• What is the difference between correlation and identity?
• Why is it important to distinguish between the two concepts?
• Provide an example of a statement that confuses correlation with identity.
• In addition to your main response, you must also post substantive responses to at least two of your classmates’ posts in this thread.

This question is a little wonky. From a philosophical standpoint, we have a question about names. My dog’s name is Maisey. Most of the time, I think of “Maisey” as my dog’s identity. That’s who she is.

But I could also think of that word as simply correlating to the organism that is my dog. In that sense, the name “Maisey” is just a signifier. It’s not her absolute identify.

But that leads us to all sorts of other questions. If I changed my dog’s name from “Maisey” to “Bess” tomorrow, would she be the same dog? If you’re tempted to say yes, then ask yourself whether you would feel like part of your identify had been changed if someone forced you to change your name? Also, if we rely on these signifiers (names) to describe the world around us, how can we be sure we are referring to the same thing when we use the same word? The word “blue” correlates to a color you see, but is it the same absolute color I see? And if we are not sure about the name “blue”, how can we be sure about names like “man” or “woman” or “alive” or “dead”?

If that’s all sounding off the philosophical deep end…I hear you. This material isn’t covered in the book and it’s unfair to expect great responses to a question like this. So, let’s broaden the question a little. This idea of identity…of what makes a person or object the thing that it is. It is something objective? Or subjective? Do a little research/reading on the different philosophical approaches to this question and add your own perspective and experience.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts!