Response to Harrington on the Definition of Creativity

Abstract

Harrington (2018) raised a number of points in response to my proposal that we use intentional novelty (IN) as the basis for defining creativity (Weisberg, 2015). He argued first that there would be problems in objectively determining novelty. Second, even if we could obtain such a measure, it was not clear to Harrington how it could be used. Third, Harrington also raised several broader problems that he saw arising from the IN definition. In this commentary, I respond to each of those criticisms, showing that they are not the problems that Harrington believed that they were, and that the IN definition can serve its proposed function. Also, Harrington did not address what I raised as a critically important problem arising from any definition that uses value as a criterion: a person’s creativity changing after death. That issue is also revisited.