" ^{[15, p. 328]}. Thus, creativity from an ontological point of view can be represented as "a cosmic (natural), divine and human process of creating a unique and original being, inseparable from a deep knowledge of the essence of phenomena, the disclosure of the subject's potencies and moral self-improvement" ^{[16, p. 128]}.

Creativity as an ontological phenomenon in the history of philosophy

It should be noted that the original existential rootedness of creativity is justified by thinkers of all historical periods of the development of world philosophy. Thus, the creative essence of being as an endless process of becoming, carried out through the dialectical interaction of opposite principles, is recognized by adherents of Confucianism, Taoism and Hinduism. Creativity as the acquisition of something of its own being and as the transformation of possibility into reality is interpreted, respectively, by Plato and Aristotle. Being as the result of a divine act of creation and creativity as bringing a thing into being and its maintenance by God are postulated by medieval and Renaissance thinkers, as well as representatives of the philosophy of Modern Times and the Enlightenment. The assertion of the dialectical nature of the creative unfolding of being due to the self-revelation of transcendent substances is characteristic of German classical philosophy. In the romantic tradition of philosophizing, being is understood as an unfinished work of art. The postulation of creative activity as a transformation by the subject of natural, socio-cultural and subjective reality reflects the ontological orientation of creativity in the space of a dialectical-materialistic approach. The comprehension of being as an endless creative evolution and an aimless flow of creative formation is carried out by representatives of the philosophy of life. Creativity as a way of human existence, consisting in the creation of a subject's own life, is interpreted by representatives of existentialism. Being as the result of God's original creativity and creativity as the free consent of non-existence to being are revealed in Russian religious philosophy. The last historical period is one of the most original understandings of creativity, the disclosure of the essence of which in this era is the purpose of this work.

The Problem of Creativity in Russian Philosophy: the general context

The full disclosure of the meaning of creativity in the context of Russian philosophical thought is certainly connected with the theological plane, since, according to the views of most representatives of this historical and philosophical period, creativity is viewed through the prism of the divine will that created the world out of nothing. However, man as a subject of creativity in this era is not at all devoid of creative potencies, as was postulated in the medieval philosophical tradition. Moreover, created in the image and likeness of the Creator, man is called by his creativity to spiritualize the earthly world, reveal its secrets, ennoble and renew existence, as well as improve himself. It is not for nothing that F.M. Dostoevsky comprehends the creative principle of man as an intention to transform the world in accordance with the divine principles of Goodness, Love and Beauty. At the same time, L.N. Tolstoy, in his philosophical concept, seeks to resolve the contradiction between art and life and discover the transcendent potencies of art that can transform the world. According to V.V. Rozanov, a person discovers a person in himself only when he begins to create himself and transform the outside world. Only creativity, from the point of view of a philosopher, is able to reveal the divine nature in a person and make the person himself a work of art: "Perhaps that is why the delight of creativity is so great, that in his moments a person sees God, and the clearer his thought is aware of what it sees, the more immense the pleasure is obtained from this" ^{[17, p. 742]}.

The problem of creativity is comprehended by many Russian philosophers, each of whom tries in his own way to identify the objective patterns of this phenomenon. This is how P.A. Florensky understands creativity as a way of life that favors internal changes of the subject and forms the ability to discover the secrets of the universe in what is commonplace for another. Writing creativity into the process of God-making, accompanied by the experience of unforeseen novelty, the philosopher considers monks to be the true creators of beauty, for which reason he identifies the ascetic way of life with art and artistry: "The distinctive feature of the holy ascetics is not their "kindness" at all ..., but ... the dazzling beauty of a radiant luminous personality" ^{[18, pp. 98-99]}. Moreover, Florensky associates creativity with the subject's embodiment of the truths of otherworldly existence in his creations. At the same time, S.L. Frank argues for a creative human attitude to life as a way to overcome the hardships of everyday life. However, the power of creativity is able to neutralize evil not through austerities and prohibitions, but through constant spiritual search and striving for moral discoveries, which leads to the realization of life goals and the realization of the dialectic of Good: "Cultural creativity means the improvement of human nature and the embodiment of ideal values in life and, as such, is in itself the highest and the self-sufficient goal of human activity" ^{[19, p. 89]}. However, the most significant contribution to understanding the essence of creativity in the context of Russian religious philosophy was made by such major nominal layers as V.S. Solovyov and N.A. Berdyaev, whose conceptual constructions reveal creativity in a particularly original way.

V.S. Solovyov's Philosophy of Creativity: creativity as a free Theurgy

V.S. Solovyov's religious and philosophical searches in the field of the nature of the creative act are inseparable from the concept of theurgy, which means the ascent of the subject to God through creativity. Indeed, the main task of human creativity is the realization of unity as a great synthesis of Goodness, Truth and Beauty as ethical, epistemological and aesthetic areas of existence. The need for this kind of synthesis, from the philosopher's point of view, is conditioned by the emasculation of empirical science, the fruitlessness of abstract philosophy, as well as man's desire to find a genuine religious foundation for his own being: "Abstract clericalism was destroyed by its own consistent development in the papacy; abstract philosophy was condemned by Hegelianism, and abstract science is undermined by modern positivists" ^{[20, p. 590]}. In addition, the mission of human creativity is the harmonious realization, reproduction and development of the imperfect Beauty of the world in works of art, in which Beauty finds its fullest expression, being embodied as well as Goodness and Truth. In this regard, Beauty is revealed as a realized unity, as a spiritualized being, as a transformed being. Therefore, human creativity, expressing the inner connection of the latter with the world, acts as a way of perfecting existence and spiritualizing material existence. In other words, the products of human creativity represent not only the objectification of the artistic ideas of the subject, but also the spiritualization of the beauty of nature and the perpetuation of its individual manifestations.

Three beginnings of a creative subject and three degrees of creativity

Moreover, the creative transformation of reality as a free theurgy is not feasible without the actualization of the three ontological principles of the subject: the creative principle itself as a sensual sphere objectifying Beauty, the knowledge principle as a sphere of thinking embodying Truth, as well as the active principle as a sphere of will responsible for the realization of the Good. It is worth noting that the creative principle of man has material, formal and absolute degrees, at which creativity is revealed as, respectively, technical art, fine art and mysticism. In this regard, free theurgy, which contributes to the transformation of reality, is carried out by the subject realizing the entire range of the above degrees of creativity. One way or another, the central element of free theurgy, based on the human principles of creativity, knowledge and activity, is precisely creativity as a way for the subject to realize "the divine principle in all empirical, natural reality", as well as "the realization by man of divine forces in the very real being of nature" ^{[20, p. 743]}. In this regard, I.V. Baturina notes that "the concept of unity reveals a person's desire for a "whole being", which presupposes "whole knowledge" and "whole creativity", which ultimately forms a "whole life", which is a harmonious combination of all the efforts of man and humanity on the path of ascent to the Absolute" ^{[21, p. 35]}. At the same time, philosophy, appealing to the mind, and poetry, appealing to the imagination, appear to be faithful assistants of the creative subject in the implementation of free theurgy and the achievement of unity.

Creativity as ecstatic self-transcendence

However, if philosophical knowledge is revealed in the conscious action of the individual mind of the creative subject, then poetic imagination allows the creator to make an unconscious, ecstatic, inspired breakthrough beyond his own subjectivity, which leads to the embodiment of individual artistic ideas and moral principles of the subject in material objects that become carriers of these ideal constructs. At the same time, the creative idea itself is not devoid of reality, but does not possess reality until it is realized in the material world: "Reality and reality relate to each other as producing and produced" ^{[22, p. 287]}. It is worth noting that the meaning of creativity, according to Solovyov's views, consists not so much in broadcasting the inner world of the creator through the establishment of a fundamentally different being, but rather in the desire of the subject to possess his own content as someone else's: "The artist ... wants only the idea that is in himself, defines his inner being or makes up his own the inner content, ... to realize it outside oneself, to make it different for oneself, to isolate and isolate it" ^{[22, p. 255]}.

Limited creative freedom

It is fundamentally important to note that in the context of V.S. Solovyov's philosophical quest, human creativity does not have unlimited freedom. Presented as a God-given ability, the creativity of the subject is limited to a certain extent by inspiration, which acts as the main engine of creativity. In other words, human creativity has little to do with the direct volitional effort of the artist and is not subject to a pre-made plan of action. A specific feature of creativity also appears to be the absence of mechanical copying by the subject of reality: "Artistic ideas and images are not complex products of observation and reflection, but appear to the mental eye in their inner integrity, and the artist's work is reduced only to their development and embodiment in material details" ^{[22, p. 205]}. At the same time, the creative subject is free in the sense that inspiration allows him not to depend on the deterministic chains of material reality and traditionalist socio-cultural institutions. As I.V. Kozhukhov emphasizes, freedom of creativity is defined by V.S. Solovyov "as the freedom of the artist's soul from everything alien and contrary to the influence of the ideal-spiritual principle, which determines the special rise of the soul above the ordinary state of its stay in the world" ^{[23, p. 143]}.

The ontological unity of creativity and mysticism

Moreover, the highest manifestation and absolute degree of creativity of the subject, from the point of view of V.S. Solovyov, is mysticism. That is why the philosopher looks for common features of mystical experience and artistic creativity, which can be represented in the following reference points: 1) actualization of the sensory, not the mental sphere of the subject; 2) the leading role of imagination, not external activity; 3) reliance on ecstatic inspiration, not on the measured activity of consciousness. The ontological unity of mysticism and creativity is emphasized by the thinker as follows: "The goal here is mystical – communication with the higher world through inner creative activity. This goal is served not only by direct means of a mystical nature, but also by true art" ^{[22, p. 174]}. In other words, if mysticism is revealed as the direct relationship of the human spirit to the transcendent world, then creativity allows the subject to look into the future by designing an ideal world order and participating in the implementation of the divine plan in reality. Undoubtedly, this imposes on the creative subject the responsibility for the realization of spiritual values in physical reality, but this responsibility is at the same time the flip side of his freedom – the freedom of theurgic creativity.

The spiritual and natural subject of creativity

Revealing the nature of the creative subject himself, V.S. Solovyov strives to distinguish between the spiritual and natural types of creative personalities. If the first type has a priori spiritual power, infinite moral potentials and strives to transform reality by embodying Beauty, Truth and Goodness, then the second acquires spiritual power only through contemplation of works of art by other brilliant creators, has limited moral qualities and is aimed primarily at satisfying its own needs and reflecting, rather than transforming reality. In this regard, the genius of the creative subject, from the point of view of the thinker, consists in the expedient use by a person of his creative power, which "is not completely spent on the external business of carnal reproduction, but also goes to the internal business of spiritual creativity in one area or another" ^{[24, p. 227]}. Therefore, the perpetuation of man in Solovyov's works of art axiologically prevails over the attempt of the subject to continue his existence in posterity, because generations replace each other, and art remains for centuries as an immutable value. One way or another, genuine creativity in V.S. Solovyov's philosophical concept, as I.V. Baturina writes, is revealed as "divine, human, and natural principles fused together, subordinated to beauty as the main criterion and measure of the correctness of humanity's activity in transforming the world on the way to the Absolute" ^{[21, p. 35]}.

N.A. Berdyaev's Philosophy of Creativity: creativity as transcendence

In the context of N.A. Berdyaev's religious and philosophical constructions, creativity is revealed as a multidimensional and multivector phenomenon. In the first approximation, the creativity of the subject is defined by the thinker not as the creation of material values of culture, not as a transformative redistribution of matter, but as the construction of a fundamentally different spiritual being, as "increment, addition, creation of a new, non-existent in the world" ^{[25, p. 117]}. According to the philosopher's views, creativity a priori cannot be carried out within the framework of the existing objectified existence. The ghostly, inert, fragmented, deterministic realm of necessity, which is the material world, appears to be just a starting point for the implementation of a creative act. Being immanent to longing for the true being – the divine kingdom of freedom – human creativity is the transcendence of fallen being, the subject's going beyond the limits of existing reality and himself, an ecstatic breakthrough into infinity in order to create a qualitatively different world from non-existence, a new life that cannot be deduced from anything. At the same time, non-existence in Berdyaev's concept, as L.T. Usmanova notes, "is an irrational, primary, unreasonable freedom that lives in the human soul" ^{[26, p. 16]}. If the very possibility of carrying out a creative act is conditioned by the imperfection of objectified being, then the ontological source of creative novelty is not the material of the past, but the potency of the future, because the creative act "takes place in an existential time that does not know causal connectedness" ^{[27, p. 494]}.

Creativity as the justification of man and the continuation of peacemaking

In other words, it is only through creativity as transcendence that a person is able to throw off the causal shackles of the quoted material world, as well as free himself from the captivity of original sin. In this regard, creativity in Berdyaev's teaching is also revealed as an anthropodicy, and therefore it does not even act as an opportunity or right, but as a duty and destiny of a person: "God expects an anthropological revelation of creativity from man, hiding from man, in the name of godlike freedom, his ways of creativity and the justification of creativity" ^{[28, p. 329]}. Through the redemptive act of creativity, man is reunited with God, especially since man is directly called by God to creativity, by the eighth day of creation. Indeed, being created in the image and likeness of God, man has an a priori free capacity for creativity, through which he continues the divine work of peacemaking. In this regard, creativity and freedom are essential attributes of man as a godlike being. As N.A. Berdyaev notes, "if you create together with God, then your philosophy, your art, your society will not be rationalized and mortified, everything will remain alive, the creative act will be mystical not only in its source (in the subject), but also in its results (in the object)" ^{[29, p. 89]}. Thus, creativity, according to the philosopher, includes three main components: uncreated freedom, which is a bottomless source of the creative act, the creative potencies of the subject, given to him by God, as well as the material world in which creative works are objectified. At the same time, creativity is the link between man and God and is revealed as a way of deifying man and humanizing God.

The creative nature of various spheres of human existence

The phenomenon of creativity in the context of Berdyaev's philosophical quest is a universal, syncretic phenomenon. Indeed, creativity encompasses and permeates all spheres of human existence, not limited only to the field of art. In this sense, creativity is literally the activity of the subject to build a fundamentally new life in all its manifestations: "Love is creativity, cognition is creativity, the transformation of nature is creativity, freedom is creativity" ^{[30, p. 340]}. Revealing the creative nature of human cognitive activity, the philosopher notes that "the cognizing subject is not a passive reflector of being and is not its active creator, he is a living actor in being, a cultivator of being, increasing the creative energy of being, the creator of the values of being" ^{[28, pp. 79-80]}. In this regard, the subject, as G.V. Akimenko notes, "participates in the very mystery of existence, "learns" it not through random explanations of the conceptual mind, but in its inner depths" ^{[31, p. 36]}. At the same time, creativity itself is justified as a driving force for the development of knowledge, including philosophical knowledge. However, philosophy itself is "the art of cognition in freedom through the creation of ideas that resist world reality and necessity and penetrate into the transcendent essence of the world" ^{[28, p. 269]}. Love also has a creative essence, which is justified by the thinker as a creative act in which the subject reveals the essence of the person he loves. It is only in the creative act of love that "female and male nature cease to be terribly alien and hostile" ^{[28, 433]}. Despite postulating the erotic energy of sexual desire as a source of creativity, Berdyaev at the same time opposes creativity to procreation, because "in the element of the genus ... sexual energy is discharged in procreation, creativity is replaced by birth, immortal creation is mortal creation" ^{[28, p. 416]}.

The tragedy of creativity

The philosopher's seemingly seditious last thought is in fact a continuation of his conclusion about the ontological superiority of the creative process as the transcendence of deterministic being over the product of creativity, which, firstly, inevitably turns out to be incommensurable with the creative intent of the subject, and secondly, is invariably fixed in fallen being, despite the intensity of creativity beyond the material world to a new spiritual reality. Here is how M.V. Kovaleva and A.A. Telegin write about this: "A person strives for eternity, but creates the values of a given time, seeks to express the inexpressible, but creates a product, a work that only conditionally, one-sidedly and one-sidedly expresses this inexpressible, because otherwise it would not have received the status of cultural value" ^{[32, p. 467]}. Metaphorically illustrated by Berdyaev himself, the antinomy of the fire of the creative process and its cooling in a creative product that becomes part of an objectified being is the main tragedy of creativity. Alienated from the creator, objectified in cultural forms and frozen in the shackles of the deterministic world of creation inevitably fall under the influence of other people and the world. In this regard, the thinker distinguishes between the inner (man creates in the face of God and together with God) and the outer (man creates in the face of others and the world) sides of creativity. Illustrating the inevitable failure of any creative act, G.A. Gumerova and A.A. Nikiforova write: "Instead of a new existence, books, paintings, institutions appear, instead of a new life – scientific hypotheses and theories explaining how to create it, this new life" ^[33]. Thus, creativity is simultaneously revealed as an ecstatic breakthrough into infinity, and as a tragic cultivation and reification of creations in the space of fallen existence.

The main components of the creative process

Nevertheless, the creative process allows a person to constantly transcend both objectified existence and the boundaries of his own subjectivity, which is greatly facilitated by the imagination of the creator, which sets the intention of creativity to constitute a previously unknown and non-deducible existence. At the same time, it should be noted that the creative process itself does not depend on the effects of external factors and is largely determined by inspiration, which temporarily takes a person away from the world, since he becomes completely fascinated by the object of his creativity, thereby eliminating his egocentric intentions and freeing himself from the captivity of original sin. As O.V. Shchekaleva emphasizes, "creativity temporarily frees the human spirit from the necessities of the material world, although it forces many to sacrifice and suffer" ^{[34, p. 59]}. The most important source of creativity is also intuition, which allows the creator to penetrate the meaning of objects. One way or another, the creative subject, striving to continue the work of peacemaking, through his creativity resists the facticity of being, protests against cooling matter and thereby creates and foundations himself. In this regard, the general semantic universal of N.A. Berdyaev's philosophy of creativity is the idea that "a person is not in a complete and stabilized system of being, and only because a creative act of a person is possible and understandable" ^{[27, p. 495]}.

The philosophy of creativity of V.S. Solovyov and N.A. Berdyaev: common and different

In conclusion, it is necessary to briefly outline the main points of intersection of philosophical approaches to understanding the essence of the phenomenon of creativity by V.S. Solovyov and N.A. Berdyaev. The central idea uniting the teachings of these thinkers is the position of the creative essence of a person who, with the help of creativity, overcomes the facticity and necessity of the material world. At the same time, both philosophers note the ecstatic nature of creativity, its mystical background, as well as the foundation of creativity by imagination and inspiration. Revealing the creative essence of love, thinkers, nevertheless, postulate carnal reproduction as emasculating the spiritual and creative intentions of the subject. In this regard, the creation of creative works that capture eternal cultural values, in the teachings of philosophers, ontologically prevails over the creation of offspring, which is an institution of mortal existence. The key differences in the understanding of creativity by V.S. Solovyov and N.A. Berdyaev are abstractly recorded in the following table.