Abstract

In previous texts, I tried to outline some ontological bases for human creativity compatible with its phenomenology. Now I continue this research by asking how the human being itself should be so that human creativity is possible. To address this second issue, I will first summarize what was found in the field of phenomenology and the ontology of human creativity. I will then go on to review what we might call the null hypothesis, that is, the hypothesis according to which, however paradoxical it may seem, there may be what we call human creativity without a genuinely human creator. The human being himself would have been dissolved in a stream formed by different forces that would be the real responsible for the creativity that we call human. However, if the null hypothesis fails and, finally, the human being is a genuine creative agent, then the question of the anthropology of creativity makes perfect sense. It will be an anthropology compatible with the previously outlined ontology. We will also have to explore how creativity occurs, not only in science and arts, but in normal human life as well. Finally, the main ideas found are included in the concluding section.