Search

論文, Research Article, 特集１ : 共創・共創知とはなにか, 西洋を中心とする哲学の歴史において創造論は極めて重要な位置を占めるが、共創という概念はあまり論じられてこなかったように思われる。本論では、G. W. ライプニッツと九鬼周造の哲学を創造という観点から検討し、そして中井正一の思想を参考にしながら共創を探求する理由とその方向性について考察する。ライプニッツは苦しむ人間に配慮することなく最善世界を1 人で創造する冷酷な全知全能の神を考えた。九鬼は到来する偶然を受け止めながら神秘の瞬間にマクロコスモスと共鳴するミクロコスモスのはかない美に瞬間的な共同性を求める孤独な人間を描いた。中井は集団的主体のあり方について研究し、そして様々な形で実践した。それは技術を用いて集団において積極的に他者と協力しながら創造していく方法である。より対等なもの同士の関係性の中でなされる創造としての共創に必要なものは中井が研究し、実践したような、人々が各々の能力を存分に発揮し、持続的に発展していく組織である。共創学の課題は共に創造できる機構を組織するための技術を探求することであり、そのための技術こそが我々の求める共創知である。, In the philosophical academy, talk of creativity has tended to focus on the individual. I would like to argue for a shift of emphasis to co-creation—the sustained, collaborative effort of a number of people concentrated on a common task. I begin by contrasting the views of G. W. Leibniz and Kuki Shūzō. In his Théodicée, Leibniz lays out his paradigm of creation as an almighty God fashioning the “best of all possible worlds.” Despite all the unhappiness in our lives, from God’s point of view, the world could not be better than it is. The idea of God responding to the pleas of human beings to improve their lives, or of human beings affecting the workings of divine providence, is alien to his way of thinking. Kuki, in contrast, sees the idea of God creating a perfect world is fundamentally flawed, because creation, by its very nature, is contingent and imperfect. The most one can expect from the divinity is to sympathize with human beings in their lot; to change it is beyond even the reach of God. Our pursuit of happiness begins by resigning ourselves to contingency and creating what beauty we can. Although stressing the social nature of the individual, the idea of collaboration in the creation of beauty does not figure in his idea of “encounter with the other.” Nakai Masakazu approaches the question from the opposite end of the spectrum. In place of the solitary individual, he begins from what he calls “the collective subject.” True creativity is grounded, he argues, not in the extraordinary genius of a single person but in collaborative performance, and this requires concerted efforts to organize people into creative units that can hold their own against rugged individualism and totalitarian fascism alike. I am persuaded that his concept of the collective subject can guide us toward a more comprehensive philosophy of co-creation.