[CocaKoala]

It's pretty easy to imagine that somebody might get attached to their given name; maybe they were named for their grandparent, of whom they have a lot of fond memories. Maybe it's a connection to their family that they really cherish. Maybe they just really like the way their full name flows together. Suggesting that somebody "just change" their name to something that's only vaguely related because "it's just a collection of random syllables" seems to kind of miss the point of a name.

[PeterGriffin]

You suggest the point of a name is false associations and nostalgia. I think you're missing the point of a name.

The point of a name is so people don't refer to you as "hey you, the tall guy with the blue shirt". That's really it.

By the way, I have shortened my name. Saves a lot of trouble.

[CocaKoala]

The point of a name is so that people have an easy way to refer to you; so what? The point of anything is purely utilitarian, and people still get attached to them. I got a cat so that I wouldn't feel as lonely when my housemates went on long trips; that doesn't mean that after taking care of her for four years I'd be happy swapping my cat for a different one, even though they might be functionally identical as far as cats go.

People get attached to cars, books, CDs, photos, musical instruments, and all manner of things. A name is honestly one of the least-weird things to form an attachment to. The point is, that's not the only point to a name.

[PeterGriffin]

Please don't compare one's attachment to another living being (like a cat) to attachment to objects, or even worse, intangible symbols (like a name).

A tendency to apply high value to symbols, instead of substance is a property I've noticed in less sophisticated people. They can't tell (or weren't taught to tell) apart symbol and substance, but symbols are way simpler, so they focus on the symbols.

Works for them to a degree. But it's stupid. Symbols exist only point to something else. Maybe being named after your grandfather means a lot to you as a symbol, but no one else feels that way. To them it's just your name.

And one is not honoring their grandfather by being particularly stubborn about their weird name, they're just being silly, and harming themselves.

You honor those you respect through your actions, not by wearing hollow badges (like using a specific name). By the way, I was named after my grandfather.

[CocaKoala]

>A tendency to apply high value to symbols, instead of substance is a property I've noticed in less sophisticated people.

This is a wonderful sentence. I recently got married, and I wouldn't trade my wedding ring for ten times the gold value in cash, because I cherish it as a symbol of my commitment to my wife, and a symbol of our love for each other. Does that make me "less sophisticated" than somebody who looks at their wedding ring and says "Gold prices are up from when we got married; let's cash this sucker in and make some profit"?

Am I stupid for not doing that? Is it silly that I cherish my wedding ring more than somebody on the street, because to me it's a symbol of my marriage and to them it's just my ring?

It's fine if you want to adopt an utterly robotic and value-driven outlook on life, but it's silly to expect everybody else to do the same, and it's ridiculous to say that people who refuse to be similarly robotic are somehow "less sophisticated" than your utterly logical and enlightened self.

edit: you keep on pointing out how you do X, like how you've shortened your name, or you were named for your grandfather, and I guess I don't understand why because it doesn't matter. What you choose to do doesn't have that much of a bearing on what other people choose to do, and just because you're willing to change your name doesn't mean other people should have to.

[PeterGriffin]

> Does that make me "less sophisticated" than somebody who looks at their wedding ring and says "Gold prices are up from when we got married; let's cash this sucker in and make some profit"?

They wouldn't buy a ring in the first place.

[CocaKoala]

That'd dodging the question and you know it. Maybe the ring is a family heirloom passed down for generations. Still not sophisticated? What about the person who's father left them his vintage 1913 archtop guitar, and they don't really play it that often but have fond memories of listening to their dad noodle around and play blues music in the evening?

Is it more reasonable to say that nobody should attach emotional value to any inanimate object, or to say that people have the right to decide by which name they'd like to be referred to, and that as a matter of basic respect you should put some effort in to learning how people want their names to be pronounced?