Star Trek and Philosophy
Warning: one of the geekiest conceivable posts follows.
So, I was randomly remembering this scene from one of the Star Trek TV shows -- I guess it would be TNG, though it might have been Enterprise -- where we see the Captain's quarters, and we see that he has paintings of others vessels named 'Enterprise' as decoration. We see, for instance, a tall ship, umm some other things, and the Space Shuttle Enterprise. So, what's the problem?
Well, it seems that Star Trek isn't presented as a wholly fictional world, but it's supposed to be a possible continuation of *our* world. The Star Trek universe is one way that we might develop. In other words, when the characters on Star Trek talk about history -- about Shakespeare and Ancient Rome and so on -- they're talking about the same Shakespeare we talk about, the same Rome we talk about -- *our* history. And, I think it's fair to say that we're supposed to treat the paintings in the Captain's quarters as depicting *our* Enterprises; he has a painting of the actual ship Enterprise, and the actual shuttle Enterprise.
But, there's a big problem. The Space Shuttle Enterprise was, in fact, named after the fictional Starship Enterprise. But, surely, we're not supposed to think that, in the Star Trek universe, there was a TV show that eerily predicted the future, and that we named a space shuttle after a fictional starship, and then named a real starship after a real space shuttle.
Maybe we're supposed to think that the Star Trek universe also has an alternate past; this isn't really one of our possible futures after all. And this is plausible, too, since it's probably not true in the Star Trek world that a TV show in the 20th and 21st centuries perfectly predicted the future (modulo contradictions on the story telling). But then, this would also mean that Picard (let's say) doesn't have a painting of *our* Enterprises. And, I guess that's not such a big deal philosophically, but it does take away something moving from the scene.
I guess, um, the more I think about it, that's what's going on -- Star Trek isn't supposed to be a possible future. Their references to the past aren't references to *our* past after all. And that's a little sad, somehow.
So, I was randomly remembering this scene from one of the Star Trek TV shows -- I guess it would be TNG, though it might have been Enterprise -- where we see the Captain's quarters, and we see that he has paintings of others vessels named 'Enterprise' as decoration. We see, for instance, a tall ship, umm some other things, and the Space Shuttle Enterprise. So, what's the problem?
Well, it seems that Star Trek isn't presented as a wholly fictional world, but it's supposed to be a possible continuation of *our* world. The Star Trek universe is one way that we might develop. In other words, when the characters on Star Trek talk about history -- about Shakespeare and Ancient Rome and so on -- they're talking about the same Shakespeare we talk about, the same Rome we talk about -- *our* history. And, I think it's fair to say that we're supposed to treat the paintings in the Captain's quarters as depicting *our* Enterprises; he has a painting of the actual ship Enterprise, and the actual shuttle Enterprise.
But, there's a big problem. The Space Shuttle Enterprise was, in fact, named after the fictional Starship Enterprise. But, surely, we're not supposed to think that, in the Star Trek universe, there was a TV show that eerily predicted the future, and that we named a space shuttle after a fictional starship, and then named a real starship after a real space shuttle.
Maybe we're supposed to think that the Star Trek universe also has an alternate past; this isn't really one of our possible futures after all. And this is plausible, too, since it's probably not true in the Star Trek world that a TV show in the 20th and 21st centuries perfectly predicted the future (modulo contradictions on the story telling). But then, this would also mean that Picard (let's say) doesn't have a painting of *our* Enterprises. And, I guess that's not such a big deal philosophically, but it does take away something moving from the scene.
I guess, um, the more I think about it, that's what's going on -- Star Trek isn't supposed to be a possible future. Their references to the past aren't references to *our* past after all. And that's a little sad, somehow.