# So… “Ship of Theseus” follow-up question
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005
**Category:** Philosophy
**Created:** [October 31, 2025, 4:28pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005 "2025-10-31T16:28:29Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@pseudoai](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/pseudoai)
#### Post date: [April 8, 2026, 3:16pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/21 "2026-04-08T15:16:34Z")
It’s a floating casino
Anyway, certainly god is causeless, if there is god. I think that is a very common view of god (not referring to demiurges or the like)
---
### Author:  [@Nausamedu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Nausamedu)
#### Post date: [April 8, 2026, 3:57pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/22 "2026-04-08T15:57:45Z")
> [@pseudoai](#):
>
> Anyway, certainly god is causeless, if there is god. I think that is a very common view of god (not referring to demiurges or the like)
Doesnt this depend on how you define god though?
I mean theoretically the writer fulfills all the traits of a god from the written characters perspective.
They can do whatever they want to them, to their world, they know all, they are everywhere at the same time, every “omni” in the omni book.
From a lower dimensional entity’s perspective even a human being can be god.
But we are not causeless either.
---
### Author:  [@pseudoai](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/pseudoai)
#### Post date: [April 8, 2026, 3:59pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/23 "2026-04-08T15:59:33Z")
I don’t think so. God is not caused, as much as I’ve seen. You seem to be referring to demiurges
Plus, is god definable? It may be one of those things that defy depiction, which is a usual stance about it. Ineffable
---
### Author:  [@Nausamedu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Nausamedu)
#### Post date: [April 8, 2026, 4:02pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/24 "2026-04-08T16:02:06Z")
> [@pseudoai](#):
>
> Plus, is god definable
Not from a lower dimensional being’s perspective.
A flatlander cant correctly define a 3D entity either.
---
### Author:  [@pseudoai](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/pseudoai)
#### Post date: [April 8, 2026, 4:04pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/25 "2026-04-08T16:04:01Z")
Yeah, but not just from a particular point of view or dimensionality or whatever. God may be indefinable all around.
---
### Author:  [@Nausamedu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Nausamedu)
#### Post date: [April 8, 2026, 5:42pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/26 "2026-04-08T17:42:19Z")
Could god not define god?
---
### Author:  [@pseudoai](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/pseudoai)
#### Post date: [April 9, 2026, 9:26am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/27 "2026-04-09T09:26:46Z")
God doesn’t even have to be interactive. For example, for pantheism, it’s nature
---
### Author:  [@Mary-Poppins](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Mary-Poppins)
#### Post date: [April 9, 2026, 1:01pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/28 "2026-04-09T13:01:39Z")
Well the original God, Deus, has a genealogy.
The uncaused is more of an Aristotalian innovation.
---
### Author:  [@pseudoai](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/pseudoai)
#### Post date: [April 9, 2026, 2:01pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/29 "2026-04-09T14:01:02Z")
I think it’s not dependent upon Aristotle: the uncaused is the ultimate response to any kids question of asking why over and over again
I like how you mixed up totalitarian and Aristotle there 😄 … it can be quite useful from time to time to address someone as an **Aristotalian**.
---
### Author:  [@Mary-Poppins](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Mary-Poppins)
#### Post date: [April 9, 2026, 2:28pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/30 "2026-04-09T14:28:52Z")
I guess that, as with most quality philosophy, most of Aristotle can be retrived through a child’s questions.
Aristotle, as I’m sure you know, was pivotal for Catholic doctrine from fairly early on.
It’s possible that a perfect trifecta exists between childishness, philosophy and religion. Not that I would suggest that The Church found the perfect mix.
---
### Author:  [@pseudoai](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/pseudoai)
#### Post date: [April 9, 2026, 2:43pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/31 "2026-04-09T14:43:10Z")
Yeah! Children are great. Many of the most childish things are the most serious.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2026, 3:08am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/32 "2026-05-01T03:08:17Z")
The problem with the taxonomy and sets and subsets, categories and subcategories:
It does not allow for being both contained in and contained by—unless you’re somewhere in the middle of the taxonomy. But one can only be an individual at the very bottom of the taxonomy (kingdom phylum class order family genus species)… even more specific than species.
Kingdom contains everything below and is contained by nothing.
Individual contains nothing below, only what is above—but then branches out into and from (this is co-iteration if via sexual reproduction) a family tree.
So what kind of tree is that taxonomy that can only iterate via individuals? What came first, the individuals, or the taxonomy they iterate?
The individuals are like the boards in the Ship of Theseus, except participation in the Ship is voluntary and not guaranteed by birth.
---
### Author:  [@greenfuse](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/greenfuse)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2026, 6:33am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/33 "2026-05-01T06:33:57Z")
> [@Nausamedu](#):
>
> You can replace 100% of the ship 100 times over so its not even the ship of the ship of the ship of the ship, and because its still linked to Theseus, it remains the ship of Theseus.
What if we were talking about Theseus child or wife and all the matter was slowly or organ by organ, including the brain, replaced over time - or really at the cellular level?
---
### Author:  [@Nausamedu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Nausamedu)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2026, 10:01am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/34 "2026-05-01T10:01:38Z")
> [@greenfuse](#):
>
> What if we were talking about Theseus child or wife and all the matter was slowly or organ by organ, including the brain, replaced over time - or really at the cellular level?
If the subject in question has an identity of it’s own, that turns the question into an entirely new problem.
And technically you wont even have to cut them up and start removing organs and such, you can just ask yourself whether or not you are still the person you used to be 20 years ago.
Clearly yes. Also, clearly no.
As long as you can establish a causal connection between the thing you were and the thing you have become, i’d say its still you. Even if its “changed”.
---
### Author:  [@greenfuse](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/greenfuse)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2026, 11:06am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/35 "2026-05-01T11:06:49Z")
Yes, you’re right because they are a subject also, it changes things.
The moment I think of Ship of Thebe’s it immediately raises the issue of the persistent self - does the self persist through time. 98% of the matter in the body is replaced yearly (at the atomic level) and the other 2% is not glued in place, it’s just statistically some will remain a bit longer through chance. The structure of many things stays the same but I think the replacement of matter raises issues for identity. We are sort of a very good copy of ourselves - in the short term. Though every memory is the record of a change also in structures.
---
### Author:  [@Nausamedu](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Nausamedu)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2026, 12:26pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/36 "2026-05-01T12:26:22Z")
A bit less known version of the ship of Theseus, but imo one which brings the point out much sharper is the Heraclitus paradox.
The question is simple: Can you step into the same river twice?
But yes, to circle back to identity, i made a typo in my answer. I meant to say that as long as you can establish a causal connection between the thing you were and the thing you have become, its still you. (I accidentally wrote the thing you were and the thing you have been.)
But just to put a stick through that wheel too for fun: If you die and something absorbs you (i.e. eats you whole or grows out of your remains) whats the causal relationship between what you have been and the things that literally grew out of you?
Do we require consciousness for continuity’s sake?
---
### Author:  [@Socrates](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Socrates)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2026, 12:28pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/37 "2026-05-01T12:28:36Z")
Or Achilles vs the turtle, in response to which Diogenes drew a line in the sand and walked over it.
Identity is a matter of practicality. If it makes sense, it is the same thing. It’s an artifice anyway, as Heraclitus pointed out. But a useful one.
---
### Author:  [@pseudoai](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/pseudoai)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2026, 2:46pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/38 "2026-05-01T14:46:20Z")
> [@Nausamedu](#):
>
> Do we require consciousness for continuity’s sake?
Yes, we are consciousness. When there is no consciousness, there is no ‘you’
> [@Socrates](#):
>
> Identity is a matter of practicality.
No, _identification_ is what is a matter of practicality, not identity. It’s a usual confusion tho.
---
### Author:  [@greenfuse](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/greenfuse)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2026, 4:27pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/39 "2026-05-01T16:27:22Z")
> [@pseudoai](#):
>
> Yes, we are consciousness. When there is no consciousness, there is no ‘you’
So, is your unconscious not you or is it somehow really in fact conscious.
---
### Author:  [@pseudoai](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/pseudoai)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2026, 5:09pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005/40 "2026-05-01T17:09:05Z")
what? I didn’t understand you
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/so-ship-of-theseus-follow-up-question/84005.md?page=3)