- 16,488
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Dumb Questions Thread
- Thread starter Liquid
- 763 comments
- 47,707 views
- 12,624
- United Kingdom
You have a broom. It's a trusty broom you have used for years. After a while, the bristles have all fallen out and got flayed. So you replace the head. You carry on, still calling it your trusty broom, until after a while the handle snaps. So you replace the handle. It is still your trusty broom, even though the head AND the handle have been replaced. The paradox is that none of the original broom is there, yet you still claim it is the same broom. If something has had all its components replaced, is it the same thing?
- 23,444
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
- 16,488
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Then they should've called it the broom of Theseus. But a ship is still a ship, just as Oldham Athletic is still Oldham Athletic despite having a few changes of personnel since its founding in 1895. Are you the same person you were at birth? Is Trigger? Can fictional characters survive the death of the original actor? I'd say yes.
I get what they're trying to say but I think John Sullivan put it better than the original philosopher. To my mind it doesn't seem to apply in all circumstances, just as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" works better as a metaphor than an easily answered factual question. Unless they mean the chicken egg, in which case the asker should perhaps take note of my sig.
Last edited:
- 84,439
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
It's more of a thought-experiment - does the idea of an object persist beyond its physical attributes, and if not at what point does the quality of an original object dissipate - and works better if you think about it in stages.
Theseus has a wooden ship. One day he replaces one of the deckboards with a new one. Is the ship still Theseus's ship?
One day he replaces a hull plank with a new one. Is the ship still Theseus's ship?
One day he replaces the mast with a new one. Is the ship still Theseus's ship?
One day he replaces a rib with a new one. Is the ship still Theseus's ship?
Over time he replaces all of the deckboards with new ones. Is the ship still Theseus's ship?
Over time he replaces all of the hull planks with new ones. Is the ship still Theseus's ship?
Over time he replaces all of the ribs with new ones. Is the ship still Theseus's ship?
One day he replaces the keel with a new one. Is the ship still Theseus's ship?
Eventually he has replaced all of the original components with new ones, none of which sailed on the original ship, with no surviving pieces of the original. Is the ship still Theseus's ship?
If you answer "yes" at all stages, the idea of the object is more important than the material it's made from. If you answer "no" at any stage, you have a threshold value for how much of the original material must be present for the object to remain the object (and that value requires justification).
Hobbes' corollary is also interesting; each time Theseus replaces part of his ship, the shipbuilder uses that part to construct a new ship. Eventually the shipbuilder has a ship made entirely out of the original pieces of Theseus's ship. Is that Theseus's ship as well, instead, not, or neither are?
If both are Theseus's ship, then both the idea and the material possess the quality of the object. If the "original" is still the only one and the reconstructed ship is not then only the idea persists, while if it's the other way about then it's the other way about. If neither is Theseus's ship then... why?
There is a modern equivalent too, and it's why Ford Escort Mexico VIN plates (the keel) sell on ebay for thousands, why people pay millions for Continuation cars (the idea), and why people have such rage-boners over matching numbers (the material)...
- 16,488
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Does Theseus use both ships? I guess I'm firmly in the "idea" camp but thanks for explaining that it depends. If Trigger needs a broom he's not going to go to the pile of discarded handles and heads but'll use the implement in his van or store cupboard. The cast off parts cease to function as part of his broom when he chucks them.
Last edited:
- 6,967
- South Africa
While making a toast this morning, I realized something. We know (well, at least I know) that manufacturers can make electrical cords in other colours besides black, so why is an overwhelming number of them all black?
No practical answers, please. I can already imagine them myself... 🤔
Edit: I googled it, too. And surprise, surprise... Since when did Quora start asking people to 'log in' to see the full answer? That never happened before. Fishy.
No practical answers, please. I can already imagine them myself... 🤔
Edit: I googled it, too. And surprise, surprise... Since when did Quora start asking people to 'log in' to see the full answer? That never happened before. Fishy.
Last edited:
- 5,644
- Ulricehamn
- 16,488
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
When I moved back in after my house was top to bottom refurbished it sure felt like a new place. But the bills still came to the same address.
I guess if I ordered a steak which tasted like ass and the waiter substituted a fresh one it wouldn't count as the same cut of meat, though.
/DotiniRamble
Last edited:
- 16,488
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
And...?
I'm not about to get any commemorative plaques made saying "this building was built on the site of..." any time soon. When the street was the old BASF magnetic tape factory I could buy that it was a different set of buildings. But it's been continually used for the same purpose since 1978.
The garden shed is new, though.
Last edited:
- 7,527
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
I think the paradox comes down to a limitation of language. We call things like ships and brooms and whatever else singular items, but they aren't. The only true fundamental "things" are indivisible particles. Everything else is a collection of a bunch of particles arranged in a certain way on average, and that average can even change over time. Asking whether ship A or ship B is the real ship is simply asking a question that isn't very specific.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,003
- Mile High City
This is to say that identity dose not exist, because "indivisible particles" are very difficult to identify as well - they behave according to potential and probability rather than instances. So if the whole is never more than the sum of its parts (in terms of identity), and the "existence" of the parts is simply an expression of probability rather than an instance, identity as a concept ceases.
- 7,527
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
This is true, but it's just as true that on the macro scale things are a lot more definite. On the particle level the ship is the size and mass of the entire universe potentially, but Wikipedia will give you a very specific set of dimensions when describing the ship. You can safely use them in place of the real probabilistic dimensions in 99% of cases and you will convey/receive/work out whatever information you need.
Rather than identity being impossible to define, I think it's more accurate to say that identity is multifaceted and we need to specify what portion of identity is relevant to us. So if the ship has been completely rebuilt such that the one in the water has none of the original parts and the one in the repair shop contains all of the original parts then Theseus probably considers the ship in the water to be the real ship because it's his property and society around him agrees with that. However a historian interested in Theseus' previous voyages might consider the repair shop ship to be the real one because it's made of parts that have the wear and tare of use on them, which contains information about the use of the ship. They're both correct. It's similar to physics where using Newtonian physics is correct in many cases despite all the equations being technically wrong because they don't take relativity into account.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,003
- Mile High City
Identity is subjective? I think, for the way I was using that term "identity", that renders it non-existent for me still. The very question at hand is whether identity is an objective property. I don't think anyone doubts that you could define identity subjectively. For example, suppose you said that the ship was Theseus's ship until it was only 50% original, after which it was a new ship. Someone might say "why 50%", and your answer is "because that's like, my opinion man". Sure. But we were discussing whether there was an inescapable, objective, property of identity.
You're not objectively Exorcet, its your opinion that you're Exorcet.
Last edited:
- 84,439
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I find it hits harder if you think about cars.
If you get an original, surviving stunt Charger from The Dukes of Hazzard, but every component other than the VIN plate* has been replaced with new pieces as a rolling restoration - such that no part of it ever actually did any stunts on The Dukes of Hazzard - is it actually an original, surviving stunt Charger from The Dukes of Hazzard?
*And it's possible to replace those as well, so you can't even be sure of that...
If you get an original, surviving stunt Charger from The Dukes of Hazzard, but every component other than the VIN plate* has been replaced with new pieces as a rolling restoration - such that no part of it ever actually did any stunts on The Dukes of Hazzard - is it actually an original, surviving stunt Charger from The Dukes of Hazzard?
*And it's possible to replace those as well, so you can't even be sure of that...
- 7,527
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
I'm saying that there is, but language isn't really designed to be precise enough to describe identity in many cases. We settle for a good enough description that allows us to communicate.
Both people were correct in my previous example not because identity is subjective, but because they were looking for different things. Despite their looking for different things, common language could describe both ships as Theseus' ship. However if each person were asked to be unreasonably specific, they would call each ship a different thing.
- 12,753
- Seattle-ish
Sounds like the Eddie Dye Roadster. The Ayala Brothers built a track-nose roadster for Eddie Dye in 1952. It won numerous awards and was featured on the cover of Hop Up Magazine back in 1952.
Tastes change, and by 1964 the track nose had been replaced by an upright grill. Everybody agreed it was still the Eddie Dye roadster. Here it is in the 1964 movie The Lively Set.
They didn't just throw that nose away, though. Someone bought it and built a new car around it, trying to replicate the original look of the Eddie Dye roadster. By the 1980s, people began realizing how important it was to save the classic hot rods. So the owner of the Eddie Dye roadster built a replacement track nose. Now there were two cars claiming to be the Eddie Dye roadster. About ten years ago, one person bought both and reunited the original nose with the original car, so the true Eddie Dye roadster has been preserved. And there's a really nice emergency backup Eddie Dye roadster in case the orignal is unable to fulfill it's duties as the Eddie Dye roadster. But for about 30 years there were two cars with legitimate claims to being the real Eddie Dye roadster.
Tastes change, and by 1964 the track nose had been replaced by an upright grill. Everybody agreed it was still the Eddie Dye roadster. Here it is in the 1964 movie The Lively Set.
They didn't just throw that nose away, though. Someone bought it and built a new car around it, trying to replicate the original look of the Eddie Dye roadster. By the 1980s, people began realizing how important it was to save the classic hot rods. So the owner of the Eddie Dye roadster built a replacement track nose. Now there were two cars claiming to be the Eddie Dye roadster. About ten years ago, one person bought both and reunited the original nose with the original car, so the true Eddie Dye roadster has been preserved. And there's a really nice emergency backup Eddie Dye roadster in case the orignal is unable to fulfill it's duties as the Eddie Dye roadster. But for about 30 years there were two cars with legitimate claims to being the real Eddie Dye roadster.
Last edited:
- 7,527
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
I was afraid of that, and I'm not sure how I could word things better to convey what I mean. I don't think you can label identity subjective just because people are using ambiguous terms. At most, what the words "Theseus' ship" are thought to mean could be subjective, but the concepts that Theseus and the historian hold in their minds aren't.
- 5,141
- Nicest part of hell
Reminds me, I know a lot of hardcore gun collectors. Those firearms that have no parts replaced and all the parts belong to the rifle, all having the same serial number etc. will be worth many MANY times those that have replacement parts in them even if they are periodically correct and well done, look correct and don't alter the function in any way. That factor is amplified if its a firearm that with a certain provenance. Just by swapping a couple minor parts you can decrease its worth from lets say $ 50.000 to $ 2.000
So at least in that particular instance the case is pretty clear - replacement parts make historical firearms much less desirable because they are seen as being less of what they originally were.
I can imagine that the more expendable parts objects have the less parts originality is an issue. I think few collectors would care if an original Ford Model T had new brakes or a new clutch installed but for a rifle collector just replacing the butt plate of the stock would lower the worth of the complete rifle dramatically.
So at least in that particular instance the case is pretty clear - replacement parts make historical firearms much less desirable because they are seen as being less of what they originally were.
I can imagine that the more expendable parts objects have the less parts originality is an issue. I think few collectors would care if an original Ford Model T had new brakes or a new clutch installed but for a rifle collector just replacing the butt plate of the stock would lower the worth of the complete rifle dramatically.
Last edited:
