Wholistic vs holistic

Solution 1:

Wholistic is holistic, but spelled wrong, or at least spelled aberrantly. Holistic is always defined in terms of the philosophy of holism.

Solution 2:

As an educator of English language, literature, and linguistics, I can confirm there is no actual difference between the words. "Holistic" is the formal academic spelling of the word, while "wholistic" is an Anglican version of the spelling (as someone mentioned above.) Both spellings are informally recognized, and both have the same effectual meaning.

Confusion often arises because of the increased familiarity with the term "holistic medicine". It's what we call a "non-coined" term. The original word existed before the modern association, but its definition has now become almost exclusively paired with the medicinal practice. In day-to-day use, people tend to automatically slant the meaning of the word towards medicine in their minds.

In the end, the words are interchangeable, though "wholistic" is not academically recognized.

Solution 3:

"Wholistic" was first used in 1941, while "Holistic" was first used in 1926. (O.E.D)

But none the less, "wholistic" is the preferred word when describing something viewed a whole, rather than in parts, since "holistic medicine" comes with a 'whole' bunch of mental baggage that has nothing to do with viewing something as a whole.

Perhaps it's best to dump the whole thing and just say gestalt :P

Solution 4:

The word "Holistic" relates to the whole of something.

"Wholistic" appears to originally be a misspelled version of holistic, but has become a word used semi-interchangeably.

From Merriam-Webster: "relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts (holistic medicine attempts to treat both the mind and the body) (holistic ecology views humans and the environment as a single system)"

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holistic