However, groundbreaking philosophers had such creative ideas that transformed the way we see the world, and even gave rise to new disciplines we now see as essential. — Skalidris

We'll never really know what those before us thought of and discussed before the written record. War and the nature of this finite world itself tends to destroy even that record as well.

Common theme I hear: "There are no new ideas, only new persons who re-discover and share them to other new persons." Something like that, anyhow.

Like, there's only a few non-subjective (perhaps not the best word used) concepts, really. Existence, time, etc. Sure there's a million and one concepts relevant and not-relevant to the human experience and emotion (love, lust, desire, fear, belonging, rejection, spite, anger, distrust, etc. ad infinitum) but they're all derived from a singular source that is relevant only to places where men exist and have the capacity to think. Surely, we didn't create such concepts? Or do we? They predate us. Or do they? Now there's a debate. :grin:

You can see similarities everywhere if you dig deep enough, just like you can see new elements even in theories or objects that look the same.

I'm referring to the degree of "newness" and the tendency of academic philosophy to focus on existing theories rather than generating new ones.

I'm referring to the degree of "newness" and the tendency of academic philosophy to focus on existing theories rather than generating new ones. — Skalidris

I would imagine some would say something along the lines of "it's all been perfected long ago" and thus anything else is simply a deviation and less efficient form of creativity that doesn't really serve any utilitarian function other than the fact it's different ie. art.

I mean, can you — right now — really come up with something truly "new" that would be taken seriously? Rather, that would lead to new debate and discussion that isn't merely intellectual pomp, fluff, kitsch that merely occupies the mind and traverses the mental logical process yet results in little else? Please do, if so.

There's a reason the classics are classic and that tried and true methods are referred to as such. Mental endeavors generally don't result in any danger or negative outcome but a waste of one's time. Not unlike physical endeavors where one deviates from the norm and can end up injured or killed. Though, the principle is not entirely dissimilar, I feel.

If the biggest breakthroughs came from focusing on creativity rather than criticizing existing ideas, why is philosophy focused on the latter? — Skalidris

I suppose most of the creativity in western Philosophy occurred in the Golden Age of the Greeks, who basically defined the methods & terminology of the rational pursuit of Wisdom. Since then, philosophers have focused on "dissecting" those original ideas*1, and "criticizing" those that depart from some off-spring orthodoxy : e.g. Scientism. :smile:


*1. The quote "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato" is attributed to Alfred North Whitehead. He suggested that much of Western philosophy, in its development and articulation, can be understood as engaging with, responding to, or building upon the ideas presented by Plato.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=footnotes+to+plato+quote

"it's all been perfected long ago" and thus anything else is simply a deviation and less efficient form of creativity that doesn't really serve any utilitarian function other than the fact it's different ie. art. — Outlander

It’s a bit like saying evolutionary adaptations are the result of billions of years of trial and errors therefore living beings don’t need to evolve anymore.

Everything changes around us, we’re surrounded with so much more technology, so it makes sense that we also would need new views on life and new disciplines, which philosophy could help with. It’s a time where philosophy could be grandiose, yet they’re stuck in the past and seem to be scared of changes.

I mean, can you — right now — really come up with something truly "new" that would be taken seriously? — Outlander

Yes, but it wouldn’t be taken seriously by philosophers because philosophy isn’t about creating new revolutionary ideas.

Mental endeavors generally don't result in any danger or negative outcome but a waste of one's time. Not unlike physical endeavors where one deviates from the norm and can end up injured or killed. Though, the principle is not entirely dissimilar, I feel. — Outlander

Yes, when you're exploring new territory, the chance of finding something valuable is much lower than in territories where we already know there is value. So it's a risk.

It’s a bit like saying evolutionary adaptations are the result of billions of years of trial and errors therefore living beings don’t need to evolve anymore.

Everything changes around us, we’re surrounded with so much more technology, so it makes sense that we also would need new views on life and new disciplines, which philosophy could help with. It’s a time where philosophy could be grandiose, yet they’re stuck in the past and seem to be scared of changes. — Skalidris

Well, like I said, invent a new concept that hasn't been so already. Propose one, at least. Most all concepts are bilateral in nature or otherwise share the principle of "duality." Example. There's restraint and excess. Care and disregard. Avoidance and acceptance. I could go on.

The onus is on you. What new concept is there to invent or discuss and why haven't you done so already? Odds are, it's simply a rehash using non-essential modern factors that really in the end perfectly correlate to things that were discussed hundreds if not thousands of years ago you simply were unaware of. There's always been invention, there's always been suffering, there's always been strife, there's always been existential fear of not just personal destruction but widespread societal extinction, and so on. Just because you can plug in something unique to the modern era into the logical process, that isn't specifically written verbose in any existing book, doesn't mean it's new nor hasn't already been discussed in agonizing detail long ago.

However, groundbreaking philosophers had such creative ideas that transformed the way we see the world, and even gave rise to new disciplines we now see as essential. So what became so wrong about generating new ideas that challenge the status quo? Why isn’t philosophy about that anymore? — Skalidris

It’s not clear to me that your criticism is correct. You’ve cherry picked accomplishments from 5000 years and compared them to just a few years now. It’s also true that up until around the 1500s philosophy and science were inseparable. Now you’ve excluded that entire scope from consideration.

I don’t know enough philosophy to refute your claim, but you certainly haven’t provided any evidence that it’s true.

I’m not saying there aren’t any new ideas in philosophy, but philosophers generally seem very reluctant to drift away from the concepts they’ve read about. They seem hesitant to create new ideas altogether because such ideas likely wouldn’t meet the academic standards. — Skalidris

The situation is even worse than you depict it. It is not just that new ideas in a chronological sense are in short supply, but philosophical ideas which are already more than 100 years old have yet to be absorbed by a large percentage of the general population. Furthermore, most of what passes today for the leading edge of philosophical thought merely recycles and repackages the work of 19th century figures like William James, Charles Peirce, Wilhelm Dilthey and Kierkegaard. Meanwhile , the fresh ‘isms’ of 50 years ago (deconstructionism, postmodernism, poststructuralism) have been followed by regressive, reactionary movements like object-oriented ontology.

And I would add, this death of innovative thought is apparently not restricted to philosophy, judging by the popular press. There have been so many books and articles in recent years complaining about stagnation in the arts, literature, cinema, music and the sciences they I have lost count. It is a phenomenon of our times thar is in need of explanation. Here’s some examples courtesy of A.I. For the record , I don’t believe the. current situation can be explained on the exclusive basis of the stifling effects of corporate capitalism.

### **Books & Articles on Creative Stagnation**

1. **"The Creative Drought"** (2024) – An essay by Ted Gioia and others discussing the decline of artistic innovation, citing corporate consolidation, nostalgia-driven content, and algorithmic homogenization in film, music, and literature .

2. **"Is Old Music Killing New Music?"** (2022, *The Atlantic*) – Ted Gioia’s viral Substack post (later republished) argues that streaming platforms favor older songs, stifling new musical innovation .

3. **"Is This the Worst-Ever Era of American Pop Culture?"** (2025, *The Atlantic*) – Examines the dominance of reboots, franchises, and algorithm-driven content, questioning whether we’re in a "cultural dark age" .

4. **"The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" (comparisons in modern critiques)** – Referenced by Gioia as a metaphor for cultural stagnation, where modern entertainment recycles past successes like the Arch of Constantine reused older monuments .

5. **"The Creative Act: A Way of Being" by Rick Rubin (2023)** – While not directly about stagnation, Rubin’s book critiques formulaic creativity and urges a return to raw, unfiltered artistic expression, implying industry-wide creative decline .

6. **"The New York Times Magazine" (2023)** – Declared the 21st century the "least innovative, least transformative, least pioneering century for culture since the invention of the printing press" .

7. **The Guardian (2023)** – An art critic proclaimed that "the avant-garde is dead," lamenting the lack of groundbreaking movements in contemporary art .

8. **"The Honest Broker" (Ted Gioia’s Substack)** – Regularly critiques stagnation in music, literature, and film, highlighting how private equity and corporate control suppress originality .

9. **"Where Has Artistic Innovation and Creativity Gone?" (Inside Higher Ed, 2024)** – Discusses how economic pressures and nostalgia cycles (e.g., franchises, reboots) have replaced bold experimentation in arts and academia .

judging by the popular press — Joshs

The irony being that the popular press itself is among the most decadent and stagnated institutions. It makes it hard to take it seriously.

you’ve excluded that entire scope from consideration. — T Clark

My point wasn’t to make a graph about how creativity changed over time in philosophy.

You’ve cherry picked accomplishments from 5000 years — T Clark

I didn’t even mention a specific period of time in the past, I was just talking about the biggest names in philosophy, who gave rise to new disciplines – at any point in the past, it’s funny you directly jumped to the conclusion that I meant 5000 years ago.

What I mean is that the current method of philosophy in academia restrains creativity. It’s only recent that philosophical research is founded by an authority that represents it, and basically sets the rules. Before the 20th century, it was mostly independent thinkers who had to find other ways to make money.

Revolutionary ideas are simply not compatible with the way philosophy does things now: you have to analyse someone else’s thoughts, you can’t just produce a whole new model. Being an “independent thinker” is discouraged, and you have to fit into a mould to get funding for your work, as well as recognition.


I'm not really sure what your point is: do you think we're not going to have any philosophical breakthroughs that will give rise to new useful disciplines for example? Do you think anything new we'll find will be useless or of insignificant use? Do you seriously think everything has already been discussed in agonizing details?

And yet the irony of it all is, these people have yet to come up with anything that they claim to be so important! Complaining is the cheapest thing in the world. Second only to observation. Human beings literally do it in the womb before they even take their first breath. Well, crying, at least.

So. I mean, there's much to be discussed and explored, not to immediately dismiss your point brought forward, but. Still.

It's almost like, yeah, humanity has literally, finally, vomited out all there is to be thunk up. Lol. Sure, you make a new movie with physically unique characters and put them through all the same spiel, the love, loss, danger, add some explosions, a rocket ship, shoot why not a talking monkey, and it's a hit people will be talking about until their senior years. That's all that can be expected, and some would argue, all there is. :yikes:

The irony being that the popular press itself is among the most decadent and stagnated institutions. It makes it hard to take it seriously. — T Clark

Just because the press is a victim of the same phenomenon doesn’t mean they don’t have a point.

And I would add, this death of innovative thought is apparently not restricted to philosophy, judging by the popular press — Joshs

I disagree, the ways to do art for example have completely exploded in the last century, basically anything is "allowed", and you can share anything you want online anyway. The internet has allowed so many odd things to be created, and there are entire communities of these odd things that could have never existed before.

I think the lack of creativity in philosophy comes from the fact that it now has an authority that only allows a specific type of content, and that academia is considered to be the only "serious" way of practicing philosophy, so independent thinkers wouldn't be taken seriously unless the authority recognizes the value in it.

I disagree, the ways to do art for example have completely exploded in the last century, basically anything is "allowed", and you can share anything you want online anyway. The internet has allowed so many odd things to be created, and there are entire communities of these odd things that could have never existed before.

I think the lack of creativity in philosophy comes from the fact that it now has an authority that only allows a specific type of content, and that academia is considered to be the only "serious" way of practicing philosophy, so independent thinkers wouldn't be taken seriously unless the authority recognizes the value in it. — Skalidris

Artistic movements are themselves grounded in philosophical worldviews. Any innovation in rhe former presupposes annd reflects innovation in the latter, and vice versa. All you have to do is examine a list of the most acclaimed new talents in philosophy and you will find all sorts of cross links between their work and the arts and literature. And for their part, many artists today draw heavily from critical theory, phenomenology and other recent strands of philosophy. Perhaps one could say that , rather than a deficit of innovation in philosophy or the arts, the trajectory of innovation in both domains is moving farther and farther away from the concerns of popular culture. Rather than popular culture embracing these new ideas, it is hellbent on suppressing and censuring it, as witnessed by the actions of many states and the current federal government of the U.S. to eliminate anything smacking of ‘wokism’.

I'm not really sure what your point is — Skalidris

Let's imagine a dark room. Then you turn a light on and it's no longer dark. You don't just sit there reminiscing about how it used to be when the light wasn't on and that there's a "decline in lightness" now that it's bright just because it's not getting any brighter — it's literally just no longer dark and there's literally nothing more to see. Everything once obscured is simply not obscured any longer and perfectly visible. Well, that's one take, at least.

do you think we're not going to have any philosophical breakthroughs... — Skalidris

Quite honestly, no. Sure, some people will see things that were right in front of their face the whole time that they had the tools and resources to see anyhow because things are worded differently or otherwise now bypass certain mental blocks, quips, and complexes for whatever reason. No doubt. But that's a personal alleviation or blockage being remedied not anything that has anything to do with a larger school of thought.

...that will give rise to new useful disciplines for example — Skalidris

I mean, sure. It's possible. But superficially. If someone doesn't have legs, before someone thought of the idea of jamming a wooden pole into where the leg used to go, that person couldn't walk. But it didn't mean the idea of human locomotion was refined. I mean, sure it was a world of difference to those it benefited, but that was due to their own unique circumstance and again nothing to do with the larger concept as a whole.

Do you think anything new we'll find will be useless or of insignificant use? — Skalidris

Again, sure. If we in fact actually do find something new. I'm arguing that it's unlikely, and since you've yourself been unable to prove such, seems like a fairly defensible point and position to hold. Philosophy is not akin to innovation, at least not quite. Incandescent lighting for example, or the combustion engine, both great inventions. Changed the world, circumstantially. But didn't introduce a new concept. Not technically. We had light in darkness via candles, we had transportation via horses and carriage. Now, this might be construed as "moving the goalposts" per se, but, yes I believe all thought has been discussed and formed long ago. Even if all record of it has been destroyed. When you learn division in grade school, that's like a new idea, to you, and perhaps everybody else you know. But it's not. Not really.

Do you seriously think everything has already been discussed in agonizing details? — Skalidris

Philosophical concepts as far as what exists and can exist in the mind, more or less. Sure, maybe one day we'll invent an unlimited perpetual motion machine and solve all world hunger with a shrink ray set on "grow". :wink:

The science and technical facts, schematics, and what have you, like math, may have never been seen before by human eyes. The invention is new. The specific facilitation of logic to create a particular arrangement of matter in the physical world that results in an effect or serves as a utility in a capacity never done before might be new. But the concept... was already discussed and thought of, long, long ago....

Just because the press is a victim of the same phenomenon doesn’t mean they don’t have a point. — Joshs

I am skeptical, both of the press and what we are calling the decline of the arts. I just look around and see thousands of high quality books, movies, television shows, and popular music produced every year. I can't speak for visual arts. Is there a lot of crap, of course. But you don't have to read, watch, listen to, or look at it. We also have easy access to everything ever produced throughout history. There is more high quality literature, history, philosophy, art, music... than any of us could go through in a life time.

Wringing one's hands and crying "hell in a handbasket" is not evidence.

you’ve excluded that entire scope from consideration.
— T Clark

My point wasn’t to make a graph about how creativity changed over time in philosophy. — Skalidris

My quote referenced the fact that you've excluded science, which until 1600 or so was part of philosophy, from your evaluation.

I didn’t even mention a specific period of time in the past, I was just talking about the biggest names in philosophy, who gave rise to new disciplines – at any point in the past, it’s funny you directly jumped to the conclusion that I meant 5000 years ago. — Skalidris

Not funny at all. You wrote:

However, groundbreaking philosophers had such creative ideas that transformed the way we see the world, and even gave rise to new disciplines we now see as essential. So what became so wrong about generating new ideas that challenge the status quo? Why isn’t philosophy about that anymore? — Skalidris

You didn't specify when you were talking about. I didn't specify 5,000 years ago. Perhaps you misunderstood. I was talking about the entire last 5,000 years. Philosophy has been around for thousands of years. The "biggest names in philosophy" do go back thousands of years.

Artistic movements are themselves grounded in philosophical worldviews. Any innovation in rhe former presupposes annd reflects innovation in the latter, and vice versa. — Joshs

I'm pretty sure you could argue that anything is grounded in philosophical worldviews but that's besides the point. Art and philosophy don't depend on each other, one could stop evolving while the other could keep on evolving. Where did you get the idea that the innovations are dependent on each other? Sure some innovation in art could inspire something in philosophy and vice versa but it's far from always the case.

Incandescent lighting for example, or the combustion engine, both great inventions. Changed the world, circumstantially. But didn't introduce a new concept. Not technically. We had light in darkness via candles, we had transportation via horses and carriage. — Outlander

And there was nothing new about combustion engines because the individual components they assembled already existed, they just thought about arranging them in a specific way that was new. This is true with everything, not just philosophy. You can break down any philosophical idea to its primitive concepts that are instinctive to us, so not "new", just like you can break down any physical invention to its specific elements, that were built with previous knowledge, therefore not "new" either.

It just depends on where you draw the line on what's considered "new".

Maybe you think there are a lot less possibilities with philosophy than with math or engineering, to the point where producing anything new is extremely improbable in philosophy, whereas with math and engineering, it's very probable. Is that your opinion?

If so, I understand. We have all these confusing concepts in our mind, that weren't build rationally, unlike the concepts in math which we have laid out explicitly, so it's hard to imagine all the different steps that could have been taken.

If you're open to it, you can try to break down a complex intuitive concept, like ethics, knowledge, whatever pops on your mind. Pick the first element that you think is part of the concept, then break it down, and repeat this process until you reach what I call a primitive concept (one that cannot be broken down into "smaller" elements and that can only be defined through concepts it's included in or synonym concepts). Then look at all the steps you took, all the elements involved. From the most basic component you've found, you could work your way up and think of what these smaller elements are involved in. And this road could lead to a totally new concept that we do not have intuitively. Imagine all the paths you could have taken to build a drastically different version of the initial concept you chose. And then imagine that the new concept is integrated into a whole worldview of other new rationally crafted alternatives of intuitive concepts we've taken for granted for centuries. You've now got yourself a brand new perspective that is so odd that no one in their right mind would ever think of! Is it likely nonsense? Yes, but it's new! And you could always hit the jackpot and find something valuable.

I think the only reason we haven't played around with these combinations much, unlike what we've done in mathematics, is because it's less explicit and harder to share. If you invent a concept in math that is valid but useless, it's fine, but if you end up with a messed up view of the world, people are going to call you a madman, even if you know that your perspective has its advantages.

It's not clear that there is a decline in creativity in philosophy.

It won't do just to assert such a thing. It certainly is insufficient to base such a far reaching statement on "what I've seen".

But further, an undergrad in engineering or archeology, learning the intricacies and methods of their specialisation, would be misplaced in thinking that all there was to engineering or history was stuff already done, and no creativity. An engineer without a background in engineering would not be a good idea.

Especially if they are being creative.

Better that they understand the methods of engineering before they get to design a bridge.

It would be a mistake to think someone unfamiliar with engineering principles is in a better position to design a bridge simply because they are "unburdened" by past knowledge. Quite the opposite: without an understanding of load-bearing, stress tolerances, and material behaviour, their creativity is not just useless—it’s dangerous.

Criticism is the wellspring of creativity, not the undoing.

We criticise to question assumptions, reframe issues, and make space for alternatives. The most original thinkers—Plato, Kant, Wittgenstein—were relentless critics of the traditions they inherited. That’s not the death of creativity; it’s the engine.

I'm pretty sure you could argue that anything is grounded in philosophical worldviews but that's besides the point. Art and philosophy don't depend on each other, one could stop evolving while the other could keep on evolving. Where did you get the idea that the innovations are dependent on each other? Sure some innovation in art could inspire something in philosophy and vice versa but it's far from always the case. — Skalidris

There are no hard and fast distinctions to be made between what passes as art and what is considered philosophy, or between philosophy and poetry, fiction, science or any other domain of creativity. This is why cultural movements (classical, renaissance, Enlightenment ,Romanticism, modernism, postmodernism) encompass all of these domains, not simply because they all belong to the same chronological period, but because they express different facets of a shared set of worldviews, via their own unique vocabulary of expression. So yes, each domain of creativity within an era depends inextricably on the others, since they are not separated to begin with except artificially.

Yes I misunderstood what you meant.

My quote referenced the fact that you've excluded science, which until 1600 or so was part of philosophy, from your evaluation. — T Clark

I still don't understand how you think I've excluded science. Even when science was part of philosophy, it was still just a part, not the whole thing.

You’ve cherry picked accomplishments from 5000 years and compared them to just a few years now. — T Clark

Maybe the title of my post was confusing. I said decline because I do believe creativity has decreased over the past centuries as a general trend (even if we look at just 2 or 3). And I mentioned the ground breaking philosophers to show that creativity matters, not to show that at these points in time when these philosophers lived, creativity in philosophy in society as a whole was higher.

The point of my post is to ask this question: "If the biggest breakthroughs came from focusing on creativity rather than criticizing existing ideas, why is philosophy focused on the latter?"

I am skeptical, both of the press and what we are calling the decline of the arts. I just look around and see thousands of high quality books, movies, television shows, and popular music produced every year. I can't speak for visual arts. Is there a lot of crap, of course. But you don't have to read, watch, listen to, or look at it. We also have easy access to everything ever produced throughout history. There is more high quality literature, history, philosophy, art, music... than any of us could go through in a life time.

Wringing one's hands and crying "hell in a handbasket" is not evidence — T Clark

No, but there is evidence in how one feels about the movies, songs, plays and novels that one gets one’s hands on. You’re an engineer. I’m sure you’re also a lover of good music, movies and other forms of artistic creativity. But I dont know how picky you are about your entertainment. What does it take to move you? When I partake of an artistic product, my standards are based on memories of experiences with a song or film that shook me to the core, that changed in some small fashion the way I felt or thought about things. I remember stepping out of a theater after watching a life-changing film and everything around me seemed a little different. My favorite music gave me ideas about new possibilities, and acted as a guide to the future I wanted to create or discover. I’m selfish about my artistic experiences that way. I will settle for superficial entertainment, but I crave the kind of art that unsettles me, surprises the hell out of me, disturbs me. And where do I find such art today? In small rarified circles closely aligned with academic environments, where the art is intertwined with philosophical notions which themselves are mostly isolated from the mainstream. I would say, then, that the innovative art and philosophy are out there, but they are produced and consumed by an increasing guy smaller segment of the general culture.

It would be a mistake to think someone unfamiliar with engineering principles is in a better position to design a bridge simply because they are "unburdened" by past knowledge. Quite the opposite: without an understanding of load-bearing, stress tolerances, and material behaviour, their creativity is not just useless—it’s dangerous. — Banno

You could do the same analogy with art, and it would be a totally different picture. In art, it can be a good thing to avoid art school and just play around and learn it yourself, which is how some people come up with unique ways to play with the elements around them, and that’s the beauty of art.

Some techniques can help you achieve a goal you have in mind, but if you are too rigorous in the process, and try to follow what you’ve been taught meticulously, it takes away the creativity. What you’ve been taught gives you a broad direction, and you can take liberties and deviate from it, but not being bound by it in the first place offers a lot more possibilities.
And usually, when you learn things by yourself and don’t have the pressure of having to pass exams or having to meet some standards to get funding for your work, you’re a lot less bound to what you’ve learned.

But the fact that you compared philosophy to engineering makes a lot of sense considering your perspective. You think there is a right way to philosophise, right? That deviating a lot from it, or starting from some place else is like building a bridge without the sufficient knowledge?

What if you don’t want to build a bridge? What if you just want to play around to see what you find and accidentality stumble upon gold while everyone else was too busy building bridges and improving them?

The thing with philosophy’s standards nowadays is that if you produce something drastically different that doesn’t fit this “right way to philosophise”, it’s not going to be taken seriously, even though it might be a breakthrough.

It would be like telling Picasso his paintings are ugly and worthless because it looks like a child painted them, and that he needs to go back to the traditional methods if he ever wants to be successful.

The most original thinkers—Plato, Kant, Wittgenstein—were relentless critics of the traditions they inherited. That’s not the death of creativity; it’s the engine. — Banno

There's a world of difference between criticizing something and then thinking about something completely different that doesn't contain the same frustration as in the criticized thing, and criticizing something to then produce a slightly different version of it.

In the end we all criticize things, it's not an indicator of creativity on its own. It's how much you drift from existing things that matters.

I don't think its a creativity issue. I think its an aesthetic issue. Most academic philosophy these days is technical, dry and concerned with minutiae because most big concepts have been "done to death" as they say.

There's plenty of creativity going, I think. Bunch of work on AI and that type of consciousness/learning stuff. Less, but still some stuff about causation, process v semantics etc.. Some of it is quite cool, and interesting to someone like me. But I imagine its totally uninteresting to a lot of even professional philosophers and so is considered uncreative.

You think there is a right way to philosophise, right? — Skalidris

Very much, no.

But there is bad philosophy.

And Picasso went to art school. Picasso’s early training at formal art schools like the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando in Madrid gave him a strong grounding in classical techniques: anatomy, proportion, perspective. But rather than remain within those bounds, he systematically took them apart. His innovations—especially in Cubism—can be seen as a radical deconstruction and reassembly of that academic foundation.

I think it is, strangely, at least partially a problem of too much creativity in academia, which in turn leads to stagnation through a poor signal to noise ratio. There is an incentive for radical rereading, radical critiques—novelty for the sake of novelty, etc.—because this gets attention in a massively oversaturated market. Even saying something absurd can be a good way to get citations. It's publish or perish, and even fields like classics have seen this weird phenomena where publications and the number of journals soared even as enrollment plummeted and Greek and Latin vanished from most high schools, along with even translations of the classics. This is particularly evident in some fields, where consensus oscillates wildly based on the same old evidence (Biblical studies being a prime culprit).

This is, in part, an effort to replicate the style of the technical and natural sciences. "Research" becomes the key output of the academic. So too, there is the idea of "progress" borrowed from technical fields, which was generally given a political tilt in philosophy and the humanities, which in turn led to siloed echo chambers. The push for political progress paired with the drive to novelty leads to inanity and, at the limit, insanity.

That's part of it. There is also the fact that, at a certain point, you cannot get anymore radical. You reach maximal nihilism or relativism, or maximal authoritarianism in the case of fundamentalism. You can't keep making your art more abstract after a certain level. So, in terms of the general modern push towards "creativity" envisioned as a sort of "freedom as potency," we seem to have approached a sort of limit.

The other thing is that philosophy is more professionalized now. Philosophy was also more stable (less "creative") in late antiquity and the later middle ages. I don't think this was wholly a bad thing. It made for more rigorous thought.

It was more dynamic in the early modern period and earlier in antiquity. You have far more new movements starting in these periods. You do get more creativity, but also more bad, even widely damaging philosophy.

I also think the new movements at least began vastly less sophisticated and they often did quite poor justice to what came before them in the early modern case. There is a huge democratization that comes with the printing press (i.e. "who can sell the most pamphlets" versus "who can win enough admiration to be hand-copied at great expense by other lifelong contemplatives"), which happened to occur during the massive socio-political firestorm of the Reformation, which created a drive to just tear everything down and destroy it (regardless of if it had been understood) in order to create something new. That's obviously very broad, but I think it's generally true. Early modern thought is an explosion of creativity and also hugely historically forgetful.

Late modernity is more akin to late antiquity than the medieval period though. There is a sort of fixed plurality that seems to have calcified. It's more of a similar historical moment too. That said, the focus of the philosophers of late antiquity tended towards the contemplative as time went on, which is quite the opposite of today.

However, groundbreaking philosophers had such creative ideas that transformed the way we see the world, and even gave rise to new disciplines we now see as essential. So what became so wrong about generating new ideas that challenge the status quo? Why isn’t philosophy about that anymore? — Skalidris

Why is novelty so essential? Isn’t that part of the whole ‘myth of progress’, that only the novel is valuable? That voracious appetite which is driving all of us to constantly seek out news, new developments, new ideas, always rushing forwards?

The foundations of philosophy were laid down in the Axial Age, ‘a period in human history, roughly between the 8th and 3rd centuries BCE, when significant developments in religious and philosophical thought occurred independently in various parts of the world. This period saw the emergence of universalizing modes of thought, including new ethical and spiritual ideas, that laid the foundation for many major world religions and philosophical systems.’ Exemplars are the Greek philosophers, Buddhism, Taoism, and the Semitic religions. The Axial Age depended on the confluence of vast and large-scale developments in culture and society: the formation of the first city-states, the advent of literacy, and widespread appearance and dissemination of cultural myths and legends.

There has of course been ongoing development of all of these traditions, intertwined with further evolution of language, culture, technology and economic practices. But many of the main planks were laid down by Axial Age cultures. And once they were articulated, they couldn’t be redefined or reinvented in entirely new ways. Rather it became a matter of constantly re-interpreting them, and many of those ongoing re-interpretations were indeed novel. But there are only so many ways to re-package the perennial truths of axial-age philosophies, which in the meantime have largely been lost sight of even if they form the basis of the grammar of civilisation.

...Axial Age, ‘a period in human history, roughly between the 8th and 3rd centuries BCE, when significant developments in religious and philosophical thought occurred independently in various parts of the world. — Wayfarer

Some scepticism is deserved here. It's pretty likely that this "boom" was the result of oral traditions being writ down.

Certainly the myth of simultaneous enlightenment is dubious.

Speculation in the sciences and mathematics has become the fashionable version of philosophy and those who explore those realms of thought, the modern philosophers. How much more can be said of ontology without bringing in to play artificial intelligence?

As a retired mathematician I have seen the shift to foundations over the traditional ideas and simply extending knowledge in an envelop of heritage. Beyond the two basic forms of "infinity" - all I ever employed - are abstractions that appeal to a large number of math devotees. Here is an example: Unimaginable Infinities