seemingly intellectual stuff

I saw the Ship of Theseus last week or so. It was quite a brilliant movie. It had an excellent script. The Ship of Theseus. The Wikipedia explains the though experiment as thus:

This particular version of the paradox was first introduced in Greek legend as reported by the historian, biographer, and essayist 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 place, 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 thus questions whether the ship would remain the same if it were entirely replaced, piece by piece. Centuries later, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes introduced a further puzzle, wondering what would happen if the original planks were gathered up after they were replaced, and used to build a second ship. Hobbes asked which ship, if either, would be considered the original Ship of Theseus.

Another early variation involves a scenario in which Socrates and Plato exchange the parts of their carriages one by one until, finally, Socrates's carriage is made up of all the parts of Plato's original carriage and vice versa. The question is presented if or when they exchanged their carriages.

It’s quite an interesting question. Something as simple as this leaves people to debate and sit on either side. Sometimes it’s easier to be an Apatheist and say FU. Does the question really matter? I put this thought to Jispa and she says the ship is basically different. It’s a different ship altogether. I think she sees it differently from me. I think the ship is the same. It’s not different.

Now this is making me think. I think I will talk to Jispa again in the evening about it. For me it’s the soul of the ship in its essence that makes the ship. The parts are just that – parts, not the soul. In this case the answer lies with the crew. What the crew believes to be their ship is their ship. To continue the thought experiment with another variation – if 50% of the parts of both the ships are from the old ship, which of the ships is the original ship – it’s where the soul resides. In ship the soul is where the crew resides and believes that it is the ship. But hell...  forget it. Let me see what comes of the conversation with Jispa.

The movie itself is quite interesting – it showcases the story of three individuals who have been affected by a medical transplant. One by option – who goes through soul searching after a transplant. One by reluctance – who goes through a soul search before a transplant and one by force - you screws the soul and faces reality after the transplant. It’s a very interesting take on three angles. Nice work on the story. The best part about the movie is the nice conversation they show in the second story. Here a monk (possibly jain but never explicitly mentioned) has conversations on philosophy with another younger person (not his devotee or religion). A pragmatist versus a spiritualist. I think a whole lot of thought has gone into writing the script and the result is an intelligent conversation. I liked it. it is the best conversation I would have seen in a movie about beliefs and the challenges thereon.
Just for kicks - here is the deleted scene from the main movie - so its not a spoiler :)


 Good script followed by some good acting and some really nice signature wide angle shots. Watch it. Nice movie. The best part – the camera follows the characters in long single shots, even as they move around. It’s like a theatre play or something.

 Bonus song from film with wordings