Home Discussion Forum What is a name but a label for consciousness?

What is a name but a label for consciousness?

or is it a generalization?- generalization as in the classification of the persons lifestyle and beliefs translation into a title. Example antisemitic, artist, public speaker, austrian, leader, murderer, etc. would be generalized into the name Hitler.
Is it an idea? Example :Jehovah (if you don’t know this name then that is a shame) Explanation: Represents the idea of the meaning of life.
Tell me if you understand my concept or if i am crazy


  1. Names and labels constrain us telling us who we should be. Regular names tho, like Allie or Bob or meant for organization. Those names are sadly necessary, but are like serial numbers on slaves or the Jews of the Holocaust. They take us where we’re meant to go, but not where we wish to.

  2. I understand your idea, but the labels that go with names come from the minds of many different people and can vary. All names have an origin. Existing is proof of having origin. But whether this original meaning is related to the person or not is not conceivable just via the name. Besides a label of consciousness, a name is another definition. An objective way to enable communication, assuming you’re talking about birth names and not high subjective nicknames.

  3. I’m going to assume that you want to talk specifically about Jehovah, and not just in general, although I’ve ended up mixing parts on that too.
    I get what you mean about Jehovah just being a label for a consciousness. Giving a name to a person is basically giving a handle to a consciousness for interaction.
    But as a generalization, I disagree. A name is representative for _a_ person, for one single being. If names were generalizations of certain mixes of lifestyle/belief choices, then that would simply be tenuously extended stereotypes. And stereotypes are not the persons, there is more to a man than their stereotype.
    Well, it’s like Plato and his realm of the thought-world, that inner world completely made of thought that he held to be truer than the “real” world. You could say that when we wrap our minds around something, we “know” it, and we know whatever the concept is through ideas. So if we comprehend the existence of someone, then in our heads, all we really have is an idea. Language is the exchange of ideas/thoughts, so… yes, I think you can rightly say a name is an idea.
    But now for in your sense of Jehovah… now it comes down to how you define a person. Jehovah has become a center for people. So yes, Jehovah represents “the meaning of life” to an extent. But that’s not ALL of Him, do you get me? That’s still residing with the idea of -name as label, name as generalization- A person is not limited to what they are.
    For me, I truly “know” somebody not only when I can couple their name with facial recognition, but when I know what’s happened to them before, how they think, why they think and act the way they do, just where they’re coming from. What makes up that standard for thinking and executing their actions. I suppose if you want to go with a computer-human analogy, how their CPU is programmed.
    So yes, in my opinion, I understand your concept lol

  4. Names are used for organization. They are both. We need the to address people and we also use other names to describe people, categorize them. Names to address people and show that you’re talking about them. And then names to describe a person. Doug is the first. Painter, austrian falls into the second. Hitler is Austrian but his proper name is Hitler. But we could refer to him as the Austrian. And from refering to him as this, we now know he’s Austrian.
    Hitler was born 1889. The Austrian lived in a dysfunctional family with a drunken father.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here