An Investigation of Philosopher's Arguments for Proving Fixity and Negating Movement in Incorporeal Beings

Most philosophers believe in fixity of incorporeal beings or abstractions and negate any movement in them. The most important basis and reason in that view is the argument of ‘potentiality and actuality’. In that argument, by emphasizing the contrast (privation and possession) of non-existence (potentiality) and existence (actuality), it is proved that potentiality is among the states of matter, and the body which has potentiality has matter as well. In this way, he negates any potentiality in incorporeal beings due to their simplicity and lacking a composition of potentiality and actuality. Since motion is something’s exit from potentiality to actuality, and a simple being which is not a composite of potentiality and actuality cannot move, fixity and impossibility of moving in incorporeal beings with their simple and non-passive existence is proved. However, it must be noted that the ‘potentiality’ in motion does not necessarily mean something with a peripatetic ‘material’ origin (as the deniers of peripatetic matter have also used potentiality in defining motion); rather, ‘potential’ and ‘potentiality’ is also consistent with the simplicity of mover and the subject of motion. Thus, the motion of incorporeal beings cannot be denied due to their simplicity and having no matter and their being peripatetic matter.