There is a little discussion growing about the philosophy of the color Green. While most colors seem rather well outlined and coherent, Green seems to have some issues and bigger internal conflicts than the other ingredients in the Color Pie.
It seems to me, that the topic is of such vastness and complexity that it deserves the space only an own thread can offer.
Feel free to discuss.
For starters, some of the points outlined by the various participants of the on-going discussion:
Green is the color most appropriately associated with the natural world, despite w/e else you may think; at the very least read Rosewater's article. If you don't like the color wheel, or his take, then you simply don't like green as magic has outlined it. That's fine, let's just move on. Green wants things to take a holistic and harmonic view of the world, minimizing trying to rationalize, dissect, and otherwise abuse the naturally occurring forces in the world, as well as the things that happen to you that you have no control over. It is certainly the most stoic of the 5 colors - the least reactionary.
The problem for me is that Green's philosophy, as described in Rosewater's articles, is either inadequately defined or blatantly inconsistent. That leads to problems like the Green Phyrexians: with an obviously hypocritical ideology. I think we need to improve our depictions of Green. Green has a very strong mechanical background, but we need to sit down and work a way to give Green a good philosophical background too.
(Red has this problem on-and-off as well, to be fair. White, Blue, and Black are all pretty straightforward.)
So we can offer alternate definitions like that. DavFlamerock has another attempt in his signature, by willpell. That said defining Green in terms of holism, as I think you're leaning towards and willpell explicitly does, pretty obviously doesn't work either. Holism is far too vague a concept and can fit into any colour capable of seeing the metaphorical big picture.
You can make some arguments that there are internal tensions in other colours. Red has a constant issue with freedom: what if I use my freedom to take away yours? That's why Red contains bullies and oppressors, and freedom fighters and liberators. There's an internal clash.
There are some others. White can end up in cases where its moral code demands contradictory things: the whole lesser evil problem. Black can encounter situations where self-interest requires Black to abandon its own ideal of self-interest. Blue wants to be rational, but is unable to rationally defend its own desire there.
For the most part these internal conflicts are good. There are little fractures in every colour. It is in responding to the problems posed by these fractures that we see individuals' true mettle. But at the very least, in the cases of White, Black, and Blue, you can produce coherent, internally consistent interpretations of the colour. Red has a little more trouble, but I don't think it's impossible. The essence of the colour is fine: WotC just needs to depict it a little better. Red's problem is implementation, not the basic ideas.
Green's issue is that its internal conflict isn't just a little fracture at the edges, but an immense ravine running through the very heart of the colour. Red has issues with what freedom allows and if you can use freedom to restrict freedom: but the idea is sound. White gets into problems when it starts to worry about what morality actually dictates and under what circumstances you can break your morality: but morality itself, as an ideal, is unproblematic. Similarly for rationality and self-interest. They lead to some issues, but they are not the issues themselves.
It's just... nature doesn't lead to some minor fringe issues. Nature is the issue.
Have fun! And stay nice children ;)