Originally Posted By: zmjezhd
Quote:
Could one define the word "red" by pointing to something that was not red? That would be as if one were to explain the word "modest" to someone whose English was weak, and one pointed to an arrogant man and said "That man is not modest". smile

273. What am I to say about the word "red"?—that it means something 'confronting us all' and that everyone should have another word, besides this one, to mean his own sensation of red? Or is it like this: the word "red" means something known to everyone; and, in addition, for each person, it means something known only to him? (Or perhaps rather: it refers to something known only to him.)

Ludwig Wittgenstein Philosophical Investigations translated by GEM Anscombe, pp.14 and 95.

Yes, the author is refering to Wittgenstein in his chapter and it is always amusing to think about the ambiguousness of definitions in general. I know all words, names and definitions are based on "agreement".

I've always liked thinking about these matters a lot and often played this game to observe things while thinking the name off (apart from the definition) and end up looking at the "whatever" as if I saw it for the first time. So that a simple teacup becomes an alien thing.
It makes one aware how comforting it is that we have language.I greatly liked that typical sentence: This pink (shade) is more like vermilion than is this black.

The special thing with colors is, that as far as I can think of, it is the only subject where I've noticed clear disagreements in perception between people. ( Mostly of course when colors are passing over from one to another, the "transition-zones".)

(In this whole subject btw the choice of the type of color is not important.)



Last edited by BranShea; 02/07/09 09:43 AM.