Ship of Theseus (2012) | Philosophical Analysis
Is there anything called right or wrong?
The term “Ship of Theseus” comes from a thought experiment discussed by Plutarch, a greek philosopher, and later modified by Thomas Hobbes.
The philosophy asks, if all the parts of a ship are replaced by exact same replicas over a period of time, then is it the same ship anymore?
The philosophy is synonymous with the story of the film.
The movie has three main characters,
Aaliyah, a visually impaired photographer.
Maitreya, a monk.
Navin, a young stockbroker.
Let’s get into the first story.
(Spoilers ahead!)
Aaliyah’s Story
Aaliyah has developed her way of perceiving the world by touch, and sound. Technology has helped her to a great extent to feel her pictures. She is a confident woman who doesn’t want to be labeled as disabled. Even though she is brilliant at her craft, she doesn’t believe she is a photographer yet. She desires for her eyesight so that she can be better at photography.
Apparently, her conflict looks resolved after getting the cornea transplant. She is at peace after looking at the pictures she took. She celebrates every moment of her dream coming true. She is nothing less than a victorious queen.
The mere thought of how good she was and how better she can be, spikes her enthusiasm.
But, here’s where the learning begins for Aaliyah. So far, her art was effortless. But after the operation, she struggles to take pictures. Now, she tries to be at her best unlike her effortlessness before. She is burdened by her own expectations to be better.
All she wanted in her life was her eyesight. And, when she got it, she is unable to take good pictures. She even wears a blindfold to experience the blindness again in search of what she has lost.
In the process of finding what she has lost, she goes to the mountains. She realizes that her camera was eventually a tool to look at the world. Her pictures were answers to her curiosity. Now, since that curiosity is lost, she needs to ask new questions to find a new way.
Maitreya’s Story
Maitreya, is a monk, who is strictly living a life with minimal support of tools that came from man-made industrialization. He has a stubborn nature when it comes to his ideals. His stubbornness is pretty clear from the long, ardous walk he takes to the police station without wearing any footwears. He would prefer walking distances, but will never step on a automobile.
He is fighting a case against the pharma companies who do animal testing of thier medicines. As the case proceeds, Maitreya discovers that he has liver cirrhosis and to save himself from dying he has to take medicines. The same medicines that are being tested on animals.
From here we begin to discover Maitreya on deeper levels.
Although his fight is to reduce the suffering of animals, what he is doing to himself is totally contradictory. By refusing to not take medicines, he is making himself go through the same torture as that of the animals. The most interesting part of the story for me was when people around him are debating with him about dual nature of life.
Maitreya’s adamancy results in deterioration of health. When he is on the verge of death he realizes the whole point and decides to take medicines. He saves himself from death.
Navin’s Story
The first image of Navin we in the film is him working in an hospital ward, just after his kidney transplant.
This is enough for us to convince us about his workaholic nature. He stays with his grandmother, who on the contrary has a completely opposite perspective towards life. She devotes herself to social service, art, and living life stress-free. She has been constantly trying to imbibe these aspects into Navin’s life by making him part of social gatherings at home but Navin seems to be least interested in them.
The tension between them starts to aggravate when Navin’s grandmother meets with an accident and it is only Navin who can take care of her in the hospital. With these two conflicting personalities trapped in the hospital ward, a heated argument is justifiable.
Navin’s grandmother wants him to experience different emotions of life and be more connected to society rather than just sitting behind the screen and making some transactions. But, Navin says that not following her ideals does not make him a bad person. He earns well, he has compassion for people around him and his acquaintances respect him. Having compassion doesn’t mean that you have to do social service.
But, as the story progresses, we explore Navin’s deeper layers.
After discovering that his transplant was done through a stolen kidney, he goes beyond his limits to find out the victim, Shankar. He gets in touch with him and offers him money to get his kidney back. But Shankar refuses.
Navin’s compassionate side takes him through a transformational journey. Because, although he believed that he is compassionate, his compassion is transactional in nature. For him, offering money to someone in need serves being compassion.
After being denied, he sets out to give justice to Shankar. And, during this journey, he is exposed to different sides of money. Shankar who had initially cursed him for offering help in terms of money, later accepts it out of greed. Shankar’s life is sorted with the money, but for Navin, it’s a transformation.
Giving justice to Shankar was something that drew Navin to go above and beyond, and fight for him. He experiences the true taste of purpose for the first time in his life. He realizes that only offering money to those in need does not make anyone compassionate, but selfless service is the sign of tre humanity. This is exactly what his grandmother always wanted him to understand.
Finding Balance in Duality
Throughout the movie, we see that the characters are stuck in a dichotomy of the choices. They made a choice keeping some expectations, which ultimately were not met.
Aaliyah expected to be a better photographer after the operation but it turned out to be completely opposite.
Maitreya was adamant that not taking medicines is spirituality right, but in the end he realizes he is wrong.
And, Navin expected Shankar to reject the money and take his kidney back, but things went completely the other way.
After the outcomes of their actions were totally unexpected, they were in constant dilemma if what they did is right or wrong. Whatever was the consequence, they had to accept it, learn from it and evolve.
This dichotomy opens up the dual nature of life we live. Nothing around us has concrete existence to it.
There is no right or wrong, good or bad. Good for someone can be bad for another one. Things in life coexist, and it’s all about different perspectives.
Ship of Theseus is a thematic symbolism of this dichotomy. Even after we replace every part of the ship by its replica, whether the ship is still the same or not, depends on the perspective of the observer. Each one can have their own interpretation, and everyone is free to have so. There is nothing right or wrong in it.
There are no celestial beings I know of.
There is no god.
Neither heaven, nor hell.
Neither a preserver, nor an owner of this universe.
Neither a creator nor a destroyer.
No eternal judge.
There is only the law of causality.
I take responsibility for my actions and their consequences.
The smallest of creatures have a life-force just like mine.
May I always have such compassion.
May I never cause any harm to anybody.
The truth is multi-faceted, and there are many ways to reach it.
May I find balance in this duality.
I pray, may my karma of ignorance be shed.
May my true self be liberated from the cycle of life and death.
And attain moksha.
