The color red, and metaphysics

[Received]

It is to distinguish what we percieve to be from what actually is. The former is our percieved reality, and the latter is the real reality. Naturally, the latter is synonymous with 'reality' in the truest sense of the word.

This is an example as to why I consider etymology to be useful. I say objectivity is the basis of reality; you're saying there's two forms of reality. Insofar as the meaning of the words -- rather than the words themselves -- goes, we're agree, albeit to a point (I don't think reality exists in a vacuum, although objectivity does; and we might even be agreeing here, save the words we use to imply our meanings). If people didn't yield to etymology, there'd be a whole lotta different linguistic associations with certain words, such as "reality" or "existence", and all would be madness because communication is dissipating. An agreement on etymology at least keeps this dissipating from happening.

And while I certainly agree that etymology means present words meaning different things, when it comes to the "big" problems, with extremely networked concepts -- omnipotence, existence, happiness --, etymology can be extremely useful, because without it, as pointed out above, we've delved into a million different self-serving lexical understandings of certain words. I'm not arguing for etymology on everything; just the "big" words.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My point is that it's useless to speculate on the potential illusory nature of reality if we have no way at all of whittling down whether or not, say, the Matrix or the Cartersian demon is running amuck. We have to be pragmatic and assume that there is a deeper reality, or else we're lost in an infinity of speculation, and we get nowhere.

Agree. However, we must always be mindful of the discarded possibilities

It isn't arrogance -- !!! -- to dismiss these ideas in order to sustain our sanity. I'm delighted to see that you seem to grasp the frightening nature of reality (not many seem to), but there are a potentially infinite number of possibilities. A chocolate baker man could be funnelling existence through a cosmic cookie cutter. Or the Dawkinsian Flying Spaghtetti Monster. Or, or, or, or,....

Indeed. But one does not go insane by acknowledging these possibilities. One goes insane by gazing at the impossible angles of R'leyh. Also, the Flying Spaghetti Monster was devised by one Bobby Henderson, not Dawkins.

While I agree that, in day-to-day life, it is infinitely useful to assume our senses do not lie to us, it is not useful to do so in discussions such as these. We are, after all, debating the nature of reality. What more pertinant a setting are these fringe possibilities found belonging?

This is an example as to why I consider etymology to be useful. I say objectivity is the basis of reality; you're saying there's two forms of reality.

No. I'm saying there is one reality, and one fabricated reality (compare the real Earth to that constructed by Google Earth). There is only one reality, but numerous fabrications and models.

Insofar as the meaning of the words -- rather than the words themselves -- goes, we're agree, albeit to a point (I don't think reality exists in a vacuum, although objectivity does; and we might even be agreeing here, save the words we use to imply our meanings).

That depends on what you mean by a vacuum. If you are referring to the philosopher's nothingness, then I agree. But if you are referring to the vacuum of space, then I do not: quantum fluctuations and virtual particles flap about in the 'vacuum' of space, not to mention spacetime itself.

If people didn't yield to etymology, there'd be a whole lotta different linguistic associations with certain words, such as "reality" or "existence", and all would be madness because communication is dissipating. An agreement on etymology at least keeps this dissipating from happening.

No: we have cohesive languages due to a kind of linguistic evolution. We learn language from our kith and kin, and they from us. Notice that we can talk at great speeds without having to delve into the semantical, syntactical, or grammatical meaning of each linguistic entity: it is assume that the 'unspoken' rules are being followed. Notice also that the rules being followed are modern, the words are assumed to have modern definitions, not etymological ones. That's why dictionaries and etymologies are different books.

And while I certainly agree that etymology means present words meaning different things, when it comes to the "big" problems, with extremely networked concepts -- omnipotence, existence, happiness --, etymology can be extremely useful, because without it, as pointed out above, we've delved into a million different self-serving lexical understandings of certain words. I'm not arguing for etymology on everything; just the "big" words.

While I admire your desire for objectivity, such a philosophy would, in practice, be useless: the concepts the 'big' words etymologically refer to are often entirely different from the concepts they refer to today. Take the topic at hand: existence. What relation does the current meaning of the word have to the etymological one ("Stand forth")? English has advanced since the word was born, and it's etymological sense has become senseless. Why, then, do you advocate revoking it back to ye olde times?

 

[Received]

While I agree that, in day-to-day life, it is infinitely useful to assume our senses do not lie to us, it is not useful to do so in discussions such as these. We are, after all, debating the nature of reality. What more pertinant a setting are these fringe possibilities found belonging?

Yeah, but even within argumentation you're not going to get anywhere. It's a simple possibility, but also an assertion that's useless to speculate on beyond the, "wow, everything's possible!" realization.

No. I'm saying there is one reality, and one fabricated reality (compare the real Earth to that constructed by Google Earth). There is only one reality, but numerous fabrications and models.

And that, it sounds like, is the same thing I'm shooting for with objectivity. My use of "objectivity" is synonymous with one of your understandings of "reality".

But a little further. It sounds very much like you're delving into Platonic forms -- a perfect reality, where everything is what it is in itself. I'm arguing that reality doesn't make sense except through perception of objectivity; I'm not claiming that objectivity is really something in itself, but rather the raw material that subjectivity feeds on when reality is brought forth. Something is real if it's based in objectivity (rather than, say, a hallucination based in misfired synapses).

That depends on what you mean by a vacuum. If you are referring to the philosopher's nothingness, then I agree. But if you are referring to the vacuum of space, then I do not: quantum fluctuations and virtual particles flap about in the 'vacuum' of space, not to mention spacetime itself.

No, not space. Objectivity isn't nothingness either, though. It comes closest to an ontological N/A -- mostly because it isn't ontic, it isn't being, but the basis of being, and because it's this way we can't speak about it or define it lest we reduce objectivity to subjectivity by bringing it (objectivity) into being.

[More later]

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yeah, but even within argumentation you're not going to get anywhere. It's a simple possibility, but also an assertion that's useless to speculate on beyond the, "wow, everything's possible!" realization.

Agreed. We don't have to consider each and every possibility, we just have to acknowledge their existence, and not dismiss them without justification. Pragmatists seldom make good philosophers.

And that, it sounds like, is the same thing I'm shooting for with objectivity. My use of "objectivity" is synonymous with one of your understandings of "reality".

Interesting. 'Objectivity' is usually used to denote a mindset, not the nature of reality.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I hope this next thread will be a smash hit.

I can hardly remember what my philosophy professor was saying about the color red, but I can remember one thing and it was this:

There are three schools of thought on the color red. Meaning there are three different ways to think of the color red, so let's see if someone happens to know what those are and states what those are, and we can argue about, what is the right way to think of the color red.

One school of thought was that, and individual item, might have its own color red, while the other items each have their own red. An Apple has its color red, and the other apples from the tree, each have their own shade of red too.

I think that comes from the topography school of thought on the color red, can't quite remember what they called that, but that is what is coming to mind right now. There is also two other ways of thinkiing of the color red, I can't recall what those were though.

I think, one other way to think of the color red was that, there is an ultimate red, that all other red objects, share in quality from this ultimate red source.

Or it could be there are different distinct shades of red, and the different shades make up all the different colors red in the universe.

Alright, so what else can we say about the color red?

Take one frequency of light that we term red. Take a different frequency that we also define as red. How many frequencies are in between?

I think the more important question is do we count two frequencies so close that it is impossible for the human to distinguish them as the same or not when speaking of color.