[Vocabulary] under the name

[njt2009]

The following paragraph described about character of children which the philosophers and educators have tried to give definition to the word "character", but the ideas remain vague.

"There is no ultimate concept acceptable to all. Yet, intuitively, everyone knows the importance of that sum total of qualities that goes universally under the name."


What is the meaning of "under the name"? Does it refer to the word "character"?

 

[Rover_KE]

Please tell us the source and author of your quoted text.

 

[White Hat]

It's here. I think 'under the name' implies the name of a person.

 

[Rover_KE]

Thank you, Bennevis, but I want njt to get into the habit of citing the source and author of quoted text.

How much of this lengthy document do we have to read before we get to the paragraph in question?

 

[Fagin]

How much of this lengthy document do we have to read before we get to the paragraph in question?

It's halfway through. The first paragraph in chapter VIII.

Actually there are two Chapter VIII, the one in question is the second.

 

[White Hat]

Just use the FIND function in your browser.

 

[Matthew Wai]

The FIND function will appear when you press Control + F.

 

[Rover_KE]

Thank you, but I don't expect to have to do this.

 

[Raymott]

It's here. I think 'under the name' implies the name of a person.

No, it doesn't. It means "under the name of 'character'".

 

[White Hat]

Yeah - I've thought of that too. Not a very well written text, mind you.

 

[White Hat]

No, it doesn't. It means "under the name of 'character'".

Seems like the author wanted to say 'under the term (word, concept)'.

 

[Raymott]

No doubt, but the use of 'name' is natural, if not as precise as you would like. It's a common usage.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Do you mean it is common to use 'name' to refer to something that has no name?

 

[njt2009]

The paragraph I quoted was from a book, namely "The Absorbent Mind", page 193, written by Maria Montessori and translated by Claude A. Claremont. I'm sorry for not citing the source. I also would like to thank to Bennevis for the useful help.

 

[Raymott]

Do you mean it is common to use 'name' to refer to something that has no name?

If you say, "You could call it by that name", then the name has already been created. That's the case here, in which the name "character" is given.
If something has no name - which is possible - you can still apply a name to it.

"A: What's this?
B: A thingamyjig.
A: Really?
B: Well, you could call it by that name."

No, you don't call it 'name'.