Similarly to the Trolley problem, The Ship of Theseus is the other main thought experiment that comes to mind when discussing philosophical paradoxes. The thought experiment was brought up by the Greek philosopher Plutarch who was born around 46 AD. The paradox became famous because it caused a debate about whether a ship that had all of its parts replaced one at a time would remain the same. The Ship of Theseus makes us consider the problem of determining the relationship between an object and the material of which it is made.
“The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Crete had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their places, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.”
— Plutarch, Life of Theseus 23.1
There are two ways of thought when arguing if Theseus’ ship remains the same or is different after it gets its oars replaced. If you believe the ship remains the same when its oars get replaced one after another, then you believe it is the form that makes something, something. By “form”, we mean the idea or shape of something. What makes Theseus’ ship is that it is “his” ship, what the ship is made of does not matter.
Contrary to believing that form is what makes Theseus’ ship, we can believe that it is the matter that makes the ship. The exact oars and components that were used make it Theseus’ ship. If those exact components were not used to make Theseus’ ship, we would not consider the ship to be Theseus’. Therefore, when the first oar is replaced, we can no longer consider Theseus’ ship to be Theseus’ ship.
Thomas Hobbes expands on the thought experiment by adding that what if a custodian got all the decaying oars that had been disposed of and replaced and used those decaying oars to build a second ship? He posed the question, “Which of the two ships would be considered the same as the original ship?”. Here we have a ship that maintains its form, the first one, and a ship that maintains its matter, the second one. Now that our solutions for the first scenario don’t work for the second one, we have to find a solution that answers both.
The solution that seems most appealing is that brought by David Lewis. He argued that we should divide up all the objects into three-dimensional time slices that are temporally distinct, which avoids the issue that the two different ships exist in the same space at one time and a different space at another time. We can do this by considering the objects to be distinct from each other at all points in time.
The reason this solution seems to be the most appealing is because I believe it is correct to say that both of the ships are Theseus’ ships, but they are not the same ship. Both ships are Theseus’s ships but are his during different points in time.
I think this paradox is important and can relate to our everyday lives because it directly correlates to how people change over time. If we consider Theseus’s ship as a person and the oars as personality traits, we can use the paradox to better understand people and how they change. Let’s say someone’s personality changes throughout time, does that make them the same person or a different one? Considering their personality traits as matter and their body as their form, do we think form or matter is what makes a person a person?
I believe Jon at 16 is still Jon at 39, but they are not materially the same. The form of Jon is what makes Jon, Jon, but he materially has changed. Jon is the same person but displays different personality traits. Similarly to Theseus’ ship, the ship with the new oars is still Theseus’, but the ships are distinct at all points in time.
This is an important distinction because it gives us a view of how we should evaluate relationships and people. Sometimes the “oars” that get replaced within people are minor differences and sometimes they are significant changes. I think it is okay to view someone differently based on their current “oars” than on their past ones. As much as we like to dwell on what people have done in the past, it is okay to re-evaluate a relationship based on the current version of themselves.
Similarly to the blog last week, I am not telling people to get rid of friends or family because they are different than they were before. Everybody changes. What I am trying to convey is that if you are no longer in a healthy relationship with someone, as hard as it may be, it is okay to distance yourself. If they were an instrumental part of your life before but currently cause you pain and distress, it is okay to take a break. People also put a lot of emphasis on the fact that if you distance yourself from someone then that must mean you are completely done with that person. I think it is farther from the truth unless it is an abusive relationship. People constantly change and there is always the possibility for a reconnection.