Abstract
My chief contention is that the evaluative aspect of the concept of creativity has been underplayed. If we bear this in mind, we shall have to look more closely at certain facets of concepts which are inter-related to that of creativity. This is so because first, though we may speak of a creative artifact or idea, we can only do so by seeing either as an exemplification of intentional activity. Secondly, whenever someone is thought to be creative, what he has done is seen in some way as original, and thirdly as good. All these ideas are implicit in every example of the usage of 'creative', but precisely what we are committed to when we employ the concept, is rarely made explicit. To make these points explicit, it is necessary to clarify the concepts of thinking and intelligence since intentional behaviour will only be understood by presupposing these to some degree. Moreover, if one is to act with originality, then this will demand seeing connections unseen by others; and for this to be possible, a concept of intelligence is necessary. Here, we ought to be aware that any means or ends adopted are dependent upon how an evaluator sees them. He must consider them as good in some way. So, when we claim that someone is creative, we mean that because he has acted with originality, he is necessarily considered intelligent, and also that what he has done is considered valuable. That particular sense of value will be shown to be one which enriches understanding; this is the reason for the evaluation.