Unnamed?

Its interesting how international law has so much scope for literature and writing...in more ways than one. We were discussing the Pinochet case and it struck me that Pinochet was a very feeble name for a dictator. It sounds so stupid...almost comical! Hitler still has a sinister ring to it..or something like Rasdislav Krstic (resposible for the Srebinican Massacre in Bosnia). But do these names bring about such an association merely because of of what we know the individual behind the name to be? Gandhi - for example sounds so peaceful and seemingly soothing. However, some villian of the independance movement like Rowlatt or General Dyer sounds pretty evil. Do names become the people or do people become their names?

I was watching 'Across the Universe' the other day and for all its mindlessness, it posed a very interesting question: is who you are defined by what you do or is what you do defined by who you are? When I asked this question with my initial thought process on names in mind, in morphed into whether your actions determine your personality, which define your name? I personally believe that only when your actions truly reflect your personality do you become your name or at least, the emotion associated your name when you say it out loud.

Then again, there's the question of how you do something and whether that defines who you are. But some actions can only be done in a particular way. It is the idea which merits the action, which is limited by the way we confine our idea. There are only so many ways to exterminate Jews (or Bosnians), no matter how you do it, it is the idea which determines your true personality and how you think.

So to sum up, who you are is what you do, provided you do what you really want to do..and thats when you become your name. This however, still doesn't exaplin the anomaly of Pinochet - a really shady name I say!