ISSN 0798 1015
ISSN 0798 1015
Vol. 38 (Nº 55) Year 2017. Páge 33
Aygul Zufarovna IBATOVA 1; Aleksandr Gennadievich ILIN 2
Received: 02/08/2017 • Approved: 30/08/2017
ABSTRACT: Creativity is an activity that generates something qualitatively new. Activities can be as creativity in any field: scientific, production, technology, art, and politics - where something new is being invented. Creativity can be considered in two aspects: psychological and philosophical. The psychology of creativity explores the process, the psychological "mechanism" of the creative act of the individual. Philosophy considers the question of the essence of creativity, which was put in different ways in different historical epochs. The problem of creativity is one of the traditional, so-called "eternal" problems of philosophy. It is rooted in the ancient era, in the "axial time" of human history and even further. Its emergence is associated with an interest in ontological problems in general: the problem of being, the origin of the world, the problem of "novelty", consciousness, and the problem of the possibility of cognition. Finally, it is associated with a complex of anthropological and aesthetic problems. Therefore, it is not surprising that attempts to comprehend the essence of creativity have been made throughout the history of philosophy and many thinkers have considered this problem and found their solutions to problems and answers to the question, what creativity is. |
RESUMEN: La creatividad - la actividad que genera algo cualitativamente nueva, nunca antes hecho. Las actividades pueden actuar como creativa en cualquier campo: científico, industrial, técnico, artístico, político - donde se crea, abierto, de inventar algo nuevo. La creatividad puede ser considerado en dos aspectos: la psicológica y filosófica. proceso de creación de la psicología examina el psicológica "mecanismo" percolación acto creativo como un acto individual subjetivo. Filosofía considera la cuestión de la esencia de la creatividad, que en muchos aspectos fue colocado en diferentes épocas históricas. El problema de la creatividad es uno de los tradicionales llamados problemas, "eterno" de la filosofía. Tiene sus raíces en la antigüedad, en la "era axial" de la historia humana y más allá. Su origen está conectado con un interés en los problemas ontológicos en general: de ser un problema, el problema del origen del mundo, "novedad" del problema, el problema de la conciencia, el problema de la posibilidad del conocimiento. Por último, se asocia con una serie de problemas antropológicos y estéticos. Por lo tanto, no es sorprendente que los intentos de comprender la esencia de la creatividad realizada a lo largo de la historia de la filosofía, y muchos pensadores de una manera u otra, en parte o en considerar más a fondo este problema y encontrar sus soluciones a los problemas y las respuestas a la pregunta, ¿qué es la creatividad. |
Anyway, in science we come to the problem of creativity. Аnthropological essence is in creativity, as in a certain kind of human activity. In this way thе man creates being from non-being and that is how man creates himself as a person. Here the meaning of the human unconscious also manifests itself, it is the source of creativity, a kind of primordial chaos from mythology, from which a new world is created.
This primordial chaos is nothing, - as a creative nothing in which the germs of all things are laid, from which a new ordered world is created, again in due course returns in its cyclicity to the original chaos. This alternation of order and chaos can be compared with the creative process of man. "The role of imagination in the spiritual and moral life of mankind is immense. There is a magic of imagination. Imagination creates reality magically. Without imagination, one can not only create a work of art, but no one can make a scientific or technical discovery, no one can draw up a plan for the organization of economic or state-legal life.
But imagination arises from the depths of the unconscious, from the bottomless freedom. Imagination is not only imitation, pre-existent prototypes, as platonism interprets, imagination is the creation of an image of non-existence from the depths of nonexistence, from the depths of potency. This leads us to the fact that the unconscious has a double meaning in human life. It is the source of human diseases, its conflict with consciousness and it is also a source of creativity, human inspiration, human imagination "[11, p. 82]. An example of the manifestation of the essential significance of such an unconscious can be called the role of utopia.
The article uses modern methodology of scientific research, reflecting the process of teaching students using creative methods of educational activity. The methods of analysis make it possible to decompose the learning process into components in order to better study and manage it. The synthesis method allows us to consider the learning process and the role of creative instincts in the given process as a whole. In addition, the cognitive methods used in the article make it possible to determine the role of training itself in the socialization of future specialists, as well as the level of necessary knowledge for future specialists.
Human consciousness develops from the unconscious: the order develops out of chaos. Hence the ancient Greek concepts of Cosmos and the Logos originate, here the Order is contrasted with Chaos, the consciousness develops and its understanding of the world development. It is in creativity that develops, and with it human subjectivity, by contrasting itself with the chaos of the unconscious. And only in creativity such subjectivity becomes holistic, justifying its existence, it becomes a person. So you can not break creativity and good, because only such an activity, which is oriented towards the formation of integrity, overcoming disunity, creating a new order can be considered as creativity [9].
A person creates himself. We can understand Hegel's words: : “Only that is real, which is reasonable”. Therefore, the basis for understanding the good for a person is reflection, which allows us to define ourselves in relation to the whole, as well as, apparently, the whole, which is responsible for its actions [10]. For science, this matters in the sense that without taking into account the role of creativity in scientific activity, we will receive a science that is a "servant" of modern civilization, and not its locomotive. Actually, the scope of scientific research should be determined by the needs of society, and not by the interests of various groups of influence within both society itself and science [8, p.215].
Therefore, creativity for the scientist is an activity that not only makes him the scientist-researcher or the inventor, but also manifests his social significance, although this significance for the researcher himself appears in the form of a rather utopian idea or may not be obvious at all. It is the attitude of the scientist as a person to reality that makes his activity significant socially, here, this significance is determined by science as a form of social consciousness. So scientific creative activity can as a systematic phenomenon outside science as a social institution.
The theme of the search for truth in social and humanitarian studies has a long enough history, but today it is such that it generates very acute disputes, and therefore is among the so-called eternal problems of epistemology [7, p.123]. At the same time, within the framework of the latter, there was a tradition to divide truth in the sciences of man and society from truth in the natural, technical sciences. The first one is associated primarily with the variability of the object of social and humanitarian knowledge with the inability to reflect accurately and adequately in the concept-categorical forms the essential properties of the unfolding of the human world.
On this basis, human sciences and human society are called inaccurate, and the truth is approximate. But when they talk about the sciences that study processes in nature, then they assert their "accuracy" precisely because they say that the objects of such sciences are always constant, such that they practically never change in nature [6, p.47] . Such an epistemological position compared truths in the humanities or social sciences with truth in the sciences of nature usually prefers the latter in the sense of adequacy and accuracy of mastering the world, and social and humanitarian conclusions are included in the category of truths only because they say that these sciences are "being served" , because they are still science.
Confirmation of the epistemological tradition shown above was undoubtedly facilitated by the search and exposure of a significant difference in the objects of the above-mentioned natural and human sciences. Indeed, how can the process change, for example, generation, germination, ripening of any plant. Practically no way. A person can speed up or slow down this process by his activity, but the essence of the process itself does not change [6, p.25]. A flower can not immediately be born from a seed, because first it must grow a stem!
Taking into cinsideration this peculiarity of the natural world, we can state a kind of eternal stability of the essence of this world. After all, it is possible to investigate the above-mentioned process of plant life more than once, practically unlimited number of times. And in this - a feature of truth in the natural sciences: it can be affirmed an unlimited number of times [5, p.76]. A completely different picture is formed when the researcher subjects social analysis to scientific analysis. There is really no a sustainable research object.
Because, for example, the Great French Revolution was in history only once, with the participation of specific life circumstances, in a particular country with its special people, people's mentality, traditions, historical experience, at the end with the participation of specific political forces, politicians and people. It can be repeated! The essence of such a concrete phenomenon can be tried to understand scientifically, only in comparison with similar phenomena in the history of people [12, p. 125].
It follows that the scholar's conclusions about the essence of such a social phenomenon as the Great French Revolution can be quite accurate in a specific historical time, but will always be relative in a timeless dimension. Then the question arises as to how the sciences of social being are possible at all, because it becomes all different with the development of history. And that is the question of the possibility of true knowledge in the human, public field. [4, 24].
It seems that a certain level of evidence of the existence of humanitarian knowledge as a truth can be formulated within the framework of a pluralistic methodology, in particular in the postmodern being vision. As you know, this theoretical trend in the philosophy of the second half of the last century does not yet exist as a single, organized direction, and therefore still awaits its systematic study. However, even the one who is now postmodernism is enough for our analysis.
In general, postmodernism, as experts point out, is a challenge to the "modernist project" of self-reflective, critical rationality and freedom that characterize the era from the Kantian conception of the Enlightenment to the Husserlian "return to things." The concept of Razio, existing in this project, inevitably leads to an apology for total control over civilization and is an integral part of the phenomenon of domination, it knows no obstacles in the enslavement of man and in cynical pleasures to the rulers of this world [1, p.866].
Translating this idea into the context of our topic, we can say that postmodernism, perhaps, most deeply represents the idea of the detrimental nature of the search for a single, complete truth, in which science it has not been formulated. However, it is precisely in the measurement of social and humanitarian knowledge that this conclusion is of exceptional importance. Since it makes it possible to find such a position on humanitarian truth, which, on the one hand, makes it possible to prove its presence on the objects of the world of man and society, on the other hand, it removes the question of its totality, universality. I will try to present my vision of humanitarian truth in the context of the above.
First, let me remind you that any theory pretends to be a scientific one if it is engaged in the search for truth and its achievement. On the other hand, the truth is an adequate reproduction in the cognition of objective reality, the result of a certain epistemological relationship determined by practice, in which the cognitive image of the subject appears as a true reflection of the actual state of the object [2, p.247]. Being an adequate reproduction in the subject's thinking of the essential features of the object, the truth itself is a kind of carrier of this essence, fixing its true state.
Social, human objects are always complex and dynamic, in fact the truth is a reflection of a certain, stable relationship in the structure of the object, that is, the law of its functioning. Thus, truth in its essence is a reflection in the subject's thinking of the objective laws of the functioning of the object. The truth in the sphere of social and humanitarian knowledge is an adequate notion-categorical reflection by the subject of the lawful properties, essence, law of the functioning of a social object (the being of man and society).
So, when we talk about truth in the sphere of social and humanitarian knowledge, we have its organic relationship with the essence of the object of this knowledge, namely, the essence of the social, human phenomenon. On the other hand, one must keep in mind the peculiarities of the functioning of social phenomena. Unlike natural objects that can be estimated in binary dimensions, the phenomena of the human, social world are never such. The phenomena of the human world are always procedural, and due to this they possess a peculiar plurality of spatio-temporal forms, each of which "sparkles" with its own essence [3]. Therefore, social, human phenomena or processes create the effect of a "polyhedron", each facet of which can not be understood with the help of one, even the most universal methodology. After all, every "facet" of the social, having its own specific essence, reveals it not always, but under certain social circumstances. And this means that it (this facet of social) requires an adequate "angle of view" for its recognition, its method. Therefore, raising the question of methodological pluralism in the study of social, human phenomena is not a tribute to fashion, but the necessary methodological principle of their adequate comprehension in order to search for true knowledge.
Understanding of the truth in humanitarian knowledge as a display of various essences (faces) of a social phenomenon methodologically makes it possible to solve the question of the essence and width of the reliability of a given truth. The pluralistic methodology applied to the study of social, human objects, gives grounds to assert that true humanitarian knowledge, undoubtedly, has the right to exist. On the other hand, it becomes obvious that there can not be a total, universal truth for even one social phenomenon, even if it is a phenomenon that is complex, dynamic, so it constantly unfolds its essence in the context of different, and often unpredictable by the person himself or the public of circumstances.
1. Industrial University of Tyumen, Russia. Contact e-mail: aigoul@rambler.ru
2. Elabuga Institute (branch) of Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, Elabuga Institute of KFU, Elabuga Institute.