I’m guessing that the word is just used differently in different contexts or circles? Your comment made me wonder how much I was just stuck in my own head about this. So I asked ChatGPT about the sentence you’re labelling as nonsensical, and it said:
Saying that what is considered “wholesome” depends on the whole system is not nonsensical at all; in fact, it’s a quite nuanced and comprehensive way of understanding wholesomeness.
[...]
In summary, suggesting that the concept of wholesomeness is contingent upon the entire system in which it is considered encourages a thoughtful, comprehensive approach to ethics and morality. It’s a recognition of complexity in determining what is good or beneficial, which is both rational and pragmatic.
Of course I guess that ChatGPT is pretty good at picking up on meanings which are known anywhere, so this is evidence more that I’m aligning with one existing usage of the word, rather than that all native English speakers will understand it that way (and you’re providing helpful evidence against the latter claim).
The same could be said about e.g. many fake aphorisms people come up with. Something can function to make you pause for thought, but still be nonsensical.
It’s also obvious that ChatGPT is bullshitting because such a short sentence is almost by definition not “comprehensive”
Another data point that this is how some other people understand the word is this comment by Gordon S Worley on LessWrong:
I don’t think it has to be hard to say what wholesomeness is. I don’t know what you mean by the word, but to me it’s simply acting in a way that has compassion and respect to everything, leaving nothing out. Very hard to do, but easy enough to state.
I think that’s just a minority of people retroactively imagining an additional meaning to the word. The ‘whole’ in wholesome is in contrast to being injured, not in contrast to something being partial. so you get: uninjured → healthy → beneficial → morally good. Nothing to do with examining parts vs wholes.
(‘Wholesome’ was a word (‘hailasam’) before English was even its own language, when whole/hail primarily meant being healthy. So it pretty much bypasses the idea of ‘leaving nothing out’. It’s like saying that a brainstorming session has to be some sort of violent, disturbing process because it contains the word ‘storm’ in it. Indeed there’s a completely separate meaning for ‘brainstorm’ which is more like this—a moment of mental confusion essentially, which is basically the opposite of a brainstorming session.)
I appreciate the etymological details, and feel a bit embarrassed that I hadn’t looked into that already.
I guess I’d describe what’s going on as:
The original word meant “healthy”
I’m largely using it to mean “healthy” in the sense of “healthy for the systems we’re embedded in” (which I think is a pretty normal usage)
I’m adding a flavour of “attending to the wholeness” (inspired by Christopher Alexander), which includes both “attending to all the parts” (new) as well as “attending to making things fit with existing parts” (essentially an existing meaning, as this is part of healthy)
This is vibe-wise supported by the presence of the string “whole” as part of “wholesome”
This makes it easier for me (and I guess others) to conceive of and remember this extra sense
I’m guessing that the word is just used differently in different contexts or circles? Your comment made me wonder how much I was just stuck in my own head about this. So I asked ChatGPT about the sentence you’re labelling as nonsensical, and it said:
Of course I guess that ChatGPT is pretty good at picking up on meanings which are known anywhere, so this is evidence more that I’m aligning with one existing usage of the word, rather than that all native English speakers will understand it that way (and you’re providing helpful evidence against the latter claim).
The same could be said about e.g. many fake aphorisms people come up with. Something can function to make you pause for thought, but still be nonsensical.
It’s also obvious that ChatGPT is bullshitting because such a short sentence is almost by definition not “comprehensive”
OK, fair complaint.
Another data point that this is how some other people understand the word is this comment by Gordon S Worley on LessWrong:
I think that’s just a minority of people retroactively imagining an additional meaning to the word. The ‘whole’ in wholesome is in contrast to being injured, not in contrast to something being partial. so you get: uninjured → healthy → beneficial → morally good. Nothing to do with examining parts vs wholes.
(‘Wholesome’ was a word (‘hailasam’) before English was even its own language, when whole/hail primarily meant being healthy. So it pretty much bypasses the idea of ‘leaving nothing out’. It’s like saying that a brainstorming session has to be some sort of violent, disturbing process because it contains the word ‘storm’ in it. Indeed there’s a completely separate meaning for ‘brainstorm’ which is more like this—a moment of mental confusion essentially, which is basically the opposite of a brainstorming session.)
I appreciate the etymological details, and feel a bit embarrassed that I hadn’t looked into that already.
I guess I’d describe what’s going on as:
The original word meant “healthy”
I’m largely using it to mean “healthy” in the sense of “healthy for the systems we’re embedded in” (which I think is a pretty normal usage)
I’m adding a flavour of “attending to the wholeness” (inspired by Christopher Alexander), which includes both “attending to all the parts” (new) as well as “attending to making things fit with existing parts” (essentially an existing meaning, as this is part of healthy)
This is vibe-wise supported by the presence of the string “whole” as part of “wholesome”
This makes it easier for me (and I guess others) to conceive of and remember this extra sense
However, it’s etymologically just a coincidence
Does that seem fair?