Carrying on my thinking about Erich Fromm's typology and outline of human needs the next one is creativity, Fromm saw the productive, creative individual as the healthy one, in that sense he saw man as a frustrated producer rather than a frustrated consumer and was in congruence with Marx and some of the other romantic critics of classical economics.
Fromm believes that we all desire to overcome, to transcend, another fact of our being: Our sense of being passive creatures. We want to be creators. There are many ways to be creative: We give birth, we plant seeds, we make pots, we paint pictures, we write books, we love each other. Creativity is, in fact, an expression of love
Unfortunately, some don't find an avenue for creativity. Frustrated, they attempt to transcend their passivity by becoming destroyers instead. Destroying puts me "above" the things -- or people -- I destroy. It makes me feel powerful. We can hate as well as love. But in the end, it fails to bring us that sense of transcendence we need.
I find this one interesting because a lot of the creative drives at present I see invested in a sort of innovation which isnt stand alone innovation but an innovation which aims to destroy the legacies of the past.
Its not something I think is a good thing, sure there are aspects of tradition which fresh insights render questionable but I think there are also positive legacies which are dispensed with, sort of like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Although I wonder if its possible to be creative in a manner which is in no way destructive or if there's just conflict like that and its necessary?