di Giacomo Pezzano (giacomo.pezzano@binario5.com; I di 3)
Abstract
There is a connection between human nature and creativity: human creativity is paradoxically a biological necessity. i) Human nature is creative because (according to Marx, Scheler, Plessner, Gehlen, Heidegger and Derrida) man is by nature over-natural. Man is not umweltbedungen, he is weltoffen: thus, he has to create his own world and way of life – that is, he is weltbildend. Human nature is neither degender nor genetic, but it is generic: therefore, it is specified in different and creative historical modes. ii) Creation moves from the datum (seen as a dandum) in order to overcome it, first of all catching it as such – its Als (as Heidegger suggests). Consequently, human creativity is not ex nihilo, as shown by the wittgensteinian «paradox of the rule»: creativity is possible only through the ap-plication of a rule, the em-ployment of which is as much a re-plica as a fold, that opens up lots of unexpected ways of using and the institution of a new rule. iii) Creativity itself should be conceived in terms of «genericity»: there is no reason to privilege only one of the dimensions in which it takes shape. Finally, the ancient symbolic dimension of logos can offer a renewed definition of human nature in its «natural unnaturalness» and in its constitutive openness to possibility.
1. Natura umana e(s)t creatività
Muovo da alcune affermazioni di Ficino e Campanella. Per il primo, fedele alla concezione tradizionale dell’ars come «naturae imitatio» (Teologia platonica, IV, 1), l’attività delle varie arti è completamente improntata alla libertà, rendendo non schiavi della natura ma anzi emulando il suo operato («humanae artis fabricant per seipsas quaecumque fabricat ipsa natura, quasi non servisimus naturae, sed emuli»: ivi: XIII, 3): l’uomo che domina la terra grazie alle sue mirabili doti poietiche è comparabile a Dio («denique qualiscumque terra sit, huius homo est Dominus. Est utique Deus in terris»: ivi: XVI, 6). Il secondo scrive: