TITLE 4: In some areas of knowledge we try to reduce a complex whole to simple

components, but in others we try to integrate simple components into a complex whole. Discuss
this distinction with reference to Mathematics and one other area of knowledge.

In many fields of study, there is an interplay between breaking complex ideas down into simpler

components and building up complexity from simple elements. This dynamic manifests in

different ways in areas of knowledge like mathematics and art. In mathematics, art or other

disciplines, a continual challenge lies in determining the right approach to complexity. Questions

were raised like: should we aim to simplify a complex whole down into basic components? Or

synthesizing simple pieces into complex wholes? Whether art or mathematics there is a distinct

difference in the approach taken towards complexity. This essay aims to delve into this

distinction by examining two distinct areas of knowledge ;Mathematics and Art. By exploring

the varieties of complexity, the relationship between complex/simple ideas and objects, and the

interplay between concepts and propositions, we can shed light on the intricate coaction of

reductionism and integration within these domains.

First of all, Mathematics relies extensively on reductionism; in Mathematics, reductionism can

be interpreted as the philosophy that all mathematics can (or ought to) be based on a common

foundation. The purpose of reductionism is to breakdown intricate problems into simpler

components, therefore allow mathematicians to gain insights into the underlying principles

governing these systems. Reductionism achieves the goal of explanatory simplification through a

variety of logical analysis methods. One example is geometry, which breaks down shapes into

elements like edges, vertices, and angles. A further example is calculus, which uses

differentiation and integration to decompose curved functions into more manageable linear parts

and the massive breakthroughs for instance, the complex motions of physical objects are
simplified into basic kinematic equations like s=vt. The object's specific properties are removed,

leaving only variables for displacement, velocity, and time. The end result is a straightforward

relationship that reveals an underlying pattern that is applicable across contexts. "The aim of

science," stated mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, "is to seek the simplest

explanations of complex facts" (Whitehead, 1967, p. 105). Mathematics is an example of this

pursuit of simplicity.

While abstraction reduces complexity, some may argue that it also obscures meaning. When too

much context is removed, concepts become detached from reality. As a quote from Einstein he

cautioned, “make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler” (Einstein, 1996, p. 4).

Abstraction is a double-edged sword – it brings clarity but loses connection. There is a difficult

balance between simplifying while retaining relevance.

In contrast to mathematics, art often flows in the reverse direction—from simplicity to

complexity. Art often pursues complexity over simplicity, instead of reducing the world to basic

abstractions, therefore we can say that art indulges in the depth of experience. A painting

combines colours, textures, shapes, and subjects to convey a scene, Van Gogh’s “Starry Night”

illustrates this, combining the modest elements of color, brushstroke and contour into an

immersive world pulsing with life and longing. Such works demonstrate how art integrates

elementary sensory qualities to create holistic experiences that engage the mind and heart by

combining various sensory elements into a seamless aesthetic whole. The interaction of the parts

creates the meaning. In the words of critic John Ruskin, "getting at the whole truth...not one part
of truth only, is the aim of art”(Ruskin, 1892, p. 78). Art embraces the abundance while maths

seeks out the essence.

This holistic approach allows art to represent nuanced perspectives. For example, Picasso's

Guernica combines fragmented depictions of distree and suffering into a potent anti-war work.

Complex emotions are conveyed by the disparate parts in a way that literal images are unable to.

As Dostoevsky said, “beauty is mysterious as well as terrible” (Dostoevsky, 2002, p. 299). The

intricacy of art allows it to capture life’s mysteries. Though, unifying divergent elements is also

challenging. Too many pieces without coherence can descend into chaos because unity in variety

requires a balance. According to Maxim Gorky, the author of Russian novels, "the irrationality of

art is quite rational" (Gorky, 1959, p. 155). The way that art balances diversity follows a logical

pattern. Masterworks demonstrate this logical synthesis of various viewpoints into a significant

whole.

Thus, complexity is approached in opposite ways by mathematics and art. Mathematics

simplifies the messy world into abstract rational relationships which gives mathematical

knowledge its precision and universality. Art, in contrast,embraces the cacophony of sensations

that bombard our consciousness, It combines them into a seamless aesthetic experience. This

holism enables art to convey complexities and meaning.

Importantly, neither mathematics nor art adheres solely to one approach because both simplicity

and complexity have limitations. As mentioned, excessive abstraction strips away context,

making concepts detached and artificial. But unfettered complexity also has downsides.

According to the psychologist William James, a complex idea or object can be distinguished
from a simple one based on the number of its constituent parts and the intricacy of their

interrelations. As either factor increases, there is greater cognitive load to processed the idea or

object. An excessively intricate concept or entity can become impenetrable (James, 1918, p. 89).

This relates to Immanuel Kant's distinction between concepts and propositions. Concepts are the

basic elements of thought. High-level propositions can be constructed from simple ideas. For

instance, in Euclid's Elements, complex proofs incorporate fundamental geometric ideas like

point, line, and plane. Although the propositions can get very complex, the concepts themselves

can still be fairly intuitive and simple (Kant, 1998, p. 105). Therefore, whereas math simplifies

ideas and complicates claims, art simplifies parts and complicates the final result. The difference

is probably caused by the divergent goals of these fields of knowledge. Mathematics looks for

enduring abstract truths about a well-ordered world. Simple, all-encompassing ideas thus take

precedence over specific contextual information. However, art explores transient, personal

human experiences. As a result, art enjoys the concrete and intricate, fusing simplicity with

profundity.

In conclusion, The distinction between reducing a complex whole to simple components and

integrating simple components into a complex whole is evident in Mathematics and Art.

Mathematics and Art take diverging approaches towards complexity in their efforts to understand

the world. Mathematics simplifies messy reality into elegant theories, finding parsimony and

clarity in abstraction. In contrast, art emulates the richness of human experience, constructing

complexity from deceptively simple building blocks. Neither reductionist nor holistic approaches

are intrinsically superior – both offer meaningful insights, the choice of approach depends on the
nature of the subject and the desired outcome. As exemplars of objective and subjective

knowledge respectively, mathematics and art showcase the diverse function and limitations of

simplicity and complexity across different domains. Ultimately how an area of knowledge

grapples with complexity reveals its core values and limitations.

References:

1. Aristotle. (1996). Poetics. Penguin.

2. Dostoevsky, F. (2002). The brothers Karamazov. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

3. Einstein, A. (1996). Quotable Einstein. Princeton University Press.

4. Gorky, M. (1959). Reminiscences of Tolstoy, Chekhov and Andreev. Vintage.

5. James, W. (1918). The principles of psychology, Vol 1. Dover.

6. Kant, I. (1998). Critique of pure reason. Cambridge University Press.

7. Ruskin, J. (1892). Modern painters. J. Wiley & Sons.

8. Whitehead, A. N. (1967). Science and the modern world. Free Press.