So I was having a discussion with an old friend of mine on MSN messenger today and she poised the question to me, "What do you think about spouse's taking the surname of their partner?" I thought for a minute and figured this would be a relatively simple question to answer.. boy was I wrong! This lead into a whole philosophical debate that was quite.. fun and challenging and the more I look at it, confusing, we were all over the place with this one.

Initial Question - What do you think about the spouse's taking the surname of the partner?"

Watari says:
I believe it's purely up to the individual, if that person feels right taking that surname. I in no way think it should be expected upon to anyone, just merely a matter of choice.

Kimberly says:
well yea

Kimberly says:
my cousin kept her last name

Kimberly says:
yet her kids all have their father's surname

Kimberly says:
that doesn't make any sense to me though

Watari says:
Oh.. well in that case the kids should get both to be honest..

Kimberly says:
women contribute more DNA, put more work in, and take more of a risk. it just makes sense for that to be the default

Kimberly says:
yea, but hyphenating becomes ridiculous in just a generation or two, lol

Watari says:
lol well again it'll come down to personal opinion really, I dunno I wouldn't want people to have my last name because it gets butchered so badly

Kimberly says:
so, i said this jokingly at first, but it actually makes a lot more sense than i gave it credit for. i suggested combining the existing surnames (if that works and in my situation it could quite well actually) or just inventing a new one. that seems much more meaningful

Watari says:
I would agree to that, creating something new would be beneficial and fair to both parties involved. I can see that being a good idea

Watari says:
You know what I hate to hear though, "that's the way our family has done it for generations." I hate when people hold on to old traditions *shrug* I just think it's a lame excuse for not wanting to put any effort into a better result

Kimberly says:
i agree wholeheartedly

Kimberly says:
with the additional distaste of the sexism that's involved

Watari says:
Oh yea, because so much of history is based of a patriarch ruling that men are now programmed with the idea that they are the keepers of the family and they are to be respected, which I can say as a guy is bullshit, females are the keepers of the family (in most scenarios, there are a few exemptions)

Watari says:
Oh and forgive my spelling, I'm a little tired today

Kimberly says:
that is how it tends to play out, but i don't see why that should be considered to be the case either.

Kimberly says:
i really dislike social roles being thrust upon people, whatever the roles happen to me

Kimberly says:
*to be, lol

Kimberly says:
though, to be fair, i can only really effectively fight my own battles, so perhaps the "to me" is accurate

Watari says:
Well, not really philosophically speaking you have every right to speak up on any form of injustice you may see in the world today and what you speak of should not only apply to you but a majority of society.

Kimberly says:
in some disjointed sense anyways...

Kimberly says:
well yes. but i'm going to see first, and most clearly the injustices that are in my proximity, if that makes sense. which is why i qualified that with "effectively"

Kimberly says:
my friend alex is planning on becoming a nurse. he's *really* excited about it and i'm thrilled for him. he won't care, but he's going to encounter a *lot* of people speculating as to whether or not he's gay, just because he decided to be a nurse. that's a ridiculous, sexist situation. and he's in a much better position to fight that battle than i am

Kimberly says:
for instance

Watari says:
Well yes but you can't tell me that he wouldn't be fighting a battle for other male nurse's in the world though? A battle fought for one in inevitably going to include many. So if your friend fought a battle against the sexism he's bound to encounter being a male nurse and won, wouldn't that be a victory for all male nurses in that country?

Kimberly says:
oh of course. that's not what i was saying at all. but he's in a position to most effectively do something about it *because* he's in that position.

Kimberly says:
i wouldn't be as useful to that cause

Watari says:
Oh of course I agree fully on that but it doesn't make your opinion or your voice on that matter trivial by any means, if you have the resolve to fight at the same level as him your voice can be just as strong as his, regardless of your position in the male nursing world.

Kimberly says:
my counter example would be the creationists trotting out people with degrees in engineering to talk about biology/evolution. it's just *not relevant* obviously this isn't as extreme. and good points can be made etc etc. but from a practical stand point, if i fought every battle worth fighting I'd never sleep. lol, and all of this sprang from a typo and drunk musing... lol.

Kimberly says:
"good points can be made etc etc" uh, to be clear, *that* statement *Doesn't* apply to the creationists.



After that the debate kind of fizzled and started getting confusing because we both were tired But I think about this more and really when I was thinking of philosophy I was thinking of debating on the grand scale of things, I never really fully realized how such a small thing like talking about surnames can turn into a major debate on sexism and the battles to ensue and who would be most effective on the grounds of certain battles. I still hold the belief that if you have the resolve to see something through and get up and speak your mind, now matter how little you're actually involved with the topic, your voice can be and will be as loud, if not louder than those that are directly involved with the said topic. This could be just the rantings of a tired fool who should be sleeping but I can't stop to think that regardless of the battle, regardless of the amount of experience one may have in a field, everyone voice can make a difference as long as that person has done the research, dedicated the time to formulate an argument for and against the main focal points, and have the courage to stand up in front of the people with the "experience" and fight for what they firmly believe in.

Nothing can stop a person from doing something if they feel passionate enough about it, passion is a very important part of our mentality and spirituality, it can drive us to do things we never thought possible, it can drive us to create the things that were once though impossible and it can even show a world that humanity still does exist in today modern world or it can even show a lack of humanity, the human mind is a constant 2 way street, there is no one way in any sense. Passion has been the driving force behind the worlds wars, education, technological advancement, and many other series of big events in our worlds history, but passion is also the driving force in our most trivial of duties, if we lack passion in our life, art would be nothing more than just a figment of our imagination, our modern commodities would be nothing more than a dream we might have from time to time, we need to have passion in our lives in order to propel our bodies and minds into doing the unthinkable and to do what is necessary in order to advance our lives from day to day.

Well that's enough ranting from this guy I should have been in bed an hour ago but I hope I made sense, I guess I'll find out in the morning

Watari wrote:...passion is also the driving force in our most trivial of duties, if we lack passion in our life, art would be nothing more than just a figment of our imagination,...

lol... Art is a figment of our imagination. It is the imagination that sparks our creativity and our will to express that imagination is the driving force behind our creativity, not so much passion. One artist renders the Mona Lisa based upon what he sees in his own mind, and thousands upon thousands of other people come along and put for their own imaginative thoughts and try to interpret the meaning of it, based upon that which they long see it. Is that passion?

He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason. ~Cicero

To me, Leonardo da Vinci had a reason to paint the Mona Lisa, whether it was due to his trying to convey some deep secret of some organization, sharing the beauty he saw in a female model, disclosing the balance within himself by portraying both his femininity and masculinity, whatever, there was a reason for what he did.

Can passion actually be considered anything more than just another emotional state of mind? Is passion often confused with will as a "driving force" that propels us to create? I don't know. Personally, I think humans place too many tags on what unknown feelings because they don't take the time to fully go within and see what that 'driving force' actually is, and why they are driven to do something.

Yes, this starts to sound like a revolving door that ends up back to it being passion. Passion of the heart makes us love... and ...kill. Why is it 'will' when we do something understandable, and 'passion' when there is no logical explanation for the force that drives our actions? Aren't they really the same thing? And isn't it just yet another perception idiom? Leonardo da Vinci had a reason for painting the Mona Lisa, perhaps it was his passion to express his imagination.... or his will to see his imagination become reality.

Semantics? Or humanity's way of over-labeling?

"Passion (from the Latin patior, meaning to suffer or to endure) is an intense emotion compelling feeling, enthusiasm, or desire for anything. Passion often applies to lively or eager interest in or admiration for a proposal, cause, or activity or love."

Is 'will' driven by 'passion'? Or is 'passion' driven by 'will'? Are they different names for the same thing? Or is passion merely an emotion that can be controlled, while will is the driving force that we either have or do not have toward any given thing?

Maybe passion is symbiotic in that it is has leanings toward those things/people that we 'desire' and is the spark behind our will to act upon that desire in some way. That being the case, having passion as the fuel that fans the fire of desire, would mean that humanity has little control over their sense of reasoning and therefore becomes more of an emotional being than a balanced one.

Either way... it comes down to one's own interpretive beliefs... usually based upon their passions and not their reasonings?

As for the title of your topic, Surnames, surnames are nothing more than yet another Christianized manifestation in the labeling process. Surnames did not exist prior to that. People had a first name based upon who they were and you were the 'son/daughter of ...' until the day you took on your own name based upon who you were. Surnames are nothing more than another way to administer social cohesion and social control. However, surnames are helpful for those who have a 'passion' toward genealogy. Which to me, is nothing more than a desire to know, a desire to fill in a missing gap in one's time/life, and the will to seek it out.

Kyouri wrote:

Watari wrote:...passion is also the driving force in our most trivial of duties, if we lack passion in our life, art would be nothing more than just a figment of our imagination,...

lol... Art is a figment of our imagination.

Well I was referring to the physical aspect of art, that if people didn't have the passion to pursue actually putting art in a visual form than it would never be, it would just remain a figment of our imagination, I think I forgot to through 'remain' in there..

You're right though, artist need a reason to do it as well, you need reason to do something or else there would be no reason to do it. But I would call passion the driving force, regardless of how modern society deems to put meaning to passion, passion is and always will be a driving force behind the reason to do something. Let me phrase it this way, I may have a reason to do something, lets take going to college, while yes I have a reason to do it, without the passion to go to college the reason will just be that, a reason, nothing more.

"We cannot live by reason alone." - Sam Harris

This statement holds true to every facet of life, you cannot live by reason alone, you need to have something accompany that reason, could be passion, faith, a belief, will power, any one of the number of emotional state of mind. One could say that passion itself could be reason enough, I say no, passion is a drive to do something, reason is the means to do it, separate mind states that simply cannot survive on their own.

If one were passionate enough and had the reason to do so they could go against the status quo and pick a unique surname for their family, forgo all the Religionization that accompanies that surname as well the the thousands of years of mistreatment and abuse under any number of religious names that exist in this world today. (I say religion in general because even though it was due to Christian manifestation, almost all, if not all of them, have adopted this way of a naming system.) Passion, reason, will, logic, any of the human mental emotional states all play a very important part in our day to day life, but it's how we use those emotional states and how we end up balancing (or unbalancing) those emotional states that will define who we are in the future.

Lol.. you created an oxymoron ; "...mental emotional states..." One could argue that the heart and head are one, but that is more of a spiritual argument than a sociological/psychological one. Then again, one could also argue that spiritual and psychological are one in the same thing.

Humans are emotional creatures, but is this by nature or by nurture? I say both, as I'm sure you'll agree on that one. But what are the innate emotional factors that humans are bonded with as opposed to those that are inflicted upon us through our environment? Love? Hate? Anger? Depression? Fear? All emotional states of being that are core emotions, yet are also highly brought on by any number of environmental factors.

Is passion a core, innate emotion? Or is compassion? They are different, and I would argue that while compassion is innate, passion is an emotion that can be controlled through reasoning. Compassion is either there, or it is not there. It can be clouded over due to environmental factors, but cannot be overstated due to them. Passion on the other hand, is merely an emotion that can bring about the cause and effect syndrome. Too little passion, if one relies upon passion as an innate emotion, can then render a person lazy or dull. Too much passion, and one becomes overzealous, even murderous.

Passion can be controlled through reasoning. It is far removed from will. If one has the will to control one's actions, then passion cannot run amuck. If one lacks the will, or even self-discipline, to control their actions, then passion can quickly take over and consume that person, who tends to lose all thoughts of reasoning. Passion in a controlled state of mind, however, can lead to beautiful manifestations of art in all its forms... love, painting, writing, music, etc. But again, it is nothing more than an emotional state of being that can be controlled by the innate factors that we are born with, and applied through our reasoning.

I don't believe it to be an oxymoron in the least bit, the brain is a complex part of the body, it has the capability to store large amounts of data, control multiple parts of the body, create illusions, dreams, fears, obsessions, all with in the time frame of a few nanoseconds. The Heart has the ability to keep the blood going, create body heat and keep oxygen flowing to all parts our body.

So in essence the mind cannot survive with out the heart and the heart cannot survive without the mind, much like in the same nature reason cannot survive with out passion. I cannot think of one emotional state of being that would not require a mental state of being to be present in some form or another, in a lot of ways those 2 are mutually exclusive to one another.

So in essence these are mental emotional states

So are you saying that a flower blooms, a tree grows, a bird flies due to passion? Passion is not instinct, it is not innate. It is an emotion and all emotions are controllable. Sorry, but your last post tends to skirt around the basis of the argument, for it wasn't purely about the oxymoron. But.. since you responded to that... lol

Physiologically, it is common knowledge that neither the heart nor the brain can exist without the other, but it is not common that mental and emotional are the same state of being, for emotions are controllable factors controlled by the mental state of mind. Just as one can say that 'passion' drove a person to paint, so too could Paul Klee argue that 'depression' drove him to create his paintings. Passion cannot drive, nor can depression; they are merely emotional states of mind, and the actions upon those emotions are driven by innate factors. But... that's just my opinion.

I fully realize that passion cannot be innate, I will agree with you there, musical talent is innate, knowledge gained is innate, passion is just a mental state of being but it can very well be a driving force behind ones reason and actions.

In some aspect one could possibly say that the knowledge you gain from living would be the innate driving force, but again I would argue that in order to gain that knowledge you must have the reason to do so, the passion to do so and in this case the will to do so as well. So in this case would passion and will be the driving force? I would say yes it is, simply because without those emotional states you would not be able to achieve what you set out to do.

Lets visit your painter friends real quick, passion can drive a person to paint as long as they have the reason. A person can be passionate in any mental state but depression is merely a reason to paint, even though he's depressed he may have the passion for painting, he might not have the innate ability to paint but his passion drives him to paint and his depression give him reason.

Uree uree...

Watari wrote:In some aspect one could possibly say that the knowledge you gain from living would be the innate driving force, but again I would argue that in order to gain that knowledge you must have the reason to do so, the passion to do so and in this case the will to do so as well.

Passion without will is nothing. People have a passion for all sorts of things... ie, knowledge in a specific area of life, like music. But without the will to drive that person to pursue that passion, passion remains simply an emotional state, nothing more. Passion cannot move us to do anything, it is merely a 'strong feeling for some thing or person'. Nothing more, nothing less.

And I am one that would argue that knowledge is not gained through passion but through assimilation of an experience, whether read, seen, felt, done, whatever. Not all knowledge that we gain has been done so because someone felt a passion to learn it. I couldn't care any less about a multitude of the knowledge that I have gained, all through experiences that I had absolutely no passion in experiencing. I learned them because I experienced them. On the other hand, I do have things that I wish to learn, and dare I say a passion for, but unless I am willing to actually put forth the effort in learning them, then passion means absolutely squat.

Also, one cannot argue that one emotion is a driving force while another is not. Emotion is emotion no matter what emotion it is. Passion is no more powerful than depression. So if you agree that depression cannot drive us, so to then, neither can passion.

Well I have to say you shall win this round, I have nothing to rebut that statement but I would like to know more about your statement;

"Passion cannot drive, nor can depression; they
are merely emotional states of mind, and the actions upon those
emotions are driven by innate factors."

More so what I would like explained is how those emotions are driven by innate factors?? What innate factors are you referring to in this sentence? I am having trouble seeing how innate factors can drive the actions of those emotions, if emotions themselves cannot be the driving factor?

Will! Will is not an emotion. Having been around children most of my life (I'm the oldest... :glue:), and having children of my own, pure will is innate. It is the one thing that drives us all. Since we've already had that discussion on a previous thread, no need to go over that again. A baby is driven to move. It has nothing at all to do with passion, just instinctual will in its purest form. Knowledge isn't even known, only the experiences assimilated into the brain brought on by the innate will to move.

On a personal note, I have found that emotions are excuses. A calm intellect feels no emotion, yet gathers more information and knowledge in that nanosecond that you spoke of, than anyone can muster in an hour by being filled with emotion. Don't get wrong, I would never say that in the human world, today, that emotions are not necessary, for they are a very vital part to our being, and often times our survival. Yet again, they are also vital to our annihilation. But... neither will happen just because someone has an overwhelming urge, or emotional feeling, in which to do so. Fight or flight scenario... My mind tells me to move but my body is frozen... That person has succumbed to fear and allowed that emotion to overtake them instead of having the calm, reasoning intellect to haul ass when in danger.

Of course, physiologically speaking, it's also largely dependent upon the hypothalamus gland and the seratonin uptake levels. But hey.. that's why we have psychiatrists doping up the masses now, right? Because they can't control their own emotions? Which has led humanity, since lord only knows how many aeons ago, to use their emotions as their excuse for either doing or not doing something. Because really, who wants to admit that they were either wrong, lazy, or simply too stupid to know what to do? Another fallacy within humans. We aren't the perfect machines, yet.

Anyway... don't wish to start off in a whole nother direction... as most philosophical discussions tend do.

I shall concede this debate as I can find nothing to prove otherwise that will is innate.

Lol.. There's nothing to concede, as I don't usually look at topic discussions as debates, especially since neither one of us are philosophical gurus of any kind. But I will say this... most, of course not all, but most of my beliefs [<--- another topic of discussion] and what some call 'knowledge' has only been learned from what I instinctually believe to be true. I could be so far off, that not even the greatest of the therapists of all times could ever undo my mind knots and unlock the vast amount of doors inside my mental labyrinth [<--- Yami Yugi reference].

Debates are discussions, at least in my mind But really when you're referring to the thought process in the mind the only truths that can be certain are those that you hold to be true as science cannot say one way or the other. You're right we both could be so far off from the truth or spot on, but we'll never know, it's our belief structure that determines what we find to be true and false and whether they coincide or clash with another is only brought upon by debates/discussions, it's the only way I actually analyze my values is by debating and pick up new things in the process