Proactive, Reactive, Passive, Autonomous

• As has been previously discussed, Spinoza's fundamental behavioral principle can be characterized as Proactive.  Now, insofar as it applies to a Mode, which is a finite being affected by other finite beings, the principle determines a response to an external influence, in which case its Proactive function is specifically Reactive.  Thus, Proactive is not antithetical to Reactive, while Reactive is distinct from Passive, which signifies a modification the cause of which is external, e. g. an Emotion.   In other words, a Reaction is a Proactive response to a Passive condition.  On that basis, Hume conflates Reactivity and Passivity when he ascribes motive power to a Passion.  Furthermore, Kant's concept of Autonomy entails independence from external influence, but, as is expressed in the formulation of his Rational principle, it is occasioned by the formulation of a Maxim, and, hence, by some Passion.  Hence, it is not equivalent to Proactivity, though a concept of Autonomy other than Kant's might be.  So both sides of the prominent debate between Hume and Kant fail to consider a factor that underlies each.