4 ms·
I think the biggest problem for me is the assumption that there needs to exist a mapping between First/Last name and identity. Its the abutment of two construct
by ethank 15y ago
I think the biggest problem for me is the assumption that there needs to exist a mapping between First/Last name and identity. Its the abutment of two constructs made arbitrary by the media (names and physical self), with the assumption that what emerges is more "real" and thus more consequential to the agent driving it.
It's complete bullshit and flies in the face of history, not just what is "right."
- vidarh 15y agoTo take an example from "history". Ask a random person on the street who Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili, and most of them will be completely clueless. Ask them who Stalin was, and they'll at least have a rough idea...
- nooneelse 15y agoTotally off topic, maybe. Examples like yours are used, I've noticed, a great deal in the history lessons of James Burke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burke_%28science_historian%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burke_%28science_historia...). He regularly describes what someone did, using an uncommonly-known name. Then uses the name everyone knows as a fun little reveal at the end of section. Why not totally off-topic... Well, he also seems to use it so that he can focus on the person's actions in the descriptive context of the person's time/inventions which he has been using up to that point. See, if he brought in the well-known name early, then he well effectively be changing the subject from what he was talking about to what people know about the famous person. And that harms his attempt to show a new angle on the well-known person. This is Somewhat similar to a pseudonym allowing an position/argument to float free from the particular individual stating it, and thus be judged on its own merits.