The Plan of Theseus
Your opinion on philosophy makes you a philosopher.
This is kind of cliche, but I have my own take on the Ship of Theseus problem. It might already exist somewhere, but I thought of this myself so if I'm not original, then blame humanity for being so big and complex!
The problem of the Ship of Theseus is that there is one ship that slowly degrades and has its parts replaced until there is no part of the ship that uses its original construction parts. The question arises: Is this the same ship, or is it an entirely new ship?
To make this more complicated, the old parts are used to reconstruct the original ship, thus making two "Ships of Theseuses." Which one is the actual ship? Is it the recreation, or the one that had all of its parts replaced?
I did a minimal amount of thinking, and I have now concluded that I can avoid the question altogether, like a true politician! Anyway, it does not matter which one is the "real" ship because of a "theory" that I call "The Theory of Parts."
The gist of my quote-unquote theory is: do the parts of the ship constitute the ship's identity, or the idea of the ship itself? Is this one wooden plank part of the ship's identity, or the blueprint to make the ship? I make the claim that the physical item is not the "Ship of Theseus," but the plan to make the ship. My reasoning to back this up is in the following of the blueprint itself. The blueprint of a ship is "perfect" compared to the creation of the ship. The design will not reasonably account for human error, even if it is lacking in error upon its creation. This makes any physical manifestation of the ship's design not THE ship, but A ship of Theseus. For example, take a Boeing plane. There is not one single definitive 737 out there, but hundreds of supposed 737s that follow the design that is THE 737. It is A Boeing 737, not THE Boeing 737. Because the design is perfect, there will never be a definitive creation of anything that has ever been planned.
In order to clear some confusion, by 'perfect,' I do not mean that one is free of error in making the design. Whatever error or lack of experience in creating the object exists is part of the design, thus implying that there is no error on the surface level and that it is still perfect. It doesn't make perfect sense, but it is a logical definition of perfect compared to the physical creation from the blueprint.
My theory implies that anything that is intentionally designed and created can never be the same thing, even if there is only one of that thing being discussed. There may seem to only be one Empire State Building, but that, sadly, is not THE Empire State Building. So, you might as well go and find the original blueprints and the architectural visualization for it to claim you've seen THE Empire State Building.
One might claim that the design and the creation are the same thing in the case of the Empire State Building because the empty floors in the design properly account for human error in the form of furniture, and where these pieces of furniture might be placed. That does not matter because it is being accounted for. My argument still stands that the design is different because it accounts for what it believes to be perfect placement of every nail and steel girder. There is always a slight inaccuracy in where they are placed, even if it is seemingly perfect. If the building fails because of lack of experience on the designer's behalf, then that still makes it the Empire State Building.
My theory in a way supports another theory in basic philosophy that reality is in two parts: perceived and real. Since our reality is only perceptual, there is no perceivable true reality. We can only see the shadows on the cavern wall.
This may not be the most solid theory in my opinion, but if there is any merit to it, then I think that's great. I believe that I'm on to something, personally. If you think there's some meat on this, then share this page or something. Anyway, have a good one!