Talk:Holism

message: :"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)
thread_title: General Jan Smuts section cut

message: "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
#Einstein's theory of relativity, which emphasised that the universe is a very large whole. 
#The general composition of the atom; a small, very powerful whole. 
#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:
#Dead material can support life. Grass that will never grow again feeds cattle; bread keeps us alive; medication restores health, and so on. 
#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. 
#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. 
#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. 
#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)
thread_title: Further big cut

message: *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)
thread_title: Issues

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Creationism?!

message: 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)
thread_title: Durkheim and Holism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Thoughts on interdisciplinarity/holism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Holistic therapies?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed correction: Ari said "other than", not "more than the sum of", the parts.... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Holism in biology? 

message: ::I agree, this point is important, is part of new approaches like evo-devo, eco-evo-devo.
::One can understand evolution, just if one considers the intricate network of relationships between organisms and the environment they live and transform.
::The reductionist approach is needed because the lack of methods to study a very complex rank of relationships at a time. But integrative methods begin to bring light in the subject. 
::Systems biology is on this way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.140.60.118 (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a central point in today's biology approach

message: 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)
thread_title:  In ecology definition very poor 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Holism Vs Egoism 

message: I started to try to improve Antireductionism, but I have realised it is really a kind of POV fork of the subject Holism. The content should be incorporated into this article, I can't see that it stands on its own. Fences and windows (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. Please explain exactly how antireductionism is a subject that can be distinguished from holism. I'd like to see some sources, not just be told they exist. Fences and windows (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you have to be an expert to describe the difference here. However, there are not just some sources. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge of Antireductionism

message: Hey budds, just noticed that there is no criticism section to this article, though of course throughout there are examples of philosophies which holism is not -i.e., atomism, reductionism, etc...  I have a great book by Jerry Fodor and Ernest Lepore, "Holism: A Shopper's Guide" which offers some very good criticisms of holism.  I definately need to give it a more careful read but think that a criticism section could help shape out this wiki entry so people can see just what is at stake.  It is at least a very interesting debate in philosophy, though some might find it peripheral (sp.).  Teetotaler 26 December, 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section Needed 

message: I have removed all the new stuff that has been added about Jan Smuts and his white supremacist views simply because it is hardly relevant to this article and anyone can read all that stuff in the article about him. Am happy to discuss this matter here if required. It also looks like an attempt to smear this term by association to Smuts which is a bit unnecessary and out of place in a NPOV encyclopedia. Peter morrell 05:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The material on Smuts is obviously relevant for the history of the subject, since he is the inventor of Holism. Unfavorable views by other authors must not be censored. The NPOV policy explicitly sais that unfavorable views are legitimate and must be included. --Sum (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see how racial segregation is connected to holism, or how holism supports the idea of racial segregation. I did notice the extensive quote by a medical practitioner and 'author' from some obscure village in Wales rubbishing holism, Jan Smuts and so on, without any substantive argument other than emotive words like "obvious", "banal" and so on. He also doesn't have all his ducks in a row about Jan Smuts's nickname: it was not "Janni the fox"; firstly, the diminutive of Jan is spelled "Jannie." More importantly, foxes are so rare in South Africa that the Afrikaans word for fox is quite esoteric ("vos") Therefore the nickname would more likely have been "Jannie the jackal", but that does not make sense either, since the symbolism of "jackal" denotes slyness and cowardice, and for all his other faults, nobody thought of Smuts in that way. In point of fact, his nickname was "slim (clever) Jannie" a rather two-edged compliment denoting that while his cleverness was admired, it was also thought that he could sometimes mislead people through the cleverness of his arguments. You also posted the same quotation, complete with typo's on the reference section of the Jan Smuts article. How is this quote helping us understand Jan Smuts, or holism? Or are you just trolling? pietopper (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This  "Not surprisingly, Smuts's ecological holism was also a form of ecological racism, since it was a holism that contained natural-ecological divisions along racial lines" seems to suggest that his racism is relevant.   as does the debate with Hogben that is mentioned. More at , Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have actually read "The Politics of Holism, Ecology and Human Rights." In its entirety. You are taking one sentence out of context -- way out of context. Perhaps you would like to give me a concise definition of "ecological racism"? Just for my own education. pietopper (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the way Wikipedia works.  If you haven't read it, read WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. And please don't restore the Aristotle stuff without a reliable source, our own interpretations aren't relevant here. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smuts material 

message: In the section, "History", regarding the New Caledonian Melanesians (Kanak?) it's claimed without citing a source that:
"For these people, an isolated individual is totally indeterminate, indistinct and featureless until he can find his position within the natural and social world in which he is inserted. The confines between the self and the world are annulled to the point that the material body itself is no guarantee of the sort of recognition of identity which is typical of our own culture."
I suspect this may be somewhat exaggerated... or an example of taking a claim that is made in the religious or literary sector of a culture at face value as a description of the culture.   In any case no source is cited for this remarkable claim.  Perhaps there is a reference by Maurice Leenhardt (who is mentioned)?  This then be cited, and pehaps qualifiers like "according to Leonhardt" added to the claim.  If not I suspect the material should be cut.  On the other hand, examples of holism in the philosophy of non-Western cultures are certainly appropriate for the article.  Any anthropologists out there who know more about this (Leenhardt/Melanesians/other examples), and have no axe to grind here? MorphismOfDoom (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to come from here and it is also found in other places on the web here for example and here, so it looks genuine. Peter morrell 04:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Be bold. Just edit it the way you think it should be written, obviously with citations and references. Go for it. pietopper (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff on Melanesian "cosmomorphism" seems dubious, and lacks references 

message: Substituted at 18:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: From All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace:
:Arthur Tansley who had invented the term ecosystem, had once accused Field Marshal Jan Smuts of the "abuse of vegetational concepts". Smuts had invented a philosophy called holism, where everyone had a 'rightful place', which was to be managed by the white race. The 70s protestors claimed that the same conceptual abuse of the supposed natural order was occurring, that it was really being used for political control.
I don't see the political results of holism mentioned in the article.
--Error (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Empire 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Holism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160520122904/http://www.mediafire.com/?rxmn2t1votf to http://www.mediafire.com/?rxmn2t1votf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050719000606/http://www.mech.kuleuven.be/pma/project/goa/hms-int/history.html to http://www.mech.kuleuven.be/pma/project/goa/hms-int/history.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Greetings.
I guess it raises an editorial flag for me that a start-class article containing all of 5 paragraphs involves almost 30 distinct talk topics.
This is a Vital Article for the Philosophy wikiproject and, as such, I'm performing an overhaul in the following ways, top to bottom:
1. Readability (Smutz talked at a high level, that doesn't mean we should too).
2. Citations (citations across the board seemed weak in credibility and focus. Some citations did not clearly justify the cited claim (raising concerns over being challengeable). The citations justifying the original definition of holism were,,,not very credible, vague, and nearly unrelated to the interdisciplinary nature of the subject; plus in another place, someone literally cited a dictionary entry which I do not believe appropriately satisfies our encyclopedic citation standards, especially those worthy of a vital philosophical article (it was OED but still, there's scholars we should be referencing here and we can do better).
3. Pictures and relevant captions--besides being a necessary condition for a Good/Featured Article, pictures help a reader follow longer articles visually, making it easy to recall where they might have left off. Plus they're fun!
4. Expansion of material. There's a lot to be said for physics and linguistics, just to name two.
5. Reorganization. Streamlining the structure a bit by separating science from non-science contexts and specifying the non-science disciplines involved even though they are not the "big players" when it comes to the philosophical concept of holism.
As far as addressing concerns in the talk topics....
Some of these entries are old and TL;DR (aren't I one to speak?). I skimmed many, some of the concerns were addressed, others concern sections that no longer exist.
RE: Smuts
Smuts coined the term but once science got its hands on the word, it took it and ran. Anyone seriously researching this concept (anything more than 2+ hrs of research) will quickly realize this word is simply no longer as controversial as it has been in the context of either Jan Smutz or Alternative medicine. It is a topic of legitimate philosophical and scientific inquiry based on my (cited) research presented throughout the revisions I am going to upload. Holism as an idea that simply has moved on from Smutz. This point alone seems to cover a lot of ground when it comes to responding to the talk topics on this page.
In any case, I'm still preparing my work in a draft page, check it out if I have not applied my overhaul changes yet: User:Non-pegasus/sandbox/Holism draft.
Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you🦄Non-pegasus (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul Project 

message: I noticed there was a good article review that's currently on hold so I thought I should chime in - in it's current state, this article appears to be missing any mention of several important topics in holism, the SEP articles cited here alone    mention several types of holism that go entirely undiscussed or only barely mentioned in this article. And there's no mention of confirmation holism, which even has its own article here and also one at SEP.
I'm not sure the claim that Jan Smuts came up with holism is true, either - like the SEP link, most sources I've found seem to credit Pierre Duhem with the development of holism, and he died 12 years before Smuts' book was published, so I think we can rule out Smuts' priority on this. At any rate, not mentioning Duhem at all seems like an omission.  - car chasm (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article seems to be missing quite a bit