Squarespace: share your passion with the world.

Squarespace：與世界分享你的激情。

There’s an ancient Greek legend about a ship that launched from the port of Theseus,

有一個古希臘傳說，是關於一艘從忒修斯港下水的船。

and sailed around the world.

並在世界各地航行。

Probably not around the WHOLE world. Just AROUND the world.

可能不是在整個世界範圍內。只是在全世界範圍內。

During its journey, the ship encountered many dangers.

在旅途中，這艘船遇到了許多危險。

Storms ravaged its sails, which had to be replaced.

暴風雨摧殘著它的帆，不得不更換。

The floorboards gradually gave way, and had to be changed out, one by one.

地板漸漸讓步，不得不一個一個地換掉。

Eventually, crew members decided that they liked the look of some island or another along the way, and stayed behind.

最終，船員們決定喜歡沿途某個島嶼的樣子，於是就留下來了。

And as the ship sailed on, more and more of it – and its crew – was replaced,

而隨著船的航行，越來越多的船--和它的船員--被替換。

until finally, not a single original plank of wood, or hand on deck, remained.

直到最後，一塊原始的木板，或者甲板上的手，都沒有留下。

Now here’s the question: When the ship finally returned to Theseus, was it the same ship that left?

現在問題來了當船最終回到特修斯身邊的時候 是同一艘船離開的嗎？

The answer – whether we can find it or not – lies in the concept of identity.

答案--無論我們是否能找到它--都在於身份的概念。

Philosophers describe identity as the relation that a thing bears only to itself.

哲學家們把身份描述為一個事物只對自己承擔的關係。

So, whatever makes a thing uniquely what it is defines its identity.

所以，凡是使一個事物成為獨一無二的東西，就決定了它的身份。

And if two things are identical, they’re said to share an identity relation.

而如果兩個事物是相同的，就說它們有共同的身份關係。

Now, whether two things are the same might seem blindingly obvious.

現在，兩件事情是否相同，可能看起來很盲目。

But of course it isn’t. Because: philosophy.

但當然不是。因為：哲學。

The philosophy of identity can get pretty slippery, largely because, like the Ship of Theseus, things change.

身份哲學可能會變得非常滑稽，主要是因為，就像忒修斯之船一樣，事情會發生變化。

And when they do, they eventually stop being what they are, and become something else.

當他們這樣做的時候，他們最終會停止他們的本性，而成為另一種東西。

This goes not just for mythological ships, but for all kinds of things.

這不僅適用於神話船，還適用於各種事物。

Like, this mug can acquire a new identity. And this money.

就像，這個杯子可以獲得一個新的身份。還有這個錢。

And you. And even … Batman.

還有你甚至還有...

[Theme Music]

[主題音樂]

So, riddle me this: Is Batman identical to Bruce Wayne?

那麼，請你猜猜看蝙蝠俠和布魯斯韋恩一樣嗎？

And when I say “identical,” I don’t mean that they just look alike.

當我說 "一模一樣 "的時候，我並不是說他們只是長得很像。

I mean that they share the same identity – they’re literally one and the same.

我的意思是說，他們有著相同的身份--他們從字面上看是同一個人。

So, you might think the answer is yes –

所以，你可能認為答案是肯定的------。

Bruce Wayne and Batman are identical because everyone knows that Bruce Wayne is the man behind the cowl.

布魯斯-韋恩和蝙蝠俠是一樣的，因為大家都知道，布魯斯-韋恩才是頭巾背後的男人。

Not only that, you might say: Bruce Wayne is the very essence of Batman.

不僅如此，你可能會說。布魯斯・韋恩是蝙蝠俠的精髓。

He saw his parents get killed in that alley. He became the Dark Knight.

他看到自己的父母在那條巷子裡被殺。他成為了黑暗騎士

No one else could take his place.

沒有人可以取代他的位置。

But hold up. People have taken his place.

但是等一下人們已經取代了他的位置。

It turns out that Dick Grayson, the original Robin, has pinch-hit for Batman,

原來，迪克-格雷森，原來的羅賓，已經替補蝙蝠俠。

donning the cape and cowl to protect the streets of Gotham in his boss’s absence.

穿上披風和斗篷在老闆不在的時候保護哥譚的街道。

And so has Police Commissioner Jim Gordon.

警察局長吉姆-戈登也是如此。

After Bruce Wayne was reported dead, he reluctantly accepted the role himself.

在布魯斯-韋恩被報道死亡後，他自己勉強接受了這個角色。

Both of those guys have been Batman.

這兩個人都曾是蝙蝠俠。

So if the person inside the costume doesn’t make Batman Batman, then what does?

所以，如果服裝裡面的人不能讓蝙蝠俠成為蝙蝠俠，那麼什麼可以呢？

17th century German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz came up with a principle

17世紀的德國哲學家戈特弗裡德-威廉-萊布尼茨提出了一個原則。

that might help us solve the puzzle of Who Batman Is.

也許能幫助我們解決 "蝙蝠俠是誰 "這個難題。

He called it the Indiscernibility of Identicals.

他把它叫做 "同人不分"。

The idea is that, if any two things are identical, then they must share all the same properties.

這個想法是，如果任何兩個東西是相同的，那麼它們一定具有所有相同的屬性。

If Leibniz is right, then the Ship of Theseus became a new ship as soon as that first plank of wood was replaced.

如果萊布尼茨是對的，那麼特修斯之船一換上那第一塊木板，就成了一艘新船。

As soon as its parts were not all original, then the ship suddenly acquired a new property.

只要它的零件不全是原裝的，那麼這艘船就會突然獲得新的屬性。

And with a new property came a new identity.

而新的財產也有了新的身份。

So likewise, Bruce Wayne and Batman can’t be identical, because they have different properties.

所以同樣，布魯斯-韋恩和蝙蝠俠也不可能完全相同，因為他們的屬性不同。

Bruce Wayne, for example, has the property of being a millionaire playboy, but Batman doesn’t.

比如布魯斯-韋恩就有百萬富翁花花公子的屬性，但蝙蝠俠沒有。

That guy is all business.

這傢伙是所有的業務。

Meanwhile, Batman has the property of having fought the Joker, but Bruce Wayne doesn’t.

同時，蝙蝠俠擁有與小丑戰鬥過的屬性，但布魯斯-韋恩沒有。

And the different versions of Batman aren’t identical to each other either.

而且不同版本的蝙蝠俠之間也不完全相同。

Because the person wearing the costume, even if it’s the exact same costume – which it usually isn’t –

因為穿著這套服裝的人，即使是完全一樣的服裝--通常不是--也是如此。

is going to have different combat techniques, and even, say, a different moral code.

是會有不同的戰鬥技巧，甚至說，有不同的道德規範。

So, is there a limit to how much something can change, and still be the same thing?

那麼，一個東西能改變多少，還是一樣的東西，有沒有一個限度呢？

Let’s head over to the Thought Bubble for some Flash Philosophy.

讓我們到思想泡影來了解一下閃電哲學。

Think about this little puzzler, originally offered by contemporary American philosopher Alan Gibbard.

想一想這個小謎題，最初是由美國當代哲學家艾倫-吉巴德提供的。

A sculptor takes a lump of clay, and names it Lumpl.

雕塑家把一塊粘土，命名為Lumpl。

She then forms Lumpl into a statue, which she names Goliath.

然後，她將Lumpl塑造成一尊雕像，並將其命名為Goliath。

Are Lumpl and Goliath identical?

Lumpl和Goliath是一樣的嗎？

Our intuition might say yes, because they’re composed of exactly the same amount of the same physical stuff.

我們的直覺可能會說是的，因為它們是由完全相同數量的相同物理材料組成的。

It’s been kneaded and molded into a different shape, but still:

雖然被揉成了不同的形狀，但還是。

No part of Lumpl is not Goliath, and no part of Goliath is not Lumpl.

Lumpl沒有一部分不是Goliath，Goliath也沒有一部分不是Lumpl。

But consider this: If we wreck the statue, and smush into into a big blob, Goliath is gone,

但是考慮到這一點。如果我們毀了雕像，把它砸成一個大圓球，歌利亞就會消失。

because part of what it means to be Goliath is to be shaped like a statue.

因為作為歌利亞的意義之一，就是形如雕像。

But, Lumpl, being a lump, doesn’t have a set shape.

但是，Lumpl作為一個疙瘩，並沒有固定的形狀。

So it will remain, after Goliath has been destroyed.

所以，在歌利亞被毀滅之後，它還會繼續存在。

So on one hand, Gibbard observed, Lumpl and Goliath seem to be identical,

所以，一方面，吉伯德觀察到，Lumpl和Goliath似乎是相同的。

because they’re the same exact thing, just in different shapes.

因為它們是一模一樣的東西，只是形狀不同。

But on the other hand, how can Lumpl and Goliath be identical, if one can exist while the other does not?

但另一方面，如果一個可以存在，而另一個不存在，那麼Lumpl和Goliath怎麼可能完全相同呢？

Thanks, Thought Bubble! One way to try and make sense of identity, and explain how an object endures over time,

謝謝你，思想保麗龍！一種試圖讓身份變得有意義的方式，並解釋一個物體如何隨著時間的推移而經久不衰。

is by making a distinction between what we call essential and accidental properties.

是通過區分我們所說的本質屬性和偶然屬性。

Essential properties are the core elements needed for a thing to be the thing that it is.

基本屬性是一個事物成為事物所需要的核心要素。

Accidental properties are traits that could be taken away from an object without making it a different thing.

意外屬性是指可以從一個物體上拿走的特性，而不會使它成為不同的東西。

Think about a dog. A dog without a tail is still a dog.

想一想一條狗。沒有尾巴的狗還是狗。

Give him a shave, or a silly poodle doo, don’t let it bark – you still have a dog.

給它刮個鬍子，或者傻傻的貴賓犬嘟嘟嘴，別讓它叫--你還有一隻狗。

So all those things are all accidental properties, and they’re pretty easy to pick out.

所以這些東西都是意外屬性，很容易挑出來。

But it can be really tough to find its essential properties, the things that,

但要找到它的本質屬性，真的很難。

if they were absent, would make the dog not a dog anymore.

如果他們不在，會讓狗不再是狗。

And the more something changes, the harder it can be to determine its identity.

而越是變化的東西，越是難以確定其身份。

A tree can lose its leaves and still be a tree.

一棵樹可以失去葉子，但仍然是一棵樹。

But if you cut the tree up and make it into a bunch of notebooks, is it still a tree?

但是，如果你把這棵樹切開，做成一堆筆記本，它還是一棵樹嗎？

And if you think a notebook is not a tree, then at what point in the process did the tree lose its tree-ness?

而如果你認為筆記本不是一棵樹，那麼這棵樹在什麼時候失去了樹性？

Was it when it was cut down, and thus no longer living?

是什麼時候被砍掉的，從而不再生活？

Maybe. But isn’t a dead tree still a tree?

也許是吧但死了的樹不還是一棵樹嗎？

Or did it happen when the dead tree was cut into pieces, and was lying on the ground?

還是死樹被砍成碎片，躺在地上的時候發生的？

Did it make a difference when those pieces were collected?

這些作品在收集的時候有什麼不同嗎？

How about when they were ground up into pulp?

那當他們被磨成漿的時候呢？

The tree stopped being a tree when its essential property was lost.

當樹的本質屬性喪失後，樹就不再是樹了。

But when exactly that happened depends on your perspective.

但具體是什麼時候發生的，就看你的角度了。

Plus, many thinkers reject the concept of essential properties altogether.

另外，許多思想家完全拒絕本質屬性的概念。

Existentialists, for example, deny the very existence of essential properties.

例如，存在主義者否認本質屬性的存在。

And ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus famously said that you can’t step in the same river twice.

而古希臘哲學家赫拉克利特有句名言：你不能在同一條河裡踩兩次。

What he meant was: Nothing is identical to itself because everything

他的意思是：沒有什麼東西和它本身是一樣的，因為所有的東西

– including both you and the river – is changing all the time.

- 包括你和河流--都在不斷變化。

So not only is the Ship of Theseus a new ship by the time it gets to Theseus,

所以不僅到了特修斯之船是一艘新船。

but it was a new ship the first time anything about it changed!

但這是一艘新船，它的任何變化都是第一次!

Now, it’s amusing enough to think about whether ships and trees endure over time,

現在，想想船和樹是否經得起時間的考驗，已經很有趣了。

or what makes Batman Batman.

或者說蝙蝠俠之所以是蝙蝠俠。

But, ultimately, why should you care? How does this affect your life?

但是，歸根結底，你為什麼要關心？這對你的生活有什麼影響？

Well, if objects are important to you,

好吧，如果對象對你很重要。

then you’ll want to know whether you have the same object that you think you have.

那麼你就會想知道你是否有和你認為的一樣的對象。

And, when it comes to tangible stuff, we tend to value persistent identity.

而在有形的東西上，我們往往會重視持久的身份。

If you take $20 out of my wallet to buy lunch and then stop at an ATM and replace it,

如果你從我的錢包裡拿出20塊錢去買午飯，然後在ATM機上停下來換錢。

is the money you gave me identical to what I had this morning?

你給我的錢和我今天早上的錢一樣嗎？

If Nick breaks my favorite coffee mug here, and replaces it with a new one and I can’t tell the difference,

如果Nick把我最喜歡的咖啡杯打碎了 然後換上一個新的 我就看不出區別了

do I still have the same mug I started with?

我還有我開始用的那個杯子嗎？

What if your dog runs away while I’m house-sitting for you,

如果你的狗跑掉了怎麼辦，而我在幫你看家。

and I replace your dog with a new dog so similar that you can’t tell? Is it the same dog?

而我用一隻新的狗代替你的狗，以至於你無法分辨？是同一條狗嗎？

What’s the difference between the money and the cups and the dogs?

錢和杯具和狗有什麼區別？

Philosophers actually have a word that explains why we think one $20 bill is the same as another,

哲學家們其實有一個詞可以解釋為什麼我們認為一張20元的鈔票和另一張一樣。

but one corgi isn’t the same as her cosmetically identical sister.

但有一隻柯基犬和她外表相同的妹妹不一樣。

It’s fungibility – the property of being interchangeable with other objects of the same kind.

這就是可變性--可與其他同類物體互換的特性。

Most people think that money is fungible, because it’s just a place-holder for the value it represents –

大多數人認為，錢是可以變現的，因為它只是它所代表的價值的一個放置者----------。

and it’s the value that we really care about.

而這才是我們真正關心的價值。

As long as there’s a $20 bill in my wallet to buy me some nice Thai drunken noodles,

只要錢包裡有20元的鈔票，就可以給我買點好吃的泰國醉面。

I really don’t care whether it’s the same one I put there or not –

我真的不在乎是不是我放的那個--------。

although I would like to know why you’re digging around in my wallet.

雖然我很想知道你為什麼在我的錢包裡翻來翻去。

Now the coffee mug … this one is interesting.

現在的咖啡杯......這個很有意思。

It seems like what matters here is why that mug that Nick broke was my favorite.

看來這裡最重要的是，為什麼尼克打碎的那個杯子是我的最愛。

If I loved it because it’s the perfect size and shape to fit in my hands, and it keeps my coffee warm,

如果我喜歡它，是因為它的大小和形狀非常適合我的手，而且它能讓我的咖啡保持溫暖。

then I’d probably be just as happy with a new one.

那麼我可能會和新的一樣高興。

So in that case, the mug appears to be fungible.

所以在這種情況下，這個杯子似乎是可以變通的。

But if I love the mug for personal reasons –

但如果我因為個人原因喜歡這個杯子----------。

like, say it was the first Crash Course Philosophy mug ever manufactured, or it was a gift from my Dad.

就像，說它是第一個哲學速成班的杯子，或者是我爸爸送的禮物。

Then a new one, even if it’s cosmetically the same, wouldn’t mean the same thing to me.

那麼一個新的，即使外觀上一樣，對我的意義也不一樣。

Because it might be that what I care about isn’t the mug at all, but some sort of abstract idea behind the mug –

因為可能我關心的根本不是杯子，而是杯子背後的某種抽象理念----------。

like my love for Crash Course, or the connection between Dad and me.

比如我對《速成班》的熱愛，比如爸爸和我之間的聯繫。

In any case, I gotta ask, Nick just be more careful when you’re around my stuff.

無論如何，我得問，尼克... ...當你在我的東西周圍的時候，要小心點。

Today we’ve learned about different ways of understanding identity –

今天我們學習了不同的理解身份的方法--。

including the Indiscernibility of Identicals, and essential and accidental properties.

包括相同物的不可辨性，以及本質和意外屬性。

We thought about how change does and doesn’t affect identity, and what it means for a thing to persist over time.

我們思考了變化對身份的影響和不影響，以及一個事物長期存在的意義。

And next time, we’re going to take what we’ve learned about identity, and apply it to personal identity –

下一次，我們將把我們所學到的關於身份的知識，應用到個人身份上----。

thinking about what connects this guy to me.

想著是什麼把這傢伙和我聯繫在一起。

This episode of Crash Course Philosophy is made possible by Squarespace.

本集《哲學速成班》由Squarespace提供。

Squarespace is a way to create a website, blog or online store for you and your ideas.

Squarespace是一種為你和你的想法創建網站、博客或在線商店的方式。

Squarespace features a user-friendly interface, custom templates and a 24/7 customer support team.

Squarespace的特點是用戶友好的界面、自定義模板和24/7的客戶支持團隊。

Try Squarespace at squarespace.com/crashcourse for a special offer.

請在squarespace.com/crashcourse嘗試Squarespace，以獲得特別優惠。

Squarespace: share your passion with the world.

Squarespace：與世界分享你的激情。

Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.

哲學速成班》是與PBS數字工作室聯合制作的。

You can head over to their channel to check out some amazing shows like

你可以到他們的頻道查看一些令人驚奇的節目，如

The Art Assignment, Blank on Blank, and Braincraft.

藝術作業》、《空白的空白》、《腦筋急轉彎》。

This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio

本集《速成班》是在謝麗爾-C-金尼博士速成班工作室拍攝的。

with the help of all of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.

在所有這些了不起的人的幫助下，我們同樣神奇的圖形團隊是Thought Cafe。