Editing Openai/696627d0-7ad0-8006-b4d8-11340c897370


{{DISPLAYTITLE:Spinoza's Conatus Explained}}

''This conversation was exported from ChatGPT''<ref>{{cite web|title=Spinoza's Conatus Explained|url=https://chatgpt.com/share/696627d0-7ad0-8006-b4d8-11340c897370|publisher=ChatGPT|access-date=2026-01-14}}</ref>

== gpt-5-2-instant ==
=== User: hi! ===
hi!

what do you know about Spinoza's Connatus?   (did I spell it right?)

=== Assistant: Hi René! ===
Hi René!
Yes — you spelled it correctly: conatus ✅

==== In Baruch Spinoza’s philosophy, conatus is one of the deepest and most structural concepts. It appears mainly in Ethics. ====

===== Spinoza states it with striking clarity: =====

: 

That striving is conatus.

It is:
* not psychological
* not moral
* not optional but ontological.

==== ### ====

Conatus applies to:
* stones
* plants
* animals
* humans
* ideas

Everything that exists expresses a tendency to continue existing according to its nature.

This is crucial: conatus is not a human trait; humans are a special case of it.

===== Spinoza makes an important distinction: =====
* Conatus → the basic striving to persist
* Appetitus (appetite) → conatus insofar as it involves mind and body
* Cupiditas (desire) → appetite when we are conscious of it

So:

: 

This already anticipates modern ideas in ethology and evolutionary biology, which I know resonate strongly with you.

===== Conatus does not mean: =====
* self-preservation as a moral imperative
* egoism
* fear-driven clinging to life

Rather, it means:

: 

Sometimes that even means risking destruction if it expresses one’s nature more fully.

==== Spinoza defines affects in relation to conatus: ====
* Joy (laetitia) = an increase in one’s power of acting
* Sadness (tristitia) = a decrease in one’s power of acting

Ethics, for Spinoza, is therefore not about obedience or duty, but about:

: 

This makes his ethics:
* anti-ascetic
* anti-moralistic
* radically immanent

==== You’ll appreciate this: ====

Conatus operates in a fully deterministic universe.
* No free will in the classical sense
* No miracles
* No exceptions

A thing strives because it exists — not because it “chooses” to.

Freedom, for Spinoza, is not indeterminacy, but:

: 

==== Conatus is where Spinoza: ====
* replaces teleology with immanence
* dissolves the soul/body hierarchy
* anticipates Darwin (without evolution)
* anticipates modern systems theory and self-organization

It is one of the most powerful alternatives to:
* Christian moral psychology
* Kantian duty
* Cartesian mind–body dualism

==== If I had to compress it brutally: ====

: 

If you want, next we can:
* connect conatus to Darwin and evolutionary psychology
* contrast it with Hobbes’ self-preservation
* or explore how Deleuze radicalizes it into desire as production

Just tell me where you want to push the lens 🔍

=== User: thank you!!! ===
thank you!!!   power is a complicated word in english... in portuguese I would think of Potência instead of Poder

=== Assistant: Exactly — and your intuition is spot on. ===
Exactly — and your intuition is spot on. This is not a minor linguistic nuance; it goes straight to the heart of Spinoza.

You’re right to feel uneasy with “power” in English.

==== Potência vs Poder (and why Spinoza cares) ====

In Portuguese (and also in Latin and French), the distinction is much clearer:
* Potência → capacity, potential, intensity, ability to act
* Poder → authority, domination, command, control over others

Spinoza is entirely on the side of potentia, and deeply suspicious of potestas.

==== Spinoza’s original terms ====

Spinoza writes in Latin:
* potentia → immanent power, capacity to act
* potestas → institutional or coercive power

When English translates both as “power”, something crucial is lost.

Spinoza’s ethics is about:

: increasing one’s potentia agendi (capacity to act)

Not:

: acquiring power over others.

==== Why “potência” is the right word ====

When Spinoza says joy is an increase in power, he means:
* more coherence between mind and body
* more adequate ideas
* more internal determination
* more capacity to affect and be affected

In Portuguese:

: Alegria = aumento da potência de agir

That sounds exactly right.

If we said:

: aumento do poder de agir

…it already smells of hierarchy, command, even politics — which is not what Spinoza means.

==== Conatus + Potência ====

Conatus is not a will to dominate.
It is a tendency to persist by expressing one’s potência.

A stone has potência.
A plant has potência.
An animal has potência.
A human has potência.

Different structures → different capacities → different expressions of conatus.

No moral ranking.

==== A beautiful side effect (very Spinozist) ====

This linguistic distinction also explains why Spinoza:
* rejects guilt-based morality
* rejects asceticism
* rejects transcendence

Ethics becomes:

: learning what composes with us and increases our potência

Not:

: obeying rules imposed by an external poder.

==== Deleuze saw this very clearly ====

This is why Gilles Deleuze insists so strongly on:
* puissance (French)
* intensity
* affect
* immanence

Deleuze is basically saying:

: Stop translating Spinoza into the language of kings, priests, and judges.

==== A compact translation guide (very useful) ====

If you ever mentally “translate” Spinoza, I’d suggest:
* power → potência
* freedom → autodeterminação
* virtue → eficácia existencial
* good/bad → what increases/decreases potência

Suddenly, Spinoza stops sounding moralistic and starts sounding… biological.

Which, given everything you like about ethology and evolution, feels exactly right 🧠🌱

If you want, next we can:
* map potência onto modern biology
* link conatus to homeostasis and predictive processing
* or contrast Spinoza’s potência with Nietzsche’s will to power (very instructive)

Just say the word.

=== User: thank you!!! ===
thank you!!!

=== Assistant: You’re very welcome, René 🙂 ===
You’re very welcome, René 🙂
I really enjoyed this exchange — your linguistic sensitivity (potência vs poder) goes straight to the core of Spinoza, and not everyone notices how decisive that distinction is.

Whenever you feel like continuing — Spinoza, Hume, Darwin, Deleuze, or any strange bridge between them — I’m here.

== References ==
<references />


[[Category:ChatGPT Shares]]
[[Category:openai]]