What do you think?
Rate this book
Originile creativității umane
Creativitatea este o trăsătură umană definitorie, iar explorarea originii acesteia ne poate ajuta să ne înțelegem mai bine ca indivizi și ca specie. Reflectând asupra dezvoltării cognitive a omului și asupra relației dintre știință și disciplinele umaniste, marele biolog E.O. Wilson așază într-o nouă lumină aspecte ale ființei noastre – precum capacitatea de a folosi limbajul, înclinația către poveste sau gustul pentru artă – fără de care apariția omului modern nu ar fi fost posibilă. Originile creativității umane este, astfel, o carte care, prin întrebările ei provocatoare, ne hrănește dorința de a ne cunoaște și de a ne descoperi afinitățile cu lumea naturală.
196 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2017
280 people are currently reading
2959 people want to read
About the author
Edward O. Wilson
201 books2,505 followersEdward Osborne Wilson, sometimes credited as E.O. Wilson, was an American biologist, researcher, theorist, and author. His biological specialty is myrmecology, a branch of entomology. A two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction, Wilson is known for his career as a scientist, his advocacy for environmentalism, and his secular-humanist ideas pertaining to religious and ethical matters. He was the Pellegrino University Research Professor in Entomology for the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He is a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 208 reviews
February 2, 2024
"Originile creativității umane” este o carte despre natura umană. Autorul susține că natura umană nu se regăsește în genele care îi prescriu alcătuirea și nici în caracteristicile culturale cele mai răspândite din populația umană actuală, ci în înclinația ereditară de a învăța anumite tipuri de comportament și de a evita altele - ceea ce psihologii numesc "învâțare programată" versus "învățare contraprogramată". Un
exemplu de învățare programată este faptul că bebelușii învață în mod automat limbajul articulat. La învățare contraprogramată ar intra fobiile de șerpi și păianjeni.
Cartea are și-un substrat filozofic. Autorul militează pentru contopirea științelor exacte cu cele umaniste. Știintele umaniste nu pot afla cauzele ultime, nu pot răspunde la întrebarea "De ce?". Științele exacte nu pot emite judecăți morale și de valoare. Doar împreună își pot combate neajunsurile. Edward O. Wilson a găsit chiar o punte de legătură între cele două domenii reprezentată de "cei cinci mari": antropologia, paleontologia, psihologia, neuroștiințele și biologia evoluționistă.
Edward O. Wilson este considerat fondatorul sociobiologiei.
Recomand
exemplu de învățare programată este faptul că bebelușii învață în mod automat limbajul articulat. La învățare contraprogramată ar intra fobiile de șerpi și păianjeni.
Cartea are și-un substrat filozofic. Autorul militează pentru contopirea științelor exacte cu cele umaniste. Știintele umaniste nu pot afla cauzele ultime, nu pot răspunde la întrebarea "De ce?". Științele exacte nu pot emite judecăți morale și de valoare. Doar împreună își pot combate neajunsurile. Edward O. Wilson a găsit chiar o punte de legătură între cele două domenii reprezentată de "cei cinci mari": antropologia, paleontologia, psihologia, neuroștiințele și biologia evoluționistă.
Edward O. Wilson este considerat fondatorul sociobiologiei.
Recomand
December 25, 2017
I have argued more than once that the advice to “write what you know” is not very sound. After all, where would science fiction be if everyone followed that rule? When it comes to nonfiction, though, I think it applies. Edward O. Wilson is an esteemed scientist and deservedly so. He has written over thirty books and hundreds of papers and he knows a lot, but nonetheless, in The Origins of Creativity he clearly wanders far past his expertise and it shows in the somewhat shambolic organization and meandering arguments.
As someone who loves the humanities, who studied literature and history and loves art and music, I am happy that such a renowned scientist wants to defend the humanities in this era of retrenchment. Wilson certainly does a good job of showing how terribly the humanities are neglected and devalued, comparing funding for humanities to funding for science, technology, engineering and math, the STEM discliplines. The STEM vs. humanities facts are dismal and depressing. I am glad Wilson wants to step forward to defend the humanities, though I wonder if he has never heard of STEAM.
However, Wilson’s deep regard for the humanities comes across as damning with fulsome praise. We need the humanities, they are the locus of creativity which is what makes us human, he argues. So why are the humanities under-valued? According to Wilson, they are too anthropocentric–too much about humanity. Worse, the humanities do not look to biology and evolutionary science to explain human behavior and causation. They are trapped in human sensory experience. I get the idea he thinks there is too much humanity in the humanities. His entire complaint with the humanities is distilled into the simple fact they are not science.
He wants a fusion of science and the humanities which he believes could touch off a new enlightenment. If only practitioners of the arts would incorporate his “Big Five” fields: paleontology, anthropology, psychology, evolutionary biology, and neurobiology then a new day would dawn and the fullness of the arts would blossom.
I struggled with The Origins of Creativity, not because it is difficult to understand but because it irritated me. I had to walk away, put it down and come back after venting a bit. Of course, that it irritated me speaks to Wilson’s ability to engage. That he does! This book had me calling up a friend of mine to vent. (She’s been on a Wilson-hiatus since Consilience.) There’s something to be said for books that get you worked up, even if what they do is make you angry.
There’s a falsity to a scientist emphasizing the importance of the humanities while simultaneously arguing that the humanities need to stop being what they are and be more like science. The humanities are too anthropocentric, he argues, which made me wonder what they should be called then.
However, I think this book fails in the end because Wilson merely asserts; he does not back up what he asserts. Are the humanities too anthropocentric? Maybe. Wilson says so, but why should I take his word for it? By what measure? What would humanities be if not centered on humanity?
Wilson seems to be out over his skis. He’s well-read and has a grasp of fine art, poetry, music, and literature, but that does not make him a good prescriber for the humanities. Strangely, why does he not talk about neuroaesthetics, the relatively new science that seeks to understand what underlies aesthetic perception?
The Origins of Creativity also fails because it does not tell us what the origins of creativity are. In fact, that focus is quickly dropped as Wilson moves on damning the humanities with faint praise. The book wanders, turns, repeats, stumbling back over itself as though it were just written off the top of his head–though that would be impressive given the many long quotes. But to give an example, he writes about the Big Five sciences and then later in the book, writes about them again with the same explanation as though it were the first time they came up. This speaks to disorganization which might be why so many of his assertions rely on “because I said so” instead of evidence.
I received an e-galley of The Origins of Creativity from the publisher through NetGalley.
The Origins of Creativity at W. W. Norton & Company
Edward O. Wilson at E. O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation
https://tonstantweaderreviews.wordpre...
As someone who loves the humanities, who studied literature and history and loves art and music, I am happy that such a renowned scientist wants to defend the humanities in this era of retrenchment. Wilson certainly does a good job of showing how terribly the humanities are neglected and devalued, comparing funding for humanities to funding for science, technology, engineering and math, the STEM discliplines. The STEM vs. humanities facts are dismal and depressing. I am glad Wilson wants to step forward to defend the humanities, though I wonder if he has never heard of STEAM.
However, Wilson’s deep regard for the humanities comes across as damning with fulsome praise. We need the humanities, they are the locus of creativity which is what makes us human, he argues. So why are the humanities under-valued? According to Wilson, they are too anthropocentric–too much about humanity. Worse, the humanities do not look to biology and evolutionary science to explain human behavior and causation. They are trapped in human sensory experience. I get the idea he thinks there is too much humanity in the humanities. His entire complaint with the humanities is distilled into the simple fact they are not science.
He wants a fusion of science and the humanities which he believes could touch off a new enlightenment. If only practitioners of the arts would incorporate his “Big Five” fields: paleontology, anthropology, psychology, evolutionary biology, and neurobiology then a new day would dawn and the fullness of the arts would blossom.
I struggled with The Origins of Creativity, not because it is difficult to understand but because it irritated me. I had to walk away, put it down and come back after venting a bit. Of course, that it irritated me speaks to Wilson’s ability to engage. That he does! This book had me calling up a friend of mine to vent. (She’s been on a Wilson-hiatus since Consilience.) There’s something to be said for books that get you worked up, even if what they do is make you angry.
There’s a falsity to a scientist emphasizing the importance of the humanities while simultaneously arguing that the humanities need to stop being what they are and be more like science. The humanities are too anthropocentric, he argues, which made me wonder what they should be called then.
However, I think this book fails in the end because Wilson merely asserts; he does not back up what he asserts. Are the humanities too anthropocentric? Maybe. Wilson says so, but why should I take his word for it? By what measure? What would humanities be if not centered on humanity?
Wilson seems to be out over his skis. He’s well-read and has a grasp of fine art, poetry, music, and literature, but that does not make him a good prescriber for the humanities. Strangely, why does he not talk about neuroaesthetics, the relatively new science that seeks to understand what underlies aesthetic perception?
The Origins of Creativity also fails because it does not tell us what the origins of creativity are. In fact, that focus is quickly dropped as Wilson moves on damning the humanities with faint praise. The book wanders, turns, repeats, stumbling back over itself as though it were just written off the top of his head–though that would be impressive given the many long quotes. But to give an example, he writes about the Big Five sciences and then later in the book, writes about them again with the same explanation as though it were the first time they came up. This speaks to disorganization which might be why so many of his assertions rely on “because I said so” instead of evidence.
I received an e-galley of The Origins of Creativity from the publisher through NetGalley.
The Origins of Creativity at W. W. Norton & Company
Edward O. Wilson at E. O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation
https://tonstantweaderreviews.wordpre...
February 5, 2021
Entomologist Edward O. Wilson examines the relationship between the humanities and the sciences. He traces the origins of human creativity, which he defines as “the innate quest for originality,” back one hundred thousand years. Wilson proposes that humankind needs “a third enlightenment,” a new philosophy that unites arts and sciences to achieve a more meaningful existence. The book begins with history – the development of language, abstract thinking, intelligence, and cooperation. He explains the factors that allowed homo sapiens to thrive. He then moves into some of the challenges faced by the separate branches of humanities and sciences, before moving into his final argument of the need for a combined approach.
This book reads like a script for a documentary. The scientific sections may be dry for those without a keen interest. Wilson occasionally ventures off topic, but these diversions expanded my knowledge. He includes appealing anecdotes on literary works, metaphors, archetypes, music, great films, and the natural world. “The grail to be sought is the nature of consciousness, and how it originated.”
Wilson introduces a number of thought-provoking questions, but I do not think his intent is to provide all the answers. In fact, he suggests we do not yet have the answers and that by combining forces, in the humanities and the sciences, we can leap forward, breaking through current barriers and advancing civilization. Definitely worth the time.
This book reads like a script for a documentary. The scientific sections may be dry for those without a keen interest. Wilson occasionally ventures off topic, but these diversions expanded my knowledge. He includes appealing anecdotes on literary works, metaphors, archetypes, music, great films, and the natural world. “The grail to be sought is the nature of consciousness, and how it originated.”
Wilson introduces a number of thought-provoking questions, but I do not think his intent is to provide all the answers. In fact, he suggests we do not yet have the answers and that by combining forces, in the humanities and the sciences, we can leap forward, breaking through current barriers and advancing civilization. Definitely worth the time.
December 8, 2019
Edward O. Wilson é um célebre biólogo americano com uma extensíssima carreira. Académico em Harvard de 1956 a 1996, continua ainda hoje a desenvolver trabalho, estudo e a escrever livros, depois de ter feito 90 anos em junho deste ano. Apesar da sua área ser as ciências naturais, Wilson é reconhecido pela sua enorme multidisciplinaridade, tendo defendido métodos para aproximar e conduzir à convergência, as ciências e as humanidades, no seu livro “Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge” (1998). Este “The Origins of Creativity” (2017) é apenas um dos 16 livros que Wilson escreveu já neste século, depois de se ter reformado de Harvard.
Contextualizado o autor, perceber-se-á melhor a razão do interesse deste livro e simultaneamente a decepção. “The Origins of Creativity” não é, nem de perto, um livro sobre criatividade. É mais a soma de um conjunto de textos soltos, arrolados por interesses próximos e publicados no formato de livro. Deste modo, ao longo do livro encontramos ideias de grande relevância e impacto, contudo por não existir um trabalho cuidado de edição das ideias, estas acabam por nunca ser devidamente aprofundadas, e nalguns casos, algumas das questões levantadas nunca chegam sequer a ser respondidas. Por outro lado, o livro apresenta uma linguagem bastante acessível e Wilson é inexcedível em fornecer exemplos das mais variadas áreas, demonstrando a sua enorme erudição.
O foco do livro está todo na evolução do Homo Sapiens, dirigido para a questão que já tinha tentado responder em Consilience, ou seja, como é que podemos juntar as ciências e humanidades. Para Wilson é evidente que não existe criatividade sem ambos os lados, contudo os perfis mais criativos tendem a conviver melhor com a mescla e fusão de ambos os lados, o que não acontece quando se está demasiado colado a um dos perfis apenas. Wilson diz ter uma proposta para juntar esses lados ou perfis, mas nunca chega a concretizá-la. Existem partes no livro em que parece aproximar-se da proposta de Denis Dutton, de juntar as neurociências e psicologias cognitiva e social nos seus contornos evolucionistas ao interpretativismo das humanidades, algo com que concordo plenamente. Noutras partes, questiona a “obsessão” das humanidades pelo humano (!) frisando que estas deveriam ir além, tal como usar as tecnologias para ver o mundo a partir de outras perspetivas, como por exemplo as capacidades sensoriais de outras espécies que lhes permitem ver realidades distintas das nossas. Wilson chega mesmo a evocar a realidade virtual para ajudar nesta senda, mas depois não concretiza, e a proposta é, para quem trabalha no domínio da RV, fruto do mero deslumbramento tecnológico. No último capítulo, “O Terceiro Iluminismo”, Wilson volta a perder-se, lançando supostas grandes questões filosóficas da união entre a ciência e humanidade, que não vão além das mesmas já colocadas por todos aqueles que antes ousaram questionar-se a si mesmos.
No meio de todos estes problemas, surge a superficialidade por meio muitos buracos e pontas soltas, existem contudo vários traços da genialidade de Wilson que aproveito para aqui registar e divulgar. Deixo os excertos em inglês, porque não tenho a versão digital do livro português:
A narração como instantâneo (p.50)
“Postmodern narrations and for that matter all fiction worth its mettle, does what science cannot: it provides an exact snapshot of a segment of culture in a particular place and time. The productions are like photographs that preserve for all time not just the people as they actually seemed, looked, or even truly were, including their dress and posture and facial expressions, but also the surroundings most important to them—their homes, their pets, their transportation, their trails and streets."
(..)
“Fine novels and antique photographs are pixels of history. Put together, they create an image of existence as people actually lived it, day by day, hour by hour, and in the case of literature, the emotions they felt. Finally, they trace some of the seemingly endless consequences that followed. ”
O poder da ciência e a míngua nas humanidades (p.81)
“Our most celebrated heroes are not poets or scientists; few Americans can name even a dozen of either living among us. Our heroes instead are billionaires, start-up innovators, nationally ranked entertainers, and champion athletes.”
(..)
“Science and technology have been supported massively by taxes from the American people for what is generally considered the public good. (..) The humanities, in contrast, are supported primarily by educational institutions (..) In the competition between science and the humanities for funds provided by the American people, the humanities rank consistently lower than science.”
(..)
“Americans are often reminded that research and development in basic science are good for the nation. That is obviously true. But it is equally true for the humanities, all across their domain from philosophy and jurisprudence to literature and history. They preserve our values. They turn us into patriots and not just cooperating citizens. They make clear why we abide by law built upon moral precepts and do not depend on inspired leadership by autocratic rulers. They remind us that in ancient times science itself was a dependent child of the humanities. It was called “natural philosophy.”
Why then are the humanities kept on starvation rations?
Partly because so much of our available resources are appropriated by organized religions.”
A importância das humanidades (p.177)
“The critic Helen Vendler broadens the key question as well as can be phrased: «If there did not exist, floating over us, all the symbolic representations that art and music, religion, philosophy, and history, have invented, and afterward all the interpretations and explanations of them that scholarly activity have passed on, what sort of people would we be?»
Neither the question nor the answer is rhetorical. ”
Publicado no VI: https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...
Contextualizado o autor, perceber-se-á melhor a razão do interesse deste livro e simultaneamente a decepção. “The Origins of Creativity” não é, nem de perto, um livro sobre criatividade. É mais a soma de um conjunto de textos soltos, arrolados por interesses próximos e publicados no formato de livro. Deste modo, ao longo do livro encontramos ideias de grande relevância e impacto, contudo por não existir um trabalho cuidado de edição das ideias, estas acabam por nunca ser devidamente aprofundadas, e nalguns casos, algumas das questões levantadas nunca chegam sequer a ser respondidas. Por outro lado, o livro apresenta uma linguagem bastante acessível e Wilson é inexcedível em fornecer exemplos das mais variadas áreas, demonstrando a sua enorme erudição.
O foco do livro está todo na evolução do Homo Sapiens, dirigido para a questão que já tinha tentado responder em Consilience, ou seja, como é que podemos juntar as ciências e humanidades. Para Wilson é evidente que não existe criatividade sem ambos os lados, contudo os perfis mais criativos tendem a conviver melhor com a mescla e fusão de ambos os lados, o que não acontece quando se está demasiado colado a um dos perfis apenas. Wilson diz ter uma proposta para juntar esses lados ou perfis, mas nunca chega a concretizá-la. Existem partes no livro em que parece aproximar-se da proposta de Denis Dutton, de juntar as neurociências e psicologias cognitiva e social nos seus contornos evolucionistas ao interpretativismo das humanidades, algo com que concordo plenamente. Noutras partes, questiona a “obsessão” das humanidades pelo humano (!) frisando que estas deveriam ir além, tal como usar as tecnologias para ver o mundo a partir de outras perspetivas, como por exemplo as capacidades sensoriais de outras espécies que lhes permitem ver realidades distintas das nossas. Wilson chega mesmo a evocar a realidade virtual para ajudar nesta senda, mas depois não concretiza, e a proposta é, para quem trabalha no domínio da RV, fruto do mero deslumbramento tecnológico. No último capítulo, “O Terceiro Iluminismo”, Wilson volta a perder-se, lançando supostas grandes questões filosóficas da união entre a ciência e humanidade, que não vão além das mesmas já colocadas por todos aqueles que antes ousaram questionar-se a si mesmos.
No meio de todos estes problemas, surge a superficialidade por meio muitos buracos e pontas soltas, existem contudo vários traços da genialidade de Wilson que aproveito para aqui registar e divulgar. Deixo os excertos em inglês, porque não tenho a versão digital do livro português:
A narração como instantâneo (p.50)
“Postmodern narrations and for that matter all fiction worth its mettle, does what science cannot: it provides an exact snapshot of a segment of culture in a particular place and time. The productions are like photographs that preserve for all time not just the people as they actually seemed, looked, or even truly were, including their dress and posture and facial expressions, but also the surroundings most important to them—their homes, their pets, their transportation, their trails and streets."
(..)
“Fine novels and antique photographs are pixels of history. Put together, they create an image of existence as people actually lived it, day by day, hour by hour, and in the case of literature, the emotions they felt. Finally, they trace some of the seemingly endless consequences that followed. ”
O poder da ciência e a míngua nas humanidades (p.81)
“Our most celebrated heroes are not poets or scientists; few Americans can name even a dozen of either living among us. Our heroes instead are billionaires, start-up innovators, nationally ranked entertainers, and champion athletes.”
(..)
“Science and technology have been supported massively by taxes from the American people for what is generally considered the public good. (..) The humanities, in contrast, are supported primarily by educational institutions (..) In the competition between science and the humanities for funds provided by the American people, the humanities rank consistently lower than science.”
(..)
“Americans are often reminded that research and development in basic science are good for the nation. That is obviously true. But it is equally true for the humanities, all across their domain from philosophy and jurisprudence to literature and history. They preserve our values. They turn us into patriots and not just cooperating citizens. They make clear why we abide by law built upon moral precepts and do not depend on inspired leadership by autocratic rulers. They remind us that in ancient times science itself was a dependent child of the humanities. It was called “natural philosophy.”
Why then are the humanities kept on starvation rations?
Partly because so much of our available resources are appropriated by organized religions.”
A importância das humanidades (p.177)
“The critic Helen Vendler broadens the key question as well as can be phrased: «If there did not exist, floating over us, all the symbolic representations that art and music, religion, philosophy, and history, have invented, and afterward all the interpretations and explanations of them that scholarly activity have passed on, what sort of people would we be?»
Neither the question nor the answer is rhetorical. ”
Publicado no VI: https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...
February 10, 2021
This book is about the relationship between the humanities and the sciences and their roots in human creativity and what it means to be human. When did humans start being creative, well the answer is a lot longer ago than you think. The fields under investigation include palaeontology, anthropology, psychology, evolutionary biology, and neurobiology.
The book ends on such a positive note about scientists and scholars in the humanities serving as the leaders of a new philosophy which will become the Third Enlightenment, an enlightenment that will endure and allow people to understand that all people have a single country, the Earth, and a single home, the world. These final words come from a prayer for reason by Diogenes, which is still visible in its original form in Greece.
The book ends on such a positive note about scientists and scholars in the humanities serving as the leaders of a new philosophy which will become the Third Enlightenment, an enlightenment that will endure and allow people to understand that all people have a single country, the Earth, and a single home, the world. These final words come from a prayer for reason by Diogenes, which is still visible in its original form in Greece.
March 22, 2018
Struggling to stay on message
This is a curious book. It is titled “The Origins of Creativity” - a hefty topic. It is also, at 250 odd pages, not a weighty book, and therefore it doesn’t come as a surprise that the author appears to dive right into why humans are unique, and why that makes them uniquely creative.
But somewhere soon after setting off on this path, he takes turn into a by lane and from there on just wanders along. What starts out as history then becomes a series of comments expressing the author’s personal views on culture, language etc. which frankly should have been better expressed elsewhere.
Taking the title of the book quite literally, Prof Wilson focusses not on the chemical actions in the brain and neurological impulses that may lead us to being creative, but instead sees the conditions and lives of pre-historic humans as the source of human creativity. The physical human brain went through a period of the growth of 3X its original size in the earliest versions of mankind and he believes this to be the key element that made us different from all other animals. The larger brains provided larger memories, which enabled internal storytelling eventually leading to unprecedented creativity and culture. He also believes that the discovery of fire, apart from enabling meat to be cooked and thus leading to the growth in brain size, also led to providing an environment conducive to story telling - the communal huddle around a fire, which gave protection from the darkness and dangers outside.
Language and art then followed. Art was probably also a means to help us cope with the downside of consciousness and self-awareness that our large brains uniquely gave us – they distracted us from the knowledge of our mortality. And Prof Wilson believes that inventing language and moving on to symbolic language is the supreme achievement of humankind. As he writes, without language, we would have remained animals. And without metaphors, we would have been savages.
So far so good. But from here on the book goes off in all sorts of directions. This is not unbefitting someone who loves language, but also developed a great love for the natural world as the only constant as he rotated through 14 schools during the time of Great Depression. A trained entomologist, naturalist and biologist, the author however starts veering off topic when he starts focusing on the state of humanities education, and starts castigating it.
In his opinion, humanities have fallen out of favour and stagnated as they have remained anthropocentric (i.e. focused exclusively on humans and through the eyes of humans), and have also failed to explore why we evolved rather than how we evolved. The criticism is that we are largely blind to the environment around us, and to the pre-history beyond that captured by history. This sounds a bit too generic and its not clear what he is trying to direct here. He also castigates most scientists as journeymen, who are increasingly specialists. There is a point here about staying in silos, but to dismiss most scientists with a slightly pejorative term is unfair. Unhappy with the state of both sciences and humanities, he laments that scientists prefer to be acclaimed by peers rather than by the public. On the other hand, philosophy has become incoherent due its inattention to science.
This lack of focus robs “The Origins of Creativity” from what would otherwise have been a thought provoking book. And other topics that flit randomly in and out of the text would also have been better served as standalone essays, rather than being sprung suddenly at the unsuspecting reader. Among those are: How should we measure creativity? What are the realms of science and humanities? What is the most beautiful animal in the world? How do humans select habitat?
These are interesting subjects, and the author’s erudition shows in his passion and knowledge of a wide range of subjects, but these are a misfit in a book that doesn’t quite fully deliver what it promises on the cover.
This is a curious book. It is titled “The Origins of Creativity” - a hefty topic. It is also, at 250 odd pages, not a weighty book, and therefore it doesn’t come as a surprise that the author appears to dive right into why humans are unique, and why that makes them uniquely creative.
But somewhere soon after setting off on this path, he takes turn into a by lane and from there on just wanders along. What starts out as history then becomes a series of comments expressing the author’s personal views on culture, language etc. which frankly should have been better expressed elsewhere.
Taking the title of the book quite literally, Prof Wilson focusses not on the chemical actions in the brain and neurological impulses that may lead us to being creative, but instead sees the conditions and lives of pre-historic humans as the source of human creativity. The physical human brain went through a period of the growth of 3X its original size in the earliest versions of mankind and he believes this to be the key element that made us different from all other animals. The larger brains provided larger memories, which enabled internal storytelling eventually leading to unprecedented creativity and culture. He also believes that the discovery of fire, apart from enabling meat to be cooked and thus leading to the growth in brain size, also led to providing an environment conducive to story telling - the communal huddle around a fire, which gave protection from the darkness and dangers outside.
Language and art then followed. Art was probably also a means to help us cope with the downside of consciousness and self-awareness that our large brains uniquely gave us – they distracted us from the knowledge of our mortality. And Prof Wilson believes that inventing language and moving on to symbolic language is the supreme achievement of humankind. As he writes, without language, we would have remained animals. And without metaphors, we would have been savages.
So far so good. But from here on the book goes off in all sorts of directions. This is not unbefitting someone who loves language, but also developed a great love for the natural world as the only constant as he rotated through 14 schools during the time of Great Depression. A trained entomologist, naturalist and biologist, the author however starts veering off topic when he starts focusing on the state of humanities education, and starts castigating it.
In his opinion, humanities have fallen out of favour and stagnated as they have remained anthropocentric (i.e. focused exclusively on humans and through the eyes of humans), and have also failed to explore why we evolved rather than how we evolved. The criticism is that we are largely blind to the environment around us, and to the pre-history beyond that captured by history. This sounds a bit too generic and its not clear what he is trying to direct here. He also castigates most scientists as journeymen, who are increasingly specialists. There is a point here about staying in silos, but to dismiss most scientists with a slightly pejorative term is unfair. Unhappy with the state of both sciences and humanities, he laments that scientists prefer to be acclaimed by peers rather than by the public. On the other hand, philosophy has become incoherent due its inattention to science.
This lack of focus robs “The Origins of Creativity” from what would otherwise have been a thought provoking book. And other topics that flit randomly in and out of the text would also have been better served as standalone essays, rather than being sprung suddenly at the unsuspecting reader. Among those are: How should we measure creativity? What are the realms of science and humanities? What is the most beautiful animal in the world? How do humans select habitat?
These are interesting subjects, and the author’s erudition shows in his passion and knowledge of a wide range of subjects, but these are a misfit in a book that doesn’t quite fully deliver what it promises on the cover.
July 23, 2020
I’ve always seen creativity as the most valuable trait that humans possess. Unfortunately, biases led to a widening schism between sciences and humanities, which is also quite limiting when we subconsciously categorize humans and put labels on their personalities – more into sciences can’t get mixed with more into creative things. In “The Origins of Creativity” Edward O. Wilson is trying to show the deep connection between science and creativity, which – given his perspective – don’t only intertwine, but actually have the same roots, in our unlimited curiosity. And these origins are buried deep in our evolutionary path, the first evidence of creativity lasting from over one hundred thousand years ago.
The author defines the human conscience as combined – being able to understand both the outer world and the forces that govern the universe (this being the essence of sciences) and the inner reality, consisting of all things the human mind can imagine (meaning humanities). Even if he supports humanities and tries to interpret them using a scientific approach, Wilson states that they are not complete, limited to our human nature. True, but even if we were to expand this field to what all other species felt and experienced, they would still be limited. Some species have senses that we don’t, such as echolocation, infrared and ultraviolet vision or electric and magnetic sense. But even so, any kind of life that evolved in a certain environment (the earth, in this case) would have evolved with respect to that reference system, so we can’t talk about an objective experience.
There are many other subjects covered in this book, and even though he doesn't come with a direct answer about the origins of creativity, he talks about the common origin arts and sciences have, which is really interesting. More about it on my blog
The author defines the human conscience as combined – being able to understand both the outer world and the forces that govern the universe (this being the essence of sciences) and the inner reality, consisting of all things the human mind can imagine (meaning humanities). Even if he supports humanities and tries to interpret them using a scientific approach, Wilson states that they are not complete, limited to our human nature. True, but even if we were to expand this field to what all other species felt and experienced, they would still be limited. Some species have senses that we don’t, such as echolocation, infrared and ultraviolet vision or electric and magnetic sense. But even so, any kind of life that evolved in a certain environment (the earth, in this case) would have evolved with respect to that reference system, so we can’t talk about an objective experience.
There are many other subjects covered in this book, and even though he doesn't come with a direct answer about the origins of creativity, he talks about the common origin arts and sciences have, which is really interesting. More about it on my blog
April 19, 2021
This was a quick read. I didn't get much out of it:
· !Kung Bushmen (the Ju/'hoansi) have marked differences in their daytime and firelight talk: daytime is focused on travel and search for food and water; in the evening it is storytelling, singing and dancing [is that so different from us?]
·lthe missing link between ancestral wasps and modern ants had wasp mandibles, an ant waist and antennae intermdiate (Sphecomyra)
· over 98% of species that ever lived have vanished
· a Great Dane has a life span of six years; a Chihuahua twenty
· some northern conifers live a century; some sequoias and pines for millennia
· without the invention of language we would have remained animals; without metaphors we would be savages
Some i already knew but it is good to get a reminder. I don't necessarily agree with the statements but am pondering the last concept.
· !Kung Bushmen (the Ju/'hoansi) have marked differences in their daytime and firelight talk: daytime is focused on travel and search for food and water; in the evening it is storytelling, singing and dancing [is that so different from us?]
·lthe missing link between ancestral wasps and modern ants had wasp mandibles, an ant waist and antennae intermdiate (Sphecomyra)
· over 98% of species that ever lived have vanished
· a Great Dane has a life span of six years; a Chihuahua twenty
· some northern conifers live a century; some sequoias and pines for millennia
· without the invention of language we would have remained animals; without metaphors we would be savages
Some i already knew but it is good to get a reminder. I don't necessarily agree with the statements but am pondering the last concept.
October 16, 2017
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…” This conviction, of course, leads Wilson to reject all forms of the creation story held by organized religion.
While I personally accept evolution I’m not convinced we’re 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.
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…” This conviction, of course, leads Wilson to reject all forms of the creation story held by organized religion.
While I personally accept evolution I’m not convinced we’re 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.
May 17, 2018
I disagree with the author's premises, so I'm going to present my argument.
"Creativity is the unique and defining trait of our species..." No, it's not. We have observed creativity many times in other species. Tool-making monkeys and apes. Song-making birds and whales. Evasive tactics by insects. Fight and flight tactics by hunter and prey.
"...and its ultimate goal, self-understanding." This is so obviously speculation that no counterargument is called for. It shouldn't be asserted as fact.
"What, then, is creativity? It is the innate quest for originality." No, it's not. The father of invention may be wit, but the mother is necessity. It's not because we crave novelty that we devise a way to keep the basement from flooding. It's because we want the basement dry.
"We judge creativity by the magnitude of the emotional response it evokes." Only rarely. Emotional response is usually too busy taking stock of beauty, danger, commitment, loss, or a hundred other things. Neither am I ready to take as a given the proposition that aesthetic judgment is emotional.
I did enjoy this reported fact: "A team of psychologists... found that volunteers disliked sitting alone for even as little as six minutes with nothing to do but think. They enjoyed mundane external activities more. They even preferred administering electric shocks to themselves if nothing else was available."
Given a choice between administering electric shocks to myself and reading any farther into this book, I guess it would depend on the severity of the shock.
"Creativity is the unique and defining trait of our species..." No, it's not. We have observed creativity many times in other species. Tool-making monkeys and apes. Song-making birds and whales. Evasive tactics by insects. Fight and flight tactics by hunter and prey.
"...and its ultimate goal, self-understanding." This is so obviously speculation that no counterargument is called for. It shouldn't be asserted as fact.
"What, then, is creativity? It is the innate quest for originality." No, it's not. The father of invention may be wit, but the mother is necessity. It's not because we crave novelty that we devise a way to keep the basement from flooding. It's because we want the basement dry.
"We judge creativity by the magnitude of the emotional response it evokes." Only rarely. Emotional response is usually too busy taking stock of beauty, danger, commitment, loss, or a hundred other things. Neither am I ready to take as a given the proposition that aesthetic judgment is emotional.
I did enjoy this reported fact: "A team of psychologists... found that volunteers disliked sitting alone for even as little as six minutes with nothing to do but think. They enjoyed mundane external activities more. They even preferred administering electric shocks to themselves if nothing else was available."
Given a choice between administering electric shocks to myself and reading any farther into this book, I guess it would depend on the severity of the shock.
January 9, 2018
Five discs worth of pablum read by an insipid reader. I did learn a few things but paid a heavy price for expanding my knowledge. What ever there was of interest was left crammed into my cortices by a pummeling of pusillanimous repetition of vague opinions masquerading as sagacity and irretrievably inaccessible beneath layers of the author's self invested aggrandizement.
I am glad he had a life time of fun looking for new ants but the pursuit of these colonizing wonders seems to have only pointed him in the direction of wondering about the fusion of humanities and science without giving him any insight whatsoever into what that symbiosis might actually look like.
We did get to hear a list of his favorite movies though. In the end I was delighted that he failed in short order and the book came to an abrupt end long before I might have considered suicide as acceptable relief from the sonic torture of our esteemed reader.
I am glad he had a life time of fun looking for new ants but the pursuit of these colonizing wonders seems to have only pointed him in the direction of wondering about the fusion of humanities and science without giving him any insight whatsoever into what that symbiosis might actually look like.
We did get to hear a list of his favorite movies though. In the end I was delighted that he failed in short order and the book came to an abrupt end long before I might have considered suicide as acceptable relief from the sonic torture of our esteemed reader.
April 16, 2018
I am always curious to see what Dr. Wilson has to say in his increasingly ambitious discussions of science and society. By looking at the tiny world of ants, he has been reflecting on our place in the planet and, sadly, considering if we’re going to have any future as species. He is one of the most intelligent writers out there, and he doesn’t disappoint, although perhaps he takes off in a few wild tangents here and there.
The issue of human creativity, and furthermore—or further away—the confrontation between science and the humanities, used to be a topic (or “the” topic, if you are like me, a scientist who occasionally swam in a pool of artists) of the educated conversations. The book is a refresher course in many of the aspects of this cultural divide that, although sometimes currently hidden, it’s a fault that produces big earthquakes. He brings back to the forefront the battle between the “two cultures” and tries to navigate from them into the deep well of human creation.
Artist says—or used to say—that you should paint or write about your village, if you hope to be universal. E.O. Wilson is a living example of this, a great mind that started fascinated by something really small and specific—watching insects on a field—and in concentric circles of thinking, connected it with everything else in the world. This book is his inner meditation, back and forth in time, both deep and superficial, but also having the feeling of touring the mind of one of the great living scientists.
As a sample, Wilson defines the realm of humanities as vast, and approaches it humbly. “Science owns the warrant to explore everything deemed factual and possible, but the humanities, borne aloft by both fact and fantasy, have the power of everything not only possible but also conceivable.” He then suggests that we should reach a new Enlightenment, where the ultimate goal for humanities would be “to blend with science […] we need a unified humanities and science to construct a full and honest picture of what we truly are and what we can become.” Just a sample of some of this book’s beautiful ideas.
We also learn some things about the master, some almost unbelievable—Did he really say he’s afraid of spiders?—and others delightful—he provides a fun list of movies and the archetypes they represent. Some of the inclusions (Lethal Weapon? The Indiana Jones series?) are both funny and unexpected. It seems he’d loved “Europa Report” and “The Martian” as much as I did. This is not to say the book is light fare, and there’s a lot of heady stuff, including numerous references to philosophers and writers, and a beautiful index that would take you to all places in a book that’s deceptively short but can confuse the casual reader with its swift shifts of direction.
Sometimes, a mind’s musings can be a form of art, and are a true expression of human creativity. The latest book from E.O. Wilson doesn’t seem to answer the primal question of creativity’s well, but his long-form meditation is, in and of itself, the kind of answer we could hope to find in our human journey.
The issue of human creativity, and furthermore—or further away—the confrontation between science and the humanities, used to be a topic (or “the” topic, if you are like me, a scientist who occasionally swam in a pool of artists) of the educated conversations. The book is a refresher course in many of the aspects of this cultural divide that, although sometimes currently hidden, it’s a fault that produces big earthquakes. He brings back to the forefront the battle between the “two cultures” and tries to navigate from them into the deep well of human creation.
Artist says—or used to say—that you should paint or write about your village, if you hope to be universal. E.O. Wilson is a living example of this, a great mind that started fascinated by something really small and specific—watching insects on a field—and in concentric circles of thinking, connected it with everything else in the world. This book is his inner meditation, back and forth in time, both deep and superficial, but also having the feeling of touring the mind of one of the great living scientists.
As a sample, Wilson defines the realm of humanities as vast, and approaches it humbly. “Science owns the warrant to explore everything deemed factual and possible, but the humanities, borne aloft by both fact and fantasy, have the power of everything not only possible but also conceivable.” He then suggests that we should reach a new Enlightenment, where the ultimate goal for humanities would be “to blend with science […] we need a unified humanities and science to construct a full and honest picture of what we truly are and what we can become.” Just a sample of some of this book’s beautiful ideas.
We also learn some things about the master, some almost unbelievable—Did he really say he’s afraid of spiders?—and others delightful—he provides a fun list of movies and the archetypes they represent. Some of the inclusions (Lethal Weapon? The Indiana Jones series?) are both funny and unexpected. It seems he’d loved “Europa Report” and “The Martian” as much as I did. This is not to say the book is light fare, and there’s a lot of heady stuff, including numerous references to philosophers and writers, and a beautiful index that would take you to all places in a book that’s deceptively short but can confuse the casual reader with its swift shifts of direction.
Sometimes, a mind’s musings can be a form of art, and are a true expression of human creativity. The latest book from E.O. Wilson doesn’t seem to answer the primal question of creativity’s well, but his long-form meditation is, in and of itself, the kind of answer we could hope to find in our human journey.
February 10, 2018
Rare is the scientist who writes as well as Edward O. Wilson. As I mention on my blog post on the book (Sects and Violence in the Ancient World) Wilson strangely calls out creation myths as the problem with religion. Otherwise the book is a strong argument that sciences and humanities are both necessary to save our world. Yes, there is an apocalyptic urgency to this. Let me back up a moment.
Wilson is a biologist. He believes science explains our world but the humanities give it value. Creativity is one of the themes here—he has advice on how to be creative. As a scientist who's also a novelist, he's worth paying attention to. He has some great ideas here. It is a little odd, though, that he suggests the humanities need to take in non-human elements as well. It's difficult to think how we might incorporate that which we can't access into our art, music, movies, and literature. There's a poetic element to it, to be sure, but it lacks the precision associated with science.
As an essay it's great reading, but a little unusual. One chapter, for example, lists what he considers great movies and novels. (I was gratified to see my brother-in-law Neal Stephenson among them.) This only fits loosely, it seems to me, with his overarching themes. He does write in a non-technical way and with great earnestness. I can certainly recommend this book, but there are aspects that remain a bit strange. As a student of the humanities I very much appreciate a scientist of his stature commending them, in any case.
Wilson is a biologist. He believes science explains our world but the humanities give it value. Creativity is one of the themes here—he has advice on how to be creative. As a scientist who's also a novelist, he's worth paying attention to. He has some great ideas here. It is a little odd, though, that he suggests the humanities need to take in non-human elements as well. It's difficult to think how we might incorporate that which we can't access into our art, music, movies, and literature. There's a poetic element to it, to be sure, but it lacks the precision associated with science.
As an essay it's great reading, but a little unusual. One chapter, for example, lists what he considers great movies and novels. (I was gratified to see my brother-in-law Neal Stephenson among them.) This only fits loosely, it seems to me, with his overarching themes. He does write in a non-technical way and with great earnestness. I can certainly recommend this book, but there are aspects that remain a bit strange. As a student of the humanities I very much appreciate a scientist of his stature commending them, in any case.
July 2, 2020
If I may, 2.5 stars.
While I have no doubt that the brilliant founder of sociobiology, is indeed a profound thinker with a wide grasp of knowledge on a great variety of issues, in this particular text he trailed on presenting the reader with the ramblings of a well-educated scientist rather than of a first-rate composer of complex ideas. I know for a fact that in his prime E.O Wilson started both the scientific world and some of the humanities with the contention that a set of behaviors, like an organ in the body, can be an adaptation, or that a single man could discover so many distinct Ant species-because let's not forget, this is possible the world expert on ants.
Here though, in this book, he does not present the reader with the origins of creativity, but rather, leaves the surveyor of his words unclear as to what "origins of creativity " means at all. Does he mean to give a theory of how 'creativity' that nebulous and oft studied psychological trait came about through evolutionary time by presenting which species developed a, b and c particular progenitor traits, or does he means to explain how creativity appears in the mind, or perhaps the group from where it appears? Who knows! Instead of all that, we get a bumbling splice of science and the humanities strewn together awkwardly duct-taped together in perhaps a stream of consciousness.
In short, while I have much respect for the man, for his discoveries, I finish this book: unimpressed.
While I have no doubt that the brilliant founder of sociobiology, is indeed a profound thinker with a wide grasp of knowledge on a great variety of issues, in this particular text he trailed on presenting the reader with the ramblings of a well-educated scientist rather than of a first-rate composer of complex ideas. I know for a fact that in his prime E.O Wilson started both the scientific world and some of the humanities with the contention that a set of behaviors, like an organ in the body, can be an adaptation, or that a single man could discover so many distinct Ant species-because let's not forget, this is possible the world expert on ants.
Here though, in this book, he does not present the reader with the origins of creativity, but rather, leaves the surveyor of his words unclear as to what "origins of creativity " means at all. Does he mean to give a theory of how 'creativity' that nebulous and oft studied psychological trait came about through evolutionary time by presenting which species developed a, b and c particular progenitor traits, or does he means to explain how creativity appears in the mind, or perhaps the group from where it appears? Who knows! Instead of all that, we get a bumbling splice of science and the humanities strewn together awkwardly duct-taped together in perhaps a stream of consciousness.
In short, while I have much respect for the man, for his discoveries, I finish this book: unimpressed.
August 18, 2019
Two major things struck me from this book. First the concept that at some point, there is a tipping point in evolution between what might misleadingly be called "group selection" and "individual selection." As I understand it, the process of natural selection is going to favor replication and survival and depending on the extent of sociality in the species, genetic changes and natural selection will favor either the group or the individual. Humans are paradoxically and maddeningly somewhere in the middle of the sociality spectrum which explains a lot.
Second, the limitations on our perceptions are limitations on our creativity and art. The next great art experiments will be in expanding our perceptions of the world and reality. And that isn't as woo-woo as it seems, i.e. different species have different sensory perceptions and it is our job to figure out how to make those collective for humanity.
Wilson is very pro combining science and art and the humanities. Oh, and he made me feel good about my professional choices by continually lumping in the law with the humanities.
Second, the limitations on our perceptions are limitations on our creativity and art. The next great art experiments will be in expanding our perceptions of the world and reality. And that isn't as woo-woo as it seems, i.e. different species have different sensory perceptions and it is our job to figure out how to make those collective for humanity.
Wilson is very pro combining science and art and the humanities. Oh, and he made me feel good about my professional choices by continually lumping in the law with the humanities.
July 1, 2021
So far I haven't found a writer that blends scientific content and, at times, lyrical prose like Wilson does. Beautiful little book about the need for merging the scientific disclipines and the humanities, if we wish to seriously adress where we've come from, who we are and where we're going. Profoundly inspiring.
October 10, 2017
This one will require a few re-reads. It's mostly a bit of philosophical meandering, but there is a binding thread. It's a quick read and worth a weekend of contemplation. Enjoy where it leads you.
January 3, 2023
I don’t think even the author knows what point he’s trying to make.
July 5, 2021
If I have to pick a single area of thought that have intrigued me the most, through my entire life, it is the apparent gap between humanities and the sciences. From my high school days I tried to find a bridge between the two, and I naturally gravitated towards anything that hinted at making such a connection. I always had a deep conviction that they are not two separate worlds, but manifestations of something this is common to them both, and I suspected that it could be the human propensity to be creative. However, I could not find much support for such ideas, and the gap between the two worlds kept getting wider.
During the last couple of decades I started to find many thinkers who have been promoting such ideas, and have made amazing intellectual progress. One such person is Edward Wilson. He is one of the strongest voice who have been trying to find a common thread between the two modes of thinking, and believes this is the only way both humanities and the sciences can make meaningful progress in the future. This is his most recent book on that subject.
Though a wonderful read, and full of amazing insights, I felt that the title is a little misleading. It talks about how human creativity could be the most defining characteristic of our species, and how it is at the root of both humanities and the sciences, and that our creative abilities can be traced back to our biology and our evolution. However, the title made me expect that he would go deeper into it, but he just touched upon it and then drifted away into other areas of evolutionary sociology, which are tremendously interesting, but not necessarily focused on the topic of creativity.
My biggest regret is that this type of bridge building is mostly happening from one side – from the scientists. There is practically zero interest among humanities practitioners to find any common ground, or even to develop any interest in the sciences. I don’t know if it is out of a defensive mechanism, or arrogance, or simple ignorance. Whatever it is, it got to change for either discipline to reach its full potential.
During the last couple of decades I started to find many thinkers who have been promoting such ideas, and have made amazing intellectual progress. One such person is Edward Wilson. He is one of the strongest voice who have been trying to find a common thread between the two modes of thinking, and believes this is the only way both humanities and the sciences can make meaningful progress in the future. This is his most recent book on that subject.
Though a wonderful read, and full of amazing insights, I felt that the title is a little misleading. It talks about how human creativity could be the most defining characteristic of our species, and how it is at the root of both humanities and the sciences, and that our creative abilities can be traced back to our biology and our evolution. However, the title made me expect that he would go deeper into it, but he just touched upon it and then drifted away into other areas of evolutionary sociology, which are tremendously interesting, but not necessarily focused on the topic of creativity.
My biggest regret is that this type of bridge building is mostly happening from one side – from the scientists. There is practically zero interest among humanities practitioners to find any common ground, or even to develop any interest in the sciences. I don’t know if it is out of a defensive mechanism, or arrogance, or simple ignorance. Whatever it is, it got to change for either discipline to reach its full potential.
December 15, 2018
If the “cake” of Edward O. Wilson’s books is that they are a guaranteed pleasure to read, then the “icing” is undoubtedly the thought-provoking education they will provide along the way. His work is so crammed full of known facts and profound insights, that even his short books (less than 250 pages) are weighty with scientific fact, intelligent reasoning, and always-timely messages.
In The Origins of Creativity, Wilson takes on the relationship between the sciences and the humanities. Though he objectively compares and contrasts these two disciplines, this reviewer, at least, cannot help but think Wilson has a softer spot for humanities than for science. This in itself is a little surprising, given Wilson’s lifelong immersion in all things scientific. Nevertheless, he gets quickly to some foundational elements for his favoritism by highlighting the what, how, and why explanations necessary for all biological phenomena in terms of cause and effect. Says Wilson: “Proximate causes are the what and the how of a full explanation. Ultimate causes are the why.”
This reviewer confesses that several times throughout the book, it was easy to lose sight of how the text was still addressing the work’s title, not that it mattered so much, because the numerous short chapters on related elements of human creativity were eloquent and illuminating. Take the four-page chapter on the humble “metaphor.” The description of this literary device can be enjoyed by readers, but should almost be required reading for writers, too, especially poets. Metaphors, says Wilson, “…set the imagination free to search for vivifying images. They allow us to cross boundaries, deliver little shocks of aesthetic surprise and humor, and thereby achieve nuance and novel perspective. They permit an infinite expansion of language, and ideas identified by them.”
Wilson debunks the belief that human creativity and expression of that creativity began ten thousand years ago, arguing, in fact, that its roots date back one hundred thousand years. The Origins of Creativity then plots that trajectory from the Paleolithic Period to modern times, citing instances of fantastic human creativity in terms of tools, controlled fire, grouping, societies, and language. Accordingly, to get at the true origins of creativity, Wilson says we will have to look beyond the classical STEM subjects of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. “The full meaning of the humanities,” he says, “…will come from a combination of many less vaunted disciplines…paleontology, anthropology, psychology, evolutionary biology, and neurobiology.”
Wilson pulls together his thinking in the final chapter, which is one of gentle direction and determined optimism. He references two earlier periods of Enlightenment, both of which faded after one or two centuries. He dismisses the popular belief that the humanities are distinct from science. Rather, he says, “Scientists and scholars in the humanities, working together, will, I believe, serve as the leaders of a new philosophy, one that blends the best and most relevant from these two great branches of learning. Their effort will be the third Enlightenment. Unlike the first two, this one might well endure.”
Wilson defies classification in terms of academic discipline. Is he botanist?... biologist?... entomologist?... philosopher?...The sensible answer to the question is “Who cares?” His breadth of knowledge easily makes him a polymath. Combining that with the fact that he is a talented writer of thought-provoking books, then that immediately provides “the rest of us” with an accessible mechanism to all of Wilson’s knowledge, insights, and reflections.
In The Origins of Creativity, Wilson takes on the relationship between the sciences and the humanities. Though he objectively compares and contrasts these two disciplines, this reviewer, at least, cannot help but think Wilson has a softer spot for humanities than for science. This in itself is a little surprising, given Wilson’s lifelong immersion in all things scientific. Nevertheless, he gets quickly to some foundational elements for his favoritism by highlighting the what, how, and why explanations necessary for all biological phenomena in terms of cause and effect. Says Wilson: “Proximate causes are the what and the how of a full explanation. Ultimate causes are the why.”
This reviewer confesses that several times throughout the book, it was easy to lose sight of how the text was still addressing the work’s title, not that it mattered so much, because the numerous short chapters on related elements of human creativity were eloquent and illuminating. Take the four-page chapter on the humble “metaphor.” The description of this literary device can be enjoyed by readers, but should almost be required reading for writers, too, especially poets. Metaphors, says Wilson, “…set the imagination free to search for vivifying images. They allow us to cross boundaries, deliver little shocks of aesthetic surprise and humor, and thereby achieve nuance and novel perspective. They permit an infinite expansion of language, and ideas identified by them.”
Wilson debunks the belief that human creativity and expression of that creativity began ten thousand years ago, arguing, in fact, that its roots date back one hundred thousand years. The Origins of Creativity then plots that trajectory from the Paleolithic Period to modern times, citing instances of fantastic human creativity in terms of tools, controlled fire, grouping, societies, and language. Accordingly, to get at the true origins of creativity, Wilson says we will have to look beyond the classical STEM subjects of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. “The full meaning of the humanities,” he says, “…will come from a combination of many less vaunted disciplines…paleontology, anthropology, psychology, evolutionary biology, and neurobiology.”
Wilson pulls together his thinking in the final chapter, which is one of gentle direction and determined optimism. He references two earlier periods of Enlightenment, both of which faded after one or two centuries. He dismisses the popular belief that the humanities are distinct from science. Rather, he says, “Scientists and scholars in the humanities, working together, will, I believe, serve as the leaders of a new philosophy, one that blends the best and most relevant from these two great branches of learning. Their effort will be the third Enlightenment. Unlike the first two, this one might well endure.”
Wilson defies classification in terms of academic discipline. Is he botanist?... biologist?... entomologist?... philosopher?...The sensible answer to the question is “Who cares?” His breadth of knowledge easily makes him a polymath. Combining that with the fact that he is a talented writer of thought-provoking books, then that immediately provides “the rest of us” with an accessible mechanism to all of Wilson’s knowledge, insights, and reflections.
June 15, 2020
Every Edward O. Wilson book I've ever read has been astonishing, revelatory, influential, and memorable. The Origins of Creativity (2017) - a lovely, well-written treatise - is no different. Dr. Wilson lays out an adventuresome landscape of reason and discovery that invites the reader to consider causes and happenstance of the interrelationships between Humanities and Science.
I highly recommend this short, brilliant book. It should definitely be on your bookshelf for reference. Though this was a library read, the books of his I do own are well marked up, well used, well cherished.
Dr. Wilson's biophilia is a preeminent voice and intellect for our era. This book will enlighten your thinking. Read it!
I highly recommend this short, brilliant book. It should definitely be on your bookshelf for reference. Though this was a library read, the books of his I do own are well marked up, well used, well cherished.
Dr. Wilson's biophilia is a preeminent voice and intellect for our era. This book will enlighten your thinking. Read it!
January 13, 2019
Fireworks, flowers, and the star
July 14, 2021
I expected an evolutionary basis for creativity. I got a proposition that to further understand human nature, the sciences and the humanities must combine efforts and find a meeting point of symbiosis to link humanity to its prehistoric roots: the third Enlightenment. Some points were good and sparked thought. Every organism has its own personal Umwelt - a unique perspective of the surroundings based on its slice of the sensory world and machinery to generate experience - and to understand an organism, we have to understand its Umwelt. This means observing the limits of our Umwelt and the reason behind its form. Following from this, we must step outside of the human frame to understand the human perspective. Therefore, the humanities alone cannot cover further ground in understanding humanity without the aid of science which (seemingly) offers tools of enquiry outside the limit of the human frame.
Wilson often wasn't talking to the point and I wasn't sure where he is leading me or why.
Wilson often wasn't talking to the point and I wasn't sure where he is leading me or why.
February 7, 2024
If Wilson had set out to write something with the sole purpose of irritating me I don’t think he could have done a more thorough job of it than this book accomplished. The reason I am not sharing my grievances in this review is that I have chosen to be very brave about it.
staying-away
November 16, 2025-Disclaimer: I won this book for free through Goodreads giveaways in exchange for an honest review.-
Gave this 25 minutes of my time.
Take a shot every time Edward says 'primate'.
He believes credit should be given to science rather than to God when speaking of human intelligence. Then goes on talking about termites forever. Ironically enough, the book often references other people’s work and ideas—contradicting his own claim that true creativity comes from originality. Edward promotes the idea that no one is a foreigner. Everyone lives on Earth. Tell that to the villages pillaged by the Vikings. Altogether, he made no real arguments and spewed a bunch of garbley gook.
Gave this 25 minutes of my time.
Take a shot every time Edward says 'primate'.
He believes credit should be given to science rather than to God when speaking of human intelligence. Then goes on talking about termites forever. Ironically enough, the book often references other people’s work and ideas—contradicting his own claim that true creativity comes from originality. Edward promotes the idea that no one is a foreigner. Everyone lives on Earth. Tell that to the villages pillaged by the Vikings. Altogether, he made no real arguments and spewed a bunch of garbley gook.
August 8, 2021
This is more of a cluster of in-depth thoughts and ideas, rather than a book explaining "the origins of creativity". However, I must say, that cluster of ideas is rather intriguing, interesting and thought-provoking. Some passages are so complex, you'll have to read over them multiple times in order to get even the slightest grasp of them. Got me thinking (according to this book, exactly (with language) what sets us apart from other species).
"Whales grow to great size by seining tiny crustaceans, bats fly at night by echolocation, birds fly at night by the polar magnetic field. Humans think."
The repetitive nature of Wilson's claim that it is crucial and urgent to blend the sciences and humanities is somewhat annoying. During the first half of this book Wilson sticks to his forté: evolutionary sciences. I enjoyed this part the most, especially those passages and chapters in which he drifts off from his central argument and so effortlessly writes about the natural world. The second half of the book is a somewhat unorganised with many random passages, such as the one on archetypes in movies - those seem a bit off and out of context. But I guess Wilson just had to get his thoughts down onto paper, which he has every right of doing.
Passages like the following, however, are what make this book so worth reading:
"This is the point I want to make: the experience of nature, to those who have learned to absorb it, is a magic well. The more you draw, the more there is to draw. In early visits to wild environments, you will miss most of what is interesting. You will subsequently spot more, and then more, and begin to put names on what you see. Then will come still more new details. Each species, you will learn, is a story in itself."
With many of Wilson's thoughts and ideas in the first half of the book, I could very much relate, as many of them are topics in my writing. One thing I treasured a lot about this book.
Definitely a must-read to enhance your thoughts. And I am now very intrigued to read his book on ants (quite often a topic in this book as well).
"Whales grow to great size by seining tiny crustaceans, bats fly at night by echolocation, birds fly at night by the polar magnetic field. Humans think."
The repetitive nature of Wilson's claim that it is crucial and urgent to blend the sciences and humanities is somewhat annoying. During the first half of this book Wilson sticks to his forté: evolutionary sciences. I enjoyed this part the most, especially those passages and chapters in which he drifts off from his central argument and so effortlessly writes about the natural world. The second half of the book is a somewhat unorganised with many random passages, such as the one on archetypes in movies - those seem a bit off and out of context. But I guess Wilson just had to get his thoughts down onto paper, which he has every right of doing.
Passages like the following, however, are what make this book so worth reading:
"This is the point I want to make: the experience of nature, to those who have learned to absorb it, is a magic well. The more you draw, the more there is to draw. In early visits to wild environments, you will miss most of what is interesting. You will subsequently spot more, and then more, and begin to put names on what you see. Then will come still more new details. Each species, you will learn, is a story in itself."
With many of Wilson's thoughts and ideas in the first half of the book, I could very much relate, as many of them are topics in my writing. One thing I treasured a lot about this book.
Definitely a must-read to enhance your thoughts. And I am now very intrigued to read his book on ants (quite often a topic in this book as well).
October 19, 2017
Jeffrey Bairstow once said that good writing is clear thinking made visible. Edward O. Wilson’s The Origins of Creativity is full of compelling jewels and gems of wisdom. Dr. Wilson is clearly the polymath, pulling examples from everywhere from film and pop culture, to biology, earth and social sciences, as well as his specialty of entomology. His ideas are brilliant. The problem is making them clear and visible. I can easily imagine that a respected Harvard scientist is fully capable of clear thinking. One does not become a scientist – let alone a respected one – if one’s thoughts are a tangle. And Dr. Wilson is respected. Even a quick look at his Wikipedia page is humbling.
But making these thoughts visible?
That is why I am so puzzled by how the words hit the page. In all honesty, it felt as if the author took a lifetime of his lecture notes, played 52 Pick Up, and then ad libbed a series of lectures based upon the result. I would rather have listened to this book than read it, as I felt as if I was missing some nonverbal information (a gesture here, an emphasis there) that would have made Dr. Wilson’s ideas easier to follow.
In spite of the title, very little of the book directly pertained to creativity or its origins. Yes, Dr. Wilson’s discovery of new insects were interesting. And of course, the lack of biodiversity on Isla Salas y Gómez made for an interesting discussion. Indeed, the sciences and the humanities are different yet similar. Good stuff, all, to be sure, but what did this have to do with creativity?
As much as I hate to say it, Edward O. Wilson’s The Origins of Creativity fell somewhat short of well-known “science for the masses” tomes, such as Carl Sagan’s Cosmos, or Jacob Bronowski’s The Ascent of Man, or James Burke’s Connections.
-Reviewed by Amy
But making these thoughts visible?
That is why I am so puzzled by how the words hit the page. In all honesty, it felt as if the author took a lifetime of his lecture notes, played 52 Pick Up, and then ad libbed a series of lectures based upon the result. I would rather have listened to this book than read it, as I felt as if I was missing some nonverbal information (a gesture here, an emphasis there) that would have made Dr. Wilson’s ideas easier to follow.
In spite of the title, very little of the book directly pertained to creativity or its origins. Yes, Dr. Wilson’s discovery of new insects were interesting. And of course, the lack of biodiversity on Isla Salas y Gómez made for an interesting discussion. Indeed, the sciences and the humanities are different yet similar. Good stuff, all, to be sure, but what did this have to do with creativity?
As much as I hate to say it, Edward O. Wilson’s The Origins of Creativity fell somewhat short of well-known “science for the masses” tomes, such as Carl Sagan’s Cosmos, or Jacob Bronowski’s The Ascent of Man, or James Burke’s Connections.
-Reviewed by Amy
May 16, 2019
Ceea ce încearcă aici Edward Wilson este să împace cumva știința propriu-zisă cu disciplinele umaniste, acele discipline (filosofia, istoria, dreptul, artele) care sunt acum împinse deoparte de ascensiunea tehnologiilor.
Cercetător al faunei și florei, om de știință și în același timp un gânditor, ateu declarat (iar micile lui referiri despre divitate sunt foarte pertinente), Wilson este alarmat de faptul că între aceste discipline există o diferență de resurse financiale sau există competiție, când cea mai vizibilă formă de evoluție ar fi uniunea dintre ele pentru a desluși adevărata origine a creativității umane, încă în dubie. Ceea ce oferă atractivitate cărții este multitudinea de exemple din lumea animală, care ne poate oferi idei și răspunsuri la ceea ce înseamnă umanitatea.
Cercetător al faunei și florei, om de știință și în același timp un gânditor, ateu declarat (iar micile lui referiri despre divitate sunt foarte pertinente), Wilson este alarmat de faptul că între aceste discipline există o diferență de resurse financiale sau există competiție, când cea mai vizibilă formă de evoluție ar fi uniunea dintre ele pentru a desluși adevărata origine a creativității umane, încă în dubie. Ceea ce oferă atractivitate cărții este multitudinea de exemple din lumea animală, care ne poate oferi idei și răspunsuri la ceea ce înseamnă umanitatea.
November 21, 2017
I read this as an ARC.
Parts of this book would have been worth a fourth star, but it simply rambles too much. Rather than focus on the theme of the title, this is more of a set of vaguely related essays on a wide variety of topics related to human culture and its development. In addition, Wilson sometimes feels like he's editorializing on odd points, without quite explaining his viewpoints. Nothing horrible, just odd when it happens.
It's a quick read, and the individual chapters were very interesting. I just wish they had been more related.
Parts of this book would have been worth a fourth star, but it simply rambles too much. Rather than focus on the theme of the title, this is more of a set of vaguely related essays on a wide variety of topics related to human culture and its development. In addition, Wilson sometimes feels like he's editorializing on odd points, without quite explaining his viewpoints. Nothing horrible, just odd when it happens.
It's a quick read, and the individual chapters were very interesting. I just wish they had been more related.
September 16, 2018
Plato extolled the "philosopher king". In today's world, what's more important is the "poet scientist" - and Edward O. Wilson has stepped up to claim that role.
In this book, Wilson explains how science and the humanities opposites sides on the coin of understanding human nature. This is even more important as we learn more about our beginnings - and shape our future. "Science and the humanities may still remain apart, but they are ever more closely bonded in many ways."
In this book, Wilson explains how science and the humanities opposites sides on the coin of understanding human nature. This is even more important as we learn more about our beginnings - and shape our future. "Science and the humanities may still remain apart, but they are ever more closely bonded in many ways."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 208 reviews