Talk:Holism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Atomism vs. Holism?

I'm sorry for deleting the part about holism vs. atomism, but to me it contradicts the whole idea of holism. That way, holism would mean pure and simple ignorance of science, which does not at all have to be the case - only that holsim may regard science as too limiting in some respects of life. So why should atomism be opposing holsim? Since "the whole is more than the sum of its parts (...) and every part is seen as the whole (...)" (Susun Weed), don't atoms make perfect sense? The Growl 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, someone wasn't happy with my deleting the atomism-thesis. Maybe you could tell me the reason why? I really don't get why one should say holism opposes atomism! The Growl 11:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Essay

I'm no expert in academic holism, but I think the "hierarchy of holons" is only one model of holism, and a very limited/limiting one, at that.

When I look at reality, it is clear that I (a holon) am directly part of (a) three families (one by birth and two by marriage or partnership), (2) the earth's oxygen cycle, (3) a network of people using this wiki, and (4) a specific bioregion in Oregon, This simply doesn't fit into the supposed "hierarchy of holons". The fact is that overlapping fields and webs of holons co-exist with this supposed hierarchy of holons.

My protest is, of course, partially motivated by resistence[sic] to the use of this hierarchical theory to maintain that reality is itself primarily hierarchical and therefore we should accept that hierarchy is an intrinsic aspect—or even the proper organizing principle—of society. I'm afraid both reality and society are much bigger than that. They include and transcend hierarchies. -63.187.224.214

[edit] Quality of Article, proposed rewrite

I'm sorry, but I feel that this is a terrible article. It's going to need a major re-write. It is POV, inaccurate, and incomplete. A stub would have been better than what I see here. I mean nothing personal toward the contributor, who I'm sure has written fine articles in other areas, but this particular article will not do. -Nat 16:40, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I made a contribution to the current article a long time ago. I had not looked at it since then. I agree with you, and look forward to your article. Perhaps you may consider creating an article on General Smuts, to put the content you might find relevant for it. Anthère

[edit] General Jan Smuts section cut

"Below a[sic] brief overview of this remarkable man and a summay[sic] of his "Theory of Holism"

General Smuts had a very much wider experience of life than was usual for an educated man of his time… He was born on a farm In the Western Cape. He attended school for only five years before going on to Victoria College In Stellenbosch where he attained a combined degree In Arts and Science. He was awarded the Ebden scholarship to Cambridge University where he read Law. At Cambridge he distinguished himself by being the only person ever to have written both parts of the Law Tripos in one year and achieve a Double First. He won the George Long Prize for Roman law and Jurisprudence.

He was appointed State Attorney in Paul Kruger's Transvaal Republic at the time of the developing friction within the Republic with the "uitlanders" who had strong affiliations to Britain and Germany.

He became a successful Boer general during the Anglo-Boer War. After the war he was a senior administrator and negotiator, pressing for reconciliation between Boer and Briton in South Africa, his reconciliation policy was really a practical form of intellectual holism, He played the part of conciliator more and more clearly from then on. In 1917 he put forward the idea of a Commonwealth of Nations, which would replace the old concept of Empire, This world-embracing application of societal holism was a masterstroke, as it produced a unique blend of loyalty to the Crown plus the national pride of the component countries. Smuts and Botha's convictions on the need for reconciliation with the defeated Germany after World War I were not heeded. Smuts predicted that the Versailles Treaty would be the prelude to the next Great War.

Smuts holistic philosophy is also evident in the pivotal role he played in the foundation of the League of Nations and later the United Nations, organisations which would strive for world peace.

To all this must be added Smuts' grasp of the science of his day. In Jan Christian Smuts we find a unique combination of intellect, talent and experience. We are fortunate that he expounded his life view in the philosophical approach, which he called HOLISM."

I cut this, which should be merged with the Jan Smuts page—all this as preliminary to editing down the rest. -Charles Matthews 10:31, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Further big cut

"When examining HOLISM one studies the formation and the functioning of combinations (wholes). These wholes, in their turn, combine with others to form more complex combinations. It is clear that this is quite different from scientific analysis, which deals with separating the parts of combinations. Thus HOLISM is natural; an ever-present process using energy, a process of combining, not just mixing, which creates original material by evolutionary processes. This "material" can even be abstract, like music or philosophy.

To elaborate on point (iii), one must grasp the fact that the components sometimes surrender the characteristics they had before combining, and that the combination is a different substance e.g. sodium and chlorine, harmful to man individually, when combined as common salt, are an essential part of man's diet, or, hydrogen and oxygen, two explosive gases, combine to form water, a substance which is essential to life and which has very different behaviour and uses from the two gases. Combinations go on to form further, more complex, combinations. Think of the chain of events in which inanimate minerals nourish living cell material (like grass), which nourishes cattle, which, with their milk and meat, nourish people. (Very complex organisms), who have the ability to create, both in the material and the abstract sense.

To elaborate on point (ii), at the most basic level, these combinations are formed by the fortuitous proximity of materials, and the occurrence of natural phenomena, such as heat, cold, pressure, light, drought or saturation, giving chemical combinations (like metallic oxides).

At a higher level, all living cells assimilate these chemicals, and, stimulated by the phenomena, regenerate themselves in accordance with their life cycle. We enter here the realm in which one life depends on another for survival—lions eat buck; fleas feed on animal blood; one plant is a parasite on another. You can see that the plants and animals are wholes in themselves but are also the interdependent parts of greater and more complex wholes, such as an environmental system. Think how complex a forest is and how important it is that it is healthy and keeps the rivers that flow through it clear. At the human level, the elements of intellectual diversity (choice, compatibility, imagination etc.) enter the picture.

People can choose with whom they wish to associate, to what extent and for what purpose. Experience has shown that people who come together for a purpose will often produce ideas and select a course of action very different from the ideas held by anyone individual before the meeting.

This is understood, correctly, as creative evolution, and the combination is said to be "greater" than the sum of the parts." A deeper study of Smuts' definition shows up an anomaly, which disturbed Smuts himself. It is the phrase "greater than the sum of the parts". The difficulty lies with the scientifically established facts that energy is not lost, and that the energy-mass aggregate is constant.

Smuts was aware that there was an immeasurable aura of possibilities round each part, and suggests that in these auras, when combined, the apparent creative evolution takes place, which makes the whole "greater".

(Other authors, particularly Lourens van der Post and Konrad Loerenz, draw attention to the existence and importance of the immeasurable in life.) So perhaps we are left with substituting "different" from "greater than".

At the time Smuts was writing, in 1924, the general public was very much aware of three major scientific debates. They were

  1. Einstein's theory of relativity, which emphasised that the universe is a very large whole.
  2. The general composition of the atom; a small, very powerful whole.
  3. Darwin's theory of evolution, which showed how, a variety of species evolved from a common ancestor.

Smuts' work collected these theories into a major observation. The nations, who had been enemies during World War I, formed an International body to keep world peace, the League of Nations. It was an attempt to use the immense power of the Holism process to prevent the development of evil power.

Sadly, it failed, but a lesson was learned; that in the human field, the outcomes of the holistic process are not always and automatically benevolent. Constant intellectual guardianship is required to direct and adjust the process towards the declared goal, such as lasting peace. "So", you ask, "what use do I make of all this knowledge of Holism?"

First, you can recognize well-functioning wholes when you see them and protect them from damage and even help them forward. These could be flourishing parts of the environment, well-run farms or industries, happy families or contented communities.

Second, you could look for wholes that are not functioning well and are damaging others. These you could set about trying to improve, Examples would be people damaging the environment by polluting it, removing fuel wood without a replanting programme, or uncontrolled open-cast mining.

Third, you could make sure that all the groups of which you are a member, use the tremendous power they have, for the good of those around them, and of their environments,

This is not always easy but it gets easier the more success you have. There are some further thoughts connected with Holism well worth studying. A few are:

  1. Dead material can support life. Grass that will never grow again feeds cattle; bread keeps us alive; medication restores health, and so on.
  2. Holism is closely linked to systems engineering.
    • A car has a fuel system, an ignition system, a propulsion system and many others. The parts undergo no change themselves, surrender none of their characteristics, but combine to form a motoring system with the possibility of controlled powered motion.
    • When people are brought together synergistically, it is very close to Holism. Although the effect of the people working together is said to be greater than the sum of their individual efforts, there is no creation of original material.
  3. Nature, as a whole, is less wasteful than any of its parts taken separately. For example, there are many species of fish that lay thousands of eggs at a spawning. Many are not fertilized and they become food for other species. Further down the line, many of those fertilized are eaten before reaching maturity by sea birds or seals.
  4. No life is independent. No man is an island. Life is always drawing on the rest of nature to sustain itself. Think of how dependent we all are on rain, fresh air and on the events of day and night, to say nothing of our dependence on each other.
  5. Perfection is sterile. Perfection is taken as that state that neither gives off, nor consumes, energy. That is an unachievable state for any living whole and even the components of atoms are in constant motion. It is thus very interesting that sterile, inanimate substances can support life.

Once you have grasped the idea that the Universe is composed of functioning wholes, of differing sizes and with different parts to play, and that we are ail parts of these wholes, you will appreciate that there is nothing daunting in the idea of Holism. It is simply a way of looking at life which helps you to see that life is systematic, not without purpose, and that you, as an intelligent part of it, have a responsibility to make your input creative, constructive and conservative of existing good."

I think this makes the current page sensible again. -Charles Matthews 16:49, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

  • Holism is enormously controversial. The article does state that there are opposing views, but it provides reasons for holism and gives no sense or pointers to the reasons for denying it.
  • Several kinds of holism are ignored: epistemological, semantic, ethical.
  • Metaphysical holism is an ambiguous term; ontological would be preferable. The discussion would benefit from being treated side-by-side with epistemological holism.

There's some good material here, but overall the article needs work. Not too much work, though. Too busy to start now, though -Charles Stewart 05:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation: Wholism stub

There is now a religion stub at Wholism. Is it time for a disambiguation page? DDerby 07:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have modified the holism definition page to include wholism. In my view holism and wholism whilst having some similarities also have major differences and should not be confused with each other.
Though I know little about wholism/holism, your edit, 203.220.118.59, seems to take the middle of a description of wholism and say "this is Wholism", thus making the article no longer make sense. Could someone knowledgeable decide if this is a proper edit? DDerby 05:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between Holism and Wholism

I can't understand the differences between Wholism and Holism. If I can't, I expect most readers can't. Can someone add something about the differences, or confirm that they don't exist? DDerby 05:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I personally feel that they are just two diffrent spellings of the same term. There is a link on the Wholism page to a website that claims that wholism is a religion, but a single website does not a religion make. The Wholism article was started by an anonymous user and it was his only edit. --Goethean 17:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Holism is the idea that the properties of a system cannot be determined or explained by the sum of its components alone.
  • Wholism is a religious philosophy/lifestyle based on the principle that God is the Whole. -203.220.117.212

[edit] Creationism?!

Some critics claim holism is an attempted merger of creationism (creative tendency) and evolutionism (creative evolution).

I've never heard this. Anyone know who claims this? --Goethean 15:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To me this sounds more like something that Wholism attempts. -[[User:203.220.116.139|203.220.116.139] 23 April

it may be difficult to find it in writing, but it is a suspicion that a lot of more "traditional" analytic philosophers will carry Wireless99 (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Durkheim and Holism

I have found sources that point out Durkheim's reference to the concept of holism as the whole being greater than the sum of the parts in his books Rules of Sociological Method (1895, p. 102) and Suicide (1897), but without actually using the term. If a source for his use of the word "holism" cannot be found, we should change the sense of the text. --Blainster 20:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts on interdisciplinarity/holism

Are there any thoughts on how to distinguish between interdisciplinarity and holism in science? Is the difference merely emotional? Does holism sound confrontational, while interdisciplinarity is neutral? --Smithfarm 16:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Holism is a stronger term, implying that the world or cosmos is such that valid investigation must avoid reductionism. Interdisciplinarity can merely mean that different fields of study should co-operate, a comparatively weak claim. — goethean ॐ 18:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evaluation of the article's balance, requires expansion

Article just needs some futher expansion and still lacks balance. But I'm tired. -Lacatosias 15:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I know many of the arguments against holism in the social sciences: the tendeny to undervalue, if not eliminate, the importance of the individual; collectivist conformism; too abstract a level of analysis, etc.. The arguments against semantic holism are all listed in the article I wrote for semantic holism. I just can't think of any sources right now, damnit. Something needs to be added in this respect though. Hello, is anybody out there??--Lacatosias 16:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Lacatosias. Good to see that someone else is interested, too. But I think the following text (from the beginning part of article) is really too limiting, and too strong - it implies metaphysical AND epistemological definition of holism, whereas the concept is used in epistemological OR ontological sense - and in a more or less strong sense. The entity certainly exists without the system, holism or not.
FROM ARTICLE: "According to holism, in other words, it is the system as a whole which posseses a metaphysical and epistemological privilege, in the sense that an entity does not exist except as a part of that system."
BTW: more modern term for "metaphysical" would be "ontological" -User:Jussi Hirvi 18 February 2006
Yes, I didn't feel very confortable with that myself. I was expecting someone to object to the non-existence part. It's just what I felt like expressing at the time with organic theory of the state in my subconscious for some reason.--Lacatosias 17:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Lakatosias - good corrections. As you see, I was trying to simplify the language a bit - that's why I took out reference to "ontological & epistemological" from the beginning of article. No need to scare the reader off right at the start, right? :-)

I think this article starts to look pretty good, but the biology part is still missing. I put the heading there already, but there's no content yet. It's historically important - I think holism popped up in the vitalism/organicism/mechanism dispute before WW2, and Smuts' holism was a part of it. Bertalanffy with his General System Theory was part of that dispute, too. So, as I see it, biology was a central stage for the holism discussions before WW2. Who would volunteer? :-) User:Jussi Hirvi 13 March 2006

You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, I don't know very much about this specific aspect of the wholism debate. I can look around for some resources, but it would be better if someone more knowledgable in history of biology could write this up.--Lacatosias 10:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holistic therapies?

There is a list of medical therapies in the article described as "holistic". I find it interesting that among them acupuncture, Qi Gong, and Reflexology do not mention the word holism in their own article, which suggests their placement in the list, rather than being just alternative medicine, is dubious. Comments? --Blainster 20:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The very nature of the term Holism is inclusive of all interconnected systems and their processes; so to include every diverse process or methodology that contributes to the flux of the Whole - must be implied in the specific meaning Holism. --Dialectic 03:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
There are different degrees of holism (see holon). Also some concepts are holistic, while others are not. Reductionism is largely the antithesis of holism. Among a list of healing methodologies, some are reductionistic and others are holistic. Proponents of these methods may be unaware of the concept of holism, in which case their articles should be improved, or alternatively, their methods may not be holistic. Without analysis, the paragraph becomes merely a laundry list. --Blainster 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Holistic living

Please merge any relevant content from Holistic living per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holistic living. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 05:25Z

[edit] Proposed correction: Ari said "other than", not "more than the sum of", the parts....

Just a small (?) correction/suggestion from a newbie:

Aristotle's famous comment on the nature of the "whole" is well-nigh universally misquoted -- as in the "holism" page I got routed to from a search on "holistic" -- as being "more" than "the sum of" the parts. What he actually said on the subject, and in one place alone (!) -- Metaphysica 10f-1045a -- I recently learned from some online searches is best translated as "besides" or "other than", as in this fairly authoritative translation: "In the case of all things which have several parts and in which the totality is not, as it were, a mere heap, but the whole is something *besides* the parts, there is a cause;..." (from my "Basic Works of Aristotle", McKeon, Random House 1941, pg. 818; emphasis mine)

This in regard to "the difficulty...with respect both to definitions and to numbers, what is the cause of their unity?", and as brief prelude to: 1) his inquiry into the nature of such cause; 2) a concise analysis and reframing of the underlying issues; and, 3) his exposition of a generic process theory of becoming, whereby some aspect of a pre-existent field of "potentiality" is brought into "actualization" through some "agency" -- the famous "hylomorphic" theory of emergent unity (or unities, i.e. entities), whereby "one element is *matter* and another is *form*" (line 23, emphases mine).

This central doctrine of universal becoming seems designed to respond to both the influential logical paradox raised by Parmenides ("there can be neither manifestation nor change; both are illusion") and to some perceived weaknesses in Plato's theory of the manifestation of entities via an imperfect (and ill-defined) process of "participation" in one or more elements of a transcendent world of (eternally perfect) "Forms".

Getting back to the point: Aristotle's wholeness is not equivalent to a simple summation, the arithmetical interpretation of a "mere heap", but requires a qualitatively different attribution of the "cause" of the manifest, overarching integrity of structure and/or functionality.

The conservative interpretation of "besides" seems to amount to "equal to the sum of the parts plus their mutual relationships". This formulation may seem inclusive, but in all but the simplest cases, relational combinatoric explosion (i.e., the "N-Squared" effect) renders a complete assessment of potential relationships impracticable.

Also, relationships' effects are themselves relative to the state of not only the system ("whole") involved, but that of the encompassing environment implied by the notion of any "whole" less inclusive than the entire (and ultimately intractable) universe. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the Hungarian polymath and founder of General Systems Theory, correctly modeled this morass as a system of differential equations generally unsolvable in principle, due to lack of both advanced enough analytic technique and efficient enough computational simulation.

At the opposite extreme, the progressive/visionary camp proposes the term "beyond" as synonymous with "besides", both as contrasted to a simple (Gestaltists would say "blind") sum. This open-ended interpretation resonates with the notion of *emergent properties* at the heart of many holistic doctrines, at the expense of seeming vague, or at least wanting of a more precise and operational definition.

SUGGESTION: should the "more" word be corrected to "other than" or "besides", and the related topics explored more fully on this page? E.g., Gerald M. Weinberg, in his "Introduction to General Systems Thinking", emphasizes that "emergence" is relative to an observer, and not an absolute designator. Just some thoughts.... Jjzanath 07:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have raised an excellent point. However, much depends on what you pre-define as 'parts' and what you conceive to be 'wholes,' so in a sense your question has no answer until those terms are defined and agreed upon. Broadly speaking the 'whole' includes all the parts and their relations, plus any relevant external factors. Do we know what Aristotle meant in the original quote? thanks Peter morrell 11:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of the Flammarion woodcut

I am unable to understand what purpose this picture serves in this page. - Shooting Star 07:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too, I can't see the point. I believe it is perhaps the idea of holism is embraced by esoteric enthusiasts in general. This should be removed pronto. -- NIC1138 01:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I added the picture in the first place as an attempt to illustrate this subject, and trigger the imagination about this subject. The Flammarion woodcut is an illustration of the medieval whole and illustrate the scientific/mystical quests for knowledge beyond that. I thought this was somehow appropriate.
But now I changed the image. Again it's not an exact representation of holism, but it's definely an image of a whole. I hope this will do. - Mdd 13:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holism in biology?

Just passing through, but what about holism in biology? i.e. taking the bigger picture which evolutionary biology and the key concepts in cellular biology are typically centred around. Same with other fields, at least in my experience as an undergrad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.236.149 (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In ecology definition very poor

The definition in the "in ecology" section is very poor. Clicking on the systems ecology takes the reader to a page where Holism is used to define the term, which leaves the reader with no definition.

Paullb (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holism Vs Egoism

Isn't holism the opposite of egoism? If the egoist considers himself to be a closed system, wouldn't the holistic approach be to consider yourself as constantly interacting with the environment, and thus blending with the whole?--Zanthius (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)