The color red, and metaphysics

[DoubtingThomas29]

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?

 

[Molal]

Red is the most emotionally intense color. Research suggests that our heart beat beats faster when we see red.

 

[Washington]

Red and all other colors are simply a result of the absorption of all other electromagnetic frequencies within the visible light portion the EM spectrum. It has to do with the absorption character of the reflecting or transmitting material. OR the radiation character of a light emitting source. Some emitting source only produce light of certain frequencies.

It's all well explained by physics.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Red is just the name given to our perception of a group of photon wavelengths (typically between 500 and 700 nm). There's nothing troublingly philosophical about it.

 

[The Nihilist]

One of those positions mentioned is the Platonic school's. There's one great red or somesuch, and all reds derive from that. Even properly explained, this concept is irreparably silly.

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

One of those positions mentioned is the Platonic school's. There's one great red or somesuch, and all reds derive from that. Even properly explained, this concept is irreparably silly.

I think it would be a lot of fun to discuss the different schools of thought on the color red. At the end of the day it is only a mental exercise to discuss what these schools of thought are. That don't matter or have much of anything to do with real life.

So my recovering philosopher, if you care to play philosopher professor and teach us what these schools of thought are, for historical purposes, I would appreciate it.

 

[Stellar Vision]

It's exactly like Wiccan_Child said; there's no need to over-complicate things on this particular matter. I for one strongly prefer to stick with concepts supported by empirical evidence.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Personally I like to think of the essence of things as concepts that are derived by the mind using comparison and contrast. If all things in reality were red, could I conceptualize "red"? I don't think so. Instead, I might end up with concepts of different shades of red, but not red itself.

 

[funyun]

The first school you mentioned is realism and the second is Platonic idealism, and they are two different points of view on the millennia-old problem of universals.

Really, the dichotomy between the two stems from pre-empirical thoughts about qualia, ie that "red" is more a noumenal experience than a physical experience. In reality, each apple has its own red, but that red is derived from a pigment, or a mix of pigments-- molecules, physical things-- which are physically the same in "essence," (though I prefer the less esoteric term "structure" in this case).

For example, there is no Platonic ideal viridian that resides on some higher plan of existence and that gives rise to our "earthly" botanical greenery. But there is an essential structure, the pigment chlorophyll, which produces this color in plants.

This is where the idealists actually open the floor to debate about genetic mutation and structural differences between individual pigment molecules in cells.

 

[JonF]

Red and all other colors are simply a result of the absorption of all other electromagnetic frequencies within the visible light portion the EM spectrum. It has to do with the absorption character of the reflecting or transmitting material. OR the radiation character of a light emitting source. Some emitting source only produce light of certain frequencies.

It's all well explained by physics.

Untrue, “red” in the sense he is saying it refers to our perception, not a physical property of mater. The physical property of mater may stimulate us to perceive said perception, but the stimuli and the perception are still distinct.

Let me put it this way. If where red lies on the EM spectrum wasn’t within our visual abilities, would “red” still exist?

 

[Sojourner<><]

Really though if you want to get technical, what we're really talking about are certain frequencies of light. But even then, it is a certain macroscopic effect that these have on the human eyes and mind that is referred to by the idea of "red". If all essence is removed from a concept, can the noumena have any meaning at all? And if not, then why bother having a discussion about it?

 

[Washington]

Untrue, “red” in the sense he is saying it refers to our perception, not a physical property of mater.

I disagree. DoubtingThomas29 lists several notions of red, that included the notion of inherent redness, "[an] individual item, might have its own color red.," I confess I don't quite understand what he means by this, but it certainly is not talking about our perception. In fact, most of his comments have to do with red as an inherent quality of an object rather than a function of our perception. Moreover, he pointedly asks, "so what else can we say about the color red?" which I take as an invitation to say anything we like about it. So, let's not limit ourselves unnecessarily.

The physical property of mater may stimulate us to perceive said perception, but the stimuli and the perception are still distinct.

Agreed.

Let me put it this way. If where red lies on the EM spectrum wasn’t within our visual abilities, would “red” still exist?

Absolutely. "Red" is nothing more than the label we assign to a set of EM frequencies we are able to sense. "Ultraviolet" is another set of of EM frequencies, but they lay outside our visual abilities, yet we say they exist. In fact, science breaks down the UV part of the spectrum into four "colors" : UV - A, UV - B, UV - C, and Vacuum UV. So our ability to sense a set of frequencies has nothing to do with the validity of the labels we assign them.

A red ball is still red even if no one is looking at it.

 

[JonF]

I disagree. DoubtingThomas29 lists several notions of red, that included the notion of inherent redness, "[an] individual item, might have its own color red.," I confess I don't quite understand what he means by this, but it certainly is not talking about our perception. In fact, most of his comments have to do with red as an inherent quality of an object rather than a function of our perception. Moreover, he pointedly asks, "so what else can we say about the color red?" which I take as an invitation to say anything we like about it. So, let's not limit ourselves unnecessarily.

He was referring to Aristotle’s categories I think. I was just point out what was being said about “red” wasn’t referring to the “red” that the OP was. To my understanding he was referring to the perceived red, not necessarily to the physical quality of the material.

Absolutely. "Red" is nothing more than the label we assign to a set of EM frequencies we are able to sense. "Ultraviolet" is another set of of EM frequencies, but they lay outside our visual abilities, yet we say they exist. In fact, science breaks down the UV part of the spectrum into four "colors" : UV - A, UV - B, UV - C, and Vacuum UV. So our ability to sense a set of frequencies has nothing to do with the validity of the labels we assign them.

Again, im not referring to the physical quality of the object perceived, but the perception itself. Are you a materialist?

 

[Washington]

Are you a materialist?

I would have to know your definition of a materialist before answering.

 

[JonF]

I would have to know your definition of a materialist before answering.

That was is real lies uniquely in mater and it’s properties.

 

[Washington]

That was is real lies uniquely in mater and it’s properties.

Do you mean, "what is real lies uniquely in matter and its properties"? or "that which is real lies uniquely in matter and its properties"?

 

[JonF]

Do you mean, "what is real lies uniquely in matter and its properties"? or "that which is real lies uniquely in matter and its properties"?

Take your pick as long as real is predicate of mater.

 

[Washington]

No, I'm not.

 

[JonF]

Then what do you believe in that is real that lies outside of mater?

 

[Washington]

Energy.