So what do you think (please give a reason or reasons as to why or why not)? I don’t think so; & I’ll use the simple example of a triangle to make my point. Now, for example, a triangle consists of 3 lines, i.e., 3 parts, whose opposite ends are connected at an angle with one of the opposite ends of the two other lines; negate the 3 lines, i.e., the parts, & the triangle will not remain to be. However, if the triangle was greater or something more than the 3 lines, i.e., the parts, whose opposite ends are connected at an angle with one of the opposite ends of the two other lines, THEN the triangle would’ve remained to be despite the negation of the 3 lines, i.e., the parts; since it’s supposed to be greater or something more than them. Yet, since it can’t, obviously the whole, i.e., the triangle, isn’t greater or something more than the parts, i.e., the 3 lines. Thus the whole isn’t greater than the sum of parts.
Gestalt home. If you break it down and examine the features of the parts you realize without said features there can be no whole hence the sum is greater than the whole.
How don’t these, two of your statements, contradict each other? If without the featured parts, there’s no whole (as you’ve stated in the first quote), then how’s the sum or whole greater than them? I see a contradiction, my friend. Or, maybe, I’ve misunderstood you? For you’ve voted that the whole isn’t greater than the sum of the parts; & yet I’ve concluded, in the first part of this reply of mine, that you’re saying that the sum or whole is greater than the parts. So perhaps you can rephrase or clarify your post so that I can understand it better?
Yet society obviously can’t be something more than, or independent of, the members who comprise it, right? Therefore the whole, in this case, society, isn’t greater than sum of the parts. Your first post may confuse me as to what your position is, but your vote doesn’t; so I think that we agree as to our answer to the OP.
No worries, bro... your vote assures me that our answers agree/we’re on the same page — whole isn’t greater than the sum of its parts.
The paradox applies to the fact its all or nothing if you treat each part as integral to the whole. Where it applies is if you sum it up the whole becomes greater because each part facilitates the function.
Can you please give an example of this? In what case does the whole become greater or something more than the sum or function of the components? So far as I see it, it’s always equivalent & identifiable with the latter; being thus indistinguishable from the latter.
A lever consists of a fulcrum and a lever arm. Separately or ill properly placed they complete little too no work but combined they create advantage.
How’s this an example of a whole becoming something greater, though? I don’t think that it is. The bar or lever must pivot about a point or fulcrum to work. Take away the bar or lever & the point or fulcrum, about which the former operates, & there’s no work to be done; the work that’s done being the result or sum of the relation between the bar or lever & the point or fulcrum. Hence, the whole work that’s done consists of the relation between the parts which are used to complete it, & it’s nothing without them, i.e., it isn’t something greater than them. This example, therefore, goes to show why we should reply negatively to the thread’s question; as both you & I have done to the thread’s poll.
I think the same thing... which is why I’ve voted &, throughout this thread so far, argued for the fact that the whole isn’t greater than the sum of parts; it being equivalent with them. Yet I’ve encountered people, here & there, who’ve thought differently; so I’d thought that I’d make a thread to see if anyone thinks otherwise here, & then question them about it.
Ok its like dirt. You separate each element apart its just elements, some organisms, nothing fancy. Combine them so that plants can thrive in them and create oxygen so you can breathe its not just dirt anymore. This whole discussion is entirely based on perspective.
This discussion isn’t based on perspective, it’s based on logic & observable reality (for, no matter the perspective, a whole can’t be greater than the sum of parts). Let’s take your next example to show how it’s based on the latter (your dirt example is no instance of the whole being or becoming greater than the sum of parts). Thus, dirt, oxygen, water, light & other nutritional elements, along with the planted seed, are the parts or components that enable the formation of a plant. Take away any of these parts, i.e., dirt, oxygen, water, light, or the seed, & there’ll be no plant. In other words, the plant as a whole isn’t something independent of the aforementioned parts that enable its coming to be; but it’s completely the result or sum of their combination or relation.
Well, this isn’t “gestalt psychology,” it’s formal logic, my friend; along with examples from particular sensible phenomena.
Its philosophy. Sigma = sigma is your point. All im saying is gestalt psychology is an attempt to understand perception. Whichever philosopher stated the whole is greater than the summation of its parts was simply stating when things work together in harmony it becomes greater than the individual parts. From a physical standpoint you could argue yes the parts are not greater based on arrangement for example an improperly constructed lever which does no work isn't greater than the whole because it does no work. The whole thing is based on perspective. One last example. Worker A and B kicks ass at their job because they work together. Worker C sucks at his job yet you make worker A work with worker C. Worker A and worker C are not greater than the whole yet worker A and B are because their team work allows them to accomplish more than could individually.
Yes, philosophy, which is based on the necessity or invariance of logic or reason; & not psychology, which is based on the contingency or variability of mental states. Big difference. Okay, but, just cause they’d stated it, that doesn’t make it true; & I’ve given explanations & examples throughout this thread as to why it isn’t. Right, which is exactly what I’ve explained in post #11. Right, “team work,” that is to say, the collective effort of individuals; as there’s no team without the individual members who comprise it; & therefore the whole, in this case, a team, isn’t greater than the sum of parts, but it’s equivalent or identifiable with them. Yet you’re missing the point that the arrangement is nothing more than the relation of the three lines. Take away the lines, & there’s no arrangement. The arrangement, therefore, is the sum or relation of the lines. If the arrangement was something more or other than the lines, then it could exist without them; but it cant, & therefore it’s equivalent or identifiable with them. Try to construct a triangle without the relation of three lines... you can’t; & therefore the triangle isn’t something more or other than the relation or sum of the three lines. Simple.