Can intrinsic meaning be retained in the face of change? (Examining Essence and Relationships through the Ship of Theseus Paradox)

Focusing on the “Ship of Theseus” paradox, discuss whether an object or person can retain its essential meaning despite changes. It explores that essence is defined by meaning, and that judgment can be subjective and personal.

 

One of the heroes of Greco-Roman mythology is Theseus. Theseus is the man who defeated the famous Minotaur. There was a ship that Theseus rode in on his way to defeat the Minotaur, and people decided to preserve it to honor his achievement. The ship became known as the Ship of Theseus. However, as the years passed, the ship gradually deteriorated, and the old parts were replaced with new planks. One by one, the planks were replaced until there were no original planks left on the ship. So can the ship still be recognized as the ship of Theseus? This argument is known as the Ship of Theseus paradox. It asks the question of whether our judgment of an object can change as it changes. There are many similar arguments in the world, and they all involve different judgments in different cases. What defines a thing is its meaning. If that meaning has changed enough to be compromised, then the thing becomes something else, and if it still retains its original meaning, then it can still be considered the thing it is.
Let’s consider this further with the example of a bicycle. What is the meaning of a bicycle? A bicycle is a vehicle that a person sits on and uses the power of their legs to turn the wheels to move. If you change the frame of a bicycle, replace the saddle, and change other parts, you’ve changed a lot of things about the bicycle itself, but it’s still a bicycle because it’s still a vehicle that uses two legs to turn a wheel through pedals. However, if a motor were added to the bicycle, it would no longer be a bicycle, but a motorcycle or a two-wheeler, since it no longer requires legs to turn the wheels. This situation is even more pronounced when an object has a strong symbolic meaning.
Take the Blue House in South Korea for example. The word Blue House itself means a building made of blue tiles. However, the Blue House has a symbolic meaning as it is the official residence of the President of South Korea. So even if the Blue House changes its appearance through construction, it will still be called “Blue House,” and the meaning of the president’s official residence will remain.
It’s not just objects that have meaning. It can also apply to people. For example, let’s say you have a friend, A. If A loses his leg in an accident and gets a prosthetic leg, that changes who he is, but it doesn’t change the meaning of him being a close friend. Meaning is a subjective thing that varies from person to person, and often leads to different judgments. If the meaning of friendship includes an external component, and the prosthetic limb takes away from that meaning, then A may no longer consider A a friend.
Consider a slightly different situation. B and C are friends. For B, a friend is someone who is close to him, with whom he has shared memories, and whose personality is compatible. If C gets an artificial brain, and it preserves all of his previous memories and personality, he would still be B’s friend. This is because it is consistent with the meaning of C being B’s friend. Conversely, if B no longer considers C to be a person with an artificial brain and cannot accept him as a friend, this is because B’s definition of friend includes the condition ‘person’. However, if B does not have the ‘person’ condition in the sense of friend, then C would still be B’s friend regardless of whether he is a person or not.
This may seem puzzling, but think back to when you were a child. We considered the robots and dolls we played with to be our friends, even though they didn’t speak, weren’t people, and weren’t living things. Now, you may not consider them friends anymore. It’s just that our definition of a friend has changed as we’ve grown up. The same goes for pets like dogs and cats. They’re not people, but they can be friends to some people. All of this is because our judgment depends on the meaning we give to them.
My current definition of “Theseus’ ship” is that it reminds me of the fact that Theseus defeated the Minotaur on this ship and honors his achievement. So I don’t think it stops being “Theseus’s ship” just because the planks have changed. I think it’s important to try to keep it that way. If you build a model of the ship of Theseus, it is only a model of the ship of Theseus, not the ship of Theseus.
Also, the person with the artificial brain in the example above is still a person to me. For me, it’s his mindset and the events we share that define my relationship with him. As long as these things don’t change, the person will still be considered the same. However, this is only my view at this point in time, and my judgment may change if my definition changes.
Everyone has their own way of defining things, including objects and people, and that may change at different times and places. However, at any point in time, meaning always exists, so judgment at that point is sufficient. Even an individual’s thoughts can change from time to time, and it is unlikely that many people’s thoughts will be the same. And since the criteria are also different for each person, even a slight change in perspective can lead to different conclusions. This may be the reason why debates like the Ship of Theseus paradox are constantly being discussed.