On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Alyssa Kwan <alyssa.c.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > No, identifiers are names. Identity transcends names. For example, > in a distributed shared object system, multiple machines on the same > network will have different identifiers for the same identity. > > "Ordinary usage" isn't good enough for metaphysical discussions. > There is a metaphysical discussion of identity which applies to this > situation, and Rich Hickey has taken a particular position. His > position is rigorous, internally consistent, and applicable to how > most people in our culture model the world, e.g. it can be used to > accomplish work by most of us. Most philosophical discussions of > identity really mean equality, at least in Hickey nomenclature.
Thanks for making my point for me: "identity" normally means something other than what it means in "Hickey nomenclature". :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
