I really miss all the philosophy topics that used to be on the forum, specifically the ones made by good old BretonSpellsword. So let's see if this one gets off the ground, in his style.

Resolved: If you buy a boat and replace broken parts until every part has been replaced, it is a new boat.

Discuss.

Okay then: no it isn't. Well, that's more "argue" than "discuss", but it's about the limit of my intellect today.

No, it's just a boat with some fixed parts.

I was just hoping to get an intellectually stimulating BretonSpellsword-esque thread going. But.... to play the devil's advocate....

You name a boat. Giving a boat a name gives it identity, such that even if you were to replace everything from the sails to the planks from which it is built, its identity in the hearts and minds of its builders would remain the same.

However, if you have a less important possession, perhaps a broken umbrella, and you replace every part on your umbrella, it is a new one.

Such is the significance that lies in a name.

No. :confused: It's still an old umbrella, it just has new parts. The umbrella was constructed previous to you adding new parts to it. Unless you replaced everything on it, which no one would ever do. They'd just buy a new one.

It doesn't matter as long as it works.

The replaced parts become a part of the old one. Thus when the last original part is replaced, something added later has already become part of the original, so there is no new ship, just one ship with varying ages of it's parts. You see the object as the whole, for the purpose for which it was intended, not as the sum of it's parts. Otherwise we'd be able to murder amputees without repercussions.

If you replace the parts over time, it is still the same boat because the boat is the sum of its parts.
If you took the boat apart completely and then assembled a new boat then you assembled a new boat.

THIS!

Does Johnny Daniels play a mean fiddle?

Does a replacement part not have an origin? While I would agree that objects make up a whole with a greater purpose, is it not also reasonable to assume that what gives an object its purpose are the objects which make it? If I put a loud replacement motor on a fishing boat then what has it become? Certainly no longer a fishing boat, since there would be no fish around to catch.

Furthermore, I wouldn't call amputees objects.

But, if you do want to go there, then wouldn't you agree that changing one part of a human can drastically alter his or her identity? What would happen if a musician was denied the use of the body part he used to play his instrument or his voice? Of course he can still write music, but the difference between composers and performers is also immense. What if a healthy athlete were given the lungs of a chronic smoker? Could he truly practice his passion to the fullest or would he have to fundamentally change his identity, his fundamental purpose, to continue living purposely in the world? I would say yes.

Most of what I have mentioned are repercussions of replacing *one* part on a whole, all of which are significant. If we are assuming that identity originates in the purpose of the object, then surely replacing *every* part of an object would make it an entirely new one.

It is still the same boat

eg: imagine a boat had a torn sail and you replace the sail, that new sail becomes part of the boat. now imagine after a few years every part but the sail has been replaced, since the sail became part of the boat when it was placed, any new parts added become part of the boat that the sail was part of.