GameBanshee Forums

The court reached a verdict in part one so here comes part two.

The horrors of the first world war was over - millions of young men had been meaninglessly slaughtered on the killing fields in France and the following huge influenza epidemic that killed thirty million people was over.

It was in these confusing times that a more bizarre case than has ever again been seen surfaced. The reason that the case is not better know is probably that both the English and Greek government did a lot to keep it quiet since it was an embarrassment to both.

The case was about the alleged theft of the Parthenon.

The following details are recognised as correct by most who has taken an interest in the case.
A British young man called Lord Algun was in Greece for several years before the outbreak of the first world war. It is known that he attended the court case Nikaos vs. Tamosa but we can only guess at the extraordinary effect this must have had on this singular person. When the war was over he returned too Greece and spent several years building up connections. Through wealthy connections and ample bribes he succeeded in becoming the chief responsible for the restoration of a large part of the Acropolis.

The restoration took 8 years and was surrounded by great secrecy. There was much speculation at why it took so long but since Lord Algun payed out of his own pocket for much of the building work and on occasion let other interested parties inspect the building, it was tolerated.

It might have been many years before the deception was discovered if it had not been for the madness of Lord Algun. As to the exact psychology of this bizarre man we can only speculate but it must be remarked that Lord Algun had taken a very keen interest in logic and some speculate that this what caused him too act so strangely. After his own case was settled he proclaimed with complete sincerity that the original judgement on the ship case had been correct and so the identity of an object does not depend on the component parts.

What Lord Algun had done was to carefully copy and replace every single stone in the Parthenon and ship the old stones home. It was easily discovered since he had the old stones put back up in his garden next to his castle.

After a quick court case the stones were send back in secrecy and the case was kept quiet. But I now ask you: Was that a miscarriage of justice? Had Lord Algun not merely applied the principle from the first case?

I suppose this is the part where we all get to grab some extra popcorn, get a few drinks, and visit the bathroom.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>I suppose this is the part where we all get to grab some extra popcorn, get a few drinks, and visit the bathroom.</STRONG>

Don't forget the Bon Bon's

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>Don't forget the Bon Bon's </STRONG>

Yes! And Raisinets!

Or Tamosa's ship

Originally posted by Tom:
<STRONG>After a quick court case the stones were send back in secrecy and the case was kept quiet. But I now ask you: Was that a miscarriage of justice? Had Lord Algun not merely applied the principle from the first case?</STRONG>

Oh oh oh, now we are getting into the heavy stuff

I start thinking of some classical issues like how do the parts relate to the whole and what is the nature of things? What is original?

It seems to me a thing is both the parts it consists of and the concept of the thing. My hand is still my hand, as it was 3 years ago, even if every single cell my hand consists of has been replaced since.

Now, with modern genetic and stem cell enginering, let's say we clone an identical copy of my hand and I'll go visit the hand at the lab. Then it's clearly not my hand - it's another hand - albeit identical.

But what if I loose my hand in an accident, and I get the cloned hand transpanted to my arm? Would that be a new hand, or would it be the same hand as was previously there? This is the same question as with Tamosa's ship.

Two thoughts arise: Is original and copy a question of
1. whether they are simultaneously existing or not
2. the lenght of the time it takes to exchange the parts

It's an absurd conclusion that the question of original v copy should rest on this.

Still, I would say that Lord Algun should indeed return the stones to Greece, although I also thought Tamosa was the owner of the ship. I simply does not think the principle from the first case is applicable to this case. Why not?

Perhaps it is the continuity of the concept that makes a difference to me? No, that's also absurd. Hm, I'd better continue tomorrow on this, I really need to catch some sleep.

I'm even more suspicious now, Tom Btw Tom, is the Lord Algun in your case a paraphras on Lord Elgin?

Im lost in admiration...

Bows to CE

In the Nikaos vs Tamosa case, I don't think that Nikaos would not have expected to see the old parts of the boat again after they were replaced. This would then make it right that Tamosa kept the boat.
With this case, Lord Algun was given the job of restoration but the Greeks did not expect that the whole building was to be replaced. Therefore it was not right for Lord Algun to take the stones.

As the Parthenon is a unique building I would definately consider it that Lord Algun had made a forgery and stolen the original.

So nail him up is what I say,.. bang some more nails in.

Originally posted by Tom:
<STRONG>Im lost in admiration...
Bows to CE </STRONG>

Hmpf...not only is he making my neurons swirl, now he scorns me too...

I'm getting even more suspicious

Anyway...I think both Josh and Saruman have good points. From a moral point of view, Tamosa and Nikolaos had an agreement that Tamosa was replacing old parts of the ship with new parts. Lord Elgin on the other hand, exchanged all the stones without the Greek knowing and agreeing to this - so morally and legally I certainly think the stones should be given back, and the lack of agreement alone, should be enough for this making the decision in court.

But I'm still pondering the "original" v "copy" question.

To be continued...or I hope Tom comes back soon

I agree with CE that there is a philosophical problem, and both Josh and Saruman on the guilt and nailing part

Let's see. If I have a look at the boat again, and we assume there's two possibilities:

1. Tamosa builds a boat from the leftover spare parts while Nikaos boat still exists.

2. Tamosa builds a boat from the leftover spare parts after the destruction of Nikaos boat.

In case 1) I doubt that Nikaos would object because he still has a boat. In case 2), well, we all saw what happened.

The central purpose of a boat for Nikaos is it's function, so as long as he has the "function" boat, he's happy and does not consider whether it is made of old or new parts. There is also an issue of continuity, where the boat exists and changes under Nikaos ownership, so his view of the boat is that it is the same boat. The question of whether Tamosa's boat is his or not only arises when his own boat is destroyed.

As CE states, time seems to be an issue, since if you were to replace all the parts of the judge's watch at once, he would probably not deem it to be his grandfathers watch.

In the other case, there's the issue of Parthenon. If we look at it in a similar way, we get:

1) Elgun restores the Parthenon with new parts and uses the old parts to build another Parthenon in his garden.

2) Elgun restores the Parthenon with new parts because the all the old parts crumble to dust because of pollution.

Here, case 1) is unacceptable, while case 2) in general is ok. I think most of Notre Dame has been exchanged in this fashion. Same goes for the Mona Lisa, where it is acceptable to restore it when it is damaged, while no one would accept a replica made from identical, but new parts.

One difference is the teleological issue. Tamosa has no intent of building a boat when he repairs Nikaos boat - it merely turns out that way "by accident". Elgun on the other hand plans to rebuild Parthenon in his garden from the start, so there is an intent.

So I come to pretty much the same conclusions as CE, which is highly unsatisfactory , that is

1. Coexistence
2. Functional or artistic/historic
3. Timespan of replacement
4. Intent

defines whether an object is the original or a copy. Not much of a philosophical answer.

I'd just rather go for the simpler "an object is the sum of it's parts" and leave it at that. Then all objects change all the time, and if I'd steal your car, I just need to change the oil-filter to make it into a different object, thus "my car"

It is not the people who asked him to fix it, for them so the item is his