Is an entities history *the* major part of its identity?

Post Reply New Topic

Or is the dominant issue in determining its identity the attributes it possesses *now*?

For example, is Triton a moon (because it is a planetary body orbiting a planet), or a dwarf planet (because when it formed, it was orbiting a stat)?

First of all: It's "Is an Entity's History..?"

Not "Entities History"(possessive, not plural).

you're talking about heavenly bodies. Not "entities" in general.

I didn't know that Triton's origin had been conclusively proven that way.

Since "what it is now" is all that we can be reasonably sure of then that's what we should go with IMHO.

But you could slice the same reality up many ways. You could reclassify the solar systems members by how the object is composed.And just ignore their "status" in the hierarchy of who orbits who. It occurred to me once that astronomers should reclassify the solar system members into (1)rock balls,( 2) gas balls, and (3) snow balls. The first category would be Earth, Mars, Venus, Mercury, the Moon,the asteroids, and some of the moons of the outer planets (things made out of stuff that is solid even fairly close to the Sun like rock and metals. Two would be Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and the Sun (things that are essentially spherical clouds of gas). And three would be Pluto, comets, all of the known "transneptunian objects"(pluto-like dwarf planets found beyond Pluto), and many of the moons of the Jovian planets (things made out of stuff like water ice, and dry ice, which is solid only at a great distance from the sun).

No, I'm talking about entities in general. I was just using Triton as an example.

I could have used another example, such as "Is a wooden desk a tree", or "Is a dog a wolf"...

Also, I can't fix the title, because of edit lock.

You're not going to ask your roommate to fetch an ashtray on the wooden table by saying "its in that tree over there".

It was what it was. It is what it is, and it might change.

Okay.

The thing that prompted this was, people who believe it is impossible to change sex - to the point where even (near term) genetic alteration, allowing for chromosomal change, would not count as changing sex. I was confused, because it is not a position that seems to be taken on anything else.

SECOND OF ALL..

It's it's not 'its'.

Funny how Karma works...

AND in a place where A reciprocal social communication disorder IS the norm and not the exception and intellectual disabilities exist at over 50 percent among the folks diagnosed with Autism, this is neither the place or time for grammar police or spelling "NAZI's".

Seriously.

There are many folks who are terrified to post here who COULD GAIN MUCH NEEDED support if it WAS NOT for INTELLECTUAL BULLIES who do JUST that WITTINGLY OR not.

And back on topic.. change IS THE ONLY CONSTANT in existence.

Now means now, and that's all.

When I think on this aspect of human experience, I think about the before and after. Before the sex change, the person was unhappy - usually deeply. After the sex change, not just immediately but also long after, the person is happy.

Whatever else may be going on, they're not out to harm anyone or indoctrinate anyone - they just want their existence to feel right, and the change does that for them. They are happy. What else could you want for them?

Triton is a moon because it orbits a planet.

It could also be a dwarf planet--especially if IT has moons orbiting it.

It could be a moon which has planetary characteristics.

It could be a dwarf planet which has moon-like characteristics.

More research is needed, obviously.

Those labels are all arbitrary anyway.

The word "planet" means "wanderer".
Originally "the planets" were every light that changed its position in the sky: The tiny lights that didn't move were "the fixed stars", and the "planets" were the:the Sun, moon, mercury, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn, but NOT what were standing on (the Earth) because it was obvious that Earth that was the center of the universe and everything else went around it.

Okay. You can color them "happy" in the post op. But the question is are they same gender after as before? Or have they become the opposite sex after the operation? That's what the OP is asking. Is a man who has been changed to a woman really now "a woman", or is the post op person still a "man"?

I would say that they are the sex that they were changed to, because thats how they ID themselves, and thats the role they want to play in society.

Yes, they are "arbitrary"--but they are titles for something, created by Man.