Mary Whiton Calkins

“ And certainly a philosophy which begins by arguing the existence of unique spiritual being is not materialism in the sense which the usage of centuries has given to the word; a doctrine which “forms the only warrant of substantiality to the self” is neither “positive” nor “enlightened” materialism. Anybody with a vestige of respect for “ancient landmarks” in language will protest to the end against this “perversion of the use of speech.”
(ii) Professor Sheldon, as has appeared, seeks to materialize the mind. The aim of Professor Loewenberg is, on the contrary, to spiritualize matter. ”

“ The student of philosophy will recognize this as little other than Henry More’s conception of the extendedness of spirit. But Sheldon, so far from concluding that extension is spiritual, teaches explicitly that “mind is material, because it displays all the positive attributes of matter,” that while “dualism is right in declaring that mind as compared with the matter of our sense-world is unique; dualism and spiritualism are quite wrong ... when they deny materiality and substantiality to mind.” ”

“ And for any man to affect speaking improperly, is to pervert the use of speech and can never serve to a better purpose than to protract and multiply disputes where there is no difference of opinion.”
—Berkeley, Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, II.
In my recent philosophical wanderings I have met a surprising number of travellers who seem to mean “by the word fire that which others call water.” I have, for example, encountered, in the successive spring numbers of the Philosophical Review, two who appear to me to play very fast and loose with the terms “spiritual” and “material.” ”