creation and destruction, any difference?

Question

if I were to knock down a house and concrete over it to make a car park, would I be considered to be creative or destructive?

or even build a house on a car park.
I am very wise, oh yes.

though these mere words are in eternal conflict, where is the line?

Answer 1

This is a typical but the general human problem. Among all living earthlings only human beings are created with a specialized mind set which is capable of assessing and judging any phenomenal observation or action from aspects of two standpoints--one relating to an intention or desire to do something and the second relating to cosequence or result of an action performed. This gift of human comprehension is known as consciousness of duality and its practical application known as empathy of recognition. Equipped with such faculty every person views the world in a generalized positive or negative outlook depending on individual mind set programmes catagorized as optimists and pessimists.Hence the legitimacy of any action can only adjudged by the amount of positive benefits weighing over negative advantages irrespective of individual view points if performed in a rational and legal manner narrowing down all differences of opinion.Applying this reasoning to the questioned example if an isolated house is situated in the middle of a circle of highly visited shopping complex knocking it down to prepare a concrete car park for the benefit of buyers could be considered as that of creative intent although the principle of duality presupposes destruction of something whose existence has to be obsolated or sacrificed for the advantage of present life just as the slaying of a goat or slicing of a pumpkin to prepare food can neither be considered creative nor destructive for the sustenance of human life.

Answer 2

Destruction for the house owner and creation for the trespasser?
Creativity should not be at the expense of hurting anybody's feelings. Otherwise all the great lyrists and poets will be writing funny songs on others religions to be excellently creative or take a doctor who operates on a living man to experiment on how living heart ticks when one of the kidneys is removed and gets astounding discoveries in the process. The moral is the means are as important as ends.

Answer 3

You would be destructive. By such an action you are increasing the amount of entropy (disorder) in the earth even if you put the car park back how you found it. Using new materials or putting the old materials through any process is using energy. In the quote below, you can think of the isolated system as the earth.

"As we go "forward" in time, the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the entropy of an isolated system can only increase or remain the same; it cannot decrease."

Answer 4

Creation and destruction are sides of the same coin. Nothing can truly be created without destroying some other thing. If I build a house I destroy the trees for wood, the rocks for minerals to produce nails etc.. If I destroy a house through burning I create smoke and ash.

Answer 5

Well you generated wealth by destroying something we need more of in the world at the expense of something we need less of. You were crestructive then.

If nobody uses the parking lot, you are simply a failed entrepaneur. If the parking lot proves to have been successful you will make money. Which is not the same thing as creativity, but seems to be worth more in this land...

Answer 6

creation is building something while destruction is destroying something.
knocking down a House is destruction while building the car park is destroying( further explanation, during the knocking down of the house you are destroying the house while during the building of a car park is creative! simple logic got it)

Answer 7

You'de be considered as destructive by the person who spent years or even their childhood in this house. You'd be considered as creative by the people who invest money in your project. You'd be considered destructive by environmentists who are against car usage. You'd be considered by creative by the architects if you were to build a very modern building.

C'mond, it's philosophy, you know, nothing is black or white. :)

Answer 8

Neither, you woudn't have either destroyed or created anything. The stuff that the 'house' was made of was moved somewhere else and the stuff the 'car park' was made of replaced it. All the stuff existed before you moved it and would continue to exist after you moved it. The fact that you would chose to arrange it in a certain way and give it a new name is irrelevant.

Answer 9

Creation and destruction are respectively the positive and negative value judgements placed by society on the rearanging of matter, institutions and so on. Nothing is inherantly creative, or inherantly destructive. However, our values (for example, our judgement on which state of affairs is more useful or attractive to us) force us to dichotomise the rearangement of things into positive/creative and negative/destructive categories.

Answer 10

Yes the difference is one follows the other destruction is the end of something allowing the creation, birth of something ( you brake a cup ending the cup's existence but creating the birth of a mess).