Philosophical questions

Just for some fun and intellectual stimulation, why don't we post some philosophical questions and get everyone's take on them?

I'll start with a really old one, the ship of Theseus.

In a nutshell, the question is, if you were to build a boat, you'd start with a certain number of parts -- the mast, the planks that made up the hull and the decks, etc.

If, over the years, you eventually had to replace every original part on this boat with a new part, can it still be said to be the same object it was at the beginning?

Might seem like a boring question, but I always think about what it implies about people and how they grow and change over time. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts.

It’s not the same boat but it’s the same idea.

eddie wrote:It’s not the same boat but it’s the same idea.

I think I agree but of course I have to go farther -- let's say I built it and named it, considered it my boat and sailed it in the same general part of the world.

I agree, it's not the same materials it used to be, but otherwise, is it not still my boat, with the name I gave it, and the job I gave it?

Does that mean that there's more to an object than just the parts it's made of, but that part of what it is is who it belongs to, what they think of it, what they do with it, etc.?

Or is everything, including people, impermanent and ever-changing, if only in a subtle way? After all, the Mount Everest and the Grand Canyon of 2021 are not what they were 50 years ago, are they?

Perhaps it’s a person’s perception of what something is?

Maybe nothing exists except through our perception of it.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:It’s not the same boat but it’s the same idea.

I think I agree but of course I have to go farther -- let's say I built it and named it, considered it my boat and sailed it in the same general part of the world.

I agree, it's not the same materials it used to be, but otherwise, is it not still my boat, with the name I gave it, and the job I gave it?

Does that mean that there's more to an object than just the parts it's made of, but that part of what it is is who it belongs to, what they think of it, what they do with it, etc.?

Or is everything, including people, impermanent and ever-changing, if only in a subtle way? After all, the Mount Everest and the Grand Canyon of 2021 are not what they were 50 years ago, are they?

I love this question, posted it on Facebook a few years ago too. For me, it IS the same boat. Incrementally replacing parts doesn’t change what that boat is. Every new part became part of the whole, which IMO makes it different to if your boat crashed and every part had to be replace (ergo, being a new boat).

Best comparison would be to humans, whose cells replace themselves every 7-10 years, but we are still the same person (in the basic sense).

It is partly perception too, I agree on that. But perhaps a better way would be the say that by living and experiencing a place or thing, we begin to apply a life of its own to a thing (though obviously it does not). If a Chinese Emperor came back from the dead and saw the Hall of Supreme Harmony in the Forbidden City, he would believe it to be the same as his own despite years of renovation.

So yeah, long way of saying it is the same boat

I read this thread last night, wrote out an answer, then didn't post it because I cant really put into words what I mean.

Nearest I can come to is...say the house you live in you built, or bought new, it has no history.
You live in that house for many years, it seeps into it the warmth or the coldness of the people living there.
Long after you have gone that house will keep those vibes, maybe forever, even when new people live there and add, it still holds the past.

Maybe that's why we can walk into a strange house and either feel instantly comfortable or uneasy.

I don't know if that addresses the question or not, maybe I have gone off on a tangent.

Back to the boat...yes, it's still the same boat.

Thank you both for the likes.
I read my answer back and wondered if it would make sense to anyone in regard to the question, or whether I had missed the point, nice to know you 'get' my drift.

I like this thread. x

Ben Reilly wrote:Just for some fun and intellectual stimulation, why don't we post some philosophical questions and get everyone's take on them?

I'll start with a really old one, the ship of Theseus.

In a nutshell, the question is, if you were to build a boat, you'd start with a certain number of parts -- the mast, the planks that made up the hull and the decks, etc.

If, over the years, you eventually had to replace every original part on this boat with a new part, can it still be said to be the same object it was at the beginning?

Might seem like a boring question, but I always think about what it implies about people and how they grow and change over time. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts.

Seeing as our bodies regenerate and replace certain cells in our bodies every 7 years, can we be said to be the same person as each 7 years passes?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Just for some fun and intellectual stimulation, why don't we post some philosophical questions and get everyone's take on them?

I'll start with a really old one, the ship of Theseus.

In a nutshell, the question is, if you were to build a boat, you'd start with a certain number of parts -- the mast, the planks that made up the hull and the decks, etc.

If, over the years, you eventually had to replace every original part on this boat with a new part, can it still be said to be the same object it was at the beginning?

Might seem like a boring question, but I always think about what it implies about people and how they grow and change over time. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts.

Seeing as our bodies regenerate and replace certain cells in our bodies every 7 years, can we be said to be the same person as each 7 years passes?

Sorta what I was thinking.  I have a titanium knee...am I on the way to becoming a new person?

I don't think parts replacement constitutes a new person...or a new house.  There's the design, as well as the personality, the appearance and the memories.

It's like the inverse of something I have pondered.  Sometimes I think of a female friend I once knew, long, long ago.  It's a road not taken in my life.  It would be fun to meet her once again.  It would be wonderful to share some of those feelings and sensations.

Then I think, would it be the same vibe?  All the experiences we haven't gone through together.  All the memories we didn't share.  It takes time together to make someone special.  And I just think...no, it's gone.

Aww Quill, you have talked about this woman before.
Lost love??? give it a try to get back in touch, what have you got to lose?

I think we will always feel like we are “us” even if we have new body parts or regenerate cells etc, or as Syl put it - a house having a personality. I think that’s because we always feel we are more than just a bunch of cells making up a body, ergo, we have a soul or something similar...and that’s who we “are”.

Let's try another question.

Is it possible for anyone to be truly objective? Or are those who claim to be objective, and truly believe they are, self-deluded?

I guess most people think they are objective especially when it comes to big issues like politics etc and especially if they’re avid followers of a certain political party, but I think it’s hard to be objective if you’re the type of person who can’t see a fault in your party, for example.
So no, I don’t think a lot of people are objective. It’s probably a tall order for most of us.

I don’t think highly religious people can be objective about religion either, for the same reasons.

eddie wrote:I guess most people think they are objective especially when it comes to big issues like politics etc and especially if they’re avid followers of a certain political party, but I think it’s hard to be objective if you’re the type of person who can’t see a fault in your party, for example.
So no, I don’t think a lot of people are objective. It’s probably a tall order for most of us.

I don’t think highly religious people can be objective about religion either, for the same reasons.

I think it's possible to cultivate objectivity -- that anybody can become more objective -- but I don't think anyone can achieve total objectivity. We all have too many mental blind spots.

I tend to agree up to a point. I don’t think that just “anybody” can become more objective. For some, it’s a matter of reprogramming their whole belief system.
It’s almost like you have to allow your whole belief system to die first, then be reborn.

eddie wrote:I tend to agree up to a point. I don’t think that just “anybody” can become more objective. For some, it’s a matter of reprogramming their whole belief system.
It’s almost like you have to allow your whole belief system to die first, then be reborn.

I do think some people have to do that. At the very least, it takes challenging your own most cherished beliefs, and making yourself face the idea that something that makes you feel uncomfortable may actually be true.

Doing that doesn't make you more objective, but it does make you more ready to be objective.

I don't think people should use their beliefs as a way to feel comfortable, secure, "right," etc. Beliefs should be the best conclusion you can come up with based on what you've learned, and they shouldn't be clinged to too tightly.

What is objectivity?  I think it is something built on equivalency - two things are either equal or they are not.  You might say, I'm being objective here, and here's the evidence that proves objectivity.  If you have evidence, you are being objective.  But then someone else might say, That's not evidence...it's not the same.

Therefore, only mathematics can be objective.  But, isn't math only idealism?  Objectivity involves some correspondence to the outside world. So objectivity involves some agreement as to equivalency about empirical objects.

Original Quill wrote:What is objectivity?  I think it is something built on equivalency - two things are either equal or they are not.  You might say, I'm being objective here, and here's the evidence that proves objectivity.  If you have evidence, you are being objective.  But then someone else might say, That's not evidence...it's not the same.

Therefore, only mathematics can be objective.  But, isn't math only idealism?  Objectivity involves some correspondence to the outside world.  So objectivity involves some agreement as to equivalency about empirical objects.

I agree, you have to first define objectivity, and that itself can split opinions. Some people think that objectivity means the belief that all viewpoints are equally valid, whereas others say that while grey areas exist, right and wrong (or correct and incorrect) also exist objectively. I agree with the latter, which you can illustrate with the extreme example that 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 are not equally valid viewpoints.