Whole and Part

A piece of wood in a boat is only a part of the Boat. If the Boat is describing itself it will never say i am the specific piece of wood. The Boat would say i am the sum total of all woods + nails and whatever . So my analogy is description from point of view the describer in relation things around him.

Whole = Sum total of all parts or Union of all parts like W= pUpUp. Whole by definition is complete and not parts and bits. The describer ( say it is a tree) will never say this branch is mine (unless it has fallen down and separated). As long as the 'part' is part of the whole it will not say part is mine. This is because while 'part' is part of the whole it has no individual self in relation to the whole. The part and the whole are the same. So we automatically deduce that when words which say to the effect that it belongs to me or it is mine...object is separate and different from the 'I' (describer).

Suppose the individual 'I' knows what he is. He is sum total of x+y+z. Then 'I' would never say X is mine because x is part of I and I is sum total and not individual part. I is one complete set and not parts. Since it involves self contradiction whenever I says x is mine it ought to imply that x is not part of I.

At personal level. human body is not hair, hands, legs etc..it is sum total of everything. Even if it has less than a piece of hair then it is not human body.The truth in its purest form..a thing by itself it exists for the sake of existence.

One makes logical fallacy here when you say human body is composed of..x, y,z organs etc and at the same time they belong to the body. When human body is sum total of organs and more how can you say that parts belong to the body? organs are part of the body. So they do not belong to the body. They constitute the body. When you define whole as sum total of parts whole already includes parts. So when you say part belongs to the whole it is like saying whole (including part)+additional same part.

'This part belongs to the whole.' What is whole? whole is sum total of all parts including the part referred in the previous section. So when whole already includes part, how can you say it again is part of whole. A particular part once it merges with the whole does not exist outside the whole.

This same concept of existence of 'i' or 'whole' is referred to in logic as law of identity. Aristotle in his book on Metaphysics explains the nature of a thing. He concludes that a thing is primarily its essence. Essence is attributeless. There would be a separate post to understand the 'essence' of thing.