Theseus' ship - what is your view?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pivoxa15
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ship
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the philosophical dilemma of identity as illustrated by the story of Theseus' ship, which raises questions about what it means for an object to retain its identity over time despite changes to its components. Participants explore whether the ship remains the same if all its original parts are replaced, and if a reconstructed ship from the original parts constitutes a separate entity. This inquiry extends to human identity, likening the body to the ship, where cells are constantly replaced yet the self remains perceived as continuous. The conversation delves into the nature of existence, suggesting that both physical objects and the self are subject to change, complicating the notion of identity. The role of language in shaping our understanding of identity is also highlighted, indicating that our conceptual frameworks may not adequately capture the complexities of identity over time. Ultimately, the discussion reflects on the abstract nature of identity, questioning whether any entity can be said to have a continuous existence amidst constant change.
  • #31
I think it was Aristotle who suggested, if not said exactly, this quote:

"God is a thought thinking itself."

Whatever else it may mean, it sounds nice. Thought it sounded relevant.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Well what happens if we get all our biological parts, minus the brain, replaced with synthetic or bionic replacements. Or even have some way of replacing our brain, thus eleminating all biological components?
 
  • #33
NavyMan said:
Well what happens if we get all our biological parts, minus the brain, replaced with synthetic or bionic replacements. Or even have some way of replacing our brain, thus eleminating all biological components?

The conclusion I have reached is that if you are going to apply the word entity (in the strictest sense) to something than that something must be a pure thing which never changes even a little bit. If it did change than it would be something else and have another name. So mathematical entities are good objects to label but a physical object is not. We may use the word loosly in everyday language but if the word is to be scrutinised than there is no hope if used on physical objects. Paradox will natually emerge.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
7K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
10K