Transcript
Hi, I just wanted to add, you know, just to give a bit of framework for what "hidden murder" means, or what it means to actually lose one's... again, in that video, it's more accurate. But essentially, the idea is that for you to get opacity in life, to find joy. The more joy you have, the more opaque your existence is. And when you find yourself in front of objects or things that cause sadness, or causes that are accompanied with sadness, that's when you lose opacity.
So, what one of my professors said about how important it is for society or the government to create a world that its citizens will be happy in is the idea that, you know, a person is... sorry, I'm trying to formulate this... a happy society is designed such that each person leaves their house and they are not confronted with sadness—as in, things that make it really difficult to continue conserving their being. So this is what it means when the cause comes from the outside: our nature, according to Spinoza at least, is to find joy, is to conserve our existence. So, the only logical reason why a person would decide to leave is not so much that they decided to find sadness or decided to not exist, but that their power to act, their will to act, their conatus is reduced by so much sadness from the outside.
Today we'll be talking about suicide. I wish I could simply just say it in English, but I'm trying to confuse any scanning thing. Um, it is obviously educational, but from now onwards, we're going to talk about suicide in terms of "hidden murder."
So, I was thinking of making this into a members-only video just because of the topic and with YouTube, you don't know what triggers the algorithm or people in general. But there was a comrade at school, a comrade, who decided to leave. Yeah. Who decided to leave permanently. So, I'm sorry for the euphemism, but again, this is the internet. I would not speak like this if I wasn't recording this. But yeah, I just thought that it was important to mention, and I would just like to share this quote from Spinoza’s Ethics.
So, this is from Ethics, part four, proposition 20. So, let us just begin.
"So, therefore, no one, except when he is vanquished or defeated by exterior forces, contrary forces to his nature, neglects to search for his own utility and to conserve his being. Nobody, I say..."
So, no one, as I say, by the necessity of his nature and without being constrained to exterior causes, will refuse food or will... That can happen in many ways. A person, in effect, ends themselves under the constraint of another that twists his arm which holds a sword and forces this person to aim or to direct this sword against his heart. Okay? Or because under the order of a tyrant, he's obligated, like Seneca, to open his veins.
That is to say that he decides to avoid by a smaller bad a bigger bad. This goes back to Aristotle, from Ethics, when we talk about what is voluntary, what is choice. And he has very strict delineations of what you'd consider as choice. Something is not voluntary if it's something that an ordinary person cannot bear. The idea of a "bigger bad" is still kind of questionable whether or not it's voluntary. But in this case, what Spinoza is trying to say is that it is never, like, it is against one's nature to do this. It is always from an exterior force. And that's why I call this "hidden murder"—murder as in from someone who harms someone else.
Or in the end, because these exterior hidden causes put into the disposition, the imagination, affect, the body in such a way that they adorn a new nature, contrary to the one before, which is the natural property, the nature of the person; as he says, it is contradictory to not want to conserve one's being. This idea that affects the body to act in this different nature is actually not found in his soul.
But that man, by the necessity of his nature, forces to not exist or to transform into another form. So, transform yourself into another form, it's basically a cadaver. So, this is also impossible that it is produced out of nothing, as one can see in thinking a little bit.
So, that, basically, just says that anything that's a necessity of one's nature, it would never happen out of nothing. It has to be an introduction from the outside.
So yeah, I don't know who needs to hear this or who might want to hear this or if anyone would like to hear this, but I would like someone to hear this because I found it helpful when we were given the space to talk about the situation.
Spinoza's View on Self-Preservation and Sadness
Spinoza's philosophical view, as discussed in the transcript, is rooted in the concept of conatus (the endeavor to persist in one's own being) and the relationship between joy, sadness, and external forces.
Here are the main points:
1. The Nature of Being (Conatus)
Core Drive: A fundamental principle of nature is the endeavor (conatus) of every being to conserve its own existence and find joy.
Quote Reference: "Our nature, according to Spinoza at least, is to find joy, is to conserve their existence."
Joy and Opacity: Joy increases a person's opacity (a metaphor for the strength, vitality, or fullness of their existence). The more joy a person has, the more resistant and "opaque" their being is.
Quote Reference: "...for you to get opacity in life, you... find joy. And the more joy you have, the more opaque your existence is."
2. External Forces and Sadness
Loss of Opacity: A person loses opacity when they are confronted with objects or causes that are accompanied by sadness.
Quote Reference: "...when you find yourself in front of objects or things that cause... sadness, that's when you lose opacity."
Role of Society: A happy society is one designed so that its citizens are not constantly confronted with sadness that makes it difficult to conserve their being.
3. The Concept of "Hidden Murder"
Against Nature: According to Spinoza, it is against a person's nature to willingly choose not to exist.
Quote Reference: "...it is against one's nature to do this. It is always from an exterior force."
Exterior Constraint: If a person acts against their fundamental nature of self-preservation, it is because their "power to act" or will to act (conatus) is severely reduced by an overwhelming amount of sadness coming from exterior forces.
Quote Reference: "...the only logical reason why a person would decide to leave is not so much that they decided to find sadness... but that their power to act, their will to act, their conatus is reduced by so much sadness from the outside."
Conclusion (Hidden Murder): Because the act is a result of being vanquished by exterior forces that are contrary to one's natural drive, the speaker labels it "hidden murder"—implying the harm is inflicted by outside causes rather than being a true, voluntary choice.
This framework shifts the focus from an internal choice to the external environment and its impact on a person's inherent drive to live.
Is there any part of this philosophy or the quote from Spinoza's Ethics you would like me to explain further?
Spinoza's view on this subject is one of the most powerful and compassionate philosophical perspectives on self-harm, rooted deeply in his entire metaphysical system, particularly his work Ethics.
Spinoza: A View on Self-Harm as External Defeat
For Spinoza, the question of why a person would seek to end their own life is fundamentally a question of metaphysics and psychology, not morality. His answer is direct and absolute: No one willingly seeks their own destruction.
The primary concepts are the Conatus and the nature of emotion (Affects).
1. The Primacy of the Conatus
The cornerstone of Spinoza's system is the concept of the Conatus (Latin for "effort" or "striving").
Definition: The Conatus is the innate, eternal, and universal drive of every individual thing to persevere in its own being.
2 It is the very essence of a thing.3 The Will to Live: For human beings, the Conatus is simply the will to survive and thrive. It is not a choice; it is the fundamental law of existence.
The Role of Joy (Lætitia): Any emotion or action that increases the power of the Conatus is defined as Joy (lætitia). Joy is a transition to a greater perfection, and we naturally seek it.
4 The Role of Sadness (Tristitia): Any emotion or experience that diminishes the power of the Conatus is defined as Sadness (tristitia). Sadness is a transition to a lesser perfection, and we naturally avoid it.
5
2. The Impossibility of Self-Willed Destruction
Based on the Conatus, Spinoza argues that a person cannot choose to destroy themselves because the action would be contradictory to their very nature.
| If the action is truly voluntary, it must... | Spinoza's Verdict |
| Increase the individual's power/joy. | Self-destruction decreases power and leads to the ultimate sadness. |
| Be an expression of the Conatus. | Self-destruction is a direct negation of the Conatus. |
Therefore, any act of self-harm must be caused by something external that has become stronger than the internal striving.
3. The Mechanism of "Hidden Murder" (External Constraint)
Since the Conatus must always be striving for preservation, an individual only ends their life when their natural power to resist has been overpowered by external forces.
Emotional Overload: The continuous flood of sadness (caused by external things like social injustice, hardship, loss, or chronic pain) reduces the individual's power to such an extent that the fundamental drive of the Conatus can no longer express itself effectively.
6 A "New Nature": The external forces essentially impose a "new nature" on the person's mind and body, one that is contrary to their original, self-preserving nature. The quote you provided explains this: the cause "affects the body in such a way that they adorn a new nature, contrary to the one before."
The Analogies: Spinoza provides powerful analogies in Ethics (P4, Prop 20) to illustrate this concept:
Being forced by a stronger person to twist your own arm and stab yourself.
Being compelled by a tyrant (like Seneca was) to open your own veins to avoid a greater torture.
In all these scenarios, the person's action is not a free choice of self-destruction, but a forced reaction to a larger, conquering external power.
4. Philosophical Compassion
This view leads to a profound sense of philosophical compassion:
No Blame: The individual is never blamed for being overcome, just as a defeated soldier is not blamed for being overpowered by a superior force.
Focus on the Cause: The focus shifts entirely to identifying and alleviating the exterior causes—the overwhelming sources of sadness and constraint—that defeat the natural human endeavor to live.
Do you have any further questions about Spinoza's Ethics or this specific proposition?
Excellent question — and a deeply nuanced one. Spinoza’s use of opacity (though not a dominant term in his own Latin texts) becomes an illuminating metaphor in later Spinozist interpretations, especially when scholars translate and reinterpret his ideas on substance, expression, and individuality. Let’s unpack what’s going on here.
Step 1. Context in Spinoza’s Metaphysics
Spinoza’s central claim in the Ethics is that everything that exists is an expression of one infinite substance — Deus sive Natura (God or Nature). Each mode (individual being) expresses this substance to a finite degree.
-
A being’s power of acting (potentia agendi) measures its vitality or fullness of existence.
-
Conversely, beings that are confused, passive, or dominated by external causes are rendered less self-determining, more "transparent" to external determination.
🌫 Step 2. Why “Opacity”?
When later interpreters — particularly those influenced by Deleuze, Negri, and Gatens — describe Spinoza’s metaphysics, they use opacity as a metaphor for this very strength of being.
Opacity means a resistance to being seen through — to being fully determined or reduced by something else.
Thus:
| Concept | Transparent Being | Opaque Being |
|---|---|---|
| Relation to Causes | Passively determined by external forces | Actively determines itself |
| Expression | Weak, derivative, imitative | Strong, original, expressive |
| Spinozist Term | Passio (passion) | Actio (action) |
| Ontological Power | Diminished conatus | Enhanced conatus |
To be opaque, then, is to be dense with one’s own essence — not to reflect or transmit external causes, but to absorb and refract them through one’s singular power of existence.
Step 3. Opacity as Fullness of Being
Opacity in this metaphor expresses fullness, interiority, and vitality — the idea that something “exists so strongly” that it resists being subsumed into another’s perspective or causality.
In Spinozist terms:
-
A free individual is self-caused (causa sui) to the highest degree possible within the finite.
-
This self-causation gives it “thickness” — metaphysical density.
-
Its being is opaque not because it hides, but because it overflows with its own expressive power.
Step 4. Philosophical Lineage
This metaphor gains traction in:
-
Gilles Deleuze, Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza (1968) — where “expression” is linked to degrees of power, and opacity marks a body’s irreducible expressive singularity.
-
Antonio Negri, The Savage Anomaly (1981) — who sees opacity as the materialist resistance of finite beings within the productive field of substance.
-
Moira Gatens, Imaginary Bodies (1996) — applies “opacity” to feminist readings of Spinoza, describing embodied individuals whose interior potency cannot be reduced to external norms.
🕯 In Short
Spinoza doesn’t literally say “opacity,” but the metaphor captures an essential ontological and ethical insight in his thought:
To exist strongly — to persist and act from one’s own essence — is to be opaque to domination, dense with being, and luminous from within, not by reflection of another.
Would you like me to show how Deleuze and Negri differ in how they deploy “opacity” in interpreting Spinoza (a contrast table + key quotes)? That would make the metaphor’s philosophical range clearer.
No comments:
Post a Comment