
Anthony Storr’s book, Solitude, points to the richness of our private and personal inner worlds as territory for incubating creative ideas.
Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Pascal, Descartes, Newton, Locke, Kant, Kierkegaard, Leibniz, Nietzsche, Kafka and Wittgenstein, all had the capacity to be alone without being miserable.
Well, maybe they were miserable some of the time, who isn’t?
They understood solitude as a refuge from the distractions of everyday life. Thinking for them was a solitary activity.
Dependence on what others are saying leads to conventional thinking. Creative thought and action has to resist groupthink.
Groupthink is conforming, agreement, and submission to authority. Creative thought is disruptive, and challenging. It breaks new ground. It necessarily doesn’t make sense. At least it doesn’t make sense at first.
But creative group process is possible. It has to be acceptable to make the most absurd assertion and see where that leads. It’s an adventure, an exploration.
I had the good fortune to moderate a five-year-long philosophy discussion group. It improved my thinking. (Those who know me might say ‘anything’ would improve my thinking.) After an eighteen-month gap, we are now forming a new and smaller face-to-face thinking/creativity group.
For me, small-group thinking is a valuable on-going educational resource. Seth Godin says he learned more from his small group than he did from the Stanford MBA program.
Getting together as a group fits into conventional wisdom. The ability to isolate oneself doesn’t. We value extroversion more than introversion. But the ability to be comfortably alone is essential to the creative process. I suggest we need a balance of solitude and group participation, because each feeds the other.
Tags: Creativity by admin
No Comments »