Is destruction a form of creation?

While it could be argued destruction allows for new creations, destruction itself is no creation. It doesn’t bring anything into existence it destroys its existence. Something that once was is no longer if it is destroyed.

Destruction doesn’t create rubble, it takes away from the rubble and what its existence used to be. The rubble is not something new now, just what something else used to be. The rubble is still what it was, just taking on a new form. That new form is not of new creation but the creation that once was shattered. The destruction of something is not the creation of another thing.

The bombing of London is not what created the new city, it’s what allowed the new city to be built. The city was created because of the separate bombings of London. Destruction can easily lead to creation. The destruction of a wall can create a sense of unity. But the destruction itself did not create the unity. A cause is not a form. The effects of the destruction is the creation, not the destruction itself.

No form of creation involves destruction. Nothing is created by being destroyed. The rubble wasn’t created, the rubble was already there just in the shape of a building. While sure, statues are iron melted and then remolded to fit, the iron was never destructed. That iron is not beyond repair and was never damaged.

Artists may chip away at a log to create a spoon but that’s not destruction. The log is now beyond repair, but the only thing happening truly happening, the only intentions there, are creation. Destruction and creation have meaning/intents. They can not be one of the same because their meanings/intents are completely the opposite. Every action either fits into destruction of creation based on its meaning, never both. A fire’s meaning isn’t to create ash, it’s to destroy forests. An artist’s artwork is never to ruin something, but create art of what the ruins will look like.