Should we have family names?

[DragonMaci]

The point of this post is, as the title implies, do you should we have family names? I think, no we shouldn't have names that are attached to who we are related to. I think we should have last names, but they should be personal the way first are and middle names sometimes are (some families, such as mine, have traditions for middle names).

I am not sure if this is in the right forum, so if it is in the wrong place I would understand if a moderator fixed that.

[Prometheus98876]

Family names do have a legimate, useful purpose, to indicate to others that you are quite possibly related to someone they know. There are situations where this could be useful.....

[DavidOdden]

The point of this post is, as the title implies, do you should we have family names? I think, no we shouldn't have names that are attached to who we are related to. I think we should have last names, but they should be personal the way first are and middle names sometimes are (some families, such as mine, have traditions for middle names).

I am not sure if this is in the right forum, so if it is in the wrong place I would understand if a moderator fixed that.

Can you explain in what way this question has any relationship whatsoever to Objectivism? For example, in lieu of a "favorite recipes" subforum, a writeup of your favorite potato salad wouldn't be appropriate.

I think it's perfectly fine if you call yourself "Frill-head Kitten-eater". Most people I know are happy with having a last name, though Nizar, Loki and Habi managed with just one name (though they came from tiny isolated villages in BFE). If you want an ever expanding last name to appease the feminists, like Williams-Smythe (just wait until he maries Ms. Greenlough-Gunderson, and they name their kid Tiffany Williams-Smythe-Greenlough-Gunderson). Personally, I'm happy with the system we're living under. It really used to be a nuisance in the old days, when my great-great-grandfather was Knudt Toresen and my great-grandfather was Nils Knudtsen, and when the mailman can into the center of towns and said "I've got a letter for Knudt Knudtsen", 100 men stepped forward. If you want, you could take the name that Darryl Hannah used in "Splash", which I think was "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE".

[DragonMaci]

Family names do have a legimate, useful purpose, to indicate to others that you are quite possibly related to someone they know. There are situations where this could be useful.....

I don't think that is a legitimate reason. I think family names are just a form of tribalism. For this reason most of my main book characters will not have family names.

Can you explain in what way this question has any relationship whatsoever to Objectivism? For example, in lieu of a "favorite recipes" subforum, a writeup of your favorite potato salad wouldn't be appropriate.

I think it's perfectly fine if you call yourself "Frill-head Kitten-eater". Most people I know are happy with having a last name, though Nizar, Loki and Habi managed with just one name (though they came from tiny isolated villages in BFE). If you want an ever expanding last name to appease the feminists, like Williams-Smythe (just wait until he maries Ms. Greenlough-Gunderson, and they name their kid Tiffany Williams-Smythe-Greenlough-Gunderson). Personally, I'm happy with the system we're living under. It really used to be a nuisance in the old days, when my great-great-grandfather was Knudt Toresen and my great-grandfather was Nils Knudtsen, and when the mailman can into the center of towns and said "I've got a letter for Knudt Knudtsen", 100 men stepped forward. If you want, you could take the name that Darryl Hannah used in "Splash", which I think was "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE".

I wanted the Objectivist point of view on last names. That the relationship.

I am not happy with my last name. I was well before I thought of family names as triablism. In fact I don't like any of my three names. I dislike all of them.

I also don't think either gender should get the other's last name. Even worse is when a woman is called after her husband, i.e., "Mrs Fredrick Gail". That is just downright silly. She has her own name that should be used, not her husband's.

I don't think names should be inherited off others any more than unearned inheritance should be. For that reason I don't like my father's family's tradition of the first male child getting their father's first name as their middle name. That is how I got my middle name. For the same reason I don't like my mother's family's tradition of children getting the middle name of the parent of the same gender as their middle name. That is how my sister got her middle name.

[Prometheus98876]

I don't think that is a legitimate reason. I think family names are just a form of tribalism. For this reason most of my main book characters will not have family names.

Umm..Ok...well that is the first time I have heard that before. I disagree myself, and in any case have no real issue with family names.

I am not happy with my last name. I was well before I thought of family names as triablism. In fact I don't like any of my three names. I dislike all of them.

Change them then if you wish, its not that hard or expensive, dont just complain, if you are that worried.

[DavidOdden]

I don't think names should be inherited off others any more than unearned inheritance should be.

First, except in the case of primitive tribes, names aren't inherited. Names are also not "earned", except in primitive societies. The owner does not have to die, and there is no transfer of property. You can call yourself anything that you want. For legal purposes, you have to be old enough to relabel yourself, and the main concern is whether name-changing is fraudulent (an attempt to avoid responsibility). I don't care if you legally change your name to "Dragon Maci", unless that's the sad moniker that you were given by your parents in which case maybe your 'rents should be sued for giving you a bad name. Speaking of sue, Johnny Cash has a song about this.

[DragonMaci]

Umm..Ok...well that is the first time I have heard that before. I disagree myself, and in any case have no real issue with family names.

Can you explain what you do think of them and why? As for my why, I think that because it is attaching people to other people. That sounds to me like a form of tribalism.

Change them then if you wish, its not that hard or expensive, dont just complain, if you are that worried.

I don't see that it is worth while. I am only slightly unhappy with them. A name change in New Zealand costs about $20. It isn't worth spending money to fix it. Though I have my reasons for not liking my names I don't dislike them enough to consider it worth spending $20 to change them.

First, except in the case of primitive tribes, names aren't inherited. Names are also not "earned", except in primitive societies. The owner does not have to die, and there is no transfer of property. You can call yourself anything that you want. For legal purposes, you have to be old enough to relabel yourself, and the main concern is whether name-changing is fraudulent (an attempt to avoid responsibility). I don't care if you legally change your name to "Dragon Maci", unless that's the sad moniker that you were given by your parents in which case maybe your 'rents should be sued for giving you a bad name. Speaking of sue, Johnny Cash has a song about this.

I meant inherited in a metaphorical sense obviously. I know names aren't earned, which is part of the point. I would say there is nothing fraudulent about name changing. Also, changing a name is not evading responsibility.

And no my name isn't Dragon Maci. Dragon Maci is a name I use on all websites. It has special meaning to me. My real name is Kane David Bunce. I don't like either name. I don't like Kane because it has religious conotations. I don't like David because that is the name of my runner/evading father. I don't like Bunce because all other Bunces are philosophically very flawed. I am the only exception and even i am still learning. As for changing my name, as I said above it ain't happening. It isn't a worthy investment. I certainly wouldn't change it to Dragon Maci. That would be a poor real name. It only works as a screen name.

Edited March 22, 2007 by DragonMaci

[DavidOdden]

I would say there is nothing fraudulent about name changing. Also, changing a name is not evading responsibility.

The point is that people can attempt to fraudulently avoid debts by changing their names, thus pretending that they aren't the person with those debts, and that is why there is a legal aspect to name changing, so as to prevent name changes for fraudulent reasons.

I suggest that a person can have a rational philosophy no matter what their name (first or last) is, even if some irrational people have the same name.

[DragonMaci]

The point is that people can attempt to fraudulently avoid debts by changing their names, thus pretending that they aren't the person with those debts, and that is why there is a legal aspect to name changing, so as to prevent name changes for fraudulent reasons.

I suggest that a person can have a rational philosophy no matter what their name (first or last) is, even if some irrational people have the same name.

Oh, ok, I understand now.

I know people can have a rational philosophy no matter what their name is. I never said otherwise, so I don't see why you brought it up.

[Adrian Hester]

If you want an ever expanding last name to appease the feminists, like Williams-Smythe (just wait until he maries Ms. Greenlough-Gunderson, and they name their kid Tiffany Williams-Smythe-Greenlough-Gunderson).

And then you get the sad case of Ivana Long marrying Pete Johnson and deciding to hyphenate the two surnames.

[D'kian]

I wanted the Objectivist point of view on last names.

I think it's the same as whether to put cream in your coffee. Namely there is none.

Children are raised by their parents. It makes sense to give children their family name. As has been pointed out before, we are all free to change it later on.

[DavidOdden]

I know people can have a rational philosophy no matter what their name is. I never said otherwise, so I don't see why you brought it up.

It may have had something to do with your words in post #7, if you'd care to review what you actually said.

[DragonMaci]

It may have had something to do with your words in post #7, if you'd care to review what you actually said.

The point of those words when taken at face value (i.e., how I talk) is that I don't care for an association with such people. Actually Nana Bunce and her husband (not a Bunce) aren't too bad, though I don't really know about them. They do have some things right, though.)

[Prometheus98876]

Can I elect this as one of the most pointless threads on the entire forum? I see no point to care too much about ones last name as long as it does not soudn too stupid mayb (and Bunce is not the best last name I guess, but not worth bothering much about). Would you care to fully explain this tribalism thing?

[DragonMaci]

Can I elect this as one of the most pointless threads on the entire forum? I see no point to care too much about ones last name as long as it does not soudn too stupid mayb (and Bunce is not the best last name I guess, but not worth bothering much about). Would you care to fully explain this tribalism thing?

I said all that there is to say when i said, "As for my why, I think that because it is attaching people to other people. That sounds to me like a form of tribalism." There is no more to say nor is there any need for more.

[FeatherFall]

I don't think it's constructive to say that a thread is stupid. If you don't care for it, ignore it. That said, I think a name that you had no control over is nothing to fret about.

I was named Jacob Joseph Zeise. The middle names of all of my (non-half) siblings were modeled after my parent's first names. I'm fine with that. I wish I would have had a 'cooler' name, but my friends all call me by my last name anyway. There were a lot of Jakes born around 1983, I guess. I like my last name.

Anyway, I think there is some value to name customs. Especially when they tell you who a person's parents were. But I think a modified custom would be better.

I think it would be cool to adopt the last name of your corresponding gendered parent's last name, middle name corresponding to your alternate-gendered parent's last name, and a super-awesome first name. For instance, if my wife's last name were Smith, having a boy named Lucifer Smith Zeise, or a girl named Reanna Zeise Smith, would be cool. My name would have been Jacob Wage Zeise. My sister's would have been Kristen Schad Wage... It's just a thought.

Incidentally, I worked with, and plan to train under, a guy named Devious Xavier Storm ('D' for short). Obviously, this name was chosen after birth. While the first name often has negative connotations, I still think it is one of the coolest names ever.

[DragonMaci]

I think all three names should be personal not customary. We are individuals, not people tied to our families. But customary names are contrary to that. That is why I think customary names, especially family names, are a form of triabalism.

[DavidOdden]

I think all three names should be personal not customary. We are individuals, not people tied to our families. But customary names are contrary to that. That is why I think customary names, especially family names, are a form of triabalism.

You are not using reason to understand the situation. When a child is born, we have to give it a name and not a random number in order to identify who the child is -- so that the child has an identity. The child is incapable of even grasping the concept of a "name" when it is born, and certainly cannot make a rational choice as to what name it wants to pick for itself. Therefore, the child's custodians, his parents, choose a name for him. He can later decide "I prefer Bahanalaga Bohcco Udaamat as my name". Only when the child has a capacity for reason can he pick a name. Giving a child a family name is a recognition of reality -- the child is the product of certain people. If the thankless child hates his parents so profoundly that he wishes to renounce them and remove all signs of relationship between him and his family, he may do so. He should do so, and live with the consequences. And the parents should not presume that the child will grow up wanting to be cast out of the family and torture the child by branding him as a reject. The humane thing to do, in that case, is to give the hated child up for adoption.

You're demanding the metaphysically impossible: that a being incapable of reasoning engage in complex reasoning.

[RationalBiker]

I think all three names should be personal not customary. We are individuals, not people tied to our families. But customary names are contrary to that. That is why I think customary names, especially family names, are a form of triabalism.

First, you are presenting a false dichotomy that a person cannot have a family name AND be an individual. There's many more important factors to what constitutes and individual than his/her name. As plain as it is, don't think that JOHN Galt was an individual? Do you think a man like that would be threatened by his name or it's association with his blood relatives?

If and/or when you have children, feel free to let them name themselves. Of course, what are you going to call them in the intervening time until they are capable of rationally designating their names?

Past that, it should be immaterial to you how other people acquire their names.

[DragonMaci]

You are not using reason to understand the situation. When a child is born, we have to give it a name and not a random number in order to identify who the child is -- so that the child has an identity. The child is incapable of even grasping the concept of a "name" when it is born, and certainly cannot make a rational choice as to what name it wants to pick for itself. Therefore, the child's custodians, his parents, choose a name for him. He can later decide "I prefer Bahanalaga Bohcco Udaamat as my name". Only when the child has a capacity for reason can he pick a name. Giving a child a family name is a recognition of reality -- the child is the product of certain people. If the thankless child hates his parents so profoundly that he wishes to renounce them and remove all signs of relationship between him and his family, he may do so. He should do so, and live with the consequences. And the parents should not presume that the child will grow up wanting to be cast out of the family and torture the child by branding him as a reject. The humane thing to do, in that case, is to give the hated child up for adoption.

I understand the identity bit but our identity isn't tied to our parents. And I never suggested or thought the baby should chose its own name. I agree that it can't and the parents must pick a name for it. My issue isn't with who picks but how they pick. I meant personal in the sense of being that persons name not a name taken off others. For the same reason i don't like naming a child after other people, such as calling a character John after john Galt.

Yes, we are the product of two people, but that doesn't mean we are tied to them or them to us.

Personally i don't like my father, but that's because he is the epitomy of what is wrong with society today.

You're demanding the metaphysically impossible: that a being incapable of reasoning engage in complex reasoning.

No, I am not. I am demanding nothing of babies let alone tyhem making rational choices of their names. I simply want parents to make better decisions regarding their kids name. The parents are capable of rational thought.

There have I cleared that up? The reasons you thought I was being irrational are not valid as they were not what I was saying or meant. They were just your misintrepretation, which is not my fault.

On a sidenote: while I don't like my last name implying an association with people I don't like, it is the sound I dislike more. It is the main reason for my not liking Bunce. It sounds like things that aren't me.

[DragonMaci]

First, you are presenting a false dichotomy that a person cannot have a family name AND be an individual. There's many more important factors to what constitutes and individual than his/her name. As plain as it is, don't think that JOHN Galt was an individual? Do you think a man like that would be threatened by his name or it's association with his blood relatives?

Nope. I think and present no such thing. You are misintrepriting my intent and message. I simply think names shoud be attached to the individual not biological simularities to others. As for John Galt, I don't know. I have yet to meet him. I am only at page 540 of Atlas Shrugged. I can make extrapulations only, but I don't like to do that unless there is no other way and in this case their is another way: fisnish Atlas Shrugged. Besides, I know of no one that feels threatened by such an association.

If and/or when you have children, feel free to let them name themselves. Of course, what are you going to call them in the intervening time until they are capable of rationally designating their names?

As I already said above, I never said nor or thought children should name themselves. As bI said, I think parents should do it. By personal I meant, "applying to the individual" not "chosen by the individual".

[DavidOdden]

My issue isn't with who picks but how they pick. I meant personal in the sense of being that persons name not a name taken off others.

Okay, so what should your name have been? What values -- whose values -- should they reflect? What should be the cause of a name choice?

I simply want parents to make better decisions regarding their kids name. The parents are capable of rational thought.

Based on what? What fact of reality should be reflected in a child's name. Explain what rules of logic will lead a parent to picking a particular name.

On a sidenote: while I don't like my last name implying an association with people I don't like, it is the sound I dislike more. It is the main reason for my not liking Bunce. It sounds like things that aren't me.

Well, I don't know what to say about that since I have no idea how you'd pronounce it. Byoonse? Bunky? Boon-cheh? Having grown up with an easily mispronounceable name (Owe-den, not Awed-den with the association to "Odd") I understand how it's annoying with other people are ignorant of how a name is supposed to be pronounced. One coping skill is to come up with a clever retort, like "No, like the Norse god" If I had a name like "Schifferbrens", I'd probably change it. Is the problem that the name is pronounced "Bunky". If so, then I would suggest that you change your name.

[DragonMaci]

Okay, so what should your name have been? What values -- whose values -- should they reflect? What should be the cause of a name choice?Based on what? What fact of reality should be reflected in a child's name. Explain what rules of logic will lead a parent to picking a particular name.Well, I don't know what to say about that since I have no idea how you'd pronounce it. Byoonse? Bunky? Boon-cheh? Having grown up with an easily mispronounceable name (Owe-den, not Awed-den with the association to "Odd") I understand how it's annoying with other people are ignorant of how a name is supposed to be pronounced. One coping skill is to come up with a clever retort, like "No, like the Norse god" If I had a name like "Schifferbrens", I'd probably change it. Is the problem that the name is pronounced "Bunky". If so, then I would suggest that you change your name.

Based on reality? How about the reality that they child is not their parents nor attached to them?

I am not sure how to spell the pronunciation. I am no good at that. Would it help if I said it was a Scotish name? Bun-ci might me close, though. I just don't know really. I am bad with pronunciations. I try to pronounce too phonetically so I am bad at guessing spellings of pronunciations. The name reminds me of "bunch" and "bunk", but that is mainly because of spelling rather than pronunciation. It also left me open to all sorts of teases as a kid and although I soon learned to not be effected by it at first it hurt and even afterwards it was never nice, because I knew I didn't deserve it. The name Kane also got me a few teases. More than Bunce did. Also, as I said, i don't like the biblical connotations of the name. As for my middle name, David, I don't mind it, but I don't like the source. it is the first name of my slack ass irrational father. I don't like having such a person as the source of one of my names.

Edited March 23, 2007 by DragonMaci

[Prometheus98876]

Here is how you pronounce "Bunce"

[RationalBiker]

Based on reality? How about the reality that they child is not their parents nor attached to them?

Can you explain further what you mean by "not attached to them"?

At one point, the child was "physically" attached to the mother for roughly 9 months. For the vast majority of children, they are emotionally, psychologically and financially "attached" to their parents for the first 18 years or so (at least in the US). Medically speaking, many children are "bound" to hereditary health issues that make it important to be able to connect them to their parents medical history. Many children are very emotionally attached to the parents through the duration of their lives and are proud to be associated to them by their family name because they share many of the same values and virtues.

I have to go with some of the others who seem to think this is "much ado about nothing". It may be a big deal to you, in which change your name accordingly. But I don't see any rational reason to be concerned with other people and their names. They are free to keep or change their names as needed.