Christine the Lioness (3122)
Christopher the Pyro (1986)
ProphetJoe the Irreverent (1253)
Trouble the Pirate (601)
Keith the Director (573)
Mara the Peacemaker (533)
eric the Lil' Devil (351)
AJ the Zen Master (305)
Ben the Kingpin (213)
Haas the Addict (187)
Christine 2 the Mercenary (131) Lei the Mercenary (124) Katie the Mercenary (115)
John1040 the Soldier (59) Christine the Lioness said this
LOL! There’s no rule against keeping your own name, ladies. Pleeeeeze. 
ProphetJoe the Irreverent mentioned
I think men should keep their own names too.
Friends of mine got married years ago and they BOTH adopted a hername-hisname last name format. If they have kids, should they follow that format too?? They could end up getting married and winding up with mymom-mydad-yourmom-yourdad last names!
ProphetJoe the Irreverent hunt n' pecked this
In fact, they could those hypothetical kids could be:
Best-Lay-Wang-Holder
ProphetJoe the Irreverent said this
Sorry — getting tired — that last comment sucked!
Where’s Trouble the Pirate??
Mara the Peacemaker said this
Interesting, PJ. I plan to give my children my last name as one of their middle names — that way at least my family’s name gets passed on. We have no boys to carry on our name 
Raven the Groupie chimed in with
A long time ago I had an art teacher whose intials were ART because she had her name hyphonated with her husbands…I thought thaat that was a good move…but otherwise I think that you shouldn’t hyponate names…it just takes to long to write on death certificates…LOL 
kip152 the Virgin uttered
What about the kid named Justin Case?
Raven the Groupie spake, and sayeth
Mara: For me, I have a brother, so i figure that he can pass down the name…so I don’t have to worry about it…LOL
Mara the Peacemaker quibbed this
Well, I would totally hyphenate my last name — the thing is, I have a hyphenated first name so that would just be too much.
Christine the Lioness up'n wrote this
I think people should do whatever they want with their names. For some women, they feel it’s important to keep their maiden name, some like to hyphenate, some don’t mind dropping it all together and taking their husband’s name. Some couples (I actually knew one) both really liked the idea of taking the same hyphenated name and that worked for them. Not that he’s a good example of anything right now because of his sex scandal, but Mayor Villagairosa’s last name is actually a combination of his last name and his wife’s without the hyphen.
The importance of “passing on a name” has always seemed strange to me because I don’t understand what that really gets anyone. Will you really care if your name continues on after you die? You’ll be dead. I promise, you’ll have better things to worry about then.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent commented
“You’ll be dead. I promise, you’ll have better things to worry about then.
”
Heaven will be entirely worry free — trust me.
Signed,
Jesus
Mara the Peacemaker added
“The importance of “passing on a name” has always seemed strange to me because I don’t understand what that really gets anyone.”
It gets them whatever satisfaction they have in knowing (or believing) their family name will be passed on. It’s like worrying about where your money goes when you’re dead. What does it matter? You’re dead, but some people get peace of mind knowing that their heathen kids won’t get their money. Unless you have a shoddy lawyer who screwed up your will…
Christopher the Pyro added
LMAO - Tooo funny PJ
Mara, it’s not exactly the same as worrying about where your money goes… Money has value and can affect someone’s life.. (such as your kids) your name won’t. A name as preceived value but no real value.
Christine the Lioness scribbled
Awww, PJ…. I’m glad you’re so confident that I’ll be going to heaven.
And yes, I agree with Christopher on the name thing… money does affect people’s lives whereas a name has only the perceived value of continuing a legacy — which doesn’t really do that anyway since you could have male heirs that wind up amounting to nothing and actually cause that name to be thought of in a negative light, and at the same time you could have female heirs who would continue that legacy in a positive way but take on their husband’s names and no one would connect them to the family surname as easily.
In addition, if you take a geneology class (which is why surnames became important to begin with– so that people could figure out for property sake who begat whom) you’ll see that particularly in America, the surname thing didn’t hold up well like it did in Europe (for whites). When immigrants arrived, many of them couldn’t speak English and during their “intake,” their names were misspelled (eg– Jenson was changed to Jensen, etc.) so people within the same families could have different last names. As for the blacks, many were brought over as slaves and were not allowed to keep their African names, so bloodlines were lost for that group of people. And the Native Americans never had last names so tracing bloodlines for them was also pretty difficult.
Mara the Peacemaker said this
“Mara, it’s not exactly the same as worrying about where your money goes… Money has value and can affect someone’s life.. (such as your kids) your name won’t. A name as preceived value but no real value.”
Obviously in some families and cultures, a name has value, whether it be historical or what have you. Perceived value IS real value.
Christine the Lioness stated
Perceived value is not real value. There’s nothing about a name that lends “value” in the way money does because other people accept money as having value as well. Value means it’s worth something (the dictionary defines that form of value as “the worth of something in terms of the amount of other things for which it can be exchanged or in terms of some medium of exchange.”). The last name Smith is no more valuable than the last name Jones. But fifty thousand dollars has a greater value than ten thousand.
Just because something is important to an individual doesn’t mean the thing has “value.” The person can “value” it, but you are confusing two different definitions of “value” to suggest that a name has value in the way money does.
Mara the Peacemaker mentioned
“Perceived value is not real value. There’s nothing about a name that lends “value” in the way money does because other people accept money as having value as well.”
Things do not have value in and of themselves, we only perceive things as having value. For many, money is perceived as having some sort of value — therefore, that lends it to being quite valuable. But the thing, money in this case, has no meaning, no value outside of what we assign to it. So yes, perceived value is value.
“Just because something is important to an individual doesn’t mean the thing has “value.”
Actually, that is exactly what gives something value since you would also know that one definition of “value” is “relative worth” or “importance.”
“but you are confusing two different definitions of “value” to suggest that a name has value in the way money does.”
Go back and reread my post. What I said was that passing on a name could have just as much importance to someone as passing on money. A person may derive just as much personal satisfaction out of ensuring that their name is passed on as a person who wants to be sure that their heirs inherit their money. You said you don’t understand what passing on a name gets someone. Perhaps it isn’t for you to understand because you don’t assign any value to names. But your failure to understand or get it doesn’t mean that names do not have value. They just do not to you.
Christine the Lioness pontificated
In rereading your post, this is what you said, “Obviously in some families and cultures, a name has value, whether it be historical or what have you. Perceived value IS real value.”
Now you’re suggesting that you said passing on a name could have just as much importance to someone as passing on money. Those are two different things. If you want to pass on a name, that benefits some desire that YOU have. If you pass on money, that is to help the person receiving it. You may also receive some satisfaction from knowing you financially helped your heirs, but they don’t receive any satisfaction per se over inheriting your name. They were going to inherit a name one way or another. Not everyone inherits money.
I’m not suggesting that there aren’t people that exist who think passing on a name is valuable. From the people I’ve spoken to who do feel it’s important to pass on a family name it tends to be because having that name live on sort of gives them a sense of belonging to something bigger that will continue to exist after they die. I understand that it can do that for people, but why they need that to feel important is the part I don’t agree with. It seems a bit narcissistic in my opinion. And while they have every right to think it’s important, the reality of the situation is… just because they think it has value doesn’t mean that it does.
I could find a rock and say that rock is worth $50. If no one else thinks it’s worth $50, then obviously that’s not the value of it. Real value is determined by what other people agree the value of something is.
Mara the Peacemaker hunt n' pecked this
“Now you’re suggesting that you said passing on a name could have just as much importance to someone as passing on money.”
That is what I have been saying all along to answer your question.
“If you want to pass on a name, that benefits some desire that YOU have. If you pass on money, that is to help the person receiving it. You may also receive some satisfaction from knowing you financially helped your heirs, but they don’t receive any satisfaction per se over inheriting your name. They were going to inherit a name one way or another. Not everyone inherits money.”
No, not everyone inherits money and not everyone inherits their family name either, but you’re missing my point. People value different things for different reasons. I find it a bit presumptuous of you to assume you know what sort of satisfaction a person who values a name (whereas you’ve indicated you do not) receives, particularly in families and cultures where family names have great significance. In fact, you’ve already stated you know on some level what satisfaction people get because they’ve told you. You just don’t agree with it. And because you don’t agree with it, you’ve dismissed the relative importance it might have to those particular individuals who’ve told you why they think passing on a name is significant. Christine doesn’t get it, therefore it’s not important. Christine doesn’t agree with the importance of passing on names and on what that gets someone, so it gets them nothing.
“I understand that it can do that for people, but why they need that to feel important is the part I don’t agree with. It seems a bit narcissistic in my opinion. And while they have every right to think it’s important, the reality of the situation is… just because they think it has value doesn’t mean that it does.”
I see two conflicting viewpoints here and am trying to figure out how you reconcile them. If you don’t agree with the importance that’s one thing, but you cannot, at the same time, say “I don’t agree with it but just because they think it has value doesn’t mean that it does.” It does. If someone finds value in something, then it has value. What makes something valuable is someone thinking the thing is valuable. Value is in the eye of the beholder.
“I could find a rock and say that rock is worth $50. If no one else thinks it’s worth $50, then obviously that’s not the value of it. Real value is determined by what other people agree the value of something is.”
Frankly, I find that statement to be a little ridiculous. If your great-grandmother leaves you a pair of earrings that in the marketplace, are worth very little or nothing at all, but are priceless to you, then those earrings have value. To you. They may not be valuable in the eyes of others but does that really matter? I would be hard pressed to believe that you would agree those earrings are worthless because other people didn’t find value in them.
Christine the Lioness pontificated
Let me clarify. We can all agree money has value. It can be exchanged for things, buy things, it is necessary in our culture. A name has no value. Everyone’s name is “worth” the same regardless of what it is. To some people, they may feel their name is more important than other names and want very badly to have it passed down and live on after they die, but that doesn’t mean it has “value.” Your example of a grandmother’s earrings that are important to the granddaughter who receives them is an example of “sentimental value.” Which is exactly why that term exists– the word “sentimental” qualifies that they have some sort of value because in reality, they have no value to anyone else. If they did hold the same value, we wouldn’t need to say they have “SENTIMENTAL” value.
It’s not about me being presumptuous or the fact that I don’t find names important that has anything to do with my argument. True, I do find it a bit narcissistic for people to place that kind of importance on their names being passed down. I also find other things people do narcisstic. That’s neither here nor there. The point I’m making is that there is no REAL value to a name like there is in inheriting money. If you want to think there is, go ahead. But in reality, there isn’t. Some things have an accepted value and some things have a perceived value unique to only the people who have them. There is a distinct difference.
Mara the Peacemaker stated
“Your example of a grandmother’s earrings that are important to the granddaughter who receives them is an example of “sentimental value.” Which is exactly why that term exists– the word “sentimental” qualifies that they have some sort of value because in reality, they have no value to anyone else”
Even by your own words, something that has sentimental value still has value. As you wrote “it has some sort of value…[but] ha[s] no value to anyone else.” The fact that the thing isn’t valuable to someone else doesn’t change that the item in question has SOME value. Sentimental is only a qualifier to what kind of value it is; it describes the item’s worth or value relative to something else. But the qualifier does not mean that the item has no value.
Furthermore, what is real value? Is it money? Mayhaps not. Money only has value as long as we as a society agree that it does. There is no distinction between real value or perceived value because value is a subjective term, not an objective one. Thus, all value is really only perceived. More of us may perceive that something has value (such as money) but that doesn’t make that particular kind of value more real than anything else, such as my great-grandmother’s earrings.
My greater point to you was that a name can have as much REAL value to a person as your money may to you. So yes, it’s incredibly presumptuous and even narcissistic of you to claim what may or may not have real value for someone else. And in some societies and cultures, the strength of one’s family name is a precious commodity as much as money, perhaps even more so in some instances…names can get people jobs, a name can spare someone from execution and a name can send them to an early grave. You cannot tell those people their family names have no value. Perhaps names don’t in Christine’s world but don’t presume to define what is real in someone else’s.
Christine the Lioness commented
Mara, I realize you really want to believe that a name is as valuable as money, and are therefore going to extremes (”…and in some societies and cultures, the strength of one’s family name is a precious commodity as much as money, perhaps even more so in some instances…names can get people jobs, a name can spare someone from execution and a name can send them to an early grave.”) by finding exceptions to the rule to argue your point.
Let’s come back to the U.S. and look at everyday Joe who lives next door. Joe may really want to have a grandson so that Joe’s last name can be passed on for another generation, but in the grand scheme, Joe’s last name isn’t any more important than anyone else’s last name except to Joe.
And yes, having to state that something has “sentimental value” does mean it has no objective value. If it did, no one would have to explain it’s value by suggesting it has “sentimental value.” You basically just agreed that there is a difference between subjective value and objective value. Which has been my point all along. There’s nothing narcisstic, Mara, about pointing out the obvious — that names don’t have real value. Is this really that hard of a concept to grasp?
Christine the Lioness remarked
“Furthermore, what is real value? Is it money? Mayhaps not. Money only has value as long as we as a society agree that it does. There is no distinction between real value or perceived value because value is a subjective term, not an objective one. Thus, all value is really only perceived. More of us may perceive that something has value (such as money) but that doesn’t make that particular kind of value more real than anything else, such as my great-grandmother’s earrings.”
And yes, money has value because we as a society agrees that it does. When we as a society agree that names have a value, they’ll be as valuable as money. Until then, anyone can go into a courthouse and petition for a name change for any reason they want. But you can’t go into a bank and exchange a $5 bill for a $50.
Mara the Peacemaker asserted
“You basically just agreed that there is a difference between subjective value and objective value.”
I don’t see where I did that. I’ve already said that all value is subjective and even explicitly stated that value is not an objective term.
“Mara, I realize you really want to believe that a name is as valuable as money, and are therefore going to extremes”
I don’t necessarily believe anything. I’m merely giving you another point of view since you previously stated that you didn’t get all of the hoopla about names. They are not extremes…I’m simply pointing out that there are cultures and families in which names have great value and things like what I mentioned happen with regularity. Not that a name is worth money, but that a name can have as much significance as money. Believe me, I work with asylum clients, etc everyday that hail from places where names are very important.
“When we as a society agree that names have a value, they’ll be as valuable as money.”
Value is not about money, it is about relativity. Is that so difficult to understand? Something does not have be as “valuable” as money in order to have value. In fact, there are things besides money that we consider incredibly valuable. You cannot go into a bank and exchange a lot of things such as your right to freedom of speech but most in our country would agree that the right is extremely valuable.
So I will ask you again, what is “real value?” What makes something valuable because obviously, it isn’t money.
Mara the Peacemaker penned this
“Until then, anyone can go into a courthouse and petition for a name change for any reason they want.”
Hmm. This statement made me question what else is in a name. This is actually inaccurate. You cannot petition a name change for any old reason you want; as in most things in a society of laws, there are certain restrictions on even that. For example, you cannot change your name for fradulent purposes. I had never really thought of the law’s implications before now because that seems to make sense for obvious reasons. But I wonder, why go through all of the trouble with names? Why must a person be legally tied to a name? Why not track people with merely their SSNs or some other form of identification? In fact, that might be easier since names do not present the most efficient means of classification.
Perhaps in our society, names are more than we make them out to be. From an anthropological perspective, names are more than mere identifiers. In other words, we do not just name as a way to categorize or classify people. Names connote a sense of personal identity, uniqueness and humanity. There is also a certain power recognized in a name…in the process of naming, changing one’s name or even mispronouncing someone else’s name. Even those of us who are not particularly attached to our names insist that others call us by a particular name or names. We prefer a name or names as opposed to other names that someone else might prefer to call us. I would think that we as a society value our names much more than we care to admit. Even those of us who would venture to say that names are without value. Are they really, totally devoid of any sort of value simply because one can petition a court to change it? Perhaps not.
Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.
