This self-assessment tool is inspired by Spinoza’s analysis of the emotions and helps identify present one’s states of experience and their possible causes. This diagnostic framework uses Spinoza’s philosophical taxonomy of human affects. It is not a clinical instrument.
It was refined with the help of Perplexity Ai as an analytical partner, but the ideas and structure are the author’s own. It is designed as a reflective instrument rather than a clinical evaluation. The author holds no formal credentials in psychotherapy, psychology, or academic philosophy. The work grows out of extensive independent reading, long-standing interest in introspection and identity.
The Spinoza reference “48 affects” is the main philosophical backbone. It signals an ambition toward systematic thinking about human affect and cognition rather than casual self-help, while still remaining non-clinical and experimental.
Nothing in this tool constitutes therapy, medical advice, or a basis for diagnosis or treatment. If you choose to use it, you do so on your own responsibility, and any decisions based on its results are entirely yours
Presenting the full 48-part taxonomy at once would significantly increase cognitive load and time burden for users, especially in clinical or non-philosophical settings. A long checklist of 48 subtly differentiated terms risks fatigue, superficial responding, and confusion between near-synonyms. With ~20 well-chosen categories, most participants can still meaningfully cover their current affective life while staying engaged enough to write thoughtful explanations in phase two.
Privacy Note: Your answers stay in your browser and are not stored, transmitted, or accessible from this website or WordPress; only you may choose to copy or save your results.
Start the test (link in red below)
Estimated time: 5–10 minutes.
</a>
Instructions:
Overview
This instrument is a two-phase, Spinoza-based self-assessment designed to surface both *what* you are experiencing (your affections) and *why* you take yourself to be experiencing them. It is intended as a reflective diagnostic mirror and a catalyst for deliberate self-correction, not as a formal psychiatric diagnosis.
Phase One: Selecting present affections
1. Read through the full list of affections.
2. For each affection, ask: “Does this genuinely describe my present or recent mode of experience?”
3. Check all affections that feel recognizably present; do not limit yourself to one or two.
4. If an affection is unclear, read its brief description and decide whether it fits; if uncertain, leave it unchecked rather than guessing.
This is not a test of philosophical knowledge—the subject should treat each affection as a lived state, not a term to be mastered.
Phase Two: Explaining the “why”
For every affection you selected:
1. Locate the corresponding text prompt.
2. Answer in a few sentences:
– What event, situation, relationship, or thought led you to choose this affection?
– How does this state show up in your body, thoughts, and impulses?
– What makes it feel accurate rather than superficial or obligatory?
3. Write in concrete language (e.g., “When X happened, I interpreted it as Y, which led me to feel Z”), avoiding generalities like “I’m just this way”.
4. Don’t worry about style or grammar; the priority is precision and honesty.
Clinically, you can frame this as “telling the story of each affect”—a brief case vignette for each chosen state.
Generating the profile
After you have selected affections and written explanations:
1. Use the instrument’s profile function (or manual procedure, if you are scoring by hand) to derive:
– The balance between passive and active affections.
– The dominant “axes” of your current experience (e.g., uncertainty, self-relation, social bonds).
– Indicators of reasoning quality (depth and specificity).
2. Review the generated profile summary, which will:
– Name a general pattern (e.g., reactive/externalized, mixed/underdifferentiated, emerging adequacy).
– Highlight the affections most central to that pattern.
– Offer a suggested “next move” for deliberate self-correction.
Using the results for self-correction
Once you have your profile:
1. Identify one or two affections that feel most central, relevant or problematic.
2. Re-read your explanations for those affections.
3. Ask:
– What parts of this explanation are based on clear understanding of causes?
– What parts rely on imagined judgments, comparisons, or vague fear?
4. Choose one concrete adjustment:
– Reframe a misinterpreted cause.
– Shift attention from imagined observers to the work or relationship itself.
– Attach a valued active affection (e.g., joy, benevolence) to a repeatable practice, cue, or relationship.
The Spinoza Diagnostic Instrument, including its structure, wording of items and prompts, scoring logic, and interpretive materials, is an original work authored by Jorge Pinto. Portions of the wording, interface layout, and procedural guidance were developed with the assistance of Perplexity, an AI system used as a drafting and refinement tool; all final content, theoretical framing, and decisions about inclusion or exclusion of material were reviewed and approved by the author.
This instrument may be used, reproduced, and adapted without fee for non-commercial academic research and clinical practice, provided that it is cited as “Spinoza Diagnostic Instrument, Jorge Pinto Books Inc. and that this copyright and licensing notice remains intact. Any commercial use, redistribution for profit, or incorporation into proprietary products requires prior written permission from the copyright holder. Responsibility for interpretation and application of the instrument rests with the user or researcher using it, not with Perplexity or any other AI tools consulted during its development.