This saying is generally applied in a relationship context (I had to point that out upfront as those prone to arithmetic would have already noted that 0.5 + 0.5 = 1).
For the record, I should note that this saying is actually the first part of a longer one1The full saying was also applied personally rather than as a general statement, which I feel is more acceptable usage.. However, people generally just quote this first bit. I’m considering this saying as it’s used out in the wild as opposed to how it’s original author may have intended it. How it’s used in the wild is what we have to contend with so that’s only fair. Here are some examples from a quick interwebs search as illustration, taking the top hits which were actual posts from the first page: 1, 2, 3.
The basic premise is that if you chuck two broken (half) people into a relationship they don’t necessarily magically become better or complete each other – they will probably remain on the same level (or worse, depending who you ask). Thus this saying warns against the perhaps more traditional mentality of “finding my other half”.
There is most definitely an element of truth in this. You wouldn’t want to be around a half person and if you expect someone else to fill your life for you then you are surely mistaken. I think this sliver of truth is part of the reason for it’s uptake – people see that far and look no further.
I’ve heard this saying quoted a few times in my lifetime and it had a strange effect on me. I could feel that my mind had been violated, but I couldn’t quite pinpoint why. I wanted to object at the time but had only feelings and no words to express them. This saying badgered me though and has now inspired a response to it and similar sayings.
The problems
This saying is stupid. Some of the reason is the way people tend to use it and quote it. To avoid getting caught up in whether we should blame the saying or how people use it let’s just combine them: If a saying lends itself to be used in stupid ways then it’s a stupid saying. This is the same philosophy we’d apply to any other tool or implement. Let’s look at the elements which I propose make this saying stupid.
Truth
As stated the saying does have an element of truth. Don’t expect others to complete you. Fix yourself. Got it. It’s a good idea.
The problem is this isn’t the only idea in the saying. It also rejects the conventional wisdom that two halves do make a whole, asserting this to be false. Instead, two wholes make a whole. Effectively then, a relationship has nothing to add. If you’re a whole person outside a relationship, you’re a whole person inside too. No extra value. That’s it.
Try repeating this a few times and see if it gets more or less ridiculous.
It’s common wisdom that relationships can add value to life. Sure, they can be negative too, but the idea that there can be no extra value has to be rejected. I challenge anyone who would want to support the claim of this saying to then live it out: Go and be a hermit, divorce now if you’re married, break up if you have a significant other, forsake your family friends and others. After all, if you’re whole you’ll lose nothing.
Maybe this wasn’t the original intention of the saying. Maybe we should give it the benefit of the doubt, accept it for the first idea and excuse it for the oversight in the second idea. However, the gross devaluation of relationships conveyed by the second idea is too much collateral damage to accept. I mean, that’s the basic implication.
Conventional wisdom said there was extra value. Sure, maybe it’s not always exactly additive. But that doesn’t mean its nothing either.
Helpfulness
Truth is not enough to make a good saying – the truth needs to be useful or helpful in some way, otherwise it’s a mere matter of fact, like saying the sky is blue2It’s actually violet with no real consequence. Ok, two halves don’t make a whole, so now what? 3(Generally, the second part of the original saying is left out, which would have made the whole more useful)… . Shall I fix myself? But am I half or whole? Ok maybe half fix myself? How do I fix myself? The saying leaves plenty of room for people to question their wholeness but little direction to the attainment of wholeness.
Precision
People tend to quote this in a conversation. It’s vague. Wait what? Who’s the half person in this story? Is it me? How do we measure what makes a person half or whole? If I am a half person, should I isolate myself from relationships until I make myself a whole person? What if I’m a 3/4 person, is that good enough?
The reality though is that life’s seldom so simple, so trying to encapsulate it in a simple saying cuts all the corners and short changes everyone.
Good sayings are precise. If you’re about to quote this in a conversation, stop and think. Who are you implying is the half person? And is telling them this really going to help? What is it actually that’s (you think) making them a half person? Like if they have insecurities, emotional baggage or whatever it is, wouldn’t it be better to point this out directly rather than hitting them with some generic slogan which will leave them guessing the details?
Malevolence
Really, I find this saying rather destructive in the sense that it demands perfection – and lacking receipt thereof prescribes damnation. People will either walk away from this with a warm fuzzy feeling of moral affirmation that they are whole people (which would probably be a false sense, as no one’s really “whole”) or with a downtrodden feeling that they’re lesser people.
Sloganasunetos
Fine, I needed a new word for this one. It’s based on slogan, which is some catchy phrase. One problem with slogans is that they can often be recited with little to no understanding of the actual meaning. Or, one could forget the meaning but still recite the slogan. So, I define sloganasunetos4(= slogan + the transliteration of ἀσύνετος, which apparently means “without understanding”) as a metric of the ability to use a saying without understanding its meaning. This is an important metric, since a saying high in sloganasunetos is likely to be misused. People will carry it around unsheathed, just waiting for the right time to jab it in the conversation.
Egotistical or Moral Superiority bonus points
Come on let’s admit it. This saying has potential as a feel good moral superiority statement. By quoting this saying, the dispenser could be identifying or asserting themselves as one of the elite whole ones who’s managed (or at least knows how) to get their lives together. We’re lucky if their wisdom and expertise diffuses down to the rest of us plebs.
Kind of like virtue signalling.
Too personal?
Am I taking this saying too personally? Quite likely. But isn’t the point of such a saying to be able to take, and apply, it personally? Except maybe be careful with this one.
The QWACS
In order to measure the worthiness of a saying I have proposed the Quantitative Worthiness Assessment for Sayings or QWACS for short. Let’s see how this measures up.
Truth is -1. The sliver of truth in the first idea is vastly outweighed by the blatant rejection and contradiction of all conventional wisdom in the second idea.
I’m going to say helpfulness is -1. The reason is I believe this question could send people off on misplaced searches for wholeness without even knowing what’s needed, especially given the vague precision of the saying and that we don’t even know what a half is5Besides that you can’t put two of them together to get a whole.
Wit is 0. Precision is -1 at least. Malevolence is -1. Sloganasunetos is -1. Superiority signalling is -1. That gives a QWACS of -2.92. Really, it’s not a good saying.
Conclusion
This saying has a catchy slogan feel and leaves the dispenser with a glorious feeling of superiority. As a result it’s commonly used out of place and with no real benefit to any recipients. It’s a stupid saying. Rather just say what you actually intend to mean by it. The world will be a better place if you don’t use it.
Footnotes
- 1The full saying was also applied personally rather than as a general statement, which I feel is more acceptable usage.
- 2It’s actually violet
- 3(Generally, the second part of the original saying is left out, which would have made the whole more useful)… .
- 4(= slogan + the transliteration of ἀσύνετος, which apparently means “without understanding”)
- 5Besides that you can’t put two of them together to get a whole