I believe that the actual quality
of the thing does not change if it is given a new name. A name is just a label
given to an object to try and describe it; it doesn’t actually change what the
object is. Even if someone who has a name like Awesome McCoolname gets his name
changed to Loser McFailname, he will still have the same mannerisms and
appearance as before. The only thing that could change him would be how people
treated him and viewed him after, but the name itself would not have been the
thing changing him. It’s the same with abstract concepts and things like
numbers, because something like “two and two make four” will always be true,
even if you decide to rename four as “five”. So, the name itself is just a
label to put on something, and it can be changed like any other label, but the
actual subject will remain exactly the same. So, I agree with Shakespeare in
that a name is ineffectual in that it has no effect on the thing it is naming.
In his quote “A rose by any other name”, Juliet talks about Romeo and that,
even if he changes his name due to him being from the opposing family, he will
still be the same. Despite the fact that because of his name, Romeo’s character
and life changes drastically in that his love for Juliet ends with both of them
dead, the name itself did nothing. Why all of those events happened is because
of the way people viewed that name and how they treated people with it. So,
while the name indirectly caused all of these events and names have been the
root cause of many other events in the past, the names itself did not actually
do anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment