This conceptual paper examines the origins and nature of creativity, questioning whether it is an act of self-willed performance (energeia) or an experience that happens to us as patients of external processes (pathos). It pursues three aims to contribute to the philosophy creativity: first, it analyses the human action theories that underpin dominant conceptions of creativity; second, it shows that a more nuanced philosophy of action is required to account for the source and nature of creative praxis; and third, it develops an original account of creative action grounded in the linguistic and philosophical phenomenon of the mediopassive. Drawing on Han-Pile’s work on middle-voiced agency, the paper argues that creativity is best understood as a mediopassive praxis, in which the creator is simultaneously agent and patient. This framework moves beyond the traditional binary of active versus passive creativity, reconceptualizing creative praxis as an intermediate, self-transformative process that unfolds through pre-reflection, responsiveness, and surrender of control.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zafeirenia Brokalaki (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: