Catch 22: On the Dignity of Unrequited Love and the Limits of Endless Exchange

Abstract

We draw the parallel between Proposition 22 of Part III of Ethics by Benedict de Spi- noza and Catch 22 from the film of the same name by Mike Nichols. There is a dif- ficulty in interpreting this theorem: why the emotion of jealousy cannot arise in the dynamics of pleasure described here. We believe that this difficulty is the same as the task facing the spectator of the film: why is a catch, which in itself is just a logi- cal construction, clearly appears as a sign of all-destructive action, as evil? To solve the difficulty, the concepts of condivision (distribution) and inescapability are intro- duced. Condivision is the property of things (and affects) not to diminish when shared. Inescapability is the belief that this shared thing cannot be exhausted. Essential for our analysis is the fact that division itself is diverse. Offered a brief classification of condivision and explores the genesis of inescapability. We can resolve the difficulties given that: firstly, as Spinoza points out a typical mistake in perceiving a God’s love (the fact that I can love God, does not follow that God is capable of loving me), so the quantitative interpretation of inescapability leads to the misleading perception of it as an inexhaustible resource. Secondly, the identity of intellectual love for God and intellectual love of God, grammatically emphasized by Spinoza, does not mean the condivision of this love between finite beings and God. The main thesis of the article is: the misleading identification of inescapable things and infinite resources can be avoided by relying not on moral and ethical, but on rational, structural considerations.