Have a picture of Edward N. Haas, Parasitic vs. Nonparasitic Substrata?, please send it to us.
| Value for Money | 10/10 |
|---|---|
| Overall rating | 10/10 |
By raquila
on 4th Aug 2004
| Value for money | 10/10 |
|---|---|
| Overall value | 10/10 |
 raquila's recommendation | |
Edward Haas' book, Parasitic vs. Non-Parasitic Substrata, is an unusual work of philosophy. Rather than being a monograph, the book consists of the author's correspondence with various professional metaphysicians on topics ranging from the problem of God to the mind-body problem. I find this format to be quite refreshing. While I think that the book does contain some important contributions to contemporary metaphysics, I also believe that it is worth reading just for its window on the world of practicing philosophers. The book gives some real insight into the nature of scholarly interaction.
The book's non-catchy but practical title refers to what the author regards as a crucial conceptual distinction. Indeed, the book is largely a lament over how philosophers have critically failed either to recognize or to appreciate this distinction. As far as the author is concerned, this failure has resulted in some abysmal philosophy. Mr. Haas maintains that the distinction can be employed to resolve many philosophical issues -- issues in metaphysics, in epistemology, in theology, and even in ethics. The distinction can even help bridge the gap between science (physics) and philosophy (metaphysics). The Haasian program, if not revolution, involves bringing this distinction to the fore and showing how it can serve as the basis of a truly unifying theoretical system.
What is the distinction? The distinction is that between: "(1) substances and substrata which are substantial (i.e.: non-parasitic a.k.a. non-inhering), and (2) substances and substrata which are insubstantial (i.e.: parasitic a.k.a inhering)." [p.7] Non-parasitic substrata are "able to escape annihilation even without intimate bonding to another substance's substratum"; parasitic substrata are "unable to escape annihilation without intimate bonding to another substance's substratum." [p.3] The continued existence of the parasitic requires its continued generation by and bonding to the non-parasitic.
Why is the distinction crucial? According to the author, this distinction is essential to rooting out and rectifying certain errors in traditional metaphysics -- errors found or propagated or developed in the writings of Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, et. al. For Haas, the distinction is essential to forming a nexus between metaphysical and epistemological theory. This nexus is in turn essential to the unification of other theories in or areas of philosophy; it is also essential to the unification of certain areas of theoretical physics; it is also essential to the ultimate unification of science and philosophy. The ultimate and grandiose goal of the Haasian project is a true theory of everything based in part on the conceptual distinction between parasitic and non-parasitic substrata.
As a philosopher of mind, I am particularly intrigued by the author's approach to the (so-called) mind-body problem. Mr. Haas takes the same approach to the mind-body problem as Wittgenstein takes to the problem of the meaning of life: the "solution" to the "problem" lies in its dissolution. For Haas, there really is no mind-body problem. Supposedly, the mind-body problem is the problem of explaining how material reality and immaterial reality can interact. Now, if it turns out that the material and the immaterial are not separate realities, then they cannot properly be understood to interact, and thus the question of how their interaction is possible becomes unanswerable/unintelligible.
According to Haas, the key to seeing that the mind-body problem is a pseudo-problem is the realization that the material and the immaterial are not both substantial/non-parasitic. This, in and of itself, is not a unique position in the philosophy of mind. Many contemporary philosophers of mind have come to the realization that the mental cannot be reduced to material terms and yet have not been willing to give the immaterial an independent reality. Thus, we have the idea of the mental/immaterial supervening upon the physical/material: the immaterial being an outgrowth of the material. What is unique about Haas' philosophy here -- indeed unique in all the history of philosophy -- is the idea that it is the material that is parasitic upon the immaterial rather than the reverse. The immaterial generates the material, the latter having no reality apart from the former. Mr. Haas' account of how physical dimensions are generated by immaterial reality is truly fascinating.
I must say that a full understanding and appreciation of this book requires a thorough reading of some of Mr. Haas' earlier works. The book includes frequent references to the author's previous publications as well as to secondary source material. This makes the book a bit of a cumbersome read, yet this is more than compensated by the book's provocative flavor and the author's impressive knowledge of the history of philosophy. Mr. Haas is a brilliant man -- a real maverick -- and his philosophical works are definitely deserving of close attention and serious consideration.
raquila's review has yet to be rated - Be the first!
Would you like to see a review that's not being listed?
