Suicide and Self-Sacrifice in Spinoza's Philosophy

CEU eTD Collection

In partial fulfillment oftheIn requirements S in Spinoza’s P in Spinoza’s uicide and uicide and b Supervisor: Mic y Jaime Central European UniversityCentral European Department of PhilosophyDepartment Budapest, Hungary Budapest, Francisco Francisco Submitted to Submitted 2015 S

hael V. Griffinhael V. elf

Pericás Sáez hilosophy for for the of degree -

sacrifice

Masterof Arts

CEU eTD Collection

Friedrich Nietzsche, speaks itself of esteeming out “Much is esteemed more highly by life than life itself; yet

Thus Spoke Zarathus Thus Spoke — will to power!” tra

CEU eTD Collection abstractness. sacrifice and suicide of impossibility or possibility the to this In A self rational or free of concept a formulate to order in consequences mediate and immediate employ thevagueness of withmy theory theconatus conjunction in di obscure the understanding in instrumental as knowledge’ of ‘kinds three the of theory A in question. mode original the of effects the explain the to modes require external that of intervention those are consequences mediated processes; or activities a be by to caused understood adequately always is what is immediate the modes: of consequences of distinction a developing by theory conatus the theory Be by J. conat the of analyses and criticisms the of discussion brief a offers chapter the in theory conatus the of exposition main terms. from described suicidebe can asa andwhich free or ac rational self theory b BSTRACT - sacrifice can be The thesis , and whether his statements are properly explained given his discursive his given explained properly are statements his whether and , y discussing both his epistemology and his theory of freedom. I argue that or vague

essay fterwards -

sacrifice in Spinozistic terms. I terms. Spinozistic in sacrifice

I aim to delve into the debat the into delve to aim I epoe i mtpyis f individual of metaphysics his explore I nnett, D. andGarrett, A. Youpa. I partially defend theconsistency of

is developed throughout three chapters. The onthe first chapters. focuses throughoutdeveloped three is formulation formulation of the conatus theory. conceived as sil n h scn chapter, second the in still ,

oe n i i cmlt hroy ih t essential its with harmony complete in is and mode a form of behavior that is systematically distinct i

e of Spinoza’s metaphysics with respectwith metaphysics Spinoza’sof e create Ethics —

as a concomitant topic concomitant a as — I

In the third chapter I move to

oe o xmn Spinoza’s examine to move

and focus on focus and n E3p4 in immediate

modes - 37 Te second The E3p7. tion in Spinozistic n te conatus the and

— and

an example an stinction ofstinction mediated —

self us -

CEU eTD Collection the ethical socialconsequences the ethical of hismetaphysics. and ‘egoist’an as Spinozaof description our shift to prudent poss herself. sacrifice rationally or freely can she that i.e., freely; decision a such made have to understood be still I argue that she can of an expecting mother and the possibility of her dying by giving birth to the child

blt o rtoa self rational of ibility ‘ sacrifice -

sacrifice within Spinoza’s philosophy, it would be be would it philosophy, Spinoza’s within sacrifice

’

I conclude that from this understanding for the the for understanding this from that conclude I herself in order to bring the pregnancy to terms and ii

seriously reconsider : CEU eTD Collection Also, I would like to thank the CEU Department of Philosophy for supplying me supplying for Philosophy of Department CEU the thank to like would I Also, argumentative patience, his for and very was who I would like to express A this in studying of privilege for twoinstitution years: it the me allowing and support economic with CKNOWLEDGEMENTS supportive consistency is achieved throughout m throughout achieved is consistency sincere

y sluggishness my through was

thanks to my

incredible

his keen observation keen his iii

experience.

supervisor, Professor Michael notwithstanding y thesis, it is due to his help. his to due is it thesis, y

my entire my . Whatever little little Whatever

thesis

Griffin,

— CEU eTD Collection Chapter 1. Conatus in Spinoza’s ownChapter words Spinoza’s 1. Conatus in Introduction Acknowledgements Abstract T Bibliography andConclusion closing remarks Chapter a 3.Towards rational theory of self Chapter conatus 2.The on debate andsuicide ABLE OF 3.2 New possible 3.1 Free orrational behavior 2.2 Conatus andthe kindofknowledge second 2.1 Arguments foragainst andtheconatus theory 1.1.3 Virtue and conatus thehuman of modes1.1.2 Conatus asessence 1.1.1 Foundationsconatus ofthe concept 1.1 Ethics

......

...... C

...... ONTENTS

...... consequences conatus ofthe theory

......

...... iv

- ......

...... sacrifice

......

33 32 25 19 70 67 58 53 53 46 iii .

8 7 7 1

CEU eTD Collection rm eahsc, l te a truh theor psy through way the all metaphysics, from The After I pp.152 of God. 1 active perpetually substance Moreove goal or the Thi discursive topic and suicide of impossibility or possibility the to respect with this, an proposals not though inapplicability or specific the achievement:

NTRODUCTION Della Rocca (2 Rocca Della s chology, conatus Ethic research topic — confronting d

self

f said of r, Spinoza Spinoza r, more specific s , but but , 1

abstractness

- is at one time a highly comprehensive work of philosophy of work comprehensive highly a time one at is , i.e., , op

sacrifice - n hw e ei t understan to begin we how and merely and politics, 3; however, Spinoza never explicitly speak of God’s conatus. conatus. of God’s speak explicitly never Spinoza 3; however, 008) suggests that we can extend the conatus concept to also describe the essence thedescribe essence concept also to we that 008) suggests conatus extend the can e also i rational s

‘ one of the

persevering Spinoza striving Ethic entities

is as , s a as

rus that argues

and whether his statements are derivative of one of constitutive oftheinterpretative allows richness it ally

. s

theories of reality. reality. of theories

up to ethics eaie hrceitc of characteristic negative

a apa s asrc as abstract so appear can ’s , or

that I aim to delve into the background Ethic

tendency ’

s n o te nepeaie ak I undertake). I tasks interpretative the of one is always express in a certain way the power of God of power the way certain a in express always

s , the reader reader the , this conatus conatus this . . However, it is

in all things to persevere to things all in

issues faced in this brief research project 1 Spinoza’s

This This can be can wa te ae n themselves: in are they what d is debate concern

ies of epistemology, epistemology, of ies

pivotal pivotal philosophical concepts:

h esne f l mds of modes all of essence the at an the obscurity of many of its its of many of obscurity the

properly left with conflicting feelings. conflicting with left to seem seem to

other time an of Spinoza’s metaphysics

with

— ex o fe few offer to

( abstractness abstractness as a concomitant a as p yet, lained

the meaningthe incomplete — given . physics, ranging ranging Beyond truly and

his ,

CEU eTD Collection the in particularproject Spinoza’s fundamental reader all to out foundational to Spinoza’s theory of virtue. he the at is concept conatus the that say God of attribute someunder richness to amount his hence allowing us the possibility to derive further unexpected consequences from might have might suicide nonetheless, h radical lethally conatus, the to connected deeply philosophy conatus. its of virtue self to entity any for possibility any from follow that consequences potential other in interested to foundational either are In this project, however, I am interested in a very specific subset of philosophy

not is

—

logically impossible. be

and the

y crfl prah o pnz’ clarifications Spinoza’s to approach careful a by said too little too said ihn i framework his within

may consider this to be a non a be to this consider may as easily identifiable as they as identifiable easily as o epann te eair f l kns f niis and entities, of kinds all of behavior the explaining for . I believe believe I . nsy (E4p72sch) onesty s

limits f the of Hence — that in fles in that on the on —

, of his Ethics

we (E1def5, or However

may immediate immediate topic; philosophy

Ethics s they as we , - uh as such

destruct in virtue of its essence alone; i.e., in i.e., alone; essence its of virtue in destruct . hing out what suicide and self and suicide what out hing acquire a deeper understating of understating deeper a acquire

E1p25c) T

, , I will make an effort to show oe aiir ih pnz’ philosophy Spinoza’s with familiar hose 2 art of all of Spinoza’s work inso work Spinoza’s of all of art and that death that and —

iutnosy discover simultaneously Its importance should continually stand

can seem can

issue: our author explicitly author our issue: to explain human to explain consequences of consequences eoe aware become suicide .

Moreover, i Moreover,

in (e.g., (e.g., , suicide and self and suicide , common sense discourse sense common E3p4, E4p20sch) and and E4p20sch) E3p4, t is no exaggeration to exaggeration no is t — ht h cnts is conatus the that life

Spinoza’s denial of denial Spinoza’s on

the conatus: the .

issues asser - uh f the of much sacrifice sacrifice that that

states his far as far tions - sacrifice ht are that Spinoza — overall given

I am I

that that that it can can

is , ,

CEU eTD Collection my self of topic the defend i This sui of are suffici In other words, I will try to show that metaphysics Spinoza’s and conceptconatus 2 ‘self named ad be could that behavior of explanation an develop to tools the with us However, term a such that think would he that regre own Spinoza’s ‘self rational or freefor possibility the completely out rule mind in this Having duration. that existence ‘complete’ or ‘perfect’ a imply not enhancement’ ‘self on discussions substitute to that is interpreting misunderstandings the

Youpa (2003). Youpa arguments ttably, Spinoza never spoke of self of spoke never Spinoza ttably, s not to say, however, that that however, say, to not s c d ad self and ide one interpr

ently ently underdetermined to allow for in in this essay I will - tendency sacrifice’ and not be a mere subset of suicidal conduct. suicidal of subset mere a be not and sacrifice’

, which opens the way for us to see see to us for way the opens which ,

with

- sacrifice within this framework. this within sacrifice inclinations etation -

the conatus sacrifice

, I will maintain that Spinoz that maintain will I , recent work recent

to by

mere existence extended in time, but, instead, but, time, in extended existence mere

overallow of others for sopositing as to thepossibility sever

cneune that consequences , attempt to show that Spinoza’s metaphysics provides

could

theory al

all by Andrew Youpa Andrew by

additional derivations additional - could otherwise. argue to been have rsrain wt te em ‘perfection term the with preservation’ portant Spinoza scholars Spinoza portant . . Youpa is

3 - o necessarily not

sacrifice

only denote a specific form of suicide. suicide. of form specific a denote only ’s additional

main main contribution in the debate a’s explicit metaphysics does not does metaphysics explicit a’s pnz hmef i nt derive not did himself Spinoza At this point point this At

that the conatus doctrine need doctrine conatus the that within his wo his within 2 ,

where he explains he where

implications implications in the realm fulfilled - sacrifice’, even though even sacrifice’, can be accurate. I will I accurate. be can

I will I within the within

rk. It is possible is It rk. by

In any cas any In link t temporal its to

equately equately much of much Perhaps some

project a more more a e, I e,

of is - . CEU eTD Collection The first chap first The The a most ofhis fundamentalmetaphysics and philosophical psychology torespond to is it philosophy: Spinoza’s through tackle can one self of topic the that believe readers his to himself explain defined show between the three kinds of knowledge t reason for miscomprehension describingchange theconatus ofvocabulary in Yet, after conatus chapter second The o his concepts in order to determine what would be t of limits the and ignorance his reveals Spinoza which at points various the show I individuals. of description operational an offer cannot he that acknowledgment c of notion the how explain words, where and conatus the suicide are discussed. f orany entity specific actual primary

whole of this

ht t is it that to see see to

in the in theory analyzing these aut

human concern: human how ter will offer an overview of the various places in Spinoza’s in places various the of overview an offer will ter Ethic and concomitant topics by topics concomitant and necessary interpretative interpretative these s

will offer an overview of interpretations of overview an offer will from anabst from

concepts are employed and in in and employed are concepts

o determine to the issue of the limits of rational rational of limits the of issue the - ho sacrifice

. s

(i.e., whether the the whether (i.e., nts s neemnd u t Sioas own Spinoza’s to due undetermined is onatus r

of theconatus s project project ’ ract perspective that limits the way Spinoza can wayract perspectivethe Spinoza limits that

contributions

may be one of the most profound problems profound most the of one be may hat Spinoza mentions in his is carried out 4

hte te oau cnet s n fact in is concept conatus the whether

various Here I

in literature: the notdistinguishing ,

I and Youpa’s useful suggestion for conatus is defined and employed and defined is conatus argue he a

recognized Spinoza scholars. Spinoza recognized concentrate dilemma complete complete along three chapters. along three chapters.

that there is an additional thereisan that what or virtuous or

context

that brings to bear bear to brings that and attacks and essence or conatus

in Spinoza’s own Ethic . Moreover, I Moreover, behavior. s . . I on the on Ethics

try try to

CEU eTD Collection however, interpr coherent con of series thethirdFinally, chapter, common many to things from individual given any of understanding abstract highly our to connected be can it how and freedom of theory Spinoza’s of Spinoza’s conatus the to discussion the shifting of description Spinoza’s why explaining for necessary is shift by This epistemology. theory conatus the of criticisms individual of notions the and abstractness problematic its and ontology Spinoza’s T of freepossibility self inferring is conatus the which from knowledge end the In alreadyoffered. Spinoza what with it in unique is reading my that insist to venture wouldn’t argue the with consistent issue the of reading he unambiguous

three chapters are chapters three

what he calls he what —

various key concepts remain underdetermined in Spinoza in underdetermined remain concepts key various

the that that and individuals remain individuals and additional additional etrs s o h lmt o Sioas hoy f suicide of theory Spinoza’s of limits the to as jectures hs interpretation this

descriptions of actual entities. The third chapter then points to points then chapter third The entities. actual of descriptions etation

, but , the onain ta Sioa assembled. Spinoza that foundations - sacrifice. sacrifice.

then “ unanticipated

and second kind of knowledge of kind second merely a b dvlpd tmig rm hs limits these from stemming developed be can informed by the thediscussion in previous offers two, a

connected in the following way. The first focuses on focuses first The way. following the in connected exclusive none) to

Te eod chap second The .

il not will so difficult so

e of the various possible various the of e consequen expressed

5 ie Sioas epistemology Spinoza’s given

be I will again again will I

. and why they offer little little offer they why and

submitted ce is critical for the possibili the for critical is

” e tcls h best the tackles ter from , which only offers qualities offers only which ,

with respect to the conatus conatus the to respect with

explain explain the conatus t conatus the

Given that that Given s the as being able to cohere to able being views that can be can that views how the kind ofkind the how possible only philosophy, philosophy,

— heory: the heory: hw the how : and in s will I as - known Note .

terms w ty of ty hat I , CEU eTD Collection of actions indetermina

are teness teness of the conatus concept affects our understanding of what kinds

‘ free ’ , including, what I

later label ‘ label later 6

free self - sacrifice ’ .

CEU eTD Collection and explain the signific the and explain can expand upon them o Spinoza employs or defines the conatus concept and concomi In C of series a proposals. This is piece intimidating. geometric ordine Etica his foundational beliefs are expressedanddeveloped The 1.1 sacrifice. distin systematic a for allow that tools conceptual the have we shall chapter suicide of discussion a to ourselves limit self is related to our more general topic: suicide and self The main purpose of this chapter is to begin to illustrate how the conatus doctrine nly in the in nly HAPTER

the following sections sections following the - Ethic sacrifice is a topi a is sacrifice Ethic

frequently

s s

metaphysical propositions (part I of the of I (part propositions metaphysical is considered by most Spinoza’s as magnum opus second and second 1.

It C

is ONATUS IN

focus more on the metaphysical theories and less and theories metaphysical the on more focus understandable give to bten sel between ction significant c that Spinoza never seems to tackle to seems never Spinoza that c . ance of eachance their usein stage.

third chapter shall I of I shall chapter third F demonstrata o or now I shall offer an overview of the main the of overview an offer shall I S

to point to PINOZA

I I shall point out peculiarities of each deploym f -

n how the or destruction ’ out , S OWN WORDS 7 which

and its title given how discussions on this on discussions how given title its fer detailed arguments for arguments detailed fer

self can can Ethic - destruction. Ethic - sacrifice. sacrifice. However, given that t once at . s

Its title complete

ucd, and suicide, is

s composed ) and )

explicitly , , and where tant tant topics.

be be moves substantiated Only by the third the by Only

locations where where locations dist : , we will we , it it begins rational in atn and racting

on to argue to on its ethical its in However, nearly all

how one how Latin

with now self and ent

is -

CEU eTD Collection interesting and coherent worldview, but to develop develop to but worldview, coherent and interesting theories. b the of part directly the throughout topic given any on propositions Spinoza’s V and IV III, (parts freedom and bondage, for his theory of mind and knowledge (part II) until it reaches his theory of affects, defended. nor systematically fashion geometrical in offered is never that information is the especially withcase many of his 3 common more its on focus to convenient is it conatus, of concept this understand to begin To the1.1.1 Foundationsof conatus metaphysics and epistemology tohi part, middle the in time first the for defined and presented is conatus the theory. ethical his to ultimately and condition, human the to nature all that concept main the is It project. Ethic a Yet, affairs and achieving out

Note, however, that many exceptions can be found to this argumentative interdep argumentative this to found be can exceptions many that however, Note, — s mong the numerous concepts that he develops and employs throughout the throughout employs and develops he that concepts numerous the mong

one , a theory for life for theory a

n previous on oee, h goal the However,

cannot overestimate the importance that that importance the overestimate cannot

o, hn uh f h rs ms fn suppor find must rest the of much then ook, s if as nls translation English fastening

the highest degreethe statements , an ,

ethic

oehr w halves two together f h bo a a whole a as book the of s scholia

: a philosophy that may help us in directing o directing in us help may that philosophy a : . concept 3

ec, f h mtpyis osiue h first the constitute metaphysics the if Hence, s s theories : , , where but explains he propositions, also adds much striving

ows Spinoza to bind his metaphysics of of metaphysics his bind to Spinoza ows 8 of

blessedness

respectively). respectively).

of bondage and freedom or

tendency

of . a

—

is not to simply offer an an offer simply to not is the book: book: s h tte pl points aptly title the as ; i.e., as some form of of form some as i.e., ; Ethic oau pas o his for plays conatus s h tte suggests, title the As in t Ethic yn tgte his together tying

i metaphysical his s

frequently frequently s

in its third its in Coincidently, endence. This This endence. .

rely ur or or

CEU eTD Collection along concept this forfoundations explicit firstexpressed.conatusis doctrinethe which in sense appropriate is observation this now, For strive endeavor s and things Therefore, absurd. is E3p4) (by which it, destroy could which subject same the in something be could there Demonstration: nequeunt, 7 find to able be not shall we q.e.d. it, destroy can which it in causes, anything external to not and itself, thing the to only attend we while it take not does and essence, thing’s the posits it or essence, thing’s the deny, not does Demonstration: 6 use. his for explanation detailed or proof no butoffered he 1), 16, ch. sec. 5 convention. is the as ‘striving’, 4 self be other referenc no makes itself demonstration the a have not does that book entire the in proposition is propositions these of first The E3p5: E3p4:

Spinoza Spinoza previously employed the concept of conatus in his E3p5 in Latin: E3p5 in Latin: E3p4 in alr 20) as ht l tre r aeut transl adequate are three all that says (2006) Nadler s

four consecutive propositions, fourpropositions, though consecutive propositions)

- or

evident given that “the definition of anything affirms, and does not deny, not does and affirms, anything of definition “the that given evident mention . quatenus una alteram potest destruere. potest destruere. alteram una quatenus tend 4

In common sense discourse,

Nulla res nisi a causa externa potest destrui. potest externa a causa nisi res Nulla s For if they could agree with one another, or be in the same subject at once, then then once, at subject same the in be or another, one with agree could they if For esse eodem subiecto in eatenus est, hoc naturae, sunt contrariae eatenus Res This proposition is evident through itself. For the definition of a thing affirms, and s Things are of contrary nature, that is, cannot be in the same be can destroyedNothing an through external cause. except

ubject, insofar as insofaras can destroyubject, one the other or

of endeavors

o on, q.e.d. on, o the . Spinoza .

conatus

, , but one

. 5 merely

Moreover, the Moreover, , Spinoza offers two basic propositions that that propositions basic offerstwo Spinoza ,

unusual strives tells all these terms are 9

and sufficient to begin to appreciate the appreciate to begin to sufficient and

the reader the within the within

or now Ionly on focus the

e to previous to e whole tends ations for conatus, but mainly employs employs mainly but conatus, for ations Theological Theological Political Treatise

notion or

‘ that Ethic proper endeavors However, b However, .

7 this proposition should proposition this

transitive s is definitions, axioms or axioms definitions,

because it is the only the is it because ’ originally

demonstration

to do something eforethe initial se , , one not

first two. first developed 6

(e.g., (e.g., away. So So away. set the set

only (i.e., TTP

CEU eTD Collection allows us to start a discussion of the conatus at this point of the of point this at conatus the of discussion a start to us allows self a as it consider to us of requires he weexamples willshortly discuss This is one of the many controversial assumptions displayed by Spinoza find to anything weable be causes, shallnot whichexternal it destroy in can it.” essence thing’s the b nor be thing.” the without conceived neither can thing the which without that or away; taken necessarily also is thing the away, taken being which, and posited necessarily 8 proposition this self for capacity their with together existence their posits both person the of essence the that consider their of cause main Suicide suicide. imagination as seem might this definition at least) both posit and take away the existence of a thing destruction. th the Spinoza e arguments avoiding by injustice an of much too commit

xplanation xplanation E2def2: “I say that to the essence of anything belongs that which, being given, the thing is also is thing the given, being which, that belongs anything of essence the to that say “I E2def2: ing and canno and ing here

f i metaphysics his of

for quickly n te wrs a esne ant e contradictory be cannot essence an words, other In notes notes

his reasoning . Other . — understood as a situation where situation a as understood

that

t seem to offer straightforward counterexamples to counterexamples straightforwardoffer to seem [ reasonable a

w death own … - — destruction ] examples might come to mind, s mind, to come might examples

under any circumstance any under

the essence the o hl w atn ol t the to only attend we while so

at this point, so thispoint, at

— ihn h book the within . We may call it an assumption an Wemay callit .

, hence the controversy the hence ,

da o od bt omn es ad bt of bit a and sense common but hold, to idea em t seems 8

of a thing a of 10 - evident truth. evident cnevd ad hc cn ete b nr be nor be neither can which and conceived, e

disp o I shallofferit analysisof an — — posits or posits . for now for oe pnz’ statement Spinoza’s rove However, he does offer some some offer does he However,

be the sole reason for its for reason sole the be people are intentionally the intentionally are people Yet, c Yet, uch as an exploding an as uch —

hn isl, n nt to not and itself, thing c about the legitimacy of of legitimacy the about ause

onveniently, this also this onveniently, a review

to the to the degree that s Ethic

the existence of existence the : .

At first glance t ant (by cannot it s of previous of . We do notdo We . , , given the E3p4, e.g., E3p4, .

f we if

time time own

CEU eTD Collection understand to holdsbegin E3p4 therelation toE3p5. initiated. be to element external some of intervention the requires individual arguing is He impossible. Spinoza is not saying that bom it specific is a 10 p. 197. (2006) Nadler p.110; (1988) 9 suicide of attempt seeming the before exist to ceased already was act’ ‘suicidal the before imagine could one First, things. we that require would suicide for case analogous this t in involved individuals the of nature say this separation self seeming all of First superficially what of interpretations reveals an unavoidable implication doe proposition this We must note here, as is

Examples Examples discussed by the following authors respectively: Della Rocca (2008) pp. 140

By this By this I not do that mean the thing singular

that that separate things that were same could b , a burning cand burning a , argument

’ , mean that mean )

of already of one can can one 10 mode -

destruction, what in fact was witnessed was the decomposition decomposition the was witnessed was fact in what destruction, cannot cannot

of substance. of maintain becomes

nt d any add not s merelyitself by we we distinct individuals. I individuals. distinct le , ageing ,

seen seen in the demonstration for E3p5 shouldn’t partially

ht a that

highly unorthodox in the case of suicide. To make an Spinoza’s proposal by assuming that in any case of case any in that assuming by proposal Spinoza’s

commenced

9 that the that , autoimmune diseases, autoimmune , accidentally held

self

of say that a that say

hn itself thing

new seem instigate E3p4. E3p4. he phenomenon of the of phenomenon he

- that that but is a only is indivisible, that ‘true individual’ inflict 11 ‘ suicidal

content

ie, ht h individual the that i.e., ; as n the n For now ed death or destruction is altogether

case true

its own destruction or death; i.e., itdeath;or i.e., destruction own its

case of an exploding an of case person (what I will also also will I (what

s individual self individual to

together of suicide or self or suicide of ,

assume this

t e icsin bt simply but discussion, he ’

etc can unfold into had already come ap come already had

. (see footnote 7

came

explosion Note, however, that however, Note, t es oe f two of one least at . - destructed, destructed, apart given the hs s to is This - destruction. c person all time time . ec, we Hence,

However, -

43; Curley multiple ‘ a ) bomb , , that true say, had but art or

CEU eTD Collection nevnin rm a from intervention required that process a as initiated was action the but destruction, of moment victim suicidal the destruction: inflicted understood (commonly that does, Spinoza as imagine, may we Secondly, separated wou suicide of acts seeming 13 in these later discuss E4. I in of virtue explanation 12 issue. similar a to points 251) also i behaves conglomerate the if is individual true the of inexistence the confirming of way only the where and human’, ‘real person a imagining time same the at are we though plurality of true individuals to be held together in a way that den 11 fo definition the under found is individual’ ‘true a by mean I what of explanation first The the in does Spinoza Alas, philosophy. Spinoza’s in individuality understand can one which modes; of that from apart offered individual not definition of individuals. Notice that we need a definition of individual b Yet, solely explained be byvirtuous can thevictim’s essence. that action itself.

On individuality of substance, see E1p12 & E1p13. E1p12 see substance, of individuality On This example becomes very bizarre if we try to imagine other implications of allowing for a a for allowing of implications other imagine to try we if bizarre very becomes example This Cf. E4p20sch for Spinoza’s interpretation of Seneca’s suicide and compare to definition and and definition to compare and suicide Seneca’s of interpretation Spinoza’s for E4p20sch Cf.

not offer a unique definition of ‘individual mode’. There are at least two ways

y this point we need to be aware that there is a serious need for a theory or theory a for need serious a is there that aware be needto we point this y oevr siie s las en s sg of sign a as seen always is suicide Moreover, Ethics

under r

in which he explains he which in ‘ singular thing substances

eti crusac ta only that circumstance certain n a way that we would commonly denominate ‘suicide’. Bennett (1984, p. p. (1984, Bennett ‘suicide’. denominate commonly would we that way a n

ore ht s external is that source ta hs eahscl theory metaphysical his that ) ; the unity or individuality of substance is a proof that is is that proof a is substance of individuality or unity the ; s

’ in E2def’ in ld actually be be actually ld

what 13

hence perhaps there are multiple senses in senses multiple are there perhaps hence 7, where he states that: he states 7, where

12 constitutes a single true individual true single a constitutes

still existed as a true individual at the at individual true a as existed still more detail. detail. more

a plurality of true individuals individuals true of plurality a like structure that has all the capacities of a a of capacities the all has that structure like

to — .. dsic from distinct i.e.,

h coet hn t suicide to thing closest the look ies ies the existence of a person, even ekes ad ee a a as never and weakness,

allow ie self like

s atal self partially is - 12 destruction —

m h victim the odes

mode being being , , and . 11 - .

CEU eTD Collection ic i dent fe ay xlnto ta ses xlsv t te eair of behavior the to exclusive seems that explanation any offer doesn’t it since be can it attributes appliedacross that is modesall One virtue of of thisdefinition and E2p14. In d a things singular or individual for offers Spinoza that definition tentative second The there that there and interchangeable as ‘individual’ and ‘mode’ tre can we modes, finite of speaking whenTherefore, modes. finite be themselves must mode finite a effect an for have to as concur that ‘individuals’ the Hence, E1p28). of demonstration see (again, modes finite fi with action’ modes. in ‘concur can that finite things only the Moreover, of speaking as same the is entities finite determinate of speak to that demonstration) its and E1p28 (e.g., passages previous in find can we and definition speaks of ‘singular things’ as finite an thing’, ‘singular treat of (i.e., concepts ‘mode’ and the ‘individual’, between identity an trace to able be may under modes all, that all, to oneextent, as thing.” singular action that together they are all the cause of one effect, I cons a existence.Anddeterminate so oneof individuals concurin ifnumber a have and finite are that things understand I thing singular “By

i n the n may speak Ethics any one any efinition, he states that hestates efinition,

is found in in found is

of individuals singular thatarenot vice things (or versa).

specific attr specific the brief treatise brief the ibute. Also, note that given this definition we definition this given that note Also, ibute. them 13 :

s necagal) Frt f l, the all, of First interchangeable). as

d being of a determinate existence,

on physics that intersects that physics on would be would at the terms the at nite modes are other are modes nite

no reason to think to reason no ider them

‘singulart E2p13 hing’,

CEU eTD Collection his is disjunction the of use this of example “ of proclamation infamous more the example, For identification. and later parts. It is common to see in Spinoza this use of the grammatical disjunction as 14 representation of also can we Extension, in individual an is bodies of aggregate God of attributes all under its idea an have of attribute the communicating accomplished be attributes to the best explain this of characteristic important more The

It can be worth noting that this ‘or’ is probably used as a form of equation between the earlier earlier the between equation of form a as used probably is ‘or’ this that noting worth be can It

attributes h dge ta w tae n dniy eain mn mds f different of modes among relation identity an trace we that degree the by this union ofbodies.” by thisunion dist is which individual, or body one compose together all they that and another one with united are bodies those that say shall their we manner, fixed and certain a in communicate other each to motions they that speed, of degree different or degree o another, one upon lie they that bodies other by constrained so are […] bodies of number a “when s -

case individuality for modes under the attribute of attribute the under modes for individuality

to those that we det wethose that to

, or just the same by the so called so the by same the just or , of scenario, this explanation i Deus sive Natura Deus sive

each and every and each bodies to have a corresponding expression of its essence its of expression corresponding a have to bodies Thought. This Thought. fr example, for ,

that that individual under Thought is also an individual

”, where he explicitly identifies God and Nature (E4pref.). (E4pref.). and Nature God identifies explicitly ”, he where (E2p3

e is rmine to be individualsE under be to rmine mode y loig for allowing by

r done 14

and E2p7 and

if they so move, whether with th with whether move, so they if

that follow that

14 by recognizing God’s necessary power to power necessary God’s recognizing by s useful for

), such that by determining that an that determining by that such ), second ‘ s parallelism theory parallelism inguished from the others the from inguished a

from its essence under essence its from

modes of conglome xlnto i ta i only it that is explanation E xtension; other attributes only ae f movement of rate xtension suppose

i.e., bodies. In bodies. i.e., ’

e same e , , and so forth of all modes all of . a a semantic This canThis that that each under

the

of -

CEU eTD Collection plurality of entities is entities of plurality presented Moreover, rich and complex equally is that Thought in idea corresponding a is there Extension, in individual attributes other all for means. identity this what grasp cannot I that impression the remain under 99 (pp. identity the deny to reason impossible), then we must consider that they are one and the same thing, since there identity of modes (for this would amount to cross u properties that given this identity: for argument offered an interesting has (2008) Rocca Della me. to incomprehensible confess that the ‘identity’ of modes under different attributes is something that remains somewhat 15 ( modes its and substance except exists nothing (E1p36). effect some forth bringing perpetually is that durational existence as an expression of some attribute of God, but also somethi into brought is that something be to only not is mode existent an be to Spinoza, identity This effect: theentit some forth bringing in cooperation bodily a as imagined be must what precisely communicati of pattern aggregate simply but effect singular a about bringing effect single

This is actually how Spinoza argues in E2p15 in beginnin in E2p15 in argues Spinoza how actually is This .

However, one can just as well consider the possibility that the specific the that possibility the consider well as just can one However, earlier y tef this itself, by the specific kind of of kind specific the Yt i this in Yet, . between both definitions definitions both between y

as such

as the bod as the

for ‘singular things’. things’. ‘singular for nder different attributes cannot be invoked in order to explain the non the explain to order in invoked be cannot attributes different nder

a ‘singular thing’ by causal cooperation causal by thing’ ‘singular a . 15 . n f oeet n rs aog ueos ois is bodies numerous among rest and movement of on

second second n hs ae e uh t evso ta fr n given any for that envision to ought we case this In y that it represents represents y it that (E2p15).

- 104). However interesting such an argument may seem, I I seem, may argument an such interesting However 104). communication is not the not is

eiiin i ses ht asl cooperation causal that seems it definition, definition can be traced by keeping in mind that, for that, mind in keeping by traced be can 15 - The The attribute attribute explanation, which takes Spinoza to be

key seems first

condition for condition of

movement a movement g to discuss the human mind. Yet, I I Yet, mind. human the discuss to g definition determined that that determined definition

e.g., e.g., ey itnt rm h one the from distinct very

14e) t sek of speak to E1p4dem), Moreover, given that that given Moreover, being an individual, an being

in mong mong

bringing forth a forth bringing parts of parts isn’t isn’t sufficient

the ng in a - CEU eTD Collection it However, one though respects. indifferent thing singular between identity than other anything the writing finished less or more had Spinoza which time at 16 these of explanation and example concrete true a for ask we If possible’. as little quot last This Tho topic on the c cause of an individual mode? On orrect, For heconfessesignorance. example,

: “certain and fixed manner” fixed and “certain : Note that this letter is from 1665, that is, around ten years before wh before years ten around is, that 1665, from is letter this that Note ugh he lateradds:ugh other that part areother to otherthey each opposed as possible as little the of nature or laws the to themselves adapt so part one the of nature the coherenceofparts,“By the whole its and the knowing all parts.” of Nature require would this know To whole. the with agrees part each how and “I do not know absolutely how [individuals and their parts] really cohere of individuals Spinoza andtheirinterconnectedness, says: e speaks of ‘natures adapting to each other’ so as to ‘be opposed as opposed ‘be to as so other’ each to adapting ‘natures of speaks e

critical so as to allow for them to be explanatory of the of explanatory be to them for allow to as so the previous seemingly unrelated definition unrelated seemingly previous the substance is to speak of modesof speak to is substance

question re

—

this point Spinoza remains mute, or what is more mains unanswered: What pattern of movement count movement of n,

I understandbut the nothing that laws or 16

in 32 Letter Ethics .

Hence, it is it Hence, s

as .

one 16 , writing, toOldenburg at is estimated to be the be to estimated is at

that constitute that s concept of ‘mode’, of concept

viable to trace an an trace to viable of — individual and individual or as he puts .” .”

the

CEU eTD Collection balance in the way they interact and preserve the whole person, we may say that say may we person, whole the preserve and interact they way the in balance healthy of form some maintain they as far so In human. average an compose nervous the and system digestive various organs hold to each other within a we can imaginatively illustrate it wh the of knowledge require expressions of atrue individual mode? my that it is why example, another fundamental question about the identity movement” of manner fixed and “certain the of indeterminateness metaphysics Spinoza’s believe that e case, any In are distinct. activities way some in other each oppose always entities destroying of degree:some to other each oppose also can other each from distinct way some in are that things simply is this that suppose I all? at other each its from follow would as acting or behaving continue to possibility other’s the to contributes each as far so in possible’. as ‘little as other each oppose they

we continue to see how f substance of ven though these passages from outside the outside from passages these though ven or harming harming or if they have distinct essences distinct they have

a remain can the other other the Sioa ih hv aan nitd ht hs would this that insisted again have might Spinoza ,

pen and my hand count or do or count hand my and pen ole of Nature of ole particular , for example,

ytm r to f h vros niis that entities various the of two are system if certain circumstances obtain. obtain. circumstances certain if this topic of o abstract. too 17

essence. essence. , single single organism. W

all at once at all The degreThe

by considering the relationship that then each then a precisely ‘ n

individuals and unity of true individuals,

oevr this Moreover, acknowledgment But, why say that they oppose they that say why But, . Nonetheless, I believe that believe I Nonetheless, . e of opposition is lowered is opposition of e

may acquire the capacityacquirethemay

not count as an inst an as count not Ethics because their essential their because ’

is e might say that the

exemplary exemplary

may be helpful, I I helpful, be may

rbe o the of problem

that any two any that Two distinct Two is similar to similar is of how ance

for for

CEU eTD Collection as long as it holds it as long as body asked terms be can in of moment that I thereach for it and clasp it between my fingers. at Likewise, this question existence into come has individual true a claiming for sufficient is this wonder about the spatial In more a case simple of ofthe problem identifying true and one of constituents as we if problematic be can exist of natures want which couldn’t to individuals take seriously contrary E3p5, two insisted that individual single a as nature of whole the of conjecture his that noted w the is that individual infinite the of constitutive are individuals 17 issue this once) at organism individual order individuals identifying individual of collection mere seeming for allows poin this at do could we best The unpalatable. substantial me to next For example, hold that movement of how body?

See Letter 32 and the discussion at E2p13le7sch, where he explains that, to an extent, all all extent, an to that, explains he where E2p13le7sch, at discussion the and 32 Letter See one

becomes essentially unified to the pen for as long as I use it to write a write to it use I as long as for pen the to unified essentially becomes This problem This

can can arbitrarily ‘cut out’ sections of the world and ask whether the pattern ; though though ; on th on reason to argue that this is impossible, even though even impossible, is this that argue to reason

is the pattern of movement between my

e tab e (such as when we th we when as (such . another another 17

such self

I continues to deepen to continues n any case, I case, any n le the same thing. thing. same the

both s among those bodies count as count bodies those among s -

destruction, then there is no is there then destruction, sufficient for giving existence to existence giving for sufficient patterns relation proximity query

as specific finite modes finite specific as s . s

then arises: woul arises: then of movement. Is thecase it thewhothat

is t oee, pnz de alw for allow does Spinoza However, of movement of suspect that no clear answer can be offered onoffered be can answer clear no that suspect

of my hand as it grips the pen,

ink both of organ systems and of the whole the of and systems organ of both ink consider that if some if that consider 18 , and becomes becomes and ,

and d Spinoza care to answer such such answer to care Spinoza d

and proximity

hand and the books that lay true a specific a hole of nature. Yet, it must be be must it Yet, nature. of hole individual modes

stranger,

as parts of some higher higher some of parts as an

individual, but but individual, patter individual?

to the rest of my of rest the to

and ask whether true

n it is it as we imagine we as

of movement of

individual somewhat levels I find no find I , we, can le of my only nd fornd

of a . CEU eTD Collection In the previo asessence1.1.2 Conatus modes of and boundaries a metaphysics that can question esentiam. actualem rei ipsius praeter 20 being its in persevere to it strives it itself, lies in and certain a in existe opposed to can which everything take its its existence (by away E3p5). Therefore, as far as it can, and takes express, which or that destroyed, be things by can itself it in anything which E1p34), has thing no And (by acts. and is God is which by power, God’s that way, determinate (E1p25c), way determinate and Demonstration: 19 modes. actual of descriptions accurate as taken to be examp imaginative as them meant only he that say also could one though discourse; popular in them imagine we way same the in boundaries many imagines 18 E E3p6: concept: the next two propositions that complete the main of consequences in discussed further be will must question this that suspect I that confess I modes of Extension would count as those that 3p7:

E3p6 in Latin: Latin: E3p6 in E3p7 in Latin: Latin: in E3p7 Nonetheless, Spinoza’s examples throughout his opera tend to suggest that he frequently frequently he that suggest to tend opera his throughout examples Spinoza’s Nonetheless,

s ? It may be the case that Spinoza was neve us section the

Unaquaeque res, quantum in se est, in sue esse perseverare conatur. perseverare esse sue in est, se in res, quantum Unaquaeque For singular things are modes by which God’s attributes are ex is but nothing being the essence actual of the thing. its in persevere to strives thing each which by striving The power, in persevere own its by can it as far as thing, Each oau, u uaueu rs n u esse suo in res unaquaeque quo Conatus,

of ourselves Spinoza’

accommodate s theories. Nonetheless, we can now move on to discuss discuss to on move now can we Nonetheless, theories. s

its being doubt

and other Chapter 3 Chapter

remains

. 19

our our common sense beliefs entities. , where I shall I where , 19

as to what pattern

c aa (y 34. n h cnrr, t is it contrary, the On E3p4). (by away nce determine a 18 remain

initial initial r in the business of les to illustrate his point, and never never and point, his illustrate to les esvrr cntr nhl est nihil conatur, perseverare ecie further describe

exposition unanswerable, though unanswerable,

true individual to exist. s of movement among about 20 strives pressed in a certain

of the conatus

the identity submitting

to po

tential it it

CEU eTD Collection but the fact that it it that fact the but ‘ modes all not but being; in persevere to ‘strive’ things, individual this that is passage book. the in forth These are the is it that given striving of 22 speak to continue will I convent but ‘striving’, of instead ‘tendency’ of 21 itself. the but nothing is being, its in persevere to strives it which anything do to strives with or or anything, alone does (either it others) which by striving the determinate or thing, their each of from power the necessarily So follows E1p29). (by what nature but nothing produce] [to able are things and E1p36), (by follow necessarily things some thing each of essence given the From Demonstration: ideas or reading, a such of like be would consciousness such what imagine conscious are rocks even the Spino the body that is the object of the idea in Thought (see for example E2p13 self or consciousness of degree the of attribute that holds actually greatdegree or lesser agreement clear no is there philosophy, Spinoza’s concerning others many in as point, this aware

In wanting to avoid a psychologized reading of I conatus, believe that it would be better to speak Most notably Della Rocca (2008). (2008). Rocca Della notably Most

complexity

za suggests that all modes are animated ion. ’

of this striving this of minds

the very first instance

in the literature the in Though

of bodies that of the constitution constitution the of

tends upc ta Sioa ol ol atiue wrns t the to awareness attribute only would Spinoza that suspect h ms impor most The t all

which which striving —

;

oe o Etnin ae crepnig oe n the in mode corresponding a have Extension of modes

or to be ‘aware’. Somescholars ‘aware’. to be effect some cause to tends i.e., something; do to

to some degree, though it is near impossible for us to us for impossible near is it though degree, some to ,

the awareness is awareness the expresses

on whether some or al or some whether on have

hud o b psychologized. be not should

in in which conatus or

some - of the entity). Under such an an such Under entity). the of awareness is a function of the complexity of complexity the of function a is awareness at nta osrain o ae bu this about make to observation initial tant

some degree of consciousness. In th In consciousness. of degree some 20 particularly particularly complex —

that is (by E3p6), the power, or striving, by striving, or power, the E3p6), (by is that

not what distinguishes the striving, the distinguishes what not

to some degree that corresponds to .

Other scholars, given the oddity the given scholars, Other

given, or actual, essence of the thing thing the of essence actual, or given, l modes are considered are modes l 22 striving

have insisted that Spinozahave that insisted 21 capacities capacities that allow

is explicitly brought

l mds ie, all i.e., modes, All are interpretation, necessarily sch . Still is case, case, is

where where — , on , to

CEU eTD Collection entities impossibility the emphasized merely I soI avoidpassages, I case, for ‘ E1p25c: invoking E1p effect) some forth bring perpetually active (i.e., have some we modes, to relation its and power the of part first the of to own destruction. are destruction or change resist non the (E3p4) doesn’t seem necessary to derive from being. existent an as role active n E3p6, E3p6, n active existence active

awareness only believe th -

are c entitled entitled unlike ontradiction clause clause ontradiction e now mentioned characteristic of ‘striving to persevere’. In considering incapable of self of incapable 25c and E1p34: and determinate way. determinate and certain a in expressed are attributes God’s which by modes or Particular things are nothing but affections of God’s attributes,

’ that this iss this that ; e.g., a central nervous system such as humans tend to have

E3p5, Spinoza actually adds new content to the discussion. E3p5 discussion. the to content new adds actually Spinoza E3p5, Yet, Yet, t to , we can no longer avoid confronting some of the metaphysics the of some confronting avoid longer no can we , defending either side.defending either insist o Eth explain explain and defend . Thi .

ics that an essence an that ue is unimportant for the continued analysis of these of analysis continued the for unimportant is ue , or be active throughout its durational existence durational its throughout active be or , .

s is s - Given would entity an that believe not need we itself, by destruction, but destruction, This is an important addition, for addition, important an is This partly capacity

Spinoza’s also come to understand that all entities are entities all that understand to come also the

21 what Spinoza offers as offers Spinoza what f self of

clause clause of to bring forth effects, and in fact always

simply cannot be the sol the be cannot simply this trans underlying - E3p6 adds that modes that adds E3p6 otaitr esne; .. tha i.e., essences; contradictory non ition ition - contradiction

from theory of God’s infinite God’s of theory

non proof for E3p6 in in E3p6 for proof - it prima facie prima it contradiction e cause of its its of cause e

in play some play

essences .

In any : we : t

CEU eTD Collection nal a ifnt poutv cpct t big ot ifntl mn modes many infinitely forth bring to capacity productive infinite an entails or essence expression of the attributes of God is nothing else but to be an its with identified is essence God’s as Inso E1p34: expressi whatsoever) effect no have that entities isolated as (i.e., showing that modes cannot be passive entities already as addition, In of t individuals wolf, a to holds elk an that ( correspond not do the first. of expression specific other some by i.e., nature; destroyed to assumed th power God’s of striving perpetually mode the mode, specific Spi (E1p16).

one another’s noza, that that noza, far as the att

ons of power, they must entail some That is, a mode is contrary to another in so far as their essential activities Thus, tend y oe te md ta i smhw otay o h frt mode first the to contrary somehow is that mode other some by power. hat tend to do different activities differentto do tend hat never never God’s pow n ite f h fc ta Gds trbts r epesd n some in expressed are attributes God’s that fact the of virtue in ency

hs tre rpstos Ep, 12c n Ep4 eti, for entail, E1p34) and E1p25c (E3p4, propositions three these ). ributes are identified with God’s

t ol ngt ta epeso o mode or expression that negate would at e self be to persevere. There is nothing in virtue of that very expression liaey eitne etis o o’ esne which essence, God’s to pertains existence Ultimately, which can seem very obvious in comparing the relationship the comparing in obvious very seem can which er is hisitself. er essence mentioned - negating but

hc is which , ) Hne t Hence, . all expresses power that we understand as a as understand we that power expresses

22 power t ee rpstos ae h fnto of function the have propositions hese

actually

kind kind of for activity, what it is to have

which can can which

he mode may only be negated negated be only may mode he that can (see above (see essence essence (

God’s power that is contrary to contrary is that power God’s true exist potentially be be potentially

see n l css f distinct of cases all in E1p34 Inso .

devoid of any

E1p11 expression expression of God’s

sne oe are modes (since ) a a te are they as far , then then , ),

and inso disrupt to be an an be to

activity

also ive far or or ’ s

CEU eTD Collection clearer. how and word the of deployment Spinoza’s given meaning the construe to needs reader t his of many with frequently case the is As definition. explicit Spinoza that given oneself) to and environment the to define we propose of be to not if power bein always of modes of quality dual this emphasizes also p.97) (1988, Deleuze anything). of inexistence or existence the for both cause a is there that belief the as (understood Reason Sufficient of Principle the to by commitment motivated is metaphysics whole Spinoza’s that argue to point this on centers Rocca Della cause. a has everything that metaphysics: his of element this 25 (E2p40sch1). transcendentals. of use through in language is reflected this images, and their mix and confuse minds our life, in ‘things’ many so to exposed are we as Insofar distinctly. a terms’) ‘transcendental calls 24 “All o Index (1970; no is 23 its with mode the of activity or striving the identifies explicitly E3p7 conatus. an the throughout previously offered has Spinoza what from naturally follow fact in can E3p6 that is show to trying effect an and cause a both be From a in thiswecanadd somewhat that, E1p36: E3p6 ( tw

Hence, I identify See Della Rocca (2008) for a fascinating interpretation of Spinoza’s philosophy that focuses on on focuses that philosophy Spinoza’s of interpretation fascinating a for (2008) Rocca Della See I say “in a crass manner” because Spinoza argues that terms like ‘being’, ‘thing’, etc. (what he (what etc. ‘thing’, ‘being’, like terms that argues Spinoza because manner” crass a “in say I potentia o ciiy s rcsl hw pnz mvs owr i forward moves Spinoza how precisely is activity inactive power inactive of the of and E3p7

Interestingly, the proof for E1p36 also —

is act, active and actual.” and active is act, main main n ay cases many in f main concepts; concepts; main f Nothing exists from some exists doesn’t whoseeffect Nothing follow. nature

power as : power is always actualized. See also E3def2 (the definition of of definition (the E3def2 also See actualized. always is power : propositions used to prove to used propositions immediate immediate

‘ power

to an actual re all the product of our incapacity to imagine all modes clearly and and clearly modes all to imagine incapacity our of product the re all actual ’ g cause and effect. and g cause power

— in this way this in

consequence for the en the for consequence

, results t s dniid ih te cnet ta mgt be might that concepts other with identified is it for even God is God even for

capacity to capacity influence the environment and oneself; i.e., there ) also points to this important important this to points also ) Ethics

of E1p36:

(as the fact of being of actual consequence actual of being of fact the (as 23 .

Moreover, this identity of identity this Moreover, crass

E3p6 causa sui causa

manner, formanner, Spino refers refers back to — ) and . For this reason we must see must we reason this For . vironment and for oneself? for and vironment

a b epand through explained be can . himself 25 hs discuss his n identity

In any case, what I am I what case, any In

echnical terms, the terms, echnical E1p25c E1p25c and E1p34

does not offer an an offer not does of power and action: action: and power of za, za, ‘ modes’ ‘ to be act o o the of ion

). Deleuze Deleuze ).

’ 24

with is to —

a I

CEU eTD Collection one ofthe strives thing each that notes Spinoza where E3p6, on clause final the unexplained: remained has thing one However, always involve forth bringing some effect or consequence. all that essence. Moreover, the 2 Chapter in offered be will issue this of discussion behavior over over things behavior ‘ psychological theories derived from it to obstacle absolute an At point this I will only is to only not refers being” as time to many that things all that insisting proposition this free or or free

: (for essence) isits that “ E

time, then any behavior that would be contrary to one’s to contrary be would that behavior any then time, time time ach thing, as far as it can by its own power, strives to survive or exist as much were

rational self rational possible things express God’s power in some in power God’s express things

. being dependebeing passages However readers of the would at the same time constitute a form of form a constitute time same the at would

imagined to be nothing but an effort for continued existence .”

(and, consequentially, much of Spinoza’s ethical philosophy) ethical Spinoza’s of much consequentially, (and,

This reading suggests that that suggests reading This

a ti pit will I point this at , - that has been mostinfluential howtointerpret hasbeen in that manycome sacrifice’. This is due to Spinoza’s theory of of theory Spinoza’s to due is This sacrifice’.

proof for E3p7 also acknowledge strive to persevere to strive nt precisely on his theory of the conatus. conatus. the oftheory his on precisely nt persevering as persevering , Ethics

but also but arguing

have thistaken proposition to say something refers

that that

— to “perseve to ht Spinoza that 24

the allow to the to the such in an

directs directs us back to E1p36: the insistence not as much as power Spinoza’s

determinate for for anything close to what ru aant uh a such against argue length re

or activity that the mode itselfmode the that activity or . time

terpretation would constitute in its being its in For now For ’s

of its durational existence. of durational its existence.

clause of “ of clause metaphysics

as possible as irrational

way

it extended exist extended is only imperative only is ”

vir . n ofra they as far so in If the essence of essence the If This I believe is believe I This persevere . This is to say,to is This . tue

— reading or passionate extended and I

rational rational will

in its in ence akin

call the .

as A

CEU eTD Collection need to reconsider what has been said up to this point. point. this the meticulouslyinvestigate to up said been has what reconsider to need Before we continue on wh that, hinges onhow we interpret clause that of “persevere its in being”. re one that ourselves need I philosophy, Spinoza’s my that Given 1.1.3 Virtue thehuman and conatus explained done have we that manner reader to allow me to continue discussing the conatus in the epistemol Spinoza’s into digressing avoid to wish we is description substantial any of absence the discourse description a offered not have I example, offered never trace some of its connections to other central issues of Spinoza’s metaphysics, but offer to unable still atever the conatus ultimatelyatever theconatus

object soon enough. wih wl gnrly al hmn’ tog i i ucer whether unclear is it though ‘humans’, call generally will I (which cognize that a great deal of how we understand Spinoza’s philosophy Spinoza’s understand we how of deal great a that cognize a

paradigm case of the conatus that could illustrate the matter. For matter. the illustrate could that conatus the of case paradigm ol is goal

such as the conatus a specific to to discuss the conatus with concept respect to humans, we

to ru for argue

first to focus on the nature of cons of nature the on focus to

o far so or ac or

instances of the conatus the of instances tual

. of a rock, or a dog, or a

The h psiiiy f ainl self rational of possibility the entails 25

illustration

of the conatus of some of conatus the of reasons for this abstractness will be be will abstractness this for reasons ,

somewhat it ofallmodes. essence isthe

of the concept the of g. ec, wl ak the ask will I Hence, ogy.

necessary

within the within human cious entities such as such entities cious somewhat fe a efr to effort an After common Suffice . . I contend that

. I was able to able was I . at this point if point this at Ethics - sacrifice intangible

it toit say

was I , sense in

CEU eTD Collection occupy no privileged power modes other all like just E3p9 In nature. to discuss the consequences of the conatus theory for our understanding of on goesquickly he us, fortheoryethical an develop to is goalSpinoza’s that given Spinoza believes that there intentions. Spinoza’s to injustice complete do not does ‘Rationalism’ name the E3pp3, E4p23), essence the Spinoza, for E4p1 (see world the of knowledge the of out affects powerful most the make to is goal Spinoza’s state: affective an as ideas) rational having (i.e., reason of identification but hold), might so other the of many (as ‘reason’ exactly not is humans of essence the Spinoza, su has (1990) 28 the of translation Spanish his 27 to notes his dec for evidence in textual be good to E2p40sch1 Peña, Vidal E2p40sch1. in terms 26 humans appetite” the of consciousness the with together “appetite 2p23) strive an is However, in the case of humans (and probably many other complex entities) there about explain and is explained by the by thecomplexityother entities or constitution our power of

See See for example way his of speaking about how we form universal notions of and species similar I borrow from Nadler (2006, p.195) this characterization of any of any this characterization p.195) (2006, from Nadler I borrow For this very reason, I think that to call Spinoza a ‘Rationalist’ can be misleading. G. Kaminsky G. misleading. be can ‘Rationalist’ a Spinoza call to that think I reason, very this For

acute

we have a representati a have we . . modes given underattribute any

27 hs pnz calls Spinoza This :

28 In accordance with Spinoza’s naturalist tendencies, we see that humans that see we tendencies, naturalist Spinoza’s with accordance In

awareness of this conatus. This is to say that, that, say to is This conatus. this of awareness ggested that we call Spinoza a ‘passionalist’. One can understand this given that, for for that, given this understand can One ‘passionalist’. a Spinoza call we that ggested ed desire

in Though in

and its scholium Sp scholium its and . With Spinoza we no longer find an opposition an find longer no we Spinoza With . pattern or of minds is a a is minds of

position — t

by the representation the by appetite

are universal a certain conatus, or what we may call a call may we what or conatus, certain a

on in in on ratio of motion and rest among the parts of the body;

within his ontology, we striving to represent to striving our minds of that striving that of minds our

inoza r in or, laring Spinoza a nominalist. See also E2p48sch. See also nominalist. a Spinoza laring ). 26

shared shared

reveals that, essentially, humans are humans essentially, that, reveals

many essences essences such as ‘human’

(i.e., to form adequate ideas; e.g., E3p1, E3p1, e.g., ideas; adequate form to (i.e., of the logica the of cases, cases,

are only distinguished from mode desire

of of at the same time same the at

as ‘quantum of power’. power’. of ‘quantum as reason

–

(mainly see 2p7 and2p7 see (mainly l structures of ideas of structures l (which in Extension(which in

i te sec of essence the is ) Hence, . E4p19) Yet, given that, that, given Yet, E4p19) -

called Rationalists Rationalists called and and quantum of quantum affects Ethics desire ). human 26

, but an but , as we as , takes takes ,

Also,

(or,

—

CEU eTD Collection essence find we Again E3p9sch: being with certain that we are determined to persist as the thing that we are in ourselves: an organic “ that saying powerovetohave promotescapacity whichourand are we that thing the with harmonizes presumably that manner a in function, organs always in accord with its powers of production essence passage thing the of conservation the into fit should production outwards it promotes and nature have refuge predators, something from and thisis thatseemingly follows is also beneficial to the by about brought preservation his promote that things those “ (1) ways: two of either in interpreted be

of the thing that defines the thi the defines that refercan

man is determined to do those things those do to determined is man

those things.those do to determined is man so And preservation. his that promote things those follow necessarily there nature whose This appetite […] is not in this passage in

to something more intrinsic, or redundant, the about activity a ‘ self

t and and the hing’s - thing itself. sustaining preservation s

activity

ng: that the t the that ng: preservation of the thing. For now it seems that it can

Spinoza tracing a connection a connection tracing Spinoza ’

For example, a beaver may build a dam so as to processes that (i.e., (i.e., hing but the very essence of man, from 27 its ad s uh e ol tik ht all that think would we such as and ; hing effectively behaves in a way that is is that way a in behaves effectively hing

conatus or essence) as something as essence) or conatus from whose nature necessarily follow necessarily nature whose from my ee t sm etra effect external some to refer may ” . . For example, the way our internal

” also facilit , we can say that it only means only it that say can we r our environment. environment. ourr between the naturethe between ate us with . r () the (2) Or, the from means means So, inSo, that

its its or or

CEU eTD Collection essence or conatus of orconatus essence the person: Ethics of theory The purpose of discussing the human conatus is to be able to understand Spinoza’s clauses.“preservation” to interact with the world. the of part fourth of the preface the Intellect the of Emendation 30 29 tha way same forsaken has philosophy his virtue expression. the employs Spinoza that way the else: is which bi and, vocabulary popular of use the through in readers his brings he which in writing of style remarkable Spinoza’s reasons various for passage important very a is this believe I E4def

Hampshire (1951, p.76) offers a similar analysis of the matter. the of analysis similar a p.76) offers (1951, Hampshire One need not lo not need One 8:

. Here we find the definition of definition the find we Here . is a very loaded moral term. However, most readers of Spinoza agree that agree Spinoza of readers most However, term. moral loaded very a is

prevalently virtue through the laws the ofhisnaturealone.through understood be can which things, certain about bringing of power the has he as insofar man, of nature, or essence, E3p7) (by is that thing, same the understand I power and virtue By w fn hm re him find we t . ok much further that his famous first statements in the early the in statements first famous his that further much ok In order to do this, this, do to order In v ,

used one way would best be suited to describe somet describe to suited be best would way one used . But also, one finds him being very explicit on this point all throughout all point this on explicit very being him onefinds also, But . ru, insof irtue, 29

I will later defend this second more intrinsic

any notion any Ethics - deploying deploying

ar .

I skip for a moment to the fo the to moment a for skip I s t s eae t mn i te very the is man, to related is it as virtue t by bit, tries to convince them convince to tries bit, by t 28

of realist moral truths moral realist of

and discover its strong relation to theto relation strong its discoverand em lk ‘ like terms

Consider goo ’ n ‘vl (E4def1, ‘evil’ and d’

: first of all, given all, of first :

or duties or for example that that example for u rth Treatise on the the on Treatise that

part of the of part reading . 30 a

In the In term hing

of CEU eTD Collection Secondly, this passage is oflookingimportance such carefully. at adefinition desire to promote certain forms of behavior or values His of sense a us in instill and metaphysics E4 being.” in his persevere to of reason, dictate from the one strives, each which by desire “theas 31 E3def2: E3def1: looking for thedefinitions cause’and of at ‘adequate ‘act’ Ethics not merely about evidence in favor of understanding the conatus as a theory of the to “powe points distinctly very but, time, of periods long surviving for capacity places key various no

See See also E3p58sch for Spino def2)

use denial of moral duties moral of denial , w , r to bring about certain things certain about bring to r

w as fn hm reusing him find also we , e can understand this definition of virtue in a more technical technical more a in virtue of definition this understand can e a “preservation” in us or outside us follows from our nature our from follows us outside or us in which we are the adequate cause, that is (by E3def1), when something we that say I beunderstood it through if effectcannot its alone. distinctly perceived through it. But I call andpartial, clearly be can effect whose adequate cause that call I persistence . 31

diinly w se ht e os’ dfn vru a the as virtue define doesn’t he that see we Additionally, exciting za’s za’s definition of ‘

does not does or “perseverance” or

act

through time.

when something happens, in us, or outside us, of us, outside or us, in happens, something when

in in that it speaks of essence and powe entail ” .

virtue 29 strength of character’ I believe this is one good point of textual of point good one is this believe I respect

Again, Again, returning to the third part of the that he has just the same forsaken all forsaken same the just has he that

s mas o oh xli his explain both to means a as clause

for that notion that he develops he that notion that for

, as we as , in

, which can be clearly and clearly be can which , others. : , where he speaks of ‘

or or inadequate, have active active existence

Hence, Hence, we see the

seen before seen r, but makes manner tenacity’ , , and

by at .

CEU eTD Collection of his nature alone” of hisnature laws the through understood be can which things, certain about bringing of power “ virtue that saying In pow mo be to is completely, more essence one’s realize to i.e., fully, last At E4pref: fo itself. understood best be may clauses “preservation” or “perseverance” that believe to reason more the all in And,existence. given Spinoza’s identificat autonomous or explanatory or desire itself. virtue of measure u rth of part the er In fact, this is exactly what he expresses by the by expresses he what exactly is this fact, In

, we , to

can can be explained by our power, essence or conatus flourish can begin to more seriously more to begin can having preserved existence for in having longer a time du its for regard no having effect, an produces and exists it as insofar thing each of essence the is, that reality, understand before, said have I as shall, I general in perfection by Finally, which of our nature, from partial are cause.only a we us, in follows something happens something or actedwhen on are we distinctly ration. ration. For no singular thing can be called more perfect for . Ethics The The , he is referring to the degree of adequacy of our actions as the as of actions degree ofadequacy our heisreferring tothe , separately is the very very the is tendency : understood virtuo are We . Virtu

from any reference to the longevity of the of longevity the to reference any from of modes described by the conatus concept is not not is concept byofdescribed the conatus modes essence, or nature, of man, insofar as he has the has he as insofar man, of nature, or essence, e

through it alone. On the other hand, I say that say I hand, other the On alone. it through is not measured by the longevity of our time time our of longevity the by measured not is us 30

regard

to the degree that our actions, actions, our that degree the to

ion of virtue and weour essence, find that

to express our powers more powers our express to

end of the preface of the of preface the of end ; i.e., whether it is self .

re active, for our our for active, re

behavior thing - ,

CEU eTD Collection of identification any without possible bu existence; durational extending at directed possible one bound to longevity, but directed at its own power’s actualization to the highest takeunderstand thisweshall metaphysics his concerning issues many on explanations is there that noted we’ve more conceive, to Yet, to wholly comprehend this aspect of a mode advantage. own one’s seeking of foundation the from reason, of guidance the and preserving our being (these three things signify the same thing f absolutely Acting

degree . activity Again, the

specifically

rom virtue is nothing else in us but acting, living, acting, but us in else nothing is virtue rom with explicit explicit actual actual

oe rul wt the with trouble some , what , essence

a look hisepistemology at regard essence ofessence kind

perhaps isperhaps found E4p24: in 31 of for

power or activity a thing a activity or power

a time.

thing, itsthing, ’ s ess , to t,

h bs eiec fr the for evidence best The ence, ence, it would be convenient presently btates n Spinoza’s in abstractness conatus .

and ontology and , its ,

e s cie as active as be

striving is ) . However, . by . To best To , is notis , CEU eTD Collection y en of means by thereof knowledge (E4p67 deat of than less nothing as such Statements C 32 interpretative existence. “ not issue: the of rephrasing enlightening incredibly an offered Bennett, Spinoza’ of the underlying reason for so much controversy on the consistency or incoherence and scholars, eminent various by conatus For mode of impossibility the on insists that concept conatus of effort would probably importance utmost the of topic it common puts parlance preservation

The Myth of Sisyphus of Myth The HAPTER this , the , )

reason, i reason, show an incredibly affirmative or po D. D. modestl theory n h eodscin I section second the In s position. In the first section I focus on the debate the on focus I section first the In position. s 2. Garrett and Garrett

pnz’ philosophy Spinoza’s

” clauses ” T struggle HE DEBATE ON CONATUS

have shaken his head his shaken have

n this chapter we will consider some consider will we chapter this n has y . Yet, in this chapter, I aim to discuss a discuss to aim I chapter, this in Yet, . , An Absurd Reasoning. Absurd , An eosrcig n dfnig h lgtmc o Spinoza’s of legitimacy the defending and reconstructing “

a i a god a is Man nonetheless nonetheless

: ignoring the ignoring : in terms of longevity, but in terms of present efficacio present of terms in but longevity, of terms in A. A. — h, and his wisdom is a meditation on li on meditation a is wisdom his and h, Youpa;

suicide. suicide.

n u philosophizing our in been severelybeen criticized. and how I believe that that believe I how and

the : fe ht I what offer to Here IHere agree with Camu epistemological

man 32 in disagreement. Though disagreement. in fact

(E435sch ” afterwards

AND SUICIDE

sitive approach to f et, r mr specific more or, death, of

take to be the cause of so much so of cause the be to take pers the ) investigate what might be be might what investigate of the of ;

32 r “ or potentially potentially Youpa pective from which the which from pective

ee tog Spinoza though even , self

free A that suicide suicide that observations - destruction human

as fe, not o not fe, in particular has particular in interpreting the interpreting I have made an made have I

is a tik of thinks man

darker topic topic darker tackled life ally n death n can be can and the

f any of on

— by by

the us as as

.” J. a

CEU eTD Collection Up Up to this point I have 2.1 reason the in offered is conatus 34 well. as chapter previous the in been discussed has cause adequate 33 follows that something does it that see and tree) a (e.g., mode particular a of essence thing is an adequate cause of its own actions it defines that process. Now, if the cause of the behavior is behave does way whatever in acts that thing the of power or essence the by explained is it in explained suic committing freely that say To is impossible. — In particular, where he discusses what is commonly called bec and virtue of theory

Cf. E1def7 for Spinoza’s definition of ‘free’. ‘free’. of definition Spinoza’s for Cf. E1def7 Cf. E1def7 and E3def1, the definition the E3def1, and E1def7 Cf. as a consequence a as omes pertinent to analyze those mat those analyze to pertinent omes Arguments for and against theArguments against conatus theory forand . 33 .

s In other words, if one were to at to were one if words, other In from

in a certain way certain a in Spinozistic

its essence or essence its

—

then we say that such behavior is d is behavior such that say we then of his conatus theory and E3p4 and theory conatus his of

free free tried to explain

terms. To say that an act is free, for Spinoza, is for isfree, act terms. Tosayan to Spinoza, that that , we must give an account of the causes involved in the in involved causes the of account an give must we , Ethics action. And, a And, action.

defining ie, h so the i.e., ; s of ‘free’ and ‘adequate cause’ respectively. The notion of notion The respectively. cause’ ‘adequate and ‘free’ of s ide

constitution (e.g., synthesiz (e.g., constitution Spinoza’s

is not possible not is 33 s an extension of that discussion it then it discussion that of extension an s ters t empt to give an account of account an give to empt

the thing itself - . 34 as called

If If we understand something of the Spinoza applies Spinoza ontology and its connection to his

eod kind second — one freely, we say that the that say we freely, one

, ‘ freely nevertheless

suicide, suicide, and argues that — the essence or ’

committing suicide committing

them of es energy from energy es knowledge or or knowledge , can now be be now can ,

why to daily life daily

a mode a

power

it .

CEU eTD Collection thing is insufficient for explaining explaining for insufficient is thing its of cause inadequate th In it. from distinct are that modes other by caused be can mode a of behavior or actions some However, is isactive, being, it it its freely. behaving light into chemical energy) E4p20sch says explicitly he Hence, nothing”. from come should something self for as suicide of — the sole essence of the thing, hence he considers that suicide cannot be done freely what is commonly called suicide is it cannot be explained by the power or activity or power the by explained be cannot it greater evil greater a avoid to desires he is, that veins, his open to was) Seneca (as tyrant a of command the by forced is he because […] another by compelled is can which own nature. Those who do such things are compelled by external causes, his of necessity the avoidsfrom himself Isay, kills food Noone, or being. his preserve to or advantage, own his seek to neglects nature, his to No one, therefore, unless he is defeated by cau - otaitr esne, hc h tks o e a ipsil a that as impossible “as be to takes he which essences, contradictory :

a free action action free happen in many ways. Someone may kill himself because he he because himself kill may Someone ways. many in happen

by submitting lesser a […] to actions: at case, and to that degree, we say that the thing is an an is thing the that say we degree, that to and case, at determined , , then we can say

we say that the power or activity that defines the defines that activity or power the that say we

a form of behavior that cannot be explained by its

deeds 34

the thing the

, , in that respect,

Frhroe Sioa rus that argues Spinoza Furthermore, .

ses external, and contrary, that defines the thing: the defines that ’ s essence amounts to allowing to amounts essence s th e thing is preserving

about suicide about to speak speak to in CEU eTD Collection to try tosalvage position this hisethicalthis foundation, theory isbaseless. without theory, ethical his cement to attempts Spinoza which on foundation the ethical Spinoza’s of much fail, propositions derivative its and theory conatus the if before, mentioned have I as E3p4 about discussed been see point His 36 35 disrupted not long is asit by modes itself form distinct so far asit exists, brings forth various remaining merelyis not that doing something longevity) clause of E3p6 might referring be in “stay asBennett notto existence” puts it the distinguishing on existence insists rightly Spinoza that given mistaken be must it show, to tried defined by being” he reason main derivations from faulty”. so going topic, Bennett

Bennett 1984, p. 235. p. 235. 1984, Bennett p. 234. 1984, Bennett

35 clause , for example,

of a mode from its , but to thrive as the thing that one is in one’ in is one that thing the as thrive to but , f ore Bnet fes aiu argum various offers Bennett course, Of an

ms fairly straightforward (especially considering what has what considering (especially straightforward fairly ms effort for longevity

of this is a fundamental miscomprehen fundamental a is this

far as to simply say: simply to as far

disagrees E3p the

principle principle of non 6; he says that E3p6 that says he 6;

has been somewhat harsh against Spinoza on this particular

is essence )

; but some commentators remain unconvinced. And, unconvinced. remain commentators some but ; due to to due — project goes down with it: with down goes project with :

simply put,

(e.g., (e.g., E1p24), hence the “persevere in its being”

“since the conclusion is false, the argument is argument the false, is conclusion the “since in thelogicin and toolsof his system. - a misunderstanding of the “persevere in its its in “persevere the of misunderstanding a contradictory essences, but I submit that effects 35

means that the conatus is an an is conatus the that means

“to stay in existence” and continues essentially to do so

F in existence in or iscrucial Iit thisreason believe sion; moreover, it is clear that that clear is it moreover, sion; . s own being own s

ns gis Spinoza’s against ents the conatus doctrine is doctrine conatus the , but something that, in somethingthat, but , . 36 : an activity an :

And, as I have

already activity

(i the

as e., of

CEU eTD Collection specific ratio of movement of ratio specific bodies th the powerthat not is it point, this within the confines of Of course, part of an to response direct a and clause “perseverance” the this to response In not of has Spinoza that argue to E4p20sch on focuses E3p4, of criticism his in Bennett, modes attributes) understood b have I that saying misunders this, deny would Spinoza that suppose I E3p4. […] through things think his to shame, capacities and pain to attitudes his frailties, and strengths various within him; the action flowed from h from the forces transmitting not was body Seneca’s work, its did knife the When fered sufficient reasons forfered reasons of denying sufficient thepossibility

y that theyhavethat their for object composed of various individuals that that individuals various of composed

nature? ideas ;

as outside. The causally sufficien tood the notion of Seneca’s ‘nature’. What, then, does he mean he does then, What, ‘nature’. Seneca’s of notion the tood

sre of series a

that that longevity assessment y finite activity i ng duration represent

is. This ‘activity’ is.

among themselves among

idea toward

(E4p21) we find Youpa offering both a reinterpretation of reinterpretation a both offering Youpa find we

ta r that s h sm succession same the

(i.e., modes inso

what the activity works, but just to express to just but works, activity the what (E2p7, (E2p7, 36 . . H is nature as it then was, including his is understood

epresent owever, owever, as I’ve repeatedly argued up to t

conditions for his act were stored E2p11). cnld ta Snc falsifies Seneca that conclude I . And, . preserve

far as they exist) bodies

Bennett’s concern with the the with concern Bennett’s in Thought in

in Extension Extension in of events events of

o accomplish) (or free o mds f other of modes (or suicide: , the ‘activity’ is ‘activity’ the , ocrig the concerning

is discovered as particular

some

CEU eTD Collection ciiy Yt ti epaain s uz, t is it fuzzy, is explanation this Yet, activity. that of denial the be cannot thing the defines that activity the that insisting him perfection, conatus. the “perfection self of speaking of instead meaning of ‘nature’ at directed that activity the that (e.g., itself conatus the of denial my stomach and against lethally wounding myself sword a pressing involves time same the at that way certain a in expressed be can that capacities certain mediated self consequence something do to pos den the case, any In more ofa seems that Spinoza assumes that the activity that is definitive of a alone ‘ assumptions Spinoza’s of some discover least at we respect self never is that ‘activity’ unspecified human - sibility for sibility destruction can be imagined to be of two kinds: two of be to imagined be can destruction — ’

tends towards wounding itself and putting its persistence in danger. It danger. in persistence its putting and itself wounding towards tends bodies: whatever that activity is, it is not one tha one not is it is, activity that whatever bodies:

self self

- rea the enhancement” in trying to move us away from a - - the

destruction that may follow from the thing that one is (e.g., I (e.g., is one that thing the from follow may that destruction u, rcsl bcue Y because precisely But, sustaining and sustaining a certain mode (a certain activity that expresses the power of God)of the power expresses that activity certain (a modecertain a lity or activity that the thing cancellation denial of the mod the of denial — . ial of suicide by Spinoza is best understood as a denial of the of denial a as understood best is Spinoza by suicide of ial Youpa’s reinterpretation of the clause is very similar n ite f t esne alone essence its of virtue in

of - productive rsrain Yua ugss ht e pa of speak we that suggests Youpa preservation, that

e in question. In other words, we can say that say can we words, other In question. in e very ); ); or, - negating. Or does it? It seems that in this in that seems It it? does Or negating. 37 activity). The second example, of course, of example, second The activity). in ua nesad te oau a the as conatus the understands oupa kind.

is various ways, such ways, various (2) (see (see

ey btat n i rss n an on rests it and abstract very it it can be imagined as an again again — (1)

ht meitl hs s a as has immediately that E4 Preface def on the one hand there is there hand one the on ns it ines t ‘ longevity — as on in virtue of itself itself of virtue in arm my moving ‘

above human s immediately is h esne of essence the ’

immediate reading of ) , , we find to mine ’

body is have :

CEU eTD Collection modes drawsbetween Spinoza that one the to analogous is meant to be clear be To process difficul very is it that reason the for only abstract very remains universe”. whole the face of be “the to said and is merely infinite mediate mode, on the other hand, is not qualified by Spinoza under some specific attribute, intell infinite absolute ‘the as Thought in and rest’, and ‘movement as Extension in mode immediate infinite the identifies Spinoza 64). and 63 (Letters Schuller H. G. with correspondence 37 the from distinct is that element both require itself with harmonize more the mode. finite each define that process w ‘ their of virtue in them between distinguish we nonetheless but eternally, exist modes of kinds Both essence. of but time, in distinction a not is modes mediate immediate mode). infinite the by modified (i.e., power its of expression fundamental more some modified by essence or power from God’s follow understood to are are thosethat imply God’s power in the most fundamental way. Seco subst to pertainthat properties basic God’s from follow that essential

e can imagine a similar distinction of consequences can be be can consequences of distinction similar a imagine can e Admittedly, these are very are these Admittedly, , and that that

proximity’ to God (E1p21 intrinsic er infinite distinguished by time, is an

on this la this on immediately

immediate consequence in conjunction with some other external other some with conjunction in consequence immediate This distinction between infinite immediate

mediate modes mediate xrsin f h atvt ta dfns h thing the defines that activity the of expression

. On the other hand, mediated consequences are those that those are consequences mediated hand, other the On . essence

st point, st obscure notions, but Spinoza did offer some helpful comments in his his in comments helpful did some offer Spinoza but notions, obscure

self

negating without any other explanation besides the most the besides explanation other any without

mediated and immediate consequences are not are consequences immediate and mediated essence of the mode in question (e.g., there are there (e.g., question in mode the of essence . I . but but - nfinite immediate modes are said to be those be to said are modes immediate nfinite

E1p23).

ance under any given attribute; those whichthose attribute; given any underance Immediate consequences are those that are that those are consequences Immediate by essence. By this I mean a distinction that 38 .

In In the same vein

substance ndly, infinite mediate modes , modes infiniteimmediat drawn ,

I want t iaie a imagine to t

and which which and within the within

to to suggest d infinite ect’. The The ect’. e

CEU eTD Collection with respect to conatus in its positive aspect. This is to say that when Spinoza when that say to is This aspect. positive its in conatus to respect with The mediacy and immediacy of the consequences of actions can also be considered are achieved body’s onlywiththeen interaction by the moving itself, while there are all the consequences, all mediated those effects that consequences of the processes that define a human body, such as metabolism and a are that consequences immediate the time. in point certain a at exist to cease necessarily offers against arguments that possibility the something of this sort could another present does dura it specific a but has here; that it something point: presented interesting have I as such immediacy doesn’t of it issue that in the mine consider from different is example That bomb’. time ‘essential the of example his 38 protagonist Fundamentally arm from myself asthe (such distinct elements other by mediated actions my from follow that consequences power the from immediately modes) essence, all my actions “per it that such mode the of practices positive mediated to refer not does E3p6 that see we such, is. thing the that activity the of consequences immediate the mode: the being own persevere to “striving always and necessarily thing each of E3p6 in speaks

For another attempt at imagining self imagining at attempt another For ) need not will unconditionally havewill posi ”, he means to speak of the immediate consequences of the essence of essence the of consequences immediate the of speak to means he ”, mode in addition to other external modes in order to order in modes external other to addition in mode

always mdae cneune are consequences mediated , severes in its own being”, e.g., it does not mean that given my my given that mean not does it e.g., being”, own its in severes

be useful be (including those that are explained by inclusion of external sword pierces that my abdomen

that I am I that .

38 -

negating entities, see Della Rocca (2008, p. (2008, Rocca Della see entities, negating tive consequences fortive consequences myself. What 39

is always beneficial to myself, but myself, to beneficial always is

l h self the ll tion as part of its essence. Della Rocca also Rocca Della essence. its of part as tion consequences - vironment). productive and fostering

through theforce of my — for intrinsic for reasons intrinsic

ht require that

be understood be

137 follows - And as And 53) and and 53)

those in its in — a

CEU eTD Collection simultaneous is that consequence mediated a is there nonetheless, me; define that powers immediately are finger my and hand my moving of process contact. make radiation of doses harmful transfer machine the contraption that has a button that, if pre some is there that Imagine example. contrived following the Take explained. or to E3p6. regard with entail may principle an innate that this explanation that I propose of the ‘immediate harmony’ is helpful in fleshing out what such 39 or activities insist doesn’t Bennett that Given suicide. on position Spinoza’s with uncomfortable believ I discussion ofthethird chapter. self emotional and thinking rational consequences immediate to limited is that way a in explained are which and acti of subset special a is there mediated kind, which actions our of consequences the of many that say the dimension of in to due and explained), be to things other of require they (since adequate wholly wit essence by distinguished are that consequences mediated and immediate of distinction

Nadler (2006, p. 196, n.7) speaks of the conatus as an as conatus the of speaks n.7) 196, p. (2006, Nadler h modes distinct from ourselves from distinct modes h

on the on t e

instead of time. ofinstead h , , he thinks that S help considerations these at difference and

Now if I press the button (considering my essence by itself) the the itself) by essence my (considering button the press I if Now

harmful to myself. Hence, we may imagine how we can have a have can we how imagine may we Hence, myself. to harmful adequacy adequacy that is involved in interacting with the world, we can

can can

between between 39

always Similarly, m Similarly, pinoza is trying to prove that all our actions

vities vities

mediate run ,

that

the hence any - 40 nesadn; u ti I ev fr the for leave I this but understanding; ssed and only while being pressed, makes

risk risk of being harmfu

may reveal complete adequate causality adequate complete reveal may and

in explaining explaining in

of our actions require for us to interactto us forrequire actions ourof

few of our actions can be considered be can actions our of few immediate

‘innate principle of activity’, and I suspect I suspect and of activity’, principle ‘innate where the finder and the button the and finder the where nov a involve h Bnetprl feels partly Bennett why

consequences of actions actions of consequences in harmony with the with harmony in l for us dimension .

Nonetheless should be

f the of , i.e., , ,

CEU eTD Collection consequences t explain to order in ourselves to external modes add consequences t rephrasing: him.” help will it it, does he “If is: Spinoza of interpretation his rephrases he that way unconditionally (to time or external modes involved) beneficial for ourselves. 40 a initiate to potential destructive process the has behavior his that find we himself, to external interactio of series a given but, suicide, to driven was he that Seneca’s of virtue in notis it that shouldsee we case, andSeneca’s reconsideringdefinition, this Given define suicide system that clear be should it point this by that suspect I

Bennett (1984), p.244. Bennett (1984), 40 immedia given that (by E3p6) each thing strives to persevere follows By

— Of suicide

it ore ent would Bennett course is appropriate hs is this immediately immediately ). te self te with hat are harmful to our constitution

I understand understand I

the terms that I the terms that have used to

— - absurd,

negation is negation essence a process whichexternal requires from the from to consider suicide impossible. as

obviously

alone (the self (the alone a

impossible negation negation di

conatus conatus are ih pnz i ta wr a were that if Spinoza with sagree 41 hr ae hns ht e o ht have that do we that things are there

f pro’ eitne that existence person’s a of (by E3p4) or essence essence or - fostering activity that defines him) defines that activity fostering argue up to this point: argue thispoint: upto ( — though within the logic of Spinoza’ of logic the within .

of the person. Yet, person. the of

modes explained be to in in its being he

in in that case we need to Yet, we whole s ih modes with ns

, such action can

now correct

also One its . s

CEU eTD Collection on Seneca, on has spatial it that moment on insists and interactions I issue this On demise`. [mediated] of form any other with it, of discussion Spinoza’s 41 E4p72: scholium,its which would be honesty. radical lethally consequence: its as relate is that issue interesting more another face still in correct am I if Now, disease the reach that oneself destruction over influence an having causes external certain than more nothing is suicide called commonly is What circumstance. inducing death other any from different any as treated be not should suicide called commonly is what describes Spinoza how to attention close paying in Moreover, for factor determining serious take should we then

See Gabhart (1999) for a det a for (1999) Gabhart See

had on another: if Nero’s message had a certain harmful o harmful certain a had message Nero’s if another: on had ‘ - suicide

tempora (see

speaking speaking

and if there was no other event that would mend his weakened state, weakened his mend would that event other no was there if and , just as would happen if one accidentally one if happen would as just , E4p18sch). A free man always acts manacts always deceptively A free not honestly, ’

guess (i.e., not what we defined we what not (i.e.,

l ‘distance’ doesn’t ‘distance’ l

ruh dah on death brought that determine a thing to behave in a certai and conceiving and

that Bennett is not allowing for less obvious visible causes visible obvious less for allowing not is Bennett that

Seneca’s self Seneca’s my 41

ailed argument identifying what is commonly called ‘suicide’, and and ‘suicide’, called commonly is what identifying argument ailed

phrasing of the concept of suicide for Spinoza, we can we Spinoza, for suicide of concept the of phrasing

good y how ly

to to have in their entirety: have their in to of Seneca as a somewhat isolated entity entity isolated somewhat a as Seneca of - necessarily destructive action destructive

Nero’s tef Hwvr w sol rcgie that recognize should we However, itself. 42 in technical terms technical in

nlec i a is influence By this I am referring am I this By change the influence that a thing a that influence the change d to our behavior and death and behavior our to d ingested

at the moment of ‘suicide’ of moment the at

ata and actual n

n harmful way, and so above .

r debilitating effect debilitating r poison or died of of died or poison )

to E4p72 and E4p72 to , we find that find we ,

on of point negative at the at a .

CEU eTD Collection Sch preceden interesting 42 man” Yet hence suggesting that the conatus is at that part in man free the defines on in aware of the consequences of self as annihilation for allowing is Spinoza of form some for allow immediate to seems it because puzzling be can fragment This

Youpa Youpa (2003), Gabhart and (1999), Nadler (2006) all suggest that this passage can be seen as an e his , , s olium self. self. urprisingly, Spinoza’s ) is

- udr, n wud hn t think would one murder), eemnn oes sates one’s determining This is especially problematic if we think that the desire for honesty that honesty for desire the that think we if problematic especially is This

to tell thetruth.to tell :

self

(due to his really they should they havelaws. common really This no is absurd. deception by only laws common have to and without recommend, would forces join to agreements make reason should men that qualification, so And men. all to same. If reason should recommen the is this to reply The treacherous? be he that qualification, without recommend, being own his preserving of principle the not Would treachery? by death of danger present the from someone Suppose - etutv behavior destructive t of a Kantian categorical imperative. imperative. categorical Kantian of a t

being being defined as free free a

answer to the dilemma (from the perspective of a

his involves

gn to agent now asks: What if a man could save himself himself save could man a if What asks: now a big autonomous being as ,

action action (that telling the truth will surely conclude a the hat

that think might one i.e., man; free a in 43 h kolde f t lta consequence, lethal its of knowledge the e h aeut cause adequate the be

moment ‘ rational , , and given freedomthat is d that, it would recommend it

in in a ’

hn t d i le n save and lie is do to thing ). self

Inso - negating — a a te gn is agent the as far that is, that that is, that

f hi coming their of 42

disposition

explained “ free . CEU eTD Collection r nt efcl free perfectly not are b would what describe not does possible longevity. greatest the for effort an of instead us, defines that activity the of expression by solve and unravel to paradox tothisseeming article dedicatedGarrett an has 44 43 co troubling that saying actions is explained repla ideal.” this achieved fully not have who beings human actual for good be nevertheless circumstances some under may deception that and deceptively, act never would man free model ideal the So understanding.

Garrett (2002, p.230) Garrett (2002, Garrett (1990). Garrett ced an apparent paradox for a real one, for to achieved it.” achieved it.” has one once perform characteristically will one that actions the actions that one must perform in order to achieve it are not necessarily freedom of degree a [i.e., existence of kind certain a achieved yet not has someone “when

goes on to on goes our freedom our sdrn ta E3p that nsidering

Garrett

Garrett’s solution

differently from that of the

recommend

explains ,

our n wisdo and is not defined by the by defined not is and

interpretation

live sae ta “ that states 3 : e

appropriate or appropriate that “we interpret Spinoza as Spinoza interpret “we that m 44 entrapped to this apparent paradox

In response, Youpa insists Youpa response, In such 44

s ht f the of that as of the conatus as an effort for actual actual for effort an as conatus the of

model ‘ dictates of dictates e cin o te id rs from arise mind the of actions he y goac ad ey limited very and ignorance by rational declare free man 43

, which Youpa attempts which, Youpa for us normal folk who folk normal us for that that fe man’ ‘free ‘ reason is to say that E4p72 the ’

holding both that holdingboth wou

that Garrett has Garrett that ’ , which is ver is which , freedom , the ], ld amount

of our

to y CEU eTD Collection interprets the “persevere in its being” clause as referring as clause being” its in “persevere the interprets to struggles Garrett that believe I such asfear determined are they our where cases are there that conclusion […] alone ideas adequate means a as that it would be good for an individual to try to suffer a decrease in overall activity hold not does “Spinoza that saying in correct probably is Youpa why understand actuall would reason why side li (quoted), E4p24 to back us refers demonstration, its at look must we E4p72 understand best To preservationwe mustn’tinterpret terms of in longevity. existence f preservedin having for perfect more activity that defines it ‘ something that say to Again, essence. our from follow adequately that things poten that consider expression a perseveres effort n ving, and preserving our bei tial for longevity, but only i only but longevity, for tial y is). o rsnl achieve presently to ’ of the essence that defines that essence the of to acquiring acquiring to Joined Joined to the considerations of

or hate or

n hs peevd oeef inso oneself ‘preserved’ has one ‘ preserves itself preserves (of death). (of

not ; likewise, Spinoza sta dictate honesty, since I first need to explain what reason what explain to need first I since honesty, dictate greater overall activity later.” activity overall greater only ”

rm ht art suggests Garrett what From ng from the dictates of reason (for now I leave to the by

’

is to say to is — reason, but, for example, example, for but, reason, n sofar as we’ve expressed more perfectly those those perfectly more expressed we’ve as sofar o h hget osby degree possibly highest the to where eocl Ep2 ih 36 ny eas he because only E3p6 with E4p72 reconcile each of each 45

that that thing thrives as thrives thing that that

time time he tes tes that “no singular thing can be called actions are best called free inso free called best are actions

offers the identity between acting, between identity the offers us. That is to say, Spinoza doesn’t Spinoza say, to is That us. as unimportant or a longer time” (E4 Preface), soPreface),(E4 time” longer a or a a oe a icesd the increased has one as far

we ,

interesting to longevity instead of instead longevity to by some passive affect passive some by would

for perfection, we in which in — the oe o the to come

support for support

n ample an power or or power

Spin far as far oza

CEU eTD Collection 2.2 Conatus and thesecond of kind and knowledge2.2 Conatus future potential a of favor in ill become to ourselves allow we that dictates never reason that Youpa position, his altered. also is knowledge of types of the description work, his earlier not is concept this as insofar knowledge; of theory mature his develop to Spinoza 45 detail;to discuss in E2p40sch2: it focu philosophy) mature Spinoza’s of outside fall to considered are they o Treatise the in topic this of instances find We philosophy. dragged he that ideas of kinds distinguishing of project This knowledge’. of written a is it fundamental: theory conatusis developed and explained. However, in a way this the is a question even more which from perspective epistemological the theory: conatus the i as just be to take I that element additional on centers main the of one that point this to up insisted have I

Deleuze (1988, p.82) believes that the concept of common notions (E2p40) was required for for required was (E2p40) notions common of concept the that believes p.82) (1988, Deleuze [ s on its discussion within the within discussion its on s … ] . i In E2p40sch In t is clear isperceive clear t we that and many things universal notions: form n the Emendation of the Intellect the of Emendation the n

the “persevere in its being” clause of E3p6. Now I want to present an present to want I Now E3p6. of clause being” its in “persevere the joy.

ln wt hm ic te einn o te eeomn of development the of beginning the since him with along

points to points n

inquiry into the into inquiry

Spinoza distinguishes between what he called three ‘kindsthree called he what between distinguishes Spinoza

E3p44sch as textual evidence that Spinoza believes Spinoza that evidence textual as E3p44sch

Ethics

perspective 46

itself. I offer part of the passage in order in passage the of part offer I itself.

; but I will leave will I but ; mportant in solving the riddle that is that riddle the solving in mportant

Short Treatise Short from whic from nepeaie difficulties interpretative

them a them

or knowledge or h the h

as well as in the in as well as side (given that (given side

Ethics

available in his his in available 45

and only and

itself is itself

is one is

his CEU eTD Collection

of falsity or error, and that knowledge of the second and third kind are always true true. the Hence, the content of the knowledge. of kinds three these within knowing or thinking of ways possible all Various things must be noted from this expo

IV. III. II. I. (undefended) principleexegetical

What is more, Spinoza

things. things. of essence formal certain the of knowledge of adequate the essence to God formal of attributes the of idea adequate an from proceeds ki third another, […] is there knowledge, of kinds two these to addition In reason call theand second ofknowledge. kind shall I This E2p40). E2p39c, E2p39, E2p38c, (see things of properties the finally, fro kind, imagination; or opinion first the of knowledge call of henceforth shall ways I two things regarding these (E2p18sch); things imagine we which through those like them, of ideas certain form and things, recollect we words, fro example, for signs, from knowledge randomexperience; from perceptions intellect (see the for order without and confused, mutilated, is which way a in senses through us to represented been have which things singular from nd, which we shall call intuitive knowledge. And this kind of knowing knowing of kind this And knowledge. intuitive call shall we which nd,

m the fact that we have common notions and adequate ideas of E2p29c); E2p29c); for that reason I have been accustomed to call such Ethics

notes notes

itself itself must f that that only knowledge of the first kind is the cause

m the fact that, having heard having that, fact the m that Spinoza 47

all within all some of these. sition. sition. First,

takes all his propositions to be

Spinoza purports to cover

or I

read certain read work under

the CEU eTD Collection kind ofdisagreement: point another of theamountorspecificity particularly I but E2p40sch2, of end mea kindsknowledgeof these what unclear Ethics further to lead and attributes. the and of axioms knowledge the mind a allowing only general: 47 the to have to number first the we glance, see one in which, ratio the from number fourth the infer we because clearly more much this see we necessary. Given the numbers 1, 2, and 3, no one fails to see that the fourth is proportional 6 n numbers simplest the in But proportionals. of property common the from namely, Euclid, of VII Book in P19 of demonstration the of force the from or numbers, simplest the in this fr heard what they forgotten yet not have they because first, the by product the divide and third, the by second the find a fourth which is to the third as the second is to the first. Merchants do not hesitate to multiply th are there Suppose example. one with knowledge] of kinds 46 of essence the p of knowledge distinct acquire to able be may we knowledge the and attributes the of axioms recognition as such truths general of knowledge mere than more much hand, other the On E2p13L2 knowledge of things kind second the of E2p38 (see none things, many to common is that something perceiving the to refers articula

Yet, Yet, I include Spinoza’s example here if the reader wishes to see it: “I shall explain all these [three Allison (1987, pp. 117 pp. (1987, Allison of knowledge of

should rs beyond the mere fact of their , which,

helpful). common notions common

al ne te eod r hr kn o kolde Hwvr i is it However, knowledge. of kind third or second the under fall om their teacher without any demonstration, or because they have often found found often have they because or demonstration, any without teacher their om only –

E2p40). entails adequate ideas adequate some

(as (as might be assumed from E3p38c in directing the reader to

- 46 — 18) offers an interpretation of the second kind of knowledge as highly highly as knowledge of kind second the of interpretation an offers 18) speaks of knowledge ofthe speaks

‘ As do not include not do reason

consider that the second second the that consider on knowledge of kind second the that suspect Some .

Moreover, one commentator believes that that believes commentator one Moreover, it

. This is to say that, by means of the second kind of kind second the of means by that, say to is This .

is i.e., concepts that we form in virtue of adequately of virtue in form we that concepts i.e., ’ — with

a entail may (E2p41,

second.”

ay hns ocrig pnz, hs is this Spinoza, concerning things many it 48

extrinsic extrinsic in this discussion this in

E2p42). n exactly (he offers an offersan (he n exactly

only nature necessary existence or that they ree numbers, and the problem is to to is problem the and numbers, ree

kind kind H ey eea o s or general very ence, all propositions in the in propositions all ence, but which is exclusive to exclusive is which but of Extension of knowledge of since since information

I don’t think it is it think don’t I example ) . 47 knowledge one of this is this of one may offer offer may

uperficial

that eachthat at theat — and and ly CEU eTD Collection include all possible true knowledge that is in some respect true of many things, many of true respect some in is that knowledge true possible all include — different is proportional to the complexity of our bodies and how it can the richne supported be can by looking E2p39c, where at Spinoza the states that amount are a mode of some attribute. This richer reading of the second kind of knowledge in a new now light, in synthesized a way that one comes to understand God ownand one’s place in apprehending the contents of the book, a reader would be expected to see the firs 50 49 48 its by offered convey Now individual abo knowledge general our knowledge kind:third the of knowledge to things) many to common is which that of (knowledge kind second for a is passage tothe attend some for allows Spinoza that show weif truth, fromthe far is This God. through world the of knowledge unmediated to imagined and mysticism to some bee has controversial, more the and knowledge, of kind third The only not but

I borrow from Yovel (1989) the concept of ‘synthesis’. of the concept (1989) Yovel from I borrow Y defense, a see For richer interpretation. this support Yovel and Nadler Or this is the case in the first few readings one makes of the the of makes one readings few first the in case the is this Or precisely because o because precisely

the question m of m ?

I believe that, in the most part, it is knowledge of the se the of knowledge is it part, most the in that, believe I

things. . ss)

synthesis

axioms, oraxioms, theknowledge attributes. of of information that we can acquire by the second kind of knowledge

propositions 48

is I believe that this second interpretation is the more adequate more the is interpretation second this that believe I reconsidered

( f E2p39c f or even or

of information that allows us to go from knowledge of the the of knowledge from go to us allows that information of . 50

ut many things in order to understand one specific one understand to order in things many ut

of a particular inso particular a of

Most p Most

the example in footnote 46 footnote in the example — ; hence ; :

what kind of knowledge ropositions 49 ,

I take the second kind of knowledge to knowledge of kind second the take I

far as we’ve managed to combineto managedwe’ve as far

purport to explain fundamental explain to purport

Ethics ) , it simply states that it that simply states it , does the . Yovel argues that, after after that, argues Yovel . be be ovel (1989, Ch. 6). Ch. (1989, ovel affected by cond kind that is that kind cond n compared by compared n t part of the

Ethics

mostly many Ethics

(or

CEU eTD Collection This then is the fundamental reason fundamental the is then This exclusive none. to second the in the particular entity. but reality, of qualities 52 51 the expressed in remain one each separately, 164 pp. (1989, knowledge. of kind third the by nature exclusive to none. Hence, the way that Spino modes all about (being things many of idea ‘rational’ conatus the that propose I discussion conatus. onthe (E1p15). world the about anything conceive adequately to order in needs one that knowledge discloses the of development the in point key axioms that he needs to get the Spino that how is explain it help respects it that such and the conatus

Cf. E2p40 and E2p40sch1. and Cf. E2p40 essence infinite and eternal God’s of an knowledge adequate has mind “The human E2p47: n , with respect to the conatus,

very distinct from each other each from distinct very how it is that

allows for describing a great a describing for allows

— or the second kind of knowledge; it is something that we that something is it knowledge; of kind second the or

seem general Yet Hence,

I eeo ti pit o ute i odr o otne the continue to order in further no point this develop I ,

a person so

never — if all propositions are true, but mostly of a universal kind,

abstract: abstract: because it needs to be linguistically formulated

kind of knowledge, so as to be true off all entities, but entities, all off true be to as so knowledge, of kind co

ncept is a perfect example example perfect a is ncept offer information of the complete essence of some of essence complete the of information offer

Ethics could h za

it it must be the case that the concept is formulated believes

Ethics of tone of the second kind of knowledge. kind second of the tone why Spinoza’s metaphysics Spinoza’s why . ave knowledge of God in the 50

f This second kind of knowledge may also may knowledge of kind second This in the case of the conatus the of case the in

the ground; in fact, I believe E2p47

collection of things that are that things of collection

he came to have the knowledge of the of knowledge he cametohavethe : za expresses his idea in E3p6 remain

here the here - 67) Though the propositions themselves, themselves, propositions the Though 67) book of a of

come common notion common s ),

on individuals on

full circle full first place,

and which is which and

in various in can know know can 51 . ,

and

” 52 is the

a a s

CEU eTD Collection wisdom and humility specificity its in we fleshof outconatus particular can any one how the mode should entities about have we that knowledge once highly illuminating and completely useless. one any about of them. particular anything us telling without but modes, or entities of forms all to open operational. or verifiable clearly not but concept, a as comprehensible in happens as that seems It chapter). or first the in (discussed world the actual in individuals specific constitutes what identifying of issue same the with coincides This E4p62sch: modesty (E3p1sch) knowledge of his time

and the limits of hisexplanation: and thelimits .

There is one passage of the of passage one is There tha may determine what is good or evil for things universal, and the or abstract, only is evil and good of have we that knowledge (E2 imagination the by existing of times their determine we and (E2p31), existing of times their reason by determine and things, of duration the of knowledge inadequate quite a only have can we […]

. metaphysics n n […] real. oee, ee blee ht pnz simultan Spinoza that believe I here However,

and and the connections of causes, so that in the present we in in facing the nature of : he recognizes that knowledgeour of bodies is very limited For it this reason seems asthough theory theconatus isat

— judgment

4sh [] ht s h te true the why is That […] p44sch) concept

51 together Ethics

we we make

reality i ti case this in ,

that is key recognizing Spino recognizing key is that

It with the with

within the confines of scientific is only when we combine other concerning

us, us, is imaginary, rather idea of the of idea

‘ in

the the order of dividual eously be describedbe conatus that conatus ’,

s only is n this On shows za’s —

CEU eTD Collection in mind the passage above, one should recognize that Spinoza never expectedhis never Spinoza that shouldrecognize one above, passage the mind in fo argument the underdetermined, remains individual of concept the whilst that recognizes to able be to order non theory of individuals Bennett point 53 theconatus explaining knowle of kind second the of nature the given individual of concept underdetermined conclude can we note this On mind reader the of character s for basis a as offered falsifiable). less much (and verifiable be to metaphysics

Bennett (1984, pp. 249 pp. Bennett (1984, - iclry eemn wa ae h budre of boundaries the are what determine circularly and its relation to the rest of tothe relation and theworld its g ad h rsrcin ta this that restrictions the and dge r the conatus seems un seems conatus the r

makes the mistake of mistake the makes then

- that 51). such that

hog a oml nesadn o the of understanding formal a through

ascertain

inii rsac, but research, cientific is applicable

this

all individuals all individuals

what is beneficial for beneficial is what chapter: - demanding that demanding falsifiable. falsifiable.

in 52 experience

directing (more on this (more onthis lcs n pnz’ cpct for capacity Spinoza’s on places However, I believe that by that believe I However, are directed

subsumed by it.

in in a way that allows fo Spinoza

our gaze at this seemingly this at gaze our actual actual His metaphysics His each of each bel at

offer an operational an offer ow individuals teghnn the strengthening

). them. aue f one’s of nature

Bennett was not was

having and r r us to

CEU eTD Collection defines us Sp in rational or suicide to opposed we that behavior where interpretation an for In this final chapter I will attempt to prove that Spinoza’s theory of conatus allows C E1def7: serious its without not is complications, ‘freedom’ term the large, at philosophy Within 3.1 created: tobe taken pure egoism for self usually is theory ethical his which in tone the reconsider to us allow may which one a possible but Spinoza, bydeveloped is as conatustheory the of consequence of self rational towardsconatus thepossibility ‘conatus’. the and ‘individual’ to of concepts respect with discussed previously indeterminacy the to connections the in HAPTER Free rational behavior or

Ethics . . To do this I 3.

s ta atrad oe a more may one afterwards that so , exist and to and produceanexist certain a determinate in effect and manner. to another by determined is which compelled, rather or necessary, and alone, nature its of necessity the from exists which free called is thing That T and with OWARDS A THEORY R OF i nozistic terms nozistic —

can fall under the set of set the under fall can discuss in more detail the

Spinoza wefindSpinoza is determined to act by itself alone. But a thing is called is thing a But alone. itself by act to determined is

; i.e., as following from the essence or activity that that activity or essence the fromfollowing as i.e., ; 53 cnld ta this that conclude I - a peculiar definition: a peculiar perseverance

ATIONAL SELF

actions that that actions - sacrifice is not exactlysacrifice not a is

account of could

lal se t important its see clearly

in terms ofin longevity

al ‘self call can ‘ - freedom SACRIFICE development

be considered free considered be - sacrifice’ sacrifice’ ’

and

necessary

‘ reason

f the of .

— as

’

CEU eTD Collection E2p49: it: cognitive puts or faculty asSpinoza of denying, but, affirming Spinoza, as sense common that way the in freedom conceive that see we book, the in on early found definition this From conceiving of reality of people form due to their ignorance of ‘ dishonest nature of mode that is the human mind is just as determined to exist and behave by the laws T dete of processes determinate the escape not does mind repres it that body the as complex and rich as just Thought idea composite a than more no is mind the ‘idea’: and ‘mind’ between distinction ontological reme must we passage this appreciate best To freedom of the will the of freedom his conception of the mind would mind the of conception his ‘ freedom of indifference of freedom rmi

ned to act in a certain way acertain in ned toact

that is that however (E1Apendix, E2p48sch)(E1Apendix, —

s n ohr nnmt object inanimate other any as

to speak o speak to

that ideainvolves which the that idea. insofar is it an as except negation, and affirmation or volition, no is there mind the In reo ( freedom , a the term the

representation representation , there is no distinction of distinction no is there , ’

as is common is as f the possibility of human freedom. However, for Spinoza, for However, freedom. human of possibility the f acting

‘mind’ is used just to refer to that that to refer to just used is ‘mind’ ’ , a ,

‘ in free will free of o . , In fact, it it fact, In hs ways those

as ly imagined is imagined ly indicate ur body the

all other 54 ’ true that can just as well act or not act. act. not or act well as just can that

may

will i i ironic is it ,

to (E2p11 cause of their actions

which modes ofGod many readers that, given how the how given that, readers many mber that for Spinoza there is no no is there Spinoza for that mber

and seem that without Spinoza’swithoutwaythat seem discourse frequently imagines frequently discourse ents. T ents. in fact in , E2p13 , idea necessarily nature; ; o this extent, the human the extent, this o

an abstract notion that notion abstract an a —

mind does not does mind , E2p1 , (E1p27, E2p11c). if not straight out out straight not if composite

pnz de not does Spinoza

it follow

5).

and s necessarily is The mind is The the nature

rm the from mode in mode

have a have For

: CEU eTD Collection In any case, weIn case, see any that the ‘will’ but isnothing tha essence our through not is it if oneself actions? my determine itself essence body the of our behavio Yet, behavior (E3p1 belief be to ideas that constitute our (thinking) being, neither is the as names Spinoza that nothing else minds our constitute that ideas the through explained is behavior (mental) identity an its tracing of with interacts that mode a as environment and Nature of mode a as constitution by determined denunciation idea itself. There is no

there remains the

, , but is rather is ‘ rational will

? of the thing the of

(E4p1 ju

is not an abstract faculty distinguished from the content itself of the the of itself content the from distinguished faculty abstract an not is .

st Moreover, in our discussion of the three kinds of knowledge we found .

of ideas as “mute pictures on a panel”) Spinoza r, instead of

’ to the extent

inco , E4p23 , the nature of nature the not because we employ a faculty of faculty a employ we because not –

mprehensible. What is free is What mprehensible. E4p19) , and not determined by outside forces outside by determined not and , ‘ reason

epoché issue also ). ewe te w (E2p49c two the between And

. denies the distinction of distinction the denies

that that adequate ideas ’

of wh

how does one comprehend one does how In so far as the mind is a mode of Thought that that Thought of mode a is mind the as far so In as

other , , not in the Cartesian sense the parts of our body or m or body our of parts the understanding the second kind of knowledge. This is to say, just say, to is This knowledge. of kind second the at at makes it so that some idea . . This is explained, surprisingly, by 55

of the actions tha actions the of dom if dom are ). t affirmation that is t affirmationis that ofpart any

the deter reason .

will Our actions ec, e id ht l our all that find we Hence, ‘ free will free

not

(E2p49sch, see and this ind respectively, by respectively, ind . a Therefore , E1def7 ,

power that I have to have I that power

mining mining factors of our intellect power to determine to power ’

is the driving force based on based t follow from our from follow t and thoughts ), the concept the ),

, , we are said reference to to the point the to Spinoza’s

justified

and our are are

CEU eTD Collection the body is that, for that reason, gaps in the knowledge of our bodies (and other (and bodies our of knowledge the in gaps reason, that for that, is body the significance E3p2). (E2p6, body the his and mind the with between interaction of impossibility inconsistency without body the to reference interesting More the reflects well as just mind de the as body the the of affections determining body, our is that mode the represents that of at.” wonders mind its which things many do adds is that event of behavior what know always I Spinoza fact, And, in openly recognizes ignora the modes of Extension) will reflect in a way as gaps in our understanding of the mind. n not knowingn not what body the do can from thelaws of my allow in attempt E3p2sch: E2p24:

E3p2sch that “the body itself, simply form the laws of its own nature, can nature, own its of laws the form simply itself, body “the that E3p2sch s

for what I will soon define as rational self rational as define soon will I what for

of conceiving the behavior the conceiving of

explained b explained s

still is this fact that Spinoza explains the content of the mind by mind the of content the explains Spinoza that fact this is still

showing showing considered to be corporeal be considered to […] from do can body the what anyone taught yet not has experience is, that do, can body the what determined yet has one no […] composing the body parts the of knowledge adequate involve not does mind human The y the essence of our body alone body our of essence the y h lw o Ntr aoe isfr s aue s only is Nature as insofar alone, Nature of laws the that the conatus concept is underdeterminedis concept conatus the that one’s own body own one’s 56 of the mind through an understanding of understanding an through mind the of

termining ideas of the mind ( mind the of ideas termining This ignorance This .

adds up to an action an to up adds nce that wehavence that ofthebody:

- its sacrifice. But before that, I that, before But sacrifice.

n .

ature alone, we cannot See that Spinoza later Spinoza that See is important is conviction conviction ; i.e., i.e., ; in a way way a in

n the on for E2p7). to an to T one

he CEU eTD Collection character towards focused more but nature, of research empirical of foundations the for treatise the of function the that mentioned I Earlier caus need to explain in cases what we knowcan we are that 54 E4p matters minds. m to respect with ignorance emotions or motivations understanding adequate possible the have we hand one the on reader: the important division in the kind of knowledge that the knowledge about the ideas about argues he inadequate ideas and the sourc the over ideas) adequate our (of reason of power the explain the of 5 part to preface the in out

See again the E3de the See again 27 e ofouraffections. or actions :

Yet, given wepresumably knowledge that achieveYet, adequate about , webetter understand, can when hesays: means what Spinoza

feig h rae a en fr mtoa wisdom emotional for means a reader the offering .

that that

We recogn We

the parts that make up to understanding or or understanding to what can from prevent us understanding. We know nothing to be certainly good or evil, except what really leads — independently of the fact that we do not have clear and distinct and clear have not do we that fact the of independently f 1 and E3def2 above. above. E3def2 and 1

affects ize this on vari on this ize

(the affects)

of our bodies n ohr eemnn fcos on factors determining other any e of 54

bondage our bodies

Ethics , ous occasions, such as when Spinoza points Spinoza when as such occasions, ous

though though on the 57

( that the point the that see see ). Throughout this last part of the book — Ethics E5p3, E5p3,

we can achieve clear and distinct

other Ethics s et nesod o a a as not understood best is E5 acting p4,

of that last section last that of hand, hand,

alleges to have offered E5

passive passive or or are the adequate p10).

we recognize our

and strength of of strength and u bodies our So, we find an affects (our affects

various

of our of

is to is and

CEU eTD Collection control behavior can which g is that be can we that thing only the ourselves, and world the of understanding knowledge is This passage is not meant to insist that the only possible good that we can acquire entities. other by affected are they exactly how hav and body, our not compose that do of parts we the of knowledge that adequate given pleasures worldly other of benefits the about we uncertain whilst remain knowledge, may of benefits the of certain only are we that, is point The individual. the for 55 knowledge given Furthermore, us. to external are that those and bodies own ignorance that Spinoza says that we have in many respects about the nature of o a brief ‘ as counts that behavior of spectrum conatus the of limits the consequence, a as and them), define that activity and boundaries eleme basic the of some ofidentity the to respect underdeterminedwith are metaphysics how show to tried have I far So 3.2 less be cause of our to behavior, causes and essence, our define that powers of set the by determined are

Cf. E4p45sch where Spino where E4p45sch Cf. New p New

account that can move us to a less perfect state of being (to be less of an adequate an of less be (to being of state perfect less a to us move can that over our else isnothing tosay desires but thatour desires andtendencies

ood for us is knowledge itself; i.e., those ideas that are adequate in us and in adequate are that ideas those i.e., knowledgeitself; is us forood concept also remains unclear: W unclear: remains also concept

(though never ab never (though ossible give us greater power greater us give

of the body, there also remains a potentially wide set of behavior types

f h scn o tid ki third or second the of of of consequences ‘ free free action

za recognizes that many things besides knowledge can be favorable favorable be can knowledge besides things many that recognizes za solute

’

with respect to modes,

of theconatus of autonomous

; by ; over our emotions our over persevering in its being’ its in persevering

E4 58 p4 nd

hat kind of activity falls outside o outside falls activity of kind hat ) , . 55 ).

Again, s Again, theory

u that but

; and aying that we have we that aying i.e., over our over i.e.,

ie te iis f our of limits the given hinted at the problem of

Lastly, I’ Lastly, t o Spinoza’s of nts individuals not by not tendencies or tendencies hs ak of lack this ve external external

greater offer certain f the f

(the ed ur ur e

CEU eTD Collection additional Given all these gaps in theoretical content, I believe that it is possi mindmany thingswhichwonders at.” its E3p2sch: again no have we which whic and knowledge of but us, defines that essence the from follow may that to endeavor to us moves behavior) our on power affective appropriate the has that states which E3p31c, consequences of honesty. death of consequence the agent, it must be the case that he motivat However, save hislife. would ifto even notlie E4p72. in helps me in defending the possibility of free self that case useful particularly a gave Spinoza that believe I Moreover, framework. som cause of our self describe suicide as a free action or to say that we can be the be cannot action free and conatus of concepts the certain: i Yet, framework that Spinoza tig like ething m peiu dfnto o suicide of definition previous my f ions of this character. For this For character. this of ions

In th In to make sense of such a scenario, scenario, a such of sense make to osqecs r propositions or consequences a

- t example Spinoza insisted that insisted Spinoza examplet “ destruction the body itself, simply itself, body the ‘ re self free h is difficult or impossible to recognize as such. Here I quote quote I Here such. as recognize to impossible or difficult is h

created

For example, Spinoza (in his defense of E4p72) em

reason in and of itself of and in - sacrifice

or desire to self , , especially on the topic of conatus and free action. will be honest not because he knows and desires

(or knowledge of the second kind in so far as it as far so in kind second the of knowledge (or ’

s osbe o eed vn ihn this within even defend to possible is fatally 59 from

, but because he knows and desires the desires and knows he because but ,

ht i wti te ai metaphysical basic the within fit that was - it is important important is it destruct

honest the laws of its own nature, can do can nature, own its of laws the

- a orc, hn n tig remain thing one then correct, sacrifice: his ‘free man’ would be honest, and honest, would be man’ ‘free

. . However, I do consider that character one and only to deployed controversial controversial speculate about the about speculate

to count as a free a as count to ble ble to formulate

in order to order in adequate stance ploys s CEU eTD Collection this example does not go against our explanation of why suicide is impossible, nor that so himself), beyond powers of intervention the by explained is destruction i man honest knowledge of the positive consequences of honesty. adequate the by motivated being its to due action free a is it that follows still it such anef in nature ourwith coalesce things other make 57 framework. this into fit that consequences theoretical additional about speculate and content theoretical Spi whether determine to not is here purpose 56 cou to behavior death, then only a very specific set of to topic. this of speaking when discourse ‘noblest’ or ‘purest’ the as referenced are that motivations th for case a Now, in virtue of honest underbeing therisk of death). weakness emotional be andnot affects, positiveof virtue in truththe say movedto be must adequate cause suicide. as count it does

See E3, Definitions of the of Definitions See E3, It probably is the case that we, as readers, will find this proof weak or unsatisfying; yet, my yet, unsatisfying; or weak proof this find will readers, as we, that case the is probably It cniin f conditions e protect anot protect

fort afailure willbe (byhypothesis killed of being due tobeing honest), ‘ self ti case this n - sacrifice’ as a potential a as sacrifice’

her, and her, as nt as free. First, however, let us let however, First, free. as nt r re self free or this suggested

analysis analysis of — sc a te ee am mere the as (such

suig ht i piooh i sfiinl cnitn overall consistent sufficiently is philosophy his that assuming affects, 44 for the definition of definition the for 44 affects, does this does

On is the cause of his death only in in only death his of cause the is -

ly in sacrifice we shall shall we sacrifice

E4p72 to E4p72 knowing that such action may culminate in her in culminate may action such that knowing this affective states .

This free man degree can one say that he that say one can degree noza’s philosophy is correct, but only to unpack its unpack to only but correct, is philosophy noza’s that that I offer If an agent puts herself in danger in order in danger in herself puts agent an If 60

free act. free

bition of wanting to be admired for for admired be to wanting of bition constructive ae o vi mn o te usual the of many avoid to have

ambition note those that do not show the show not do that those note Yet, it must be said that to meet to that said be must it Yet, , , I believe that we may 56

should be explanatory of such —

Notice, Notice, also that in in order to count as such .

ways.

in much of popular popular of much in mediate Though, even if even Though, acts

the the free and

cause of anof cause em (his terms

formulate and is an is and —

— to to

CEU eTD Collection that such instincts are usually motivat usually are instincts such that throw himself at the car in order to protect the child. However, one may recognize to willing be fatherwould possibly the cases such in and child, their of protection car. In many cases the imagine run be to about is child young his sees that father example, a of case unfortunate For free. as count to order in affect motivating the be agent as adequate caus the situation to analyze only but their children, 59 58 E4p59: this possibility: him asamode. the of virtue in action the explains that places that way a in scenario the formulate may we E4p72, of case the for imagined as Yet, unde action). his of force determining the being the for himself sacrificed freely nor impossible), is (which suicide technical committed has parent the that say neither we case a child), compassion for the child, and any number of other passive affects.

E3, Definitions of the affects, 13, 18, 24 respectively. 24 13, 18, affects, the of E3, Definitions Please let it be noted that I do not wish to speak ill of any parent who would give their life for for life their give would who parent any of ill speak to wish not do I that noted be it let Please r apartial

parent u parent passion, we bedetermined can without affectpassion, byreason, that a is that affect an from determined are we which to action every To

action oftheagent. action This should be parent

nder the influence of influence the nder e of her action: neither s

are

ver viable y y willing to put themselves in harms way for the

, ifonly Spinoza , because 61 ed by a mixture of of mixture a by ed in Spinozistic terms. Spinozistic in conatus

Such impulsive behavior may fall only only fall may behavior impulsive Such reason

fear , or essential activity that defines that activity essential or ,

child (due to the passive affects passive the to (due child , , nor

and

pity some other positive affect positive other some

, , nor fear

explicitly compassion

(of loosing one’s loosing (of argues for

59 over by a by over .

In such 58

may may

CEU eTD Collection ( from us or affect us (E4 preface, E4p59sch under we how to relation in qualification this acquire only reason of influence the under possible be well as just to passion, a of virtue in undertaken is that Spinoza affects, passive though Even distinctly.” and clearly conceive we things] of images those of [from images and confusedly those conceive from we which both things action same the and one to determined be can we so And whatever. o images any to joined be can action same the and one because happens […] that arm, his the human body. Therefore, if a man moved by anger or hate is determined to close his fist or move forceful arm whole his moves to fist, his and fact and closes the man we the attend only raises physically, that arm, as his insofar 60 where life own her save and pregnancy the imagine Spinoza suggesting that the rational choice for the mother is to terminate for endeavor an as (i.e., false be If we interpret Spinoza’s conatus theory in the way that I have previously tak choice. this case it would be interesting to ask Spi h complication physiological some given scenario life. own individual’s the of cost the at h that wayain tobehave willing(actively) is individualan where case and as the option, the toterminate if she option, pregnancy wishes, as the own and saveherlife.

Here Spinoza offers the following illustration: “The act of beating, in so far as it is considered considered is it as far so in beating, of act “The illustration: following the offers Spinoza Here so much so that some might some that so much so the

a expecting conatus in general we are all continuously all are we general in

s srvn fr ihr ere of degrees higher for striving a is Actions, in and of themselves, are neither good nor bad, but but bad, nor good neither are themselves, of and in Actions,

mother is informed by her doctors that the birth process birth the that doctors her informedby is mother ly up and down, is a virtue, which is conceived from the structure of of structure the from conceived is which virtue, a is down, and up ly argues for argues

longevity say

the

it For example, i example, For . — 62 theoreti oee, ne m interpretation my under However, is practically impossible); we can posit a posit can we impossible); practically is

noza what he believes to be the rational will bring about her death, but that she that but death, her about bring will 60

more than for than more ). Though probably highly exceptional cal determined possibility possibility magine another unfortunate another magine activity activity stand

by both active and active both by that nt longevity) not , ), then we would we then ), them to follow to them

any behavior any elps others elps f things things f

en en to (i.e., — I , In

CEU eTD Collection causeof inadequate an her self life her save to chooses situation). the of understanding adequate an and affects positive tha believe to desire her with conjunction in situation the of understanding her of virtue i (i.e., decisions process allow the parent to actively organize her emotions and then make certain individual. consequences certain about bring to power the parent: the defines that activity or power the with consistent is a that motivation induces reason that in identical are cases both fact, In case. each in reason mi one if possible only for is impression allows an such However, it rational. be if to actions faulty contradictory seemingly is argument my that suggested be can it point this At thecause of being by not motivated is and circumstances, the and herself of understanding her from follows it rational: child’s her over i.e., life; of and motivated by the joy that she has in contemplating her own power as a creator an hand, other the On - — hatred and she — not out of fear of what others would think of her if her of think would others what of fear of out not t both choices can be rational (inso rational be can choices both t n h frt ae esn n ohr oiie fet ivle i the in involved affects positive other and reason case first the In , then I suspect Spinoza would not have the tools to implicate her asher implicate to tools the have not would Spinoza suspect I then , believes — s then determined to desire the termination the desire to determined then s , then I suspect that her action of sacrifice may be called free or free calledbe may sacrifice of action her that suspect I then ,

of theexistence

sadness and sadness own life, not out of fear of death, but out of love for love of out but death, of fear of out not life, own d just as well, if the mother mother the if well, as just d

sunderstand that face her shecan decision without

dispositional state dispositional compassion for the child, but out of j of out but child, the for compassion

of life. anew s what kind of behavior is actually entailed by entailed actually is behavior of kind what 63

far as the mother is motivated by motivated is mother the as far

by means of the capacities of the of capacities the of means by — out of strength of character, of strength of out

s of the pregnancy pregnancy the of ufferingregret and she If the mother the If chose her life her chose oy and love love and oy her own own her in CEU eTD Collection o i i brought is it how differenceThe important between the two cases isnot what is brought but about, of thechild for anditsbirth. development later thecomplete consistent with the definitive powers of the mother: behaving in a way that allows motivation some inducing reason of example an again offers case second existingcontinue inorder toachievefurther things inlife). Onother the the hand, entity. of an essence or of conatus the consequences 61 childbirth mediately affe positive and reason through way a such in behave to expression of her thriving conatus as an her implies beingstate that of a oraction is an itasfar so in her is in Moreover, of lethally honesty. our radical acontinuation as argument example might be t t behaviors, opposing motivate cannot reason were I if or rational’, possible in E5p10). organize and connect to capacity own her of virtue in explained is that state emotional an developing her involve that affects positive other of conjunction a and situation the of understanding

As immediately

has been discussed in Chapter 2 Chapter in discussed been has

, her life will come to an end. And, most importantly, it is distinct from distinct is it importantly, most And, end. an to come will life her , destructive in so far as we consider that, by intervention intervention by that, consider we as far so in destructive the case of case the

good for her he most consistent illustration, especially bu. n oh ae te ohr s oiae truh her through motivated is mother the cases both In about. Nonetheless, Nonetheless, if I were

shown that they are in fact contradictory actions, and that that and actions, contradictory fact in are they that shown

self 61 -

, , but sacrifice, she is an adequate cause of a b a of cause adequate an is she sacrifice, , about the d the about , her e her mediately motions 64 active pressed pressed to opt for one case the as ‘more

destructive. It is ifference between mediated and immediate immediate and mediated between ifference entity hen I believe that the self the that believe I hen or affects or

(given that she

(such as Spinoza says is says Spinoza as (such c

ts). ts). immediately immediately if we wish to develop

It is, nonetheless, is, It essence is determined ehavior thatehavior

- and is anis and good for sacrifice

f the of that is that

CEU eTD Collection ofdefinition free or self rational w propose I examples, two these of light In achieve: bringing humanworld the a new forth into destruction that one not is action her that given suicide cannot it then immediatelyX, follow defi that behavior of kind any almost conducive as qualify that those are body a of clear on what types of patterns of movement and rest among the constitutive parts these These

external influenceswillexternal death. bring their about expresse fully is being in which the capacity for autonomy is preserved of state a is it that (given beneficial immediately is are, actions the of whi but death, their about bring way thatwillknowingly acertain in behave isdeterminedagent to By highly underdetermined concepts of concepts underdetermined highly examples examples are nes nes free

bt ietd t bringin at directed but , power

a or rational

mode. that defines them. It is an action that, as all adequate all as that, action an is It them. defines that coherent What d

), but it is mediately destructive in so far as as far so in destructive mediately is it but ), self

remains clear is that, if an entity is defined by activity by defined is entity an if that, is clear remains - sacrifice may

with the rest of systemthe - sacrifice:

count as consequence of the essence or power or essence the of consequence as count

from I understand in action an which the g to fruition fruition to g ch is undertaken as an expression an as undertaken is ch 65

itself individual e take the following as the technical the as following the take e is

to immediately

that ~X. ~X. that the what .

existence of an entity, then entity, an of existence

and

only as long weas h ws omte to committed was she

conatus , , the essence

directed . If we ar we If

her own her retain e not e

CEU eTD Collection of the body, then the concept ofmindof at theconcept isalso thebody, then risk of modes in Extension shortcoming kind which know to difficult it makes that knowledge’ of kind ‘second the on reliance indeterminacy the Furthermore, the

of individuals are even possible. This is then one of the of one then is This possible. even are individuals of s

i fnaetl eahsc: the metaphysics: fundamental his indeterminacy of the

. f h cnet f i of concept the of

Moreover, since the mind is apprehended as a representation

ndividual. conatus 66

concept concept

t s rcsl de o Spinoza’s to due precisely is It l problematic ack is a direct consequence of of ter individual theory a more significant more

ambiguity. ambiguity.

CEU eTD Collection oau, vn fe ritrrtto, ean sfiinl udreemnd to underdetermined sufficiently remains reinterpretation, after even conatus, conse mediated and immediate analyze more the evaluate (2) concept; My goal i C of behav kinds what determines turn in which virtue, of theory Spinoza’s for foundational existence immediately cannot which and God, of power infinite the of by Spinoza, is that the conatus is always an activity or process that is an expres we most the knowledge, my ratio that is presented as the definitive aspect of the form of a body. to facilitate a discriminative system with which to determine the basics of t or matter, the on understandingclear any have to us for topic the on information little too offers Spinoza that found I However, individuals. actual of existence of theory a have to useful be individuals that explains what kind would of corporeal constitutions are c it is, thing a activity or expression of In my analysis of the conatus concept I showed that to best understand what kind eventhough suicide action, never possible is self includes that expansion an for allow ONCLUSION AND CLOSIN the ior we or toclassify are allowed rational. asfree n this brief discussion was threefold: (1) unpack and analyze the conatus . Then, in closing the first chapter, I explain that the conatus concept is concept conatus the that explain I chapter, first the closing in Then, fet ta flo fo a esne y en of means by essence an from follow that effects can G REMARKS quences;

recognized extract from the conatus theory as is presented is as theory conatus the from extract 67 - sacrifice as a potentially free potentially a as sacrifice

n () hw ht h cnet f the of concept the that show (3) and

ruet aant h cnts and conatus the against arguments as afree form of behavior.

posit y itnto of distinction my onducive to the

To the best of its own non own its or rational rational or

he fixed sion - CEU eTD Collection essential effort in all finite modes to extend their extend to modes finite all in effort essential phrase far as it can by its own power, strives to persevere in its being “ reads which E3p6, of clause last the of miscomprehension a from concept and its related assumptions. I ins conatus the against forth brought critiques or attacks main the of some consider to order in theory conatus the of analysis focused the interrupt I Afterwards, freedom the discussions ofthepre I c finalchapter and In third the description. modes finite all subsume to term the for allows that way a in the of conatus the of formulation vagueness the that see then we none, to exclusive but things many of true is that understanding an with us furnish only can knowledge of kind second the sec of concept a is conatus the that maintain I theory. conatus the expresses and develops Spinoza which from perspective epistemological the on discussion life. own his save to if even lie, impossibility of suicide in conjunction to his contention that a free man Spinoza’s between paradoxes apparent certain dispel helps it important issues brought forth against the conatus theory, and more importantly, the However, in reinterpreting the clause as referring to a thing n kn o kolde s pnz dfns t n 24sh. ie ta the that Given E2p40sch2. in it defines Spinoza as knowledge of kind ond

power or activity that defines that activity or power —

n the and “ tie t preee n t being its in persevere to strives

conatus vious two chapters, I triedvious to I two chapters,

r cnetd I on t te an asgs where passages main the to point I connected. are is probably due to Spinoza’s effort to express himself express to effort Spinoza’s to due probably is In the end, I add to add I end, the In ame back to the conatus concept, and armed with and armed concept, conatus tothe ame back

it , I believe that we ca we that believe I , 68 isted that many misunderstandings stem

” —

h s en iitrrtd as misinterpreted been as

longevity my evaluation of the debate a debate the of evaluation my explain how the notions of how explain thenotions n react to most of the of most to react n .” I argue that the final ’ s tendency to express as much as possible. as much as statements on the on statements of God God of Each thing, as thing, Each

under one under would not

an CEU eTD Collection freedom and the conatus exclude the possibility of that which I defined as defined I which that of possibility the exclude conatus the and freedom in offers explicitly Spinoza that nothing that show to try I to adequate knowledge of the world (be it of the second actions ex not and essence one’s of virtue in act necessarily to but else nothing as freedom defines Spinoza tru ourselves to rediscover his metaphysics and determine what kind of ethical theory is th derive that explanations ‘egoism’ is too crude a word to describe the potential richness of the psychological that show help will longevity) of (irrespective us define that powers the express term in conatus the reinterpreting that hope only I concept. conatus his analyzing in especially scholarship, Spinoza in ubiquitous improvement and freedom. The terms “psychological egoism” or “egoism” are too Spinoza of discussion the shift to effort an make to but detail; greater in concept conatus the analyze to notmerely was topic research this for motivation main the that confess I closing, In c who has and agent affect passive of form any by motivated not the is action an such undertakes that degree the to action free a as conceived be can sacrifice thing). a of essence the of consequences the of conception rational self lear understanding of the consequences oflear his understanding consequences ofor the her actions.

at all adequate, then all the more so to stop calling Spinoza an egoist, and allow and egoist,an calling Spinoza stop to so more the all then adequate, all at ternal entities may have on us on have may entities ternal lyphilosophy thesocial from in emerges sphere. his

— to be free be to - sacrifice (in Spinozistic terms combined with my m be be — eemnd o c i vi in act to determined

is explained to follow to explained is ereof. Moreover, if my argument my if Moreover, ereof. s hlspy s n o eos, o n o self of one to egoism, of one as philosophy ’s ; i.e., autonomy i.e., ; 69

te f h ngtv ifune that influences negative the of rtue from . To be the adequate cause of our of cause adequate the be To .

s of a continuous endeavor to endeavor continuous a of s positive affects in conjunction in affects positive

or third kind). Ultimately,

for free self free for I conclude that self that conclude I h

s xlntos of explanations is ediate/immediate - sacrifice

free ot free - -

CEU eTD Collection Deleuze, Gilles. Curley, Edwin M. Jonathan.Bennett, Henry.Allison, B B Spinoza, Spinoza, Yovel, Yirmiyahu. "Spinoza Volume of andOther Heretics, The 1: Marrano Andrew. Self Youpa, "Spinozistic N Kaminsky, Gregorio. Stuart. Hampshire, ——— "‘A Don. Garrett, Man Free Always ActsNotDeceptively’: Freedom Honestly, and Mitchell. "SpinozaGabhart, onSelf Michael. Della Rocca, adler, Steven. IBLIOG Editorial, MadridEditorial, 1994University Press, Reason." philosophy 1990. " 38. the GoodEthics." Spinoza’s in History ofPhilosophythe University Press,Princeton 1988. 1987.UniversityYale Press, Spinoza: metaphysical themes." New metaphysical York: themes." Spinoza: Oxford 2002 University Press, . "Spinoza's conatus "Spinoza's . A

Benedictus de RAPHY enedictus de

Benedict An Revised Introduction, Edition de Spinoza: Spinoza: P Practical Spinoza's E rinceton Universityrinceton 1989 Press.

41.3 (2003): 477

Behind the Geometrical Method: Geometrical Behind the of AReading

A S Spinoza

Spinoza: políticade la Spinoza: pasiones las

Spinoza tudy Ethics Spinoza's of . 2007. . , Curley.and E. Ética thics . University. Manchester 1956. Press, .

. rgument." Inrgument." . . Edited and translatedby . Routledge,. 2008.

37.4 (1999): 613 . Cambridge. 2006. Press, University ‐ Preservation."

- - 490.

preservation S and hilosophy Spinoza: Issues and Issues Spinoza: Directions A Spinoza R

Koistin . City. Lights Books, 1988. . Indianapolis,

. The Southern journal of The Southern 628.

en, Olli, and Olli, en, JohnIvan Biro. eader

elf . BuenosAires:. Gedisa,

Vidal Peña." .

Princeton: Princeton - destruction."

Hacket

Spinoza's Ethics

(1990): 221 .

1984. . New. Haven: Alianza

Journal

- .

of .