I don't think an inanimate object can truly have an identity; thinking of an object as having an identity is purely sentimental, and so whether an object is still the same or not is entirely up to preference. There's no way to logically argue either way, since the object didn't really have an identity to begin with.
Neither is the original but ship 2 is closer to the original. This is because it is made with the same parts and arranged in the same way as the original.I agree with this.
The ship made from new parts was really just made using a template in such a way the the original ship was taken apart in the process. Effectively the Theseus has just been taken apart and rebuilt, so I'd say the ship made from old parts is the 'genuine' Theseus.I agree. I think what causes confusion are scales, both time and size. The larger they get, the harder it is to believe it isn’t still original.
Things that aren't alive inherently don't have any identity,
things like this are interesting but people could have way differing opinions, do you study different schools of thought and peoples ideas, or do they say what is your interpretation of the ship problem, justifyFirst of all, thanks for joining in! As i said in the opening, everyone is welcome. I've noticed many people read this thread but don't post, so, i'd like to encourage all these people to give it a crack. If not now, perhaps when a topic of interest comes up ;D. As i said earlier, there literally is no right answer, there is no trick! It's impossible for you to be wrong so have no fear.
also i would think the ship on the left is the one that the robber should steal, because thats the repaired version that is going to get sent out to the original owner, if he steals that then he has the current theseus.
Buddhism says we are a different person from each moment to the next, in that sense “we” don’t exist at all, we show continuity throughout time, sure, but we are different every moment of that time.
Here is a poorly drawn ship to illustrate my concept; red representing changed parts. Imagine reaching a point where it is entirely red.
image removed
If I replaced a few in a 4-pebble statue, people might differ.
I am one of the people who have been stalking this thread for a while now and I thought I'd chime in with my two cents (i have a closeted love for philosophy hence why I chose lit)...with some random thought processes.
Something to consider: With that ship when you get to that point where it is all red, if the ship does not have a prior identity, I think most people would say that it is a different ship. What I mean by a prior identity is the human tendency to attach meaning to inanimate things in the way we might call a ship 'she' and even name it specifically in the same way we would name a human being. Then in our memories we would have nostalgia and think fondly of that ship.
Let's say the ship was called the 'Lady Maria' for the sake of the argument for a period of 10 years. People attach meaning to that ship and it is famous. If it is damaged and rebuilt with spare parts over time where it gets to the point of there being no original parts (the entire red in the picture) then people will still call the ship the 'Lady Maria' regardless of the fact that it no longer is the same ship in terms of construction and materials.
Whereas an engineer will tell you - "no, this ship is no longer the same', as human beings we will still think of the ship as the same as before.
Similarly if someone had formed an 'attachment' (however silly this might sound) in terms of that statue, and placed meaning in it-be it a memory, maybe it was a special present etc, then i would think that even if you replaced 3 out of the 4 pebbles or even all of them, the person would still think of the statue in the same way - not as changed and completely different. This again is because the person has placed an identity on the object which transcends the physicality of the object itself.
While other people might look on and laugh at the person telling them that the statue just isn't the same anymore, the person will choose to ignore them because it is from their viewpoint.
Thus what I realize is the subjectivity of the experience.
As for people, cells change and nearly all are replaced eventually. We continue throughout time; it’s not like we cease to exist at any point, we change but still exist. Buddhism says we are a different person from each moment to the next, in that sense “we” don’t exist at all, we show continuity throughout time, sure, but we are different every moment of that time.
Its an interesting when you say things that are alive are different. Apparently almost all our cells are replaced sooner or later, say we're 95% different to how we were 15 years ago, are we still the same person?
I think that a useful reformulation of the problem above is the Bald Man Paradox (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_man_paradox), which is basically just one version of the Sorites Paradox (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox). All these putative problems arise because of the vagueness of language.
(I hate philosophy I want to cry).Aren't you a philosophy major?
Aren't you a philosophy major?Yes ::)
Both ships would warrant the label Theseus, because the label is inherent to the idea we form in our mind of Theseus but merely superimposed onto the physical object.
Should two courses be judged equal, then the will cannot break the deadlock, all it can do is to suspend judgment until the circumstances change, and the right course of action is clear.
So, basically what you're saying is we have an idea or "check" of what is an object in our mind. We analyse things and if it meets that criteria, to us, it is that object.
If i had the ability to transform into a table and sat in my living room, people would think im a table. This is because i meet all their mental criteria for "table-ness". We have examples of this regarding art in the aesthetic section but it might be useful to think of changing parts of things as well. Say i broke into your house while you're on holiday and replaced everything with identical items, you wouldn't say anything is different at all. Likewise, if i broke into your car and rebuilt it over night using identical parts, you wouldn't say (or even know its any different).
You will find Literature to be radically different from Philosophy...
I'm not even sure what to write here. I don't have an analysis like usual. I have an almost inherent aversion or even disgust for what he's doing but i can't put my finger on it. A few philosophical problems are like this, it's easy to see and feel that something is wrong but its much harder to put your finger on what. Everyone feel free to take away from it what you will. Forcing myself though, i guess the main question is this - Is a simulated 'good life' just as good as a regular 'good life'? Is the only purpose or meaning of life individual pleasure (such that the machine provides)? Is there something more then? What does many peoples inherent revulsion to this tell us, even though it would be a pleasurable experience? Would you sign up for this? Is there something wrong with this? What are the consequences for society of this kind of thing, would everyone be able to do this or only a select few? Indeed, do we even deserve something like this (even just the illusion) if we haven't worked for it? Is it a selfish act? You're basically abandoning the rest of society.
Once again, anyone is welcome to join in. You need not know any philosophy or what it is, you dont need to use any fancy words, there's no minimum length or anything like that. Don't be afraid of being wrong either, there's no one real right answer. All you need to do is have a thought about this. Have one? Post it!
Just like to also note i'll be using this post and the one after it to gauge for interest. The number of posters has declined lately and if it continues, there's not much option but to stop posting (not very fun talking to myself!). I know there are plenty of people reading it (700+ views!) so i'd encourage all you lurkers to have a go.
/I've never posted in a philosophical discussion before or studied philosophy so yeah I'm sorry
The above scenario reminds me of the Matrix 'red-pill blue-pill' situation.
While there is the option to live in happy oblivion, some still choose to learn the truth. Knowledge and knowledge of reality are very important to many people, which persuades them to reject false happiness in exchange for pure reality.
This situation would change depending on whether 'Robert' would remember this decision. If he were to have erased memories, then either choice would seem real to him, and he wouldn't know any better. It may be difficult for him to decide at this point, but if he were to realise that future, happy him would never know of this or the experience machine it may sway him the other way.
| Sarah Wants Chinese |
| Salman Wants Chinese |
| Chelsea Wants Italian |
| Plato Wants Chinese |
| Luke Wants Chinese |
I like lurking in this thread but I'm always so intimidated to post in it due to how smart and intuitive some of the posters' answers are :PInteresting thoughts, thanks very much :) You should contribute more often!
Is it unusual that I don't have that 'inherent aversion or disgust' at the idea of the experience machine? Yes truth and knowing reality are very important in life but I agree with slothpomba in that reality itself is ambiguous and open to interpretation based on the individual. If Robert were to sign up he would completely forget his choice and would believe it to be true reality.
Framed in a darker light, is suicide ever justified? What would be the difference between Robert signing up for the experience machine and for him to commit suicide? - Both outcomes lead to him being 'removed' from our shared reality but at least in one situation he'd be happy (ignoring the concept of the afterlife).
Truth is an interesting concept, why do we seek it? Is it just an ideal that doesn't exist objectively, and if so why do we want it? Is it better to have loved and lost or is ignorance truly bliss?
Honestly I'm not saying that I'd be willing to sign up for the experience machine (maybe I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here too) but I would be understanding towards someone else who would sign up for it.
Just my thoughts ... I hope they weren't completely incoherent and crazy! ;D
Do you want a life of unfailing happiness? How can you have the foresight to be able to predict that now.
A few logistical questions with the machine arise. For example - if you are inside the machine, so long as there is truly no way that you can identify that your reality is unreal, and in addition you will 100% receive constant happiness (e.g. you won't get sick of your rock and roll cocaine and stripper lifestyle), then why the heck not take that opportunity? If nothing could go wrong, you would live a pretty fucking good life.
But I think looking at the duty/usefulness to society concept, we're straight away assuming that the reality Robert is experiencing (the one in which he is thinking whether to sign the contract or not) is a 'true' reality (insofar as such a definition can be made).
His need to be useful to society comes from his perception that others in that society are really sentient beings whose pain or suffering could be lessened through his contribution. If he were in the experience machine, he would see reality exactly the same way, and would in fact be making some contribution to it (bringing people pleasure through music). Why would his contribution in that society be any less valid than his contribution in this society, since there is no way of knowing if his 'contract signing' reality isn't also a simulated experience? Both realities are/will be perceived by Robert as real, there is no objective way of determining if his current reality is a real one, and he would make a contribution in both - the only difference is that in the experience machine reality he is happy.
For the Clockwork Orange question, it all comes down to one question: Is it better to be bad than to be conditioned to be good?
I think we should also establish what free will is
Hi guys,
Just wondering what would you have to catch up on if you didn't do Units 1/2. I'm considering doing the subject at DECV for 3/4.
Hi Brothanathan (luv the username btw). First of all, I 110% recommend pursuing philosophy in year 12. Philosophy is such a fun and interesting subject, and you'll learn a lot about life in general, which unfortunately not all of the VCE subjects on offer actually assist in... Philosophy teaches us how to question and to challenge, something that is becoming more and more pressing in our day and age (*cough cough* fake news *cough cough*).
You wouldn't have to catch up on anything for Year 12, which is a HUGE win!!!! Yay!!! The year 12 course consists of ten new philosophers, and ten new texts, so the only things that we really carry across from year 11 are skills. In year 11, we learn how to reduce arguments to their most basic points, how to evaluate and analyse, and how to write philosophy essays and such. These are all things that you cover again in year 12, so don't sweat it at all!
I hope you decide to study philosophy next year!!!! Try to get a friend or two to join Distance Ed with you, because having a friend really helps to challenge and push your thinking :)