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

This conversation was exported from ChatGPT

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.