The Mopar of Theseus.

-
Mr Gorsky

Mr Gorsky

I know words, I have the best words...
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
1,194
Reaction score
502
Location
Sea of Tranquility, Luna.
There is an old philosophical paradox about the Ship of Theseus that goes like this:

Theseus sets off on a wooden ship, bound for a far away port. His ship carries a cargo of timber, and as he sails, he replaces every plank of the ship one by one. When he finally docks his ship in port, the ship is exactly the same as the one he set off in....but is it the same ship?

Those of you who say that it's a new ship subscribe to the Mereological Theory of Identity. If you change the parts, you change the thing.

I'd argue that he never got off the ship, therefore when he docked he was on the same ship he set out on! Now, what if he kept one original plank? It's not a new ship then, is it?

On the other hand we have the Spatio Temporal Continuity theory, which says that an object can maintain its identity if the change is gradual and the shape of the object is preserved through the changes of its components.

In this case you could argue (as I have done in the past) that the whole "ship" can be changed yet still maintain its original identity.

For sake of further argument, lets imagine Theseus's ancient ship in a museum. Some thieves want to steal the ship, but it won't fit through the door so they steal it one plank at a time....replacing a single plank each night until they have the whole ship.

They rebuild Theseus's ship from the stolen planks and now we have two "identical" ships. We have/had ship A (the original museum ship), ship B (the new museum ship) and ship C (the re-assembled ship). Most will argue that ship C is the most valuable ship....it's the original. But is it? It's got all new nails. How much of the original ship do you have to have for it to be original?

Now, to those of you who argue for original steel:

The original car wasn't changed when the first oil filter was replaced. It wasn't changed when the LH tail light lens was renewed. Since you'd agree with me that the car is effectively unchanged as bits of it were replaced over the years, you also subscribe to the Spatio Temporal Continuity theory....and that if the change is gradual and the shape of the object is preserved through the changes of its components, the object maintains its identity.

Mopar to ya :)


demon_insurance_010.jpg
 
Last edited:
Oh crap! I farted! LMAO!
Good story.
 
First, get your story right. The ship of Theseus was the ship on which he returned to Athens from Crete, after killing the Minotaur. It was then maintained for centuries as a memorial, which is what sparked the paradox. Might as well use the original source for the paradox, the historian Plutarch...

"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 places, in so much 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."

— Plutarch, Theseus (23.1)". The Internet Classics Archive. Retrieved 2008-07-15.

Theseus - Wikipedia

Why does it make a difference you ask? Two reasons. One being that you can't replace every single plank on a ship while it's at sea. But more importantly, it goes to the historical identity of the ship.

At some point in the years (centuries) following the return of Theseus, the ship was entirely replaced with new planks. Meaning, not a single board remained on which Theseus had ever set foot. Now sure, the ship appears identical to the original one. Its form, purpose, and even construction is the same. But if you stood on the deck of the original ship, you could say you stood on the same deck on which Theseus stood. Standing on the deck of the ship that has been fully replaced with new planks, not so much. Theseus never stood on those planks. If Theseus dropped his sword and took a chunk out of a plank, that chunk wouldn't be missing from the new plank. If Theseus came back and walked around, would he be able to pick out the details that made it his ship? Or would he just say it's a nice ship that looks like one he sailed on? Devil's in the details.

Cars are a bit of a different story. We accept that mechanical parts have to change. Having the original oil filter on a car with 50k miles is not a good thing. Tail lights get broken, glass gets cracked, you get the idea. But at some point you cross that line in the sand and you start losing details, like the original assembly signatures and marks, like on the backside of interior panels for example. Sure, that new interior panel may look the same on the outside, but does it have the original assembly signature? Does it tell the same story? Would it mean anything to "fran" if I showed her a replacement glovebox liner in my Challenger? Yes, it's still the same car. In this case, still a '72 Challenger. But if I replace this stuff, has its identity changed? Yeah, it has. If the people that built it can't recognize it as a car they specifically built, it has changed. Now, maybe that's necessary, just like changing the rotted planks of Theseus' ship. But that doesn't mean that something isn't lost, and that the identity of the thing hasn't changed along the way.

IMG_3471.JPG


IMG_3035.JPG
 
Last edited:
Good story and comparison, I like it. I would consider myself in the spatio temporal category. I think guys will probably fall into the category that those car needs them to be in... There are very few parts (mechanical or body) on my car that were there when I first drove it home stuck in 1st gear in 1996, but it has the same "feel" to me now as it did then when I sit in the seat and turn the key...
 
Wait.
Did he replace the nails too?
With the correct OEM nails?
If you use something, it's going to need new parts.
After that it's all matter of semantics.
Whatever he did, it's not the same ship that left the factory.
Er, I mean shipyard.
If it was me, I'd just swap the ship's log to another ship.
But I'd probably have to walk the plank.

Law%20of%20the%20sea%20grid%20image.png



Sounds easier to do.:lol:
 
Last edited:
72bluNblu said:
First, get your story right. The ship of Theseus was the ship on which he returned to Athens from Crete, after killing the Minotaur. It was then maintained for centuries as a memorial, which is what sparked the paradox. Might as well use the original source for the paradox, the historian Plutarch...

"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 places, in so much 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."

— Plutarch, Theseus (23.1)". The Internet Classics Archive. Retrieved 2008-07-15.

Theseus - Wikipedia

Why does it make a difference you ask? Two reasons. One being that you can't replace every single plank on a ship while it's at sea. But more importantly, it goes to the historical identity of the ship.

At some point in the years (centuries) following the return of Theseus, the ship was entirely replaced with new planks. Meaning, not a single board remained on which Theseus had ever set foot. Now sure, the ship appears identical to the original one. Its form, purpose, and even construction is the same. But if you stood on the deck of the original ship, you could say you stood on the same deck on which Theseus stood. Standing on the deck of the ship that has been fully replaced with new planks, not so much. Theseus never stood on those planks. If Theseus dropped his sword and took a chunk out of a plank, that chunk wouldn't be missing from the new plank. If Theseus came back and walked around, would he be able to pick out the details that made it his ship? Or would he just say it's a nice ship that looks like one he sailed on? Devil's in the details.

Cars are a bit of a different story. We accept that mechanical parts have to change. Having the original oil filter on a car with 50k miles is not a good thing. Tail lights get broken, glass gets cracked, you get the idea. But at some point you cross that line in the sand and you start losing details, like the original assembly signatures and marks, like on the backside of interior panels for example. Sure, that new interior panel may look the same on the outside, but does it have the original assembly signature? Does it tell the same story? Would it mean anything to "fran" if I showed her a replacement glovebox liner in my Challenger? Yes, it's still the same car. In this case, still a '72 Challenger. But if I replace this stuff, has its identity changed? Yeah, it has. If the people that built it can't recognize it as a car they specifically built, it has changed. Now, maybe that's necessary, just like changing the rotted planks of Theseus' ship. But that doesn't mean that something isn't lost, and that the identity of the thing hasn't changed along the way.

View attachment 1715063051

View attachment 1715063052
Click to expand...


I don't want to put words in your mouth.
I've seen many of those subcontractor markings on the back of panels.
Stamps with paint.
They, of course, could be reproduces as well.
Technology does amazing things these days.
If, however, you are pointing out things that are "unique" to your car.

kroy-small.gif

In other words maybe everything could be replaced except that which is unique.
That being the case, I only know of one thing that is really unique to all cars.
("One of one"?)
Perhaps it gets to the heart of the question.
Is the car the VIN or is the VIN the car?
My father was fond of telling me that I was unique, just like everyone else.
 
Last edited:
or as the question in this car hobby, what is a survivor???? yes they are neat if you have ever owned one or seen one.

BUT, is it a s urvivor if it still has all its original sheetment and paint? what if it has all original sheetmetal and 20 % of it is rusted to hell? what if someone pulled a dent out of a fender and repainted it??
a surivior no doubt still has its original engine, trans, rearend, b t no doubt someone drove it and replaced tires, belts, hoses, unless it has so very few miles and time on the road??
maybe we tend to place our old care on too a high a pedestal? because of pride, ego, $$ in our eyes?

I still says survivors, to what ever degree are cool, cool are cars that have had all their rust cut out and repaired. cool are the cars that lost their original power plants decades ago, cool are the slant cars that someone pulled that and dropped in a hemi, or a B motor, or a SB, cool are the cars we repair and DRIV for after all , cool are the ars that someone repainted a color other than what the fender tag says.. all they really are is a CAR!? ha

NOT COOL is the guy that swaps the vin tag and cuts out the numbers stamped on that body in those various places.... unless he keeps the sucker and is buried in it!??????????? ha
 
Myths are myths.

There are no VIN fraud laws for myths.

So your mythological analogy has no factual basis.

If you honestly think that VIN swapping is o.k. AND you have done it to cars you have or have sold, please do show the 'pride' in your work by sharing the VIN numbers here for all to see.
 
think of it this way supposedly after 7 years EVERY cell in your body has died and been replaced with a new cell, are YOU the same person or not?
 
Alaskan_TA said:
If you honestly think that VIN swapping is o.k. AND you have done it to cars you have or have sold, please do show the 'pride' in your work by sharing the VIN numbers here for all to see.
Click to expand...

I've never swapped a VIN. I've just gotten back into the "hobby" having not owned a Mopar for twenty years. Yes, I honestly do think VIN swapping is okay. Not only do I think it's okay, in many cases I think it's the preferred option (ie: it's less expensive).

I'm on the record here saying I'm quite happy to buy a VIN swapped car. Looking for another Demon, in fact. Anyone on the west coast got a nice Demon with a title (salvage....I don't care), drop me a line.
 
I have a contact in the CA NICB & I know from his past work / seizures that VIN swapped cars are not legal there.

Buy a car with clean, original numbers is the best advice I can give you.
Mr Gorsky said:
I've never swapped a VIN. I've just gotten back into the "hobby" having not owned a Mopar for twenty years. Yes, I honestly do think VIN swapping is okay. Not only do I think it's okay, in many cases I think it's the preferred option (ie: it's less expensive).

I'm on the record here saying I'm quite happy to buy a VIN swapped car. Looking for another Demon, in fact. Anyone on the west coast got a nice Demon with a title (salvage....I don't care), drop me a line.
Click to expand...

I have a contact in the CA NICB & I know from his past work / seizures that VIN swapped cars are not legal there.

Buy a car with clean, original unaltered numbers is the best advice I can give you.
 
I have been in the "hobby"/ business for enough years to have seen just about everything done to a vehicle. The insurance/legal entities have lobbied congress and have"paid" for laws that enable them to deny payment after both the owner and insurance agent have agreed on a"worth of automobile". The data base that moles have started,of course with the express help of"hobbyists" are used when there is a collision/theft or other"request for payment".
 
I'm thinking some people have too much time to think....
green demon owners particularly....
it also appears the sun never shines on the sea of tranquility because of the brainstorming...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top