View Full Version : Is there a "whole"?
Is there a "whole"? I am somehow confused by this concept of whole/all as an entity. We have infinity (eg. in maths) so, can endlessness can be marked as a whole (or is it a wholeless quantity of segments)? If we have only segments and no whole, of what are these segments segments?
What do you mean by "whole" as in being whole in human, or in a universe being "whole"? Just need some clarification...
What do you mean by "whole" as in being whole in human, or in a universe being "whole"? Just need some clarification...
Now you got me. I must restate what I proposed in a more coherent way:
What I meant was: eg. there is a PC. It consists of a number of parts which form a (meaningful) whole. (To understand what the PC does you must undertand the function of the parts, and to understand the function of the parts you must understand what the whole PC does.)
Now there is the universe. Does it form a whole comparable to the PC? Is the whole of all that there is in the universe a meaningful whole? (or just a collection of parts not connected with a purpouse). Can we ever know this (infinitely) expanding universe? And finally if we are a part of the universe can we understand ourself apart from this whole (of which we are a part). We do not understand our drives, we just fight them or follow them, we are civilised but we are capable of mass killing in devastating wars, does this come because we basically do not now what's the meaning of us as parts, because we do not know what's the meaning of the whole.
Maybe by leaving the pre-knowledge state (for knowledge state) people started (an unwise) rebelion (of parts) against the universe (the whole). We recrute young children and present them with one alternative of choice: join the rebelion. (While we were meant to eat the banana and watch the sunset).
I personally find it unlikely that the universe is analogous to a machine in the sense that it was designed to fulfill a particular purpose, but if it were, this would be my opinion:
As a determinist, I would think that anything we did would be exactly what we were intended to do, or else the machine's initial conditions would have been flawed. It's also possible that determinism holds only in our universe (our machine), and that the deterministic laws our creator(s) invented could be flawed. Otherwise, our attainment of consciousness is just another turn of the gears -- we're not rebelling against anything -- we are a part of the machine.
As to the concept of "whole" -- yes, I believe there is a "whole" universe, but whether that whole has any teleological meaning or purpose (which is, I think, what you're getting at) is a different question. I think "meaning" is a concept specific to humans (or at most, sentient beings) that does not transcend thought, so, as such, it is localized to certain parts of the universe, and is not a character of the whole.
As a determinist, I would think that anything we did would be exactly what we were intended to do, or else the machine's initial conditions would have been flawed. It's also possible that determinism holds only in our universe (our machine), and that the deterministic laws our creator(s) invented could be flawed. Otherwise, our attainment of consciousness is just another turn of the gears -- we're not rebelling against anything -- we are a part of the machine.
As to the concept of "whole" -- yes, I believe there is a "whole" universe, but whether that whole has any teleological meaning or purpose (which is, I think, what you're getting at) is a different question. I think "meaning" is a concept specific to humans (or at most, sentient beings) that does not transcend thought, so, as such, it is localized to certain parts of the universe, and is not a character of the whole.
Plato believed in the "good" as a leading principle/direction of the universe. (Not bad as a direction)
Since I do not really understand myself(or a person) I thougt I will get there (to this understanding) through the concept of all(whole) and therefrom I would be able to deduce my own meaning(as a part). (I think that knowing the universe comes easier than knowing oneself.) It would be lovely if the universe were deterministic, we would be beter at coping with dilemas and such...and our knowing (or not knowing) our purpouse wouldn't matter a bit (it would happen anyway).
Thus if the universe forms a whole (withs us as a part of it) then the universe is deterministic: because principally parts determine the whole the same as the whole determines the parts (they are each others fate).
If there is no "whole" eg. due to the endlessness and infinity then we are independent parts and there is no leading principle (a priory).
Philosophers have been knocking this question around for a long time. Current trends are leaning toward thinking of everything as merely a collection of sub-parts and viewing 'whole' objects as arbitrary labels put on things by humans. It's an interesting thing to think about, but I don't think it really matters much which way you go with it.
Current trends are leaning toward thinking of everything as merely a collection of sub-parts and viewing 'whole' objects as arbitrary labels put on things by humans.
Yes, this would specially apply to arts. (Eg. a picture or a poem: you make a whole from the "subparts" which (put in a whole)strike you as suprisingly nice/ugly - meaningful /a supper example of this would be Picasso eg. his cubistic painting "violine and guitar" two objects creating one whole (mind supperimposing a concept of whole on a differing reality)) but what about the universe. It may be convenient to call it a collection of subparts but as we "know" it happened in the Big Bang in a process of explosion/expansion. Seem to be one process (one whole) factually. Parts influnce other parts (eg. gravity) There are laws which are valid through-out the area, cuntinuity of the space-time. I think good case could be made for the universe as a "whole". (Interesting: always when I think about this I come to the idea of God, do not really know why, but it somehow has to do with unity of many things (seemingly?) different...)
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.