In one sense, a forest is simply a collection of individual trees; but it’s more than that. It’s also a collection of trees that exist in a particular relation to one another, and you can’t tell what that relation is just by looking at each individual tree. Take a thousand trees and scatter them across the Great Plains of North America, and all you have are a thousand trees. But take those same trees and bring them close together and you have a forest. Same individual trees, but in one case a forest and in another case just a lot of trees.
Johnson, Allan G. The Forest, the Trees and the One Thing. In the forest and the trees: sociology as life, practice and promise. Philadelphia. Temple University Press. 1997 pp. 7-35. Prepared 7/21/2004, accessed 2/24/2009.
I believe the point Johnson is trying to facilitate is that looking at individuals, or ‘ones’ does not give a clear description of the whole (nature). In the same sense, looking at ‘all’ (the forest) does not tell us specifically about the individuals. It is the combination of the two, and the relationships between them, that give us a total perspective.
I am going to reason the way Aristotle does here. I don't believe that we can gain a truly good understanding of nature by either looking at "one" or a "whole". For to become a "whole" something has to be "one" first. And to become a "one" something has to be a "whole" first. To become a a forest, many individual trees need to be put together. And to become a tree, the tree has to be taken out of the forest and looked at individually. But since a whole can't simply become a one as the uneducated can't simply become an educated without the "hypokeimenon" or underlying thing, to truly understand nature we have to look at all three. The whole and the one and the underlying thing. Whatever that thing might be that lets nature become one or a whole, only Aristotle knows.
ReplyDeleteI found your analogy and the use of Johnson's article very helpful, as I've been having quite a difficult time wrapping my head around Aristotle's contradictory thoughts. I completely agree that deeming everything as either "one" or "all" doesn't help either way, and that instead we have to somehow accept a dichotomous relationship of both and everything in between. I'm glad that other research can be done to clarify what we've been discussing in class. I think I'll be doing more outside research from now on to organize my opinions on our discussions.
ReplyDeleteIsn't a forest more then just a group of trees, I thought that we determined in class that it was the group of trees as well as all other life within it. However, does that include the soil, fallen leaves, rocks, streams, these things are not alive, but I feel as though they are a part of this, because it all has a role in making the machine of a forrest run.
ReplyDelete