Conatus

From HandWiki
Short description: Innate inclination of a thing to continue to exist and enhance itself


Conatus is, for Baruch Spinoza, where "each thing, as far as it lies in itself, strives to persevere in its being."[lower-alpha 1]

In the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza, conatus (/koʊˈneɪtəs/; :wikt:conatus; Latin for "effort; endeavor; impulse, inclination, tendency; undertaking; striving") is an innate inclination of a thing to continue to exist and enhance itself. This thing may be mind, matter, or a combination of both, and is often associated with God's will in a pantheist view of nature. The conatus may refer to the instinctive will to live of living organisms or to various metaphysical theories of motion and inertia. Today, conatus is rarely used in the technical sense, since classical mechanics uses concepts such as inertia and conservation of momentum that have superseded it. It has, however, been a notable influence on later thinkers such as Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche.

Definition and origin

René Descartes used the term conatus in his mechanistic theory of motion.

The Latin cōnātus comes from the verb cōnor, which is usually translated into English as, to endeavor; used as an abstract noun, conatus is an innate inclination of a thing to continue to exist and enhance itself. Although the term is most central to Spinoza's philosophy, many other early modern philosophers including René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, and Thomas Hobbes made significant contributions, each developing the term differently.[1]

Whereas the medieval Scholastic philosophers such as Jean Buridan developed a notion of impetus as a mysterious intrinsic property of things,[2] René Descartes (1596–1650) developed a more modern, mechanistic concept of motion which he called the conatus.[3] For Descartes, in contrast to Buridan, motion and rest are properties of the interactions of matter according to eternally fixed mechanical laws, not dispositions and intentions, nor as inherent properties or forces of things, but rather as a unifying, external characteristic of the physical universe itself.[4] Descartes specifies two varieties of the conatus: conatus a centro,[lower-alpha 2] or a theory of gravity and conatus recedendi[lower-alpha 3] which represents centrifugal forces.[5] Descartes, in developing his First Law of Nature, also invokes the idea of a conatus se movendi, or "conatus of self-preservation", a generalization of the principle of inertia, which was formalized by Isaac Newton and made into the first of his three Laws of Motion fifty years after the death of Descartes."[6]

Thomas Hobbes criticized previous definitions of conatus for failing to explain the origin of motion, defining conatus to be the infinitesimal unit at the beginning of motion: an inclination in a specified direction.[7] Furthermore, Hobbes uses conatus to describe cognition functions in the mind,[8] describing emotion as the beginning of motion and the will as the sum of all emotions, which forms the conatus of a body and its physical manifestation is the perceived "will to survive".[1] In a notion similar that of Hobbes, Gottfried Leibniz differentiates between the conatus of the body and soul,[9] primarily focusing however on the concept of a conatus of body in developing the principles of integral calculus to explain Zeno's paradoxes of motion.[10] Leibniz later defines the term monadic conatus, as the state of change through which his monads perpetually advance.[11] This conatus is a sort of instantaneous or virtual motion that all things possess, even when they are static. Motion, meanwhile, is just the summation of all the conatuses that a thing has, along with the interactions of things. By summing an infinity of such conatuses (i.e., what is now called integration), Leibniz could measure the effect of a continuous force.[12]

In Spinoza's philosophy

Main page: Philosophy:Philosophy of Baruch Spinoza

Conatus is a central theme in the philosophy of Benedict de Spinoza (1632–1677), which is derived from principles that Hobbes and Descartes developed.[13] Contrary to most philosophers of his time, Spinoza rejects the dualistic assumption that mind, intentionality, ethics, and freedom are to be treated as things separate from the natural world of physical objects and events.[14] One significant change he makes to Hobbes' theory is his belief that the conatus ad motum, (conatus to motion), is not mental, but material.[8] Spinoza also uses conatus to refer to rudimentary concepts of inertia, as Descartes had earlier.[1] According to Spinoza, "each thing, as far as it lies in itself, strives to persevere in its being" (Ethics, part 3, prop. 6). Since a thing cannot be destroyed without the action of external forces, motion and rest, too, exist indefinitely until disturbed.[15] His goal is to provide a unified explanation of all these things within a naturalistic framework, man and nature must be unified under a consistent set of laws; God and nature are one, and there is no free will. For example, an action is free, for Spinoza, only if it arises from the essence and conatus of an entity. However, an action can still be free in the sense that it is not constrained or otherwise subject to external forces.[16] Human beings are thus an integral part of nature.[15] Spinoza explains seemingly irregular human behaviour as really natural and rational and motivated by this principle of the conatus.[15] Some have argued that the conatus consists of happiness and the perpetual drive toward perfection.[17] Conversely, a person is saddened by anything that opposes his conatus. Others have associated desire, a primary affect, with the conatus principle of Spinoza. Desire is then controlled by the other affects, pleasure and pain, and thus the conatus strives towards that which causes joy and avoids that which produces pain.[8]

Later usages and related concepts

After the development of classical mechanics, the concept of a conatus, in the sense used by philosophers other than Spinoza,[8] an intrinsic property of all physical bodies, was largely superseded by the principles of inertia and conservation of momentum. Similarly, Conatus recendendi became centrifugal force, and conatus a centro became gravity.[5] However, Giambattista Vico, inspired by Neoplatonism, explicitly rejected the principle of inertia and the laws of motion of the new physics. For him, conatus was the essence of human society,[18] and also, in a more traditional, hylozoistic sense, as the generating power of movement which pervades all of nature,[19] which was composed neither of atoms, as in the dominant view, nor of extension, as in Descartes, but of metaphysical points animated by a conatus principle provoked by God.[20] Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) developed a principle notably similar to that of Spinoza's conatus.[1][21] This principle, Wille zum Leben, or of a "Will to Live", described the specific phenomenon of an organism's self-preservation instinct.[22] Schopenhauer qualified this, however, by suggesting that the Will to Live is not limited in duration, but rather, "the will wills absolutely and for all time", across generations.[23] Rejecting the primacy of Schopenhauer's Will to Live, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) developed a separate principle the Will to Power, which comes out of a rejection of such notions of self-preservation.[24] In systems theory, the Spinozistic conception of a conatus has been related to modern theories of autopoiesis in biological systems.[25] However, the scope of the idea is definitely narrower today, being explained in terms of chemistry and neurology where, before, it was a matter of metaphysics and theurgy.[26]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Ethics, part 3, prop. 6
  2. ↑ "tendency towards the center"
  3. ↑ "tendency away from the center"
  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 LeBuffe 2006
  2. ↑ Grant 1964, pp. 265–292
  3. ↑ Garber 1992, pp. 150,154
  4. ↑ Garber 1992, pp. 180,184
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Kollerstrom 1999, pp. 331–356
  6. ↑ Wolfson 1934, pp. 197-202.
  7. ↑ Hobbes 1998, III, xiv, 2
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Bidney 1962, p. 87-93.
  9. ↑ Arthur 1998.
  10. ↑ Leibniz 1988, p. 135
  11. ↑ Arthur 1994, sec. 3
  12. ↑ Gillispie 1971, pp. 159–161
  13. ↑ Morgan 2006, p. ix
  14. ↑ Jarrett 1991, pp. 470–475
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Allison 1975, p. 124-125.
  16. ↑ Lachterman 1978
  17. ↑ DeBrabander 2007, pp. 20–1
  18. ↑ Goulding 2005, p. 22040
  19. ↑ Vico 1710, pp. 180–186
  20. ↑ Landucci 2004, pp. 1174,1175
  21. ↑ Schopenhauer 1958, p. 357
  22. ↑ Rabenort 1911, p. 16
  23. ↑ Schopenhauer 1958, p. 568
  24. ↑ Durant & Durant 1963, chp. IX
  25. ↑ Sandywell 1996, pp. 144–5
  26. ↑ Mathews 1991, p. 110

References

  • Allison, Henry E. (1975), Benedict de Spinoza, San Diego: Twayne Publishers, ISBN 978-0-8057-2853-8 
  • Arthur, Richard (1994), "Space and relativity in Newton and Leibniz", The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (1): 219–240, doi:10.1093/bjps/45.1.219, Thomson Gale Document Number:A16109468 
  • Arthur, Richard (1998), "Cohesion, Division and Harmony: Physical Aspects of Leibniz's Continuum Problem (1671–1686)", Perspectives on Science 6 (1): 110–135, doi:10.1162/posc_a_00546, Thomson Gale Document Number:A54601187 
  • Bidney, David (1962), The Psychology and Ethics of Spinoza: A Study in the History and Logic of Ideas, New York: Russell & Russell 
  • DeBrabander, Firmin (March 15, 2007), Spinoza and the Stoics: Power, Politics and the Passions, London; New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, ISBN 978-0-8264-9393-4 
  • Duchesneau, Francois (Spring–Summer 1998), "Leibniz's Theoretical Shift in the Phoranomus and Dynamica de Potentia", Perspectives on Science 6 (2): 77–109, doi:10.1162/posc_a_00545, Thomson Gale Document Number: A54601186 
  • Durant, Will; Durant, Ariel (1963), "XXII: Spinoza: 1632–77", The Story of Civilization, 8, New York: Simon & Schuster, http://caute.net.ru/spinoza/aln/durants.htm, retrieved 2007-03-29 
  • Dutton, Blake D. (2006), "Benedict De Spinoza", The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/spinoza.htm, retrieved 2007-01-15 
  • Garber, Daniel (1992), Descartes' Metaphysical Physics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0-226-28217-6 
  • Gillispie, Charles Coulston, ed. (1971), "Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm", Dictionary of Scientific Biography (New York), https://www.chlt.org/sandbox/lhl/dsb/page.149.php, retrieved 2007-03-27 
  • Goulding, Jay (2005), Horowitz, Maryanne, ed., "Society", New Dictionary of the History of Ideas (Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons) 5, Thomson Gale Document Number:CX3424300736 
  • Grant, Edward (1964), "Motion in the Void and the Principle of Inertia in the Middle Ages", Isis 55 (3): 265–292, doi:10.1086/349862 
  • Hobbes, Thomas (1998), De Corpore, New York: Oxford Publishing Company, ISBN 978-0-19-283682-3 
  • Jarrett, Charles (1991), "Spinoza's Denial of Mind-Body Interaction and the Explanation of Human Action", The Southern Journal of Philosophy 29 (4): 465–486, doi:10.1111/j.2041-6962.1991.tb00604.x 
  • Jesseph, Doug (2006), "Hobbesian Mechanics", Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy 3: 119–152, doi:10.1093/oso/9780199203949.003.0005, ISBN 978-0-19-920394-9, http://www4.ncsu.edu/~dmjphi/Main/Papers/Hobbesian%20Mechanics.pdf, retrieved 2007-03-10 
  • Kollerstrom, Nicholas (1999), "The Path of Halley's Comet, and Newton's Late Apprehension of the Law of Gravity", Annals of Science 59 (4): 331–356, doi:10.1080/000337999296328 
  • Lachterman, D. (1978), Robert Shahan; J.I. Biro., eds., The Physics of Spinoza's Ethics in Spinoza: New Perspectives, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press 
  • Landucci, Sergio (2004), "Vico, Giambattista", in Gianni Vattimo, Enciclopedia Garzantine della Filosofia, Milan: Garzanti Editore, ISBN 978-88-11-50515-0 
  • LeBuffe, Michael (2006-03-20), "Spinoza's Psychological Theory", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza-psychological/, retrieved 2007-01-15 
  • Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, Freiherr von (December 31, 1988), "Exposition and Defence of the New System", in Morris, Mary, M.A., Leibniz: Philosophical Writings, J.M. Dent & Sons, p. 136, ISBN 978-0-460-87045-0 
  • Mathews, Freya (1991), The Ecological Self, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-10797-6 
  • Morgan, Michael L. (2006), The Essential Spinoza, Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., p. ix, ISBN 978-0-87220-803-2 
  • Osler, Margaret J. (2001), "Whose ends? Teleology in early modern natural philosophy", Osiris 16 (1): 151–168, doi:10.1086/649343, Thomson Gale Document Number:A80401149 
  • Polt, Richard (1996), "German Ideology: From France to Germany and Back", The Review of Metaphysics 49 (3), Thomson Gale Document Number:A18262679 
  • Rabenort, William Louis (1911), Spinoza as Educator, New York City: Teachers College, Columbia University 
  • Sandywell, Barry (1996), Reflexivity and the Crisis of Western Reason, 1: Logological Investigations, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 144–5, ISBN 978-0-415-08756-8 
  • Schmitter, Amy M. (2006), "Hobbes on the Emotions", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emotions-17th18th/LD3Hobbes.html, retrieved 2006-03-04 
  • Schopenhauer, Arthur (1958), Payne, E.F.J., ed., The World as Will and Representation, 1, Clinton, Massachusetts: The Colonial Press Inc. 
  • Vico, Giambattista (1710), L.M. Palmer, ed., De antiquissima Italiorum sapientia ex linguae originibus eruenda librir tres, Ithaca: Cornell University Press 
  • Wolfson, Harry Austryn (1934). The philosophy of Spinoza : unfolding the latent processes of his reasoning. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-66595-8. 
  • Ziemke, Tom (2007), "What's life got to do with it?", in Chella, A.; Manzotti, R., Artificial Consciousness, Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic, ISBN 9781845406783 

Further reading



Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Conatus&oldid=3380449"