1

I was reading about how the english language has 'changed' and 'developed' over time, and this has me wonder, what makes the 'English' Language what it is? If we define a language as a set of formulas and semantic rules we find that when we add a new word, what we essentially do is define a new language to be what we refer to as 'English', we find this to be the case because when we add a new word, the 'old language' doesn't really cease to exist.

Is it paradoxical in this sense, bringing to mind the idea of the Ship of Theseus to really talk about anything as being the same numerically and different qualitatively over time, can we see the change of time simply being that we replace one thing with another? Perhaps my broom is an immutable object in so far that if I were to remove it's handle and replace it I actually have another broom, however it is convienient in all sense and purpose to call it 'the same broom' as it will act exactly the same as it's predecessor.

Perhaps when someone is the 'same person' we mean that they have the same (immutable) identity, and any other characteristics (height, personality etc) are free to be replace with others.

Especially in the case of abstract objects, once a concept exists it cannot cease to exist even if we dont want to use it for anything, or we find there are problems with it.

Confused
  • 1,083
  • 4
  • 18
  • depends on who repaired the ship, if Theseus did, then it is his ship, if not Theseus, then it is not Theseus ship already. – άνθρωπος Mar 03 '23 at 23:57
  • Aristotle never considered the ship of Theseus, the first known description is by Plutarch. It would be interesting if he did because it challenges his solution to the change problem, see [SEP, Identity Over Time](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-time/). According to him, a thing "stays the same" after change if only its "accidental" properties are affected, while "essential" ones are not. However, it is unclear which, if any, part of the ship is "essential", they only seem to be so jointly. And if they are all "accidental" we can reduce the ship to nothing without "changing" it. – Conifold Mar 04 '23 at 00:04
  • @Conifold why is it important what part is essential? – άνθρωπος Mar 04 '23 at 01:04
  • @άνθρωπος If there were essential parts then we could say that the ship ceases to be a ship (or the same ship) once one of those is removed (replaced). As is, we get a variant of the sorites paradox, and Aristotle would have to accept that "essentiality" is a vague predicate and can be drained away little by little. This does not fit well into his theory of essence and accidents. – Conifold Mar 04 '23 at 08:01
  • @Conifold but this is not ship of theseus then, but the the mast of theseus, or the wheel of theseus, or the sail... but in paradox whole ship is belong to theseus, not parts only. you change the conditions. – άνθρωπος Mar 04 '23 at 11:19
  • Your question is very vague. What exactly are you asking? – Marco Ocram Mar 05 '23 at 13:46

0 Answers0