(3 reader(s) have rated this comic 4.67 out of 5)
Loading ...
Short Division
Friday, February 23rd, 2007 by admiralIsn’t it odd how many groups are now addressed in plural. It seems strange that collections are always considered to be groups of parts and never whole units distinct from those parts. Sure, the word data is plural. But, unless you are talking about unanimity in all data, even when it does not concern the subject of the collection, the concept of data is singular.
I know that a pen is made of parts. Once assembled, the parts lose their individuality in order to form a whole pen. The parts still exist. It is that the pen is a thing that is made of the parts and not the parts themselves. You would have a hard time writing a letter with a hand full of pen parts.
Likewise, look at how many parts there are in a single computer chip. These parts are not mechanically linked; however, they are still parts. There are not many of us crazy enough to refer to ‘these computer chip.’ Everything is made of atoms and even atoms contain parts.
The genesis of this thinking seems to be an odd form of individualism. A group of people is a collection of people. We do not want to forget the people in favor of the group. Do we not continue to exist apart from the group? Is it the group that defines us?
What this forgets is that the group in not a just collection of people. Unless the group takes on an identity apart from its membership, the group itself does not exist. Does the group not continue to exist even if every member is replaced four times over? A group is as much an organism as any of its members and gains its identity from the combined functions of its organs and not the identity of its organs.
Furthermore, when you refer to a group by its members, are you not implying that the groups conclusions are unanimous? As a stand up philosopher, I find it hard to always agree with myself. The implication that a group’s thoughts and opinions are shared by all of its members, without exception, is hard to accept. I would much rather refer to the singular findings of a group than the plural findings of its members. It is a more defensible stance.
I am not thinking along the lines of the people in the group dissolving into the group. It is the singular conclusion of my current stand up philosophy that the group and its members are separate entities and should be referred to as such. Does this make sense? Should I be referring to my thinking in plural since it is composed of many thoughts?
