Holism vs. Mechanism in Defining Totalities

Holism and mechanism are entirely unrelated philosophical terms that define totalities. Holism is the philosophical concept, which holds that all the components such as economic, social, mental, biological, etc., of a specific system, can never be defined or described by only summing up the components. However, the entire system establishes in an essential manner how the items behave. On the other hand, from the philosophical context, mechanism denotes a concept explaining that mechanical principles are always responsible for determining phenomena. Therefore, only the specific principles are sufficient to explain the phenomena.

Holism Perspective

In philosophy, holism is centered on perceptions that the totality is incomparable to the summation of all the constituents, such that the totality is always more than the actual sum. Therefore, it is known that reducing the whole to its elements disregards some items that only occur whenever a being is considered full and not separate. An illustrative example is a synergy, which is formed after different parts interact but fails to survive provided the parts are separate.

The holistic context has been evident in various settings or fields. For instance, it has occurred in religious, scholarly, and cultural scenarios in recent history. Ancient Greek thinkers are among the first individuals tending to associate with the holistic perspective. Moreover, this perspective has also been evident in the Far Eastern cultures like the yin-yang philosophy perceives the planet as an organic totality. The holistic viewpoint is as well applicable to medical practices and theories. Herbal medicine is a perfect instance.

Most holism examples will always be available and readily accessible in human history, including the varied socio-cultural backgrounds, as most ethnological studies confirm the truth. The ancient individuals hold that a secluded person is completely indistinct, unknown, and unremarkable but suddenly becomes recognized if they can locate their position regarding the social and natural domain where they are inserted. The limitations involving the world and self are void such that the body has no assurance concerning the kind of identity acknowledgment that, in turn, is representative of the own culture.

Regarding the last years in the 20th century, holism resulted in the systems thinking concept, including the derivatives, such as the complexity sciences and chaos theory. Biological, sociological, and psychological systems are regularly so sophisticated in the sense that their conduct seems emergent, meaning deduction from only components’ properties remains challenging.

Still, holism serves as a byword from the philosophical context. Such an observation has greatly led to resistance that holism’s scientific interpretation has experienced. This implies that ontological explanations that stop reductive models from offering effective algorithms to forecast system behavior in specific categories of systems exist.

More holism resistance has also originated from extensively associating the phenomenon with quantum and deception. Scientists who are vulnerable to the peer pressure aspect were in general hindered to engage in any activity that might significantly propagate the deception. However, recent observations have shown that public perception has increased regarding such concepts’ realities, and most scientists are trying to admit research based on the given concept in question.

Scientific holism brings about the perception that a system’s behavior can never be thoroughly predicted, regardless of the quantity of information that is readily available. Natural systems are likely to yield unpredicted behavior, and many philosophers believe that such systems’ behaviors could be computationally complicated. It implies that it would be relatively impossible to assess the system’s status without fully simulating all the incidents happening in the system.

Mechanism Perspective

First and foremost, this perspective is an older principle that is known mostly as the universal mechanism. It is a theory mainly concerned about nature, and specifically, the universe’s nature. Universal mechanism holds that the planet is primarily considered as an entirely mechanical structure, which totally incorporates substances in motion in a whole regular structure of laws of nature. The mechanists were informed about the scientific revolution’s accomplishments and acknowledged that each aspect based on the universe could easily be described using mechanical laws. It means the natural laws control matter’s movement and collision.

It is known that mechanism can as well be considered thoroughgoing determinism. This is because when all elements can be justified through matter’s movement under laws, then like any clock’s gears entirely establish that it may strike 10:00 an hour after striking 9:00, all elements are wholly ascertained by those law’s functions and that matter’s properties.

Offering a clear description of the human mind has been challenging. It is among the primary hindrances that have affected the effectiveness of many mechanistic theories, which have found it hard to explain the concept. Descartes mostly associated with dualism despite supporting an entirely mechanistic material world’s outset. He believed that mechanism and the human mind aspect were sensibly incompatible. On the other hand, Hobbes believed that the human mind and the will were completely mechanistic. According to him, the two were undoubtedly explainable regarding perception effects and desire pursuits that, in turn, were believed to be rational concerning the nervous system’s materialistic operations.

A better example to illustrate the mechanistic context entails Isaac Newton’s prosperity regarding the revolutionary breakthroughs. His work and concepts unquestionably successfully described mechanics and the related important aspects. Specifically, his ideas were exceptional in explaining the movement of every item on the planet in relation to the usage of only one mechanical principle, which was called “universal gravitation.”

Remarkably, the specific principle relatively disappointed mechanists’ older cadre because the mechanism initially explained every phenomenon completely regarding how material substances moved and collided but Newton’s gravitation principle expected action from a distance. Clearly, his explanations were an upgraded version.

In conclusion, despite being unique philosophical terms defining totalities, holism better explains totalities than mechanism. For instance, holism is centered on perceptions that totality is incomparable to the summation of all the constituents such that totality is always more than the actual sum such that reducing the whole to its elements disregards some items that only occur whenever a being is considered whole. Also, examples given from in holism perspective are increasingly illustrative, clear, and comprehensible.

References:
Banchetti-Robino, M. P. (2020). Mechanism and Chemistry in Early Modern Natural Philosophy.
Faber, R. J. (1986). Clockwork Garden on the Mechanistic Reduction of Living Things. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 0870235214
https://www.pexels.com/photo/grayscale-photo-of-levitating-person-1707821/
Mello Forato, T. C. D. (2018). Isaac Newton and “Hidden Forces” in Universal Gravitation: Delimiting an Approach for Teacher Training. In Teaching Science with Context (pp. 293-311). Springer, Cham.
Nelson, L. H. (2022). Underdetermination, holism, and feminist philosophy of science. Synthese, 200(1), 1-12.
Polanco, M. C. T. (2019). The “mechanism of nature” in the philosophy of I. Kant a key to understanding the mechanical inexplicability of organic beings. ideas y valores, 68(169).
Sher, G., & Bo, C. (2019). Foundational Holism, Substantive Theory of Truth, and A New Philosophy of Logic: Interview with Gila Sher BY Chen Bo. In Philosophical Forum (Vol. 50, No. 1).
Wilson, M. D. (1999). Ideas and Mechanism Essays on Early Modern Philosophy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691004706