The Origins of Creativity

Although at times repetitive or oddly anecdotal, E O Wilson is always engaging and brilliant in his assessment of both nature and the arts. Wilson promotes the need for a fusion of scientific knowledge and humanistic inquiry as the means for a new Enlightenment. The greatest opponent of this enterprise is religion, though I might add politics as well. After being educated in a post structural age where all beauty is supposedly a cultural construct, I find Wilson’s understanding of the origins of creativity compelling. His sensitivity to how and why we respond to beauty, as products of accident and a long prehistory of evolutionary adaptation, was spot on. I even came to understand why I like my home to be on a rise of land with trees nearby and water within sight. Yes, Virginia, there is a human nature.

The author, a well-known and respected naturalist, evolutionary biologist, Pulitzer Prize winner, and former Harvard professor, after noting that science has come to greatly exceed the humanities in popular interest and funding, argues that the two disciplines should be combined. That, he argues, would extend the reach of science and correct the alleged myopia of the humanities. The book is skillfully written and Wilson is obviously well qualified to discuss both fields of study. And while the conclusion he reaches is enticing, the path he takes to get there reflects, I believe, one of the defining fallacies of modern scientific inquiry. Dr. Wilson notes that science and philosophy co-existed on relatively equal footing during the Renaissance. Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, first published in 1687, includes the words mathematics and philosophy in its title and set the stage for the emerging science of physics. During the modern scientific era, however, the author notes, the two fields suffered a theoretical and practical split. I’m not sure that science ultimately rejected the legitimacy of philosophy isn’t a more accurate characterization, however. It is a subtle but important distinction, I think, because Wilson does not appear to be arguing for a merger of equals. It strikes me as more of a plea for humanities to finally come into the scientific tent, accepting the modern scientific definition of knowledge and study. He notes, for example, “To summarize, the humanities suffer from the following weaknesses: they are rootless in their explanations of causation and they exist within a bubble of sensory experience.” Regarding the former, the humanities are preoccupied with the human condition and ignore both causation and the rest of nature. And humans are audiovisual-centric, which, as a biologist, Wilson says puts us in a minority within the broad spectrum of existing species. Fair enough, but this is an introductory argument. He further states: “Regardless how subtle, fleeting, and personalized human thought may be, all of it has a physical basis ultimately explainable by the scientific method.” This, in the end, is the foundational premise of the scientific era in which we live. All intelligent reason, we’ve been taught to believe, is ultimately scientific. To this he then offers the foundational premise of modern evolutionary biology: “Nothing in science and the humanities makes sense except in the light of evolution.” As the “…grand master of evolution,” moreover, Wilson argues, “It is becoming increasingly clear that natural selection has programmed every bit of human biology…” While I personally accept evolution as the reality I’m not convinced we’ve figured it all out or that evolution is so superlatively all-inclusive. The study of evolution, and much of science, for that matter, is a search for patterns. Patterns, in turn, beget patterns. And patterns, it seems to me, are a human convention, not unlike language, of which there are 6,500 in the world. Patterns exist, of course, but fall short of “truth,” I think, because they can seldom be shown to be all-inclusive in explaining complex issues like, say, the meaning of life. This pre-occupation with pattern, I believe, is the fundamental reason so much scientific discovery is ultimately shown to be false or, at least, insufficient—patterns empower precognitive conclusion. Despite my hesitation to endorse the underlying theme and purpose of this book, I have nonetheless given it a four star rating. It is masterfully composed and the topic is worthy of both our highest praise and guarded skepticism. If you accept the underlying premises, you will consider this book to be a masterpiece and a must-read. The rest of us should read it simply because it will make you think. And that is always the grand prize of spending time with books.

Edward O. Wilson, is an Author, everyone should have a copy, any copy,in any subject to read, His books enrich your consious, in any question any subject, it makes you proude being human, more than often, corrects your steps into Life. Check the list of his great work. Great books to read and give away as gifts to any age. They will love to have them. In all honesty, I start read his work some 12 years ago, I am in my 80s. Michos Tzovaras

There is so much insight and vision bundled into one single book. Highly recommended. Thank you for your extensive and perceptive work.

Wilson began exploring the boundary between the sciences and humanities twenty years ago. If you found Consilience, his first book on the subject, intriguing, The Origins of Creativity will be striking and satisfying. Two decades of deep thinking by one of the most consequential scientists of our time has produced a beautifully written conclusive statement about the possibilities accessible to human thought, as well as the new questions we should be asking.

It was an interesting read.

…despite an unfortunate editorial oversight on page 50: Joseph Conrad is quoted as having written: “…that mysterious, almost miraculous, power of producing striking effects by means of detection, which is the last word of the highest art.” The quote will be accurate (and make sense!) if the word “impossible” is returned to its original home between “means” and “of.”

The reason why the two star review found much of the book to be wandering is due to the fact that the unifying device is the book Human Sin or Social Sin. If one reads Wilson in this context then you can get his larger points. For instance, in chapter one he defines creativity in the standard modernist fashion but ultimately dismissed it as “absurd.” Now the book Human Sin or Social Sin describes how modern art is ritual absurdity to subvert the beauty and greatness of the classical tradition. A psych prof with a PhD from Cambridge agreed with this assessment of how to read Wilson. The Wilson is really a form of peer review for Human Sin or Social Sin.

E.O. Wilson examines the nature of creativity, its place in human development and the way in which humanities distinguishes the human species from other living beings. Through clear progression of ideas and references that span the ages, Wilson opens the reader's eyes and mind to seeing the world in unique ways. I recomend this book to all who are interested in where we are in the universe and where our imagination can take us- including our limitations.

A beautiful and lyrically written view of humans and the humanities as they relate to the source of creativity!

Perfeito!!!!!!!!

J'ai trouvé ce livre décevant (édition en anglais). Je pensais trouver une réflexion sur la créativité d'un point de vue biologique mais le livre est plein de digressions sur les humanités, sur la passion de l'auteur pour les insectes et la nature et autres, ce qui n'est pas inintéressant mais hors sujet à mon avis. Un certain nombre de chapitres, 12 par exemple, reviennent à la biologie per se, mais je reste sur ma faim quand même.

Incredible... very informed and informative writer.