Philosophers have named such things 'incorporeal substances.' — Wheatley
There's just so many threads on materialism and I dread this disloving into yet another monotonous materialism vs nonmaterialism discussion. I thought Thomas Hobbes had a refreshing view on the matter. However judging from what you posted here, you seem to disagree.Why not start with what you suppose both substance and material to be to get us going? And I do not think anyone will cavil at calling oxymoronic terms oxymoronic. — tim wood
Here's what Hobbes said the Leviathan:
...when men make a name of two names, whose significations are contradictory and inconsistent; as this name, an incorporeal body, or (which is all one) an incorporeal substance, and a great number more. For whensoever any affirmation is false, the two names of which it is composed, put together and made one, signify nothing at all (Hobbes 1655, 4.20–1).
The passage by Thomas Hobbes probably isn't going convince non-materialists that materialism is true, yet I think this might be an excellent place to start. Let this be a challenge for the non-materialists to provide a definition of incorporeal substances, which makes it clear that it isn't inconsistent. — Wheatley
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.