Whole and Universal

As has been previously discussed, Aristotle's Logic inverts his Political Holism.  But, the inversion more than merely exchanges the terms involved.  For, in the transformation of Whole-Part to Particular-Universal, while Part and Particular might be exchangeable, Whole and Universal are not.  For example, in Kant's appropriation of the Aristotelian Practical Syllogism, the Universal, the Kingdom of Ends, cannot be a Whole, since the Whole could be the Human Species, while the Universal cannot be, since it includes a non-Human--his deity, as well as any other non-human Rational entity.  More generally, Universal connotes all of a set of Particulars, which, unlike the Parts of a Whole, are otherwise inherently ununified.  Indeed, for Kant, constructing such unification is the fundamental problem of Morality, the effort of which is the foundation of his Theology. In contrast, any such Holistic project consists in making explicit the implicit collective unity, and/or further developing it, with therefore no place for a transcendent deity, and no need for an associated Theology.  So, Kant's doctrine bears out the full implications of Aristotle's inversion.