When I researched about The Recursive, I came across Ship of Theseus, thanks to Wikipedia effect, as aptly summarised by xkcd's Randall Munroe here. To be fair, they are not entirely unrelated.
Basically it's like this:
This reminds me of the famous notion about a man stepping into a river. The second time the man steps into the river, the river is not the same river; the man is not the same man. I always thought that this was said by a Chinese philosopher, but apparently it is Heraclitus.
Which brings us to the question: what defines identity?
Perhaps I should reiterate here how Heraclitus' man is not the same man. While the river is obvious for not being the same because of the continuous water flow, it's less obvious for the man. From biological point of view, some of the man's cells have died and have been replaced with new ones. He also has new memories, perhaps new ideas. And so on and so forth. In fact if we modify it a little, it can become close to the Theseus' paradox: if every one of a man's cells are replaced with a new one, is he the same man? Cloning debate.
The Wikipedia article poses a few solutions to the question, and to be honest, some of the solutions make my head spin. But in essence, we usually define what "the same" mean first. Aristotle differentiates between four causes: formal, material, final, efficient. Now the question is how identity is defined. According to design (formal, efficient) and purpose (final)? Yes, it is the same ship. But if the definition of identity includes material cause, then it is not the same ship. Perhaps the Japanese culturally exclude material cause as part of identity, since they can see no paradox in Ship of Theseus, as pointed out by the article.
I will skip "qualitative-numerical differences" and "four-dimensionalism" explanations. You can read them in the article. To me, those explanations are too pedantic to the point of being not useful. I prefer Aristotle's simple solution.
Perhaps by now you will have thought "What has identity of a ship got to do with me?". Then read on:
As for the girl's answer, you have to read the manga for yourself.
As for my own answer, I'm afraid that my own core at the middle is nothing much. I have to say that those labels imposed on us or otherwise, are undeniably a part of us, like our own limbs. But of course we are unique. We all have our own idiosyncrasies not found in other people. But that alone doesn't define who we are. It's like we need a foundation for it, like truth that cannot exist outside context. I'm human, I'm a student -- I need those labels otherwise my quirkiness means nothing.
Your answer?
Basically it's like this:
The question is, if the ship is recursively fixed until all parts have been replaced, is it still the same ship?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 place, 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.
This reminds me of the famous notion about a man stepping into a river. The second time the man steps into the river, the river is not the same river; the man is not the same man. I always thought that this was said by a Chinese philosopher, but apparently it is Heraclitus.
Which brings us to the question: what defines identity?
Perhaps I should reiterate here how Heraclitus' man is not the same man. While the river is obvious for not being the same because of the continuous water flow, it's less obvious for the man. From biological point of view, some of the man's cells have died and have been replaced with new ones. He also has new memories, perhaps new ideas. And so on and so forth. In fact if we modify it a little, it can become close to the Theseus' paradox: if every one of a man's cells are replaced with a new one, is he the same man? Cloning debate.
The Wikipedia article poses a few solutions to the question, and to be honest, some of the solutions make my head spin. But in essence, we usually define what "the same" mean first. Aristotle differentiates between four causes: formal, material, final, efficient. Now the question is how identity is defined. According to design (formal, efficient) and purpose (final)? Yes, it is the same ship. But if the definition of identity includes material cause, then it is not the same ship. Perhaps the Japanese culturally exclude material cause as part of identity, since they can see no paradox in Ship of Theseus, as pointed out by the article.
I will skip "qualitative-numerical differences" and "four-dimensionalism" explanations. You can read them in the article. To me, those explanations are too pedantic to the point of being not useful. I prefer Aristotle's simple solution.
Perhaps by now you will have thought "What has identity of a ship got to do with me?". Then read on:
A: Who are you?So indeed, who are you? Remove all those layers of the proverbial onion, who are you at the naked core?
B: Huh? You mean my name?
A: See? Your eyes immediately turned right, using "the conscious side" to answer...I want you to answer what you feel. Who are you?
B: I don't want to say my name.
A: Not your name. I'm not asking the title your parents gave you, to distinguish you from other people. I mean, who, are you? Who?
B: A high school student.
A: Tsk, tsk, tsk. When you remove the status of "high school student", who are you?
B: A 17-year old... girl...
A: Not the labels of age or gender...Those are the labels that surround you yourself. Who?
B: A... human
A: And when all the labels are removed?
B: ... People, are all... labels.
A: If all the labels are removed from people like layers of an onion... Does that mean they disappear in the end? If you take off all the labels that surround your front with... Is there nothing left in the middle? Are you something that was created and molded...by your parents, society, the world?
B: No...
A: Then who are you?
B: I am...
-- Yamamoto Hideo, Homunculus v.4
As for the girl's answer, you have to read the manga for yourself.
As for my own answer, I'm afraid that my own core at the middle is nothing much. I have to say that those labels imposed on us or otherwise, are undeniably a part of us, like our own limbs. But of course we are unique. We all have our own idiosyncrasies not found in other people. But that alone doesn't define who we are. It's like we need a foundation for it, like truth that cannot exist outside context. I'm human, I'm a student -- I need those labels otherwise my quirkiness means nothing.
Your answer?
2 comments:
IF you peel all those layers, what is left behind is supposedly our true "selves". But the question in my mind is... is it possible to determine a "self" without any label? If we create a hypothetical situation for a "human", isolating him from the rest of the world, no relationship, etc... the result would be a pure consciousness, a naked core. I don't know what this consciousness will think about... but he certainly wouldn't think (if he even does) of himself as a human anymore, maybe a god or other things (of course, I am assuming humans are born in the blank state or tabula rasa). In this case, I think these layers are what define us, and as we progress in life, more layers are added and others peeled off, we are fickle-minded creatures after all
--rexy--
The core of the core of the core of the core--continuing infinitely--is nothingness.
Post a Comment