What's in a name?

Shakespeare once wrote, "-a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet."

I'm paraphrasing, and using it out context, but since I'm opening a discussion rather than a debate, I imagine it won't be held against me

It sounds simple enough; regardless of what specific name we assign to something, it still is the same basic thing.

And yet, a rose isn't "just a flower", is it? One could go to the dictionary, and get a definition, but not meaning. In so many things, we assume greater meaning beyond the word.

And people aren't flowers.

Multiple culture's assign significance in nomenclature; to have and fully know a name was regarded as a form of power, especially a person's. Knowingsomeone's true name gives you power over them.

But, again, people are strange things, in this regard.

Some of you may be familiar with the "Argos" philosophical exercise, but for those who aren't, I'll explain: the Argos, over the course of the Argosy, undergoes a great many repairs, to such an extent that it wouldn't be hyperbole to suggest it was effectively rebuilt entirely, at least once. The key question to the exercise was- after so many of the original parts are replaced, can still claim that same ship?

Sometimes, a person goes through an event, has an experience, or some other combination of synonyms, and they come out the other side... Different.

So different, that on comes the existential introspection; who am I, now? Who was I, before? And what does either really mean?

Further, still, what does that mean to the people around you? The people close to you? Are you still the same person, to them? Or they, to you?

These are thoughts I have, as of late.

Let's discuss.

No the idea of "self" is an illusion. Also the physical construct is a red herring. It does not matter because it is fleeting. All that matter is the continuity of experience that builds constantly on the imagination. The idea is to stop focusing on such things in the pursuit of something higher. That higher meaning is purpose.

VixensVengeance wrote: No the idea of "self" is an illusion. Also the physical construct is a red herring. It does not matter because it is fleeting. All that matter is the continuity of experience that builds constantly on the imagination. The idea is to stop focusing on such things in the pursuit of something higher. That higher meaning is purpose.

I agree with you on almost all of this with the exception of the "self" being an illusion. I think the self is just a much smaller part of a whole than we like to build it up too. I do not think we should dismiss indvidual experience as having a hand in finding purpose. In my personal experience it is exactly my experience that has allowed me to find a purpose with which I want to pursue.

As for the OP's topic. A name is simply a name. It is a word that only means what you and others assign it as such. I use my name Kobos, sure it has it's backing in Poland and represents my family through the generations there and in our immigration to the US. To my some of my students, it means that long haired teacher who is alright with chilling, talking straight, who swears, jokes, and in the end gives more of a crap about the way you apply knowledge than how you learn it. On the converse there are students that think that name means that weird long haired teacher who is always looking serious and is a dick about the rules and pushes them to go out of their way to do things to completion. So there is really just a ton of perspectives in the name it means one thing to some and another to others.

In a thought sense I have changed many times and in fact still changing all the time. You could call me Shitbag for all I care if that is how you want to define me, but make sure that your definition of shitbag actually defines your image of me as I am through our interactions.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

I'll stick with attempting to "know thyself". Afterall, Kobos, introspection, and the exploration of identity not only leads one to experiences, but can be an experience, in itself.

As a fleeting thing, I prefer to partake while I can. If we've only this one life before we return to The Force, what's the harm in enriching our spirits? Indulging to the point of distraction, I think, would be of greater concern, such as hedonism, or the infamous "navel gazing" so many refer to when they find the discussion in general distasteful. We don't dismiss the notion of love, as another point, even though it can often be temporary or "fleeting" (some might even say it isn't real, but that's a different discussion entirely), yet most don't shy away from it; no, we say that it's "better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all". Similarly, I would maintain that "A life un-reflected is a life wasted".

Knowledge of the self is still pursuit of knowledge, and can just as easily lead one to sense of purpose, if only for a short while. Did I just accidentally define form of philosophy??

Oh, I do enjoy when a discussion makes me think, like this! Thank you, all!

I think it serves as a reference in a system, and so when one wants to alter aspects of interactions within that system it might suit to alter the reference label. Why is a difficult questions, just because of being so many reasons why... might be easier to ask why not! Factors probably relate to the extents of its actions and how the system it interacts with is structured, inner, outer, private, public etc

Kobos wrote:

VixensVengeance wrote: No the idea of "self" is an illusion. Also the physical construct is a red herring. It does not matter because it is fleeting. All that matter is the continuity of experience that builds constantly on the imagination. The idea is to stop focusing on such things in the pursuit of something higher. That higher meaning is purpose.

I agree with you on almost all of this with the exception of the "self" being an illusion. I think the self is just a much smaller part of a whole than we like to build it up too. I do not think we should dismiss indvidual experience as having a hand in finding purpose. In my personal experience it is exactly my experience that has allowed me to find a purpose with which I want to pursue.

This is an interesting dilemma you present that I would like to explore. I claim there is no such thing as self but you feel there is.

I am a human called vixen (entity) and lets also say there is a ship called Argo (construct). As we examine each let me ask you, where is the self of vixen? In the body right? And where is the construct argo? In the ship. If we break a mast from the ship and now there are two parts, I ask where is Argo? You point at the ship and not the mast. If I break an arm off my body so there are two parts and then I ask where is vixen? You point not at the arm but at the remaining body.

You see we have this intuitive idea of where the entity resides. So my next question becomes, what if we keep breaking parts off both the ship and the body until both are completely disassembled. And then I ask you where is Argo or where is vixen? Can you answer that question?

One of two things might happen. Suddenly you include all the parts again and call it Argo or call it vixen or you realize that at some point Argo or vixen disappeared. So where did they go? Did they ever exist and if they did where are they now?