ANNE CONWAY’İN KARTEZYEN TÖZ DÜALİZMİNE YÖNELİK REDDİYESİNİN ÖZGÜNLÜĞÜ

In terms of the debates about substance that took place among philosophers, a very rich literature has been inherited today from the Early Modern Age. In the mentioned literature, the works of famous philosophers of the period such as Hobbes, Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, Spinoza come to the fore. Anne Conway’s name did not gain fame with the only work she wrote. However, in this onto-theological work, Conway put forward a strong refutation towards Cartesian dualist metaphysics. She criticized the Cartesian conception that there are two distinct types of substance, one material and the other immaterial-spiritual. Apart from Descartes, to whom Conway clearly directs the arrows of criticism in the context of dualism, there is a second philosopher placed on the target: Conway’s close friend Henry More. Dedicating his treatise “Antidote against to atheism” to Conway, he believes that there are two types of substances: Inert matter and active immaterial spirit. Conway did not base her critique of dualism on his compatriot Hobbes’ belief in pure material substance. According to Conway, there is only one type of substance, and it is neither purely spiritual nor purely material. For Conway, who is neither materialist nor spiritualist, things called “material” and “spiritual” are different “modes” of a single type of substance, which is not actually just one of the two. In our article, we will also touch on the similarities and differences between Conway’s ideas and Leibniz’s ontology. Thus, in the conclusion part of our article, we will try to clarify Conway’s original position against the substance understandings of the leading philosophers of her age.