Abstract
AbstractThis brief conclusion discusses the broad ways in which Cavendish’s and Conway’s views differ in accordance with the aims of their philosophical systems. It also discusses the importance of recovering neglected philosophers, texts, and topics to help refine and expand our understanding of seventeen-century philosophy. Finally, it suggests some new avenues of inquiry in the study of Cavendish and Conway. With respect to Cavendish, it suggests that more attention to the various genres in which she wrote and how they serve different philosophical purposes might lead to a greater understanding of her views. With respect to Conway, it notes that the recent discovery of books from her lost library may provide insight into her philosophy.
Publisher
Oxford University PressNew York
Reference169 articles.
1. Visual Perception as Patterning: Cavendish against Hobbes on Sensation.;History of Philosophy Quarterly,2016
2. Mad Science beyond Flattery: The Correspondence of Margaret Cavendish and Constantijn Huygens.,2004
3. Akkerman, Tjitske and Siep Stuurman. “Introduction: Feminism in European History.” In Perspectives on Feminist Political Thought in European History: From the Middle Ages to the Present, edited by Tjitske Akkerman and Siep Stuurman, 1–33. London: Routledge, 1998.
4. Ankers, Neil. “Paradigms and Politics: Hobbes and Cavendish Contrasted.” In A Princely Brave Woman: Essays on Margaret Cavendish Duchess of Newcastle, edited by Stephen Clucas, 242–54. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003.