????? ?? ??? ??? ?????

? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????
?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?
??? ???. ??? <???.??? ??>?? ¡®??????
? ??¡¯, ¡®?????? ??????? ??¡¯, ¡®????????
??¡¯? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????
????? ????. ??? ? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?
?????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??
? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??
? ???? ??? ????? ? ? ??. ?? ??? ???
??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???. ?????? ???
? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???
???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ? ?? ??? ??? ??
?? ??? ????? ? ? ??. ???? ????? ???
?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??????
??? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ? 3? ??? ??
?? ??? ??? ???? ? ??. ??? ??? ????
???? ????, ??? ??? ?? ? ???? ??? ??
???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ? ? ??.

The aim of this article is to elucidate Spinoza's conception of substance
and mode by examinating Bayle's argument against Spinoza. Bayle criticizes
Spinoza's substance monism and modification thesis on the basis of three
argument, which include 'Argument from non-contradicton principle',
'Argument from incompatible parts', 'Argument from immutability'.
However, Bayle's three arguments are not successful, since they are based
on the misconception of Spinza's substance and mode, so they are out of
focus. Furthermore, Bayle's issues can be ironed out by virtue of Curley's
nomological interpretaion of substance and mode by which the relation
between substance and mode can be interpreted as the relation between the
most fundamental law and its instantiations. If follows from all these that
Spinoza's conception of substance and mode is different from Descartes' and
Aristotle's inherence-based conception of substance. But Several issues
including the relation between substance and attributes, the comprehensive
understanding of the mode system still remain puzzles in spite of the merits
of nomological interpretation.