And the first version was pretty rough. It was only a couple of sentences long, and included a bizarre, irrelevant tangent ("a modern embellishment"). It's no surprise that every part of that has long since been replaced.
TBH, the same is probably true of most Wikipedia articles which were created early in the site's history. It took a while for editors to settle into the writing style that's now characteristic of the site.
I feel like the overall description from 2003 better explains the concept than the current article:
> According to an ancient Greek legend, Theseus had a warship that was preserved as a historical relic by the Athenians. Some of its boards rotted and had to be replaced. After many, many years, many such replacements occurred. Eventually, none of the original boards were present. Philosophers could then debate whether it was the same ship that Theseus had used, and if not, when it had ceased to be so.
versus the current version:
> The Ship of Theseus is a thought experiment about whether an object which has had all of its original components replaced remains the same object. In Greek mythology, Theseus, the mythical Greek founder-king of Athens, rescued the children of Athens from King Minos after slaying the minotaur and then escaped onto a ship going to Delos. Each year, the Athenians commemorated this by taking the ship on a pilgrimage to Delos to honor Apollo. A question was raised by ancient philosophers: After several centuries of maintenance, if each individual part of the Ship of Theseus was replaced, one at a time, was it still the same ship?
The modern version communicates the full premise in the first sentence, whereas the old version takes much longer to get to the point.
While the story of the ship illustrates the problem nicely, it is not as important, as the ship is merely a vehicle to get the point across - and Theseus too, presumably.
We all accepted santa was real at one point right? Like, we grew up and realized hes a fantasy character. I think its perfectly fine to keep the original article, you can discuss whether the history is true or not later in the analysis. Big boys and big girls can accept that some myths are worthy thought experiments implicitly, it doesnt need this language, only to gatekeep the knowledge behind some kind of intellectual sanctity.
The identity of Santa transcends one body, but his identity manifests in many bodies. If someone is dressed as Santa and you wave and he says "ho ho ho!" you say "hi Santa!" But if you wave and he says "leave me alone. My wife left me last night," then it is suddenly clear you are no longer talking to Santa, but instead to a guy dressed as Santa, but who is having a bad day. Just because Santa's identity transcends one body doesn't mean he isn't real. You can interact with Santa, and know when you aren't interacting with Santa.
I had a philosophy proffessor in school that shared this prespective; ill never forget the arguement I had with him, at one point I said "he doesnt bring you presents", to which he replied "he brings me presents, thats your problem!", it still cracks me up thinking about it.
It's the same thinking behind the phrase uttered when a king died: "The king is dead! Long live the king!" The person embodying the identity of the king is mortal and has died, but the identity of the king lives on and will be embodied by another mortal person soon.
This is a problem with the Ship of Theseus thought experiment as well. When did the Ship of Theseus become a "ship"? With that being nebulous it becomes even stranger to discuss whether switching out parts compromises its personal identity.
Well, obviously the resolution of this apparent paradox is that things/objects don't actually have any "identity" immanent to them, although in most practical circumstances a notion of objects having identities is both useful and roughly accurate.
Which is what the deflationist explanation from the page seems to allude to?
You go down to the docks, you see a half assembled ship, you ask about it, and they tell you that’s Hector’s ship. It’s not a ship yet. It’s a promise of a ship, and idea.
It’s still Theseus’ ship until he loses it gambling, and whether it continues to be a ship or is sold for scrap and becomes part of five other ships… well then the idea of the ship has died.
Ha ha, "a modern embellishment" reads like the quirky early Web.
(I had to go back and see if I had embarrassed myself when I stubbed in an article back in 2004. Meh — but just as well I stopped contributing to Wikipedia.)
