preview

Stephen Mumford Are Wholes Just Sums Of Parts By Stephen Mumford

analytical Essay
1241 words
1241 words
bookmark

The reading analysis that I was most interested in during the semester was Stephen Mumford, Are wholes just sums of parts by Greek philosopher and polymath Aristotle. He was a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. His writings cover many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, linguistics, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology. After reading this analysis my common understanding is that when you're referring to the whole of something as well as knowing that the whole, the car, is composed of parts. In other words, a bunch of parts working together is what makes up the whole. Another way of saying this is that the whole car is a combination of many parts, with things like the carburetor, the fuel pump, the steering wheel, the seats, the motor, and so on being the parts which work or function together to make up the car which you drive in.
‘Are wholes sums of parts ‘is a critical consideration of the relationships that exist between wholes and their respective parts? This concept of metaphysics portrays an object as a complex structure, which means it has constituent parts (Mumford 10). This metaphysical concept looks into critical questions to be considered when it comes to thinking in the right direction to decipher the correct metaphysical principle underlying the reasoning put forward by Stephen Mumford. An example of an argument is that a mobile phone and a pile of stones are made up of parts and are thus considered as wholes. Philosophers challenge this mode of thinking by arguing for integrated wholes, as opposed to mere aggregates. The phone is given ability after integration of parts. This is the ability to receive and make calls, which was not possi...

... middle of paper ...

...onist notion of the whole into components. This is occasioned by the fact that breaking down or reducing the whole into component parts eliminates some factors that can only be accounted for in viewing the being as a whole. It is proven for sure that synergy is only generated when parts of a whole interact and ceases to be when these parts are taken apart. A good example would be taking a painkiller drug/medicine as a whole made up of various chemical ingredients. Each of these chemicals has a way of working with the other to combat pain. When separated, the constituent chemicals of the painkiller cannot work to achieve the desired goal. In conclusion, Mumford’s work is logical and metaphysical by building a scientific case to show that the whole is not a mere collection of parts, but an integration of these parts to form a functional being or product.

In this essay, the author

  • Analyzes stephen mumford's are wholes just sums of parts by aristotle, a greek philosopher and polymath who studied plato and alexander the great.
  • Explains that metaphysics portrays an object as a complex structure, which means it has constituent parts. philosophers challenge this mode of thinking by arguing for integrated wholes, rather than mere aggregates.
  • Argues that the aristotelian theory that posits such existence of a substance, which underlies the instantiation of properties attributed to an object, is in concurrence with mumford's underlying argument.
  • Explains that a whole is deemed greater than the sum of its parts based on the way the parts are integrated.
  • Analyzes how mumford's metaphysical argument states that the whole accomplishes a certain use for the arrangement. holism holds that all properties cannot be explained or determined by summing up its constituent parts.
  • Concludes that mumford's work is logical and metaphysical by building a scientific case to show that the whole is an integration of these parts to form
  • Argues that the metaphysical aspect of philosophy is mind-boggling, but insightful in view of questions posed. essence is useful in tackling the notion of whether wholes are sums of parts.
Get Access