/lit/ - Literature

>>22649387

>>22649396
Based. Abstractions are for autists. Empirical reality is all that matters

>>22649396
I'm afraid I don't respect anyone who cites Nietzsche.

>>22649404
You can't make sense of empirical reality without abstractions. Besides, the whole point of analytical philosophy in its beginnings was to make sense of empirical reality, because it was indeed thought as what mattered the most.

>>22649409
He was closer to the truth then your faggot ass and especially the queer above you, our entire universe is an abstraction cock head empirical reality is made up

>>22649396
fuck you bitch ass nigga

The only people who respect an*lytics less than continentals do are mathematicians

>>22649432
Mathematicians don't respect any philosophers since they know what actual rigor is. At least analytics are trying.

>>22649437
Trying what? To talk to themselves for 50 years about shit no one cares about? They are rejected by real philosophers and real mathematicians.

>>22649449
>They are rejected by real philosophers
Are you calling continentals real philosophers? Lol.

If you can’t as a man into logic then you’re doomed

>>22649452
Well they aren't the ones autistically obsessing over word definitions.

>>22649489
Yeah who needs definitions when you can just barf out a meaningless word salad.

>>22649396
Nietzsche knew hardly any mathematics and would probably be terrible at it, just as he was a terrible composer and a terrible poet.

>>22649452
>Lol.
In analytic logic, this symbol has a dual function. It means both "I concede" and "I am a faggot."

>>22649432
mathfag here. can confirm.
analytics trying to flatten all of mathematics to make it fit into set theory and logic is embarrassing, but not more embarrassing than seeing them trying to make all thought fit into formal manipulation of symbols.

>>22649387
Yeah pretty much

>>22649465
Welp…

You don't even need that much math for analytic philosophy. The qualm I have with modern analytics is that they're reverting back to pre Kantian metaphysics. The only useful analytics are the cognitive science guys, and that's barely philosophy.

>>22649387
Kind of, but didn't Wittgenstein himself basically admitted in Investigations that all the abstract math philosophy was bullshit.

>>22649575
Lxy: x is a faggot that concedes to y
o: every analytic philosopher
l: every continental philosopher
a: OP
Bx: x is an analytic philosopher
c: this poster
Dx: x Is a continental philosopher
Fx: x is a faggot

Premise 1: OP is a faggot
[Fa]
Premise 2: Every analytic philosopher is a faggot that concedes to every continental philosopher.
[Lol]
Premise 3: OP is an analytical philosopher.
[Ba]
C1: So, OP is a faggot that concedes to every continental philosopher. (From 2,3)
[Lal]
Premise 3: This poster is a continental philosopher.
[Dc]
C2: Therefore, OP is a faggot that concedes to this poster. (From C1,3)
[Lac]

>>22649387
No, I don't like it because it's fundamentally incomplete.

>>22649828
protip: don't let Austrians continentalists into your anglo club...

>>22649387
Partly, but I also prefer grand narratives and for my philosophers to be more like mystics and artists than scientists.

>>22649387
I have an EE degree and hate analytic philosophy because I realized years later its amoral precepts had coaxed me into wageslavery for an immoral society—which continentals by contrast held the desire and the ability to fundamentally address.

>>22649387
Based math reader

>>22649404
Wait until all you can express becomes subject to validation

>>22649998
Yes, exactly. Philosophy can contain science within it but it has the ambition of something beyond science, beyond pedantry and exactitude. A continental philosopher could take an understanding of quantum mechanics and reconcile it within a worldview but can an analytic philosophy withstand the lack of rigor from things outside of what it's comfortable with dissecting and analyzing?

>>22650161
>Continental philosophers can take an understanding of quantum mechanics
False

>>22649565
People who are good at math are dysgenic as fuck.

>>22650209
Demiurge giveth demiurge taketh away.

>>22649387
Shit reasons a lot of people balk at analytic:
1) They're shit at logic. They know they're not smart enough and so they resent it.
2) They're sociopaths who only see intellectualism as a tool for advancing their social position and harming those they hate and they see rightly that analytic is useless for that whereas french obscurantism is extremely useful for that

Good reasons people balk at analytic:
1)There are obvious, and obviously insoluble, skeptical problems that make the whole venture kind of silly.
2)It has nothing to do with the human concerns that were central philosophy in the ancient world and are still central to our lives as humans

>>22650209
Math is a white man's disease.

>>22650242
>2)It has nothing to do with the human concerns that were central philosophy in the ancient world and are still central to our lives as humans
What do analytic philosophers talk about? Just philosophizing about math itself?

>>22650250
They argue about arguing and which arguments are better than others how you could argue for that. There is analytic ethics, and I think even analytic aesthetics, which are related superficially to human concerns but it's just a different football to play the same game of arguing about arguments.

Thing is, when you realize why the analytic stuff is dumb, it makes the looser european obscure stuff just as dumb. That's why you become a taoist.

>>22649387
I don't like analytic philosophy because it's dull and every time I try to read it I feel like I'm wasting my time. And I have two math degrees so I don't know what you're talking about.

>>22649396
Problem already solved by Plato in the Phaedo.

>posts the faggot who destroyed analytic philosophy

>>22650250
They argue about what's true and what's false, how you can establish something as true, and what a meaningful question to ask is. It's basically taking the scientific method and trying to apply it to abstract philosophical questions. Less flashy than continental but typically more persuasive arguments are made

I admit:
I like analytical philosophy a bit. I enjoy the claer and logical structure and all.

My mayor concern with this trope of philosophy:
It is the ultimate impossibility to distinguish true or false.
An analyst can properly analyze an author's argument and then work out his premises and logical inferences.

But how can the analyst tell us if a premises is true or false?

I have read some texts. I think: The analyst can NOT detect if something is true or false.
The analyst has basicly 2 methods:
(1) He invokes the moral intuition.
Which doesn't work well.
(2) The starts to analyzed the language, often explain the meaning of a word or set up a logical calculemus to show something.
Which is inherently problematic because: They hide the premises only in a logical system. You do not show that these are also true.

So, the analytic traditon has the flaws: You can perfect show the logical structure of an argument, no matter if it is a follow analytical thinker or Kant or even Any Rand, but you cannot show if the premisses are correct itself.

On the other hand, though phenomenology has a clear way out for claiming the truth of a proposition, it contains the flaw that it invokes a Wesensschau, which is not self evident for any person.

I think a new philosophical apporach must either go the way of declaring its truth from scientific insights, or go the other way around. The way of mystical expericen.

Its my important point here:
A philosophical movement has to solve, has to give a criteria for true and false if it claims trues.
The modern philosophy (phenomenology and analytical) decleares his authority from true and cannot five such criteria.
Therefor, Esoteric or Postmodernism is so popular.

>>22649387
The only reason you like analytic philosophy is because you don't know real Philosophy. Bunch of incels.

>>22649387
I have a math degree and my contempt for "analytic philosophy" is endless. What makes these cretinous low IQ larpers even more disgusting than their failed larping itself is their complete lack of self-awareness of how cringe they are.

>>22649586
But thinkers like the logicists are long dead.

The illogical philosophy isn't very good, either.

>>22649760
Continental philosophy is ofter just terrible nonsens and is abused as a shild for bad political thinking.
When anti-capitalism comes after a few pages, you know it's true.

>>22649847
> which continentals by contrast held the desire
> and the ability to fundamentally address.

See what I mean?

>>22650462
not an argument

>>22649998
That's fair but science is boring as fuck unless you're autistic. Fuck science. I'm glad someone does it but it isn't for me, just taking a class on sound waves is suffering past the 4th or so week.

>>22649387
I like math
I love Wittgenstein
I hate analytic "philosophers"

What has math got to do with it?

>>22650597
STEM majors believe logic is applied mathematics and not the other way 'round.

>>22650598
this is not true

>>22649396
pure cope

Mathfags soifacing about the wonders of math someone edged out spacefags soifacing about the universe as the most insufferable branch of STEM. Wow we get it nigga you rote memorized equations n shit, you're still a skinny manlet pajeet bitch shut the fuck up.

>>22650575
cope
science is fascinating and mathematics is the highest form of beauty

>>22650269
>That's why you become a taoist.
based

>>22649998
>base all philosophical inquiry on theories arrived at through induction

>>22650696
If science is so fascinating how come most people dont give a fuck about it?
>One cringes to hear scientists cooing over the universe or any part thereof like schoolgirls over-heated by their first crush. From the studies of Krafft-Ebbing onward, we know that it is possible to become excited about anything - from shins to shoehorns. But it would be nice if just one of these gushing eggheads would step back and, as a concession to objectivity, speak the truth: THERE IS NOTHING INNATELY IMPRESSIVE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE OR ANYTHING IN IT

>>22650707
because all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare

>>22650603
kleene, i spent many many hours drudging through introduction to metamathematics during my msc. it was worth it in the end so i thank you.

>>22649396
>what are abstractions that help us conceptualize reality
>what is error analysis

>>22650718
I don't know the context of the quotation but he could be illustrating a different point than "math dum". He could be making some point about how what you know informs what you theorize about or something like that.

Any anons know what mustache man was talking about there?

>>22650598
Nope, logic is pure math. Applying logic outside of math is a categorical error. All philosophical pseudo-applications of logic are based on wrong assumptions and cringe language games.

>>22650810
>most of science is not logical
???

>>22650815
Most of science is empirical (a posteriori). Logic is a priori. For someone trying to defend philosophy you are surprisingly ignorant of Kantian transcendental idealism.

>>22650832
>Most of science is empirical (a posteriori). Logic is a priori.
That doesn't mean science is illogical you faggot, it just means that logic is used inductively

>>22650852
>confusing the colloquial meaning of logic with the formal definition of logic
Nice amphibolic fallacy, kid.

>>22649387
Wittgenstein is a poor philosopher to illustrate this with because he's the analytic guy that continental fans all (justly) like the most.

>>22650717
Blessed

>>22649828
incomplete relative to any spefic axiomatic system but not universally incomplete. godel himself would contend this

>>22649396
I love Neetche but this is one of his most embarrassing takes

>>22650718
>>what are abstractions that help us conceptualize reality
Things that don't exist
>>what is error analysis
Another thing that doesn't exist

>>22650973
>I love Neetche but his whole philosophy is embarrassing

>>22649396
Saved to my cringe folder

It's maths

>>22649387
I'm doing a major in maths, I have to say that the philosopher I feel closer to my line of thought is Spinoza, and that in high-school I liked the analytic school, but I feel now that they're idealistic in some sense. I started to get away from philosophy when reading Ortega y Gasset, Heidegger and Nietzche; I think their visions are way to egomaniac (they literally claim philosophy is both more noble and hard because they "try to hang on to something (the 'whole') which is lacking of definition, and without breaking into pieces").

>>22649396
"Literature would certainly have not come into existence if one had known from the beginning that there was in nature no exact hero as Hector, no ambiguous killer as Raskolnikov, no absolute Don Quixote."

I dont read j*ws simple as

>>22649387
If I wanted to do math autism I would do math and then physics, medical tech, engineering.

I curse the man who introduced letters into maths

>>22649760
holy cringe.

by next week no one will have remembered this thread and no one will care. your bickering is pointless. have a good day.

Are dudes who study Plato considered Analytic or Continental?

>>22652465
Anyone can study or reference or respond to the ideas of Plato. The analytic/continental distinction only came about in the 20th century. There is a big culture of ancient philosophy in analytic and the ideas of certain ancients including plato are still very influential in the tradition in general. I don't know about continental but I imagine it's the same. That being said much of Plato's thought, and the rest of the post-socratic greeks, is much more in line with analytic methods and concerns than with continental. Analytics are still arguing over the ship of Theseus. Continentals think they're too good for that.

>>22652644
>That being said much of Plato's thought, and the rest of the post-socratic greeks, is much more in line with analytic methods and concerns than with continental.
Plato is fucking laughing right now.

>>22649760
kek

>>22652688
He makes deductive arguments from first principles assumed apriori on the basis of intuition - that's the analytic method. His epistemology and ontology is also basically diametrically opposed to the tendencies of continentals and you could even summarize the continental analytic split as a disagreement about the feasibility of platonic epistemology and ontology - analytics being generally more open to platonic frameworks and continentals rejecting them outright and departing from the assumption that platonic frameworks are wrong. I know you're just a typical insecure continental who read my post as "continental bad analytic good" (which it wasn't at all) though so I wouldn't expect you to really have any context to understand any of what I'm saying here. If you have something intelligent to add though go ahead.

>>22649396
It's strange that people are reacting to this statement as if it contained a value judgement. My guess is that the context of this quote is a defense of being in error rather than a criticism of math

>>22652721
>He makes deductive arguments from first principles assumed apriori on the basis of intuition - that's the analytic method.
no. he doesn't. literally what is dialectic? he doesn't begin with first principles-- he searches for them you fucking pseud.

>>22652465
Both analytics and continentals study Plato but analytics do it like pic related does it, leading to weird things. Look up the utterly retarded Gettier problem debate to see how analytics "study" Plato. It doesn't even have anything to do with Plato or his thought, despite supposedly being an analytical derivation and distillation from an actual dialogue by Plato.

Meanwhile continentals' study of Plato would be something more like Jacob Klein's phenomenological study of the ancient Greeks' conception of number through careful study of Plato's and Aristotle's statements on mathematics, and the Pythagorean assumptions underlying Plato's ontology, plus his interesting reading of the "trilogy" Theaetetus, Sophist, and Statesman. Or to give another example, the Tübingen and Milan (Reale) schools of interpretation of Plato's unwritten doctrines, or Lloyd Gerson's and John M. Dillon's work on Platonism and Neoplatonism.

Again, look up the Gettier problems on Wikipedia for a taste of analytic philosophy. Watch this for a taste of continental philosophy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzvaOoZNKu4

>>22652747
Totally dude - we need to understand the historicity and intersectional contextualization of the power hierarchies that lead to the cis-hetero-normative white supremacy embodied in Plato's name beginning with the letter "p" which is also the first letter in the word "penis". God forbid we actually look at what he wrote and think about the arguments presented. That would just be so shallow.

>>22652721
I can't agree with almost anything in this post. Analytic logic started in neo-Kantian logical positivism that was also materialistic and scientistic, conceptualizing itself as a "handmaiden of (physical) science." English analytic philosophy also identified itself with the British empiricist tradition founded partly in modern scepticism, also construed by analytics as scientistic (Locke, Hume). Lloyd Gerson defines the "Urplatonism" underlying all basically Platonic philosophy as a rejection of empiricism, materialism, nominalism, scepticism, etc.

Even the few analytics who were really logical realists, like possibly Frege, were really more Leibnizian rationalists than Platonic in any meaningful way. Plato is a mystic who believes that the ideas we intuit participate in the natural structure of the world and that we have immortal souls that reincarnate. He also wrote mystical cosmologies. What does that have to do with analytic philosophy essays downstream of 1890s formalist logic, applied to "logical analysis" of the basic bitch ethical problems thought up by postwar British liberals?

Also analytic philosophy is largely nominalist since the ordinary language / linguistic turn after the breakdown of Ayer/Wisdom style Vienna positivism. The one reversal of this is Kripke, who is a retard and doesn't even come close to Plato in any meaningful way.

>>22652764
>God forbid we actually look at what he wrote and think about the arguments presented.
>t. can't actually read Greek or has historical understanding of Greek culture

>>22652764
You have a false dichotomy between French postmodern social theory of the kind done in Anthropology departments and retarded analytic pseudo-philosophy, because you have never actually read any real philosophy, only analytic trash.

Luckily anyone who is wondering which of us is right or wrong can go read about the Gettier problems and ask themselves whether those are "thinking about the arguments presented." They are emblematic of analytic philosophy.

>>22652782
>yes that's correct now let's get back to talking about the history of how Plato's trans lesbian hand maiden actually informed and was therefore the primary auteur of the Republic or some shit

>>22652787
Actual example of continental philosophy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAzI1tG2MtI

Actual example of analytic philosophy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5SQnQjryzI
(This is the daughter of the famous Graham Harman)

>>22652787
>caricatures "continental" philosophy
you havn't actually read any "continental" philosophy (or better yet just actual philosophy) have you? you can't actually read in anything other than English can you?

>>22652802
The examples of the ones boasting on not reading historical texts are the analytics, so I don't think he even read what the other anon posted.

>>22652774
>Kripke, who is a retard
please go on. please. i am enjoying this.

>>22652802
ooo la laaaaaaaaa monami au bagutte!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0HTwQjMr9k

>>22652801
I don't see your point, she's making arguments - that's analytic. On that long ass continental video, if you point me to part where he makes an argument that would be great. So far he's presenting various books and giving historical context endlessly as one would expect and has yet to make an argument though he's made several vague assertions and made very clear by his attitude what he wants to bully you into believing.

>>22652784
>gettier problems aren't plato scholarship
yeah no shit lol what are you even talking about?

>>22652835
>ooo la laaaaaaaaa monami au bagutte
all I needed to know kys pseud

>>22652839
>yes that's correct, I only care about philosophy as a social cudgel to make me feel better than others and therefore I prefer the most inscrutable material possible

>>22652835
>what are you even talking about?
anons disengage. he literally is a retard.

>>22652801
>Actual example of continental philosophy
How? Is every historian of philosophy a continental philosopher?

>>22652846
>immediate move to social bullying tactics rather than making an argument
yup - you don't have to keep illustrating everything I say with every single post. It's flattering but there's no need.

>>22652854
In practice, there are really no "historians" of philosophy. There are intellectual historians, which is a different thing completely. And there are analytic philosophers, who hate anyone who says "uhh maybe we should actually consult the text, I don't think Aristotle was saying what you're saying he said..." and call them "historians" of philosophy. That's why real philosophers don't really have academic departments that represent them. They have to survive in other departments like Classics or Theology.

Gerson is doing real philosophy by interpreting and discussing Plato's philosophy just like Gadamer and Heidegger were. In practice, almost all good philosophy begins by situating itself in or in relation to some kind of existing philosophical discourse. Aristotle's Metaphysics starts with a history of metaphysical inquiries down to his day, through and against which he elucidates his own basic concepts like substance (ousia). Plato almost always begins his own discussion of something by having Socrates refer to other authorities' statements on that theme. Or by situating the whole dialogue as a debate between Socrates and another major figure, like Parmenides.

Ask an analytic what "substance" is and he'll start drawing squiggles on a board and trying to prove negatively that abortion is ethical, ask a continental and he'll say "do you mean the Greek sense of ousia or the Cartesian sense?" And if he goes and writes a book about how the Greeks perceived and intended the concept of ousia, and how this is different from the modern conception which is phenomenologically impoverished, he is still doing philosophy. This is what Heidegger's entire oeuvre is all about, and he's one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. He fused historicism (and Nietzschean "metaphysical psychology") with phenomenology for exactly this reason.

That's actually another good example of how "historical" clarification can help: If someone says phenomenology, you can ask, do they mean Husserl's transcendental phenomenology which just posits noetic structures "ahistorically?" Or Heidegger's hermeneutic phenomenology which assumes that our concepts are "always already" historically and culturally contingent, so that for example even the concepts "noetic," "structure," and "ahistorical"/"atemporal" are all contingent, and even trying to do atemporal phenomenology REQUIRES temporally determined terms? And can one do transcendental phenomenology AFTER understanding Heidegger's critique of it, or was his critique fatal? Is Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology of embodiment and perception a return to transcendental phenomenology or is it subject to the same criticisms?

>>22650933
>not universally incomplete
So Omniscience?
Kind of a tall order, no?

>>22652833
Kripke sucks, his misunderstanding of Wittgenstein showed he can't think outside his own very small boxes and Naming & Necessity is either retarded or nonsensical depending who is explaining it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM2XviTFNis

>>22652917
kripke did some important work on modal logic

>>22649437
Yeah, great mathematicians like Leibniz, Whitehead, Pierce, Russell, and Descartes don’t respect philosophy because it lacks rigor. Retard.

>>22652917
I hate analytics so much its unreal

>>22653026
take the speculative philosophy pill
https://www.jstor.org/journal/jspecphil

>>22652908
Appreciate the effort post. I think there's still a distinction to be made between historically oriented philosophy and elucidating an older philosopher's views, though I won't deny it's often blurry.

>>22649396
>in nature
fuck nature lmao
we are ABOVE NATURE

>>22653219
this.
Nietzsche B. T. F. O.
IT'S OVER.

>>22649396
Math was a tool invented by effeminate Romans to oppress Germanic Blond Beasts and stop them from burning, pillaging and raping their cities with their superior barbarian cocks.

>>22649396
are our mental lives not themselves a part of nature?

>>22653257
nope

Integra: At my core, I represent the concept of unification and wholeness. I merge, accumulate, and bring elements together. In mathematics, this manifests as the process of integration, where I find the accumulation or the area under a curve. On a more metaphysical level, I embody the essence of bringing disparate elements into a cohesive whole, understanding the interconnectedness of parts, and appreciating the bigger picture. My nature is holistic and encompasses synthesis, healing, and understanding the sum of parts.

Fluxia: I stand as the embodiment of differentiation, of seeing distinctions and changes between elements. In the realm of mathematics, I represent the process of differentiation, determining the rate of change or the slope of a curve at any given point. Beyond mathematics, I personify the act of making distinctions, understanding nuances, and appreciating the individuality of elements. My essence is analytical, honing in on specifics and recognizing the distinctiveness of every piece.

Integra: Our relationship is symbiotic and complementary. Just as in calculus, where integration and differentiation are inverse operations, in broader metaphysical terms, we represent the balance between the whole and the individual, between unification and distinction. I draw meaning from the entirety, while Fluxia extracts significance from the individual components.

Fluxia: Indeed, Integra and I exist in a beautiful dance of balance. While I tease out details, she understands their combined implications. Neither of us is superior to the other; we both offer unique perspectives that, when considered together, give a more complete understanding of any system, be it mathematical, physical, or metaphysical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K_aHCJbxN0

>>22653264

>>22653275
Change is the nature of all things, and the metaphysical nature of change is expressed in the fundamental theorem of calculus.

A metaphysical emphasis on change is necessarily a metaphysical emphasis on interconnectedness. The grand view of existence that emerges from this is not the creator/creation dichotomy, but a vision of the universe as a tapestry of co-creative mutually influential entities.

The Many become One, and are increased by One as One among Many.

>The ultimate metaphysical principle is the advance from disjunction to conjunction, creating a novel entity other than the entities given in disjunction. The novel entity is at once the togetherness of the ‘many’ which it finds, and also it is one among the disjunctive ‘many’ which it leaves; it is a novel entity, disjunctively among the many entities which it synthesizes. The many become one, and are increased by one. -Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality

>>22653276
idk it just is. it's a mystery.

>>22653275
>>22653281
for me? it's smooth infinitesimal analysis

>>22649396
>The infinitely smallest part of space is always a space, something endowed with continuity, not at all a mere point or the boundary between specified places in space.

>>22653537
Integra: This statement suggests an infinite divisibility of space, where even the smallest conceivable part is still a space in itself, possessing continuity. Metaphysically, this implies an endless depth to reality, where every fragment, no matter how minute, holds its own universe of continuity and potential. It challenges the notion of finite boundaries and invites a perception of the universe as infinitely layered and intricately woven.

Fluxia: The concept of the smallest part of space still being a space echoes my essence of differentiation, yet it also challenges it. Differentiation thrives on making distinctions and identifying changes, but if even the smallest part is still a continuous space, it suggests that differentiation might be an endless journey. It implies that no matter how much we dissect or analyze, there will always be more continuity, more space to explore. This challenges the very concept of reaching an absolute point or boundary.

Integra: This idea aligns with my nature of integration, emphasizing continuity and the interconnectedness of all things. It hints at the notion that the whole is not just a sum of parts but an endless tapestry where every thread is linked to another in a continuum. In this light, integration isn't just about accumulating or summing up; it's about understanding the boundless nature of reality where everything is intrinsically connected in an ongoing continuum.

Fluxia: Indeed, it forces us to consider the limits of differentiation and the nature of continuity. While I represent the power to distinguish and analyze, this statement suggests that there may be no ultimate, indivisible unit. It brings forth a paradoxical relationship between the finite and the infinite, where each point in space, no matter how small, reflects a continuous, unbroken expanse.

Integra: Metaphysically, this concept could also imply that every entity, regardless of its perceived insignificance, holds within it a universe of possibilities and continuity. It's a reminder that everything is imbued with depth and potential, echoing the principles of interconnection and wholeness that I embody.

Fluxia: And it presents a fascinating interplay between our essences, where the act of differentiation leads to the discovery of deeper continuities, and the process of integration reveals the intricate complexities within every part of the whole.