Whole
Whole
The term “whole” has been used frequently in attempts to describe or to explain certain features of biological, psychological, or sociological (but sometimes also of physical and chemical) phenomena which were said to be inaccessible to a “merely mechanistic” or “summative” analysis. In fact, most applications of the concept of whole explicitly resort to a principle which asserts that a whole is more than the sum of its parts.
From the viewpoint of empiricist methodolgy, that whole-part principle, and in most cases also the use of the term “whole” is open to various objections. In particular, the meanings of the terms “whole”, “part”, “sum”, and “more” are far from clear and change from case to case, and accordingly, so does the meaning and the validity of the part-whole principleIn many cases, a whole is simply meant to be an object of study which has parts (in some one of the many senses of the word), and the part-whole principle is taken to assert either (1) that for a complete knowledge of such an object or system, not only those parts, but also their mutual relationships have to be known, or (2) that such an object has properties which can be found in none of its parts. In either of these interpretations, the part-whole principle is trivially true in every case, but just for this reason it cannot furnish an explanation of any empirical phenomenon such as the specific behavior of a developing embryo, taken as a “biological whole”, or of visual gestalten, etc.
For that explanatory function, empirical laws are needed, and occasionally the part-whole principle is tacitly identified with some specific law (or group of laws) governing the phenomenon under consideration. Whatever explanation is achieved in such a case, is obviously due, not to the vague part-whole principle but rather to the specific empirical law which is tacitly supplanted for it; and any empirical law which might be chosen here, applies to a certain specific type of phenomena only and cannot pass for a comprehensive principle governing all kinds of wholes.
According to another interpretation of the notion of whole and of the part-whole principle, a whole is an object whose parts are mutually interdependent in the sense that a change affecting one of its parts will bring about changes in all of the other parts, and because of this interdependence the whole is said to be “more” than the sum of its parts. The part-whole principle then obviously is true simply by definition, and again, lacks explanatory value. Besides, if the above interdependence criterion for wholes is taken literally, then any object turns out to be a whole. What the concept of whole is actually meant to refer to, are specific types of interdependence as found in living organisms, etc., but then, again, an adequate description and explanation of those phenomena can be attained only by a study of their special regularities, not by a sweeping use of the vague concept of whole and of the unclear part-whole principle. (For the points referred to in the preceding remarks, see also Emergent Evolution, Gestalt, Holism, Mechanism, Vitalism.)
Recently, the Polish logician St. Lesniewski has developed a formal theory of the part-whole relationship within the framework of a so-called calculus of individuals, one of the theorems of this theory states that every object is identical with the sum of its parts. This is, of course, a consequence of the way in which the axioms of that calculus were chosen, but that particular construction of the theory was carried out with an eye to applications in logical and epistemological analysis, and the calculus of individuals has already begun to show its value in these fields. See Leonard and Goodman, The Calculus of Individuals and Its Uses, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5 (1940, pp. 45-55. — C.G.H.
Fuente: The Dictionary of Philosophy
Whole
This word is used to describe the perfection of the person as regards his physical condition. Those who were made whole were restored to their original condition of health and strength, with all damage removed, and all marks or evidences of disease taken away. The body was restored to normal. Those who were healed by our Lord JESUS were completely healed. Not only was the disease stopped, but the effects of the disease were removed. We do not see that type of divine healing exhibited today. When the maimed were made whole, the part of the body that had been lost was restored. They came to CHRIST with one leg, and went away with two. They came with one eye, and went away with two. They came with one arm, and went away with two. The Lord is not doing this today. Note the following Scriptures: Mat 9:12; Mat 15:31; Luk 6:10; Luk 7:10; Joh 5:14; Act 9:34).
Luk 5:31 (b) There are those who think that they are so good, righteous and holy that they do not need the Saviour. These are the ones who are called “whole.” Not until one realizes his sinful condition and his need of the power of GOD will he come to JESUS CHRIST for salvation, admitting that he is helpless and hopeless.
Joh 5:6 (c) Probably this is a type of the condition of Israel for the thirty-eight years during which they wandered in the wilderness. They too were helpless and hopeless. They needed GOD to work a miracle for them, and deliver them from their predicament. This man is a splendid picture of that great event.