Philosophy: Is The Red Rose Really Red?

[utica]

But since you grew up with purple being red, that would BE red for you. I can never look at someone else and know if they are percieving the same “COLOR” as I am, merely because their brain might interpret it differently but the word association is the same with whatever color they percieve in that wavelength range.

Yes, take color blindness for example.

As I grow older, I’m having more and more trouble distinguishing between certain shades of green and blue. To me, they look almost identical, to others they appear in stark contrast.

So it seems that the reality of these two hues, call them blue and blue-green, is such that they exists outside of my ability to perceive them. I would say that one really is blue and one really is blue-green, even though I can’t see that.

So, I’d say that yes, a red rose really is red.

 

[utica]

We both see a red rose, but their preception of red is really what I see as blue… I am confusing everyone now probably.

What you’re saying is perfectly clear.

Hope someone will correct me if I’m wrong in this, but I think the reduction of your question ends with Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am.”

I like the part in Pope Benedict’s “Introduction to Christianity”, where he points out something along the lines that Descartes’ Cogito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am, really ought to be, Cogitor ergo sum - I am thought, therefore I am.

When I read that, I thought, “Holy Cow, one stinkin’ letter and an entire civilization can start heading down the wrong road.”

 

[LilyM]

I have always wondered if a red rose which is red to me is red to someone else. What if someone else’s red is blue to them? Understand what I am saying? We both see a red rose, but their preception of red is really what I see as blue… I am confusing everyone now probably.

Ever met those people that just could not color cordinate themselves? This is what made me think of this.

God bless

For the most part we do all see the same things - the physical and sensory reactions of light refracting from an object into our eye and that information being processed by the brain are pretty well understood and we can safely say that all human eyes mostly function in a standard way.

Mind you, I’ve always had problems with certain shades of blue, green and purple so maybe I am a bit colour blind and never knew it!

 

[Truthstalker]

I have always wondered if a red rose which is red to me is red to someone else. What if someone else’s red is blue to them? Understand what I am saying? We both see a red rose, but their preception of red is really what I see as blue… I am confusing everyone now probably.

Ever met those people that just could not color cordinate themselves? This is what made me think of this.

God bless

Maybe when you say “red”, and think of “red”, I hear “red”, but my “red” is actually what you would think of as yellow, if you saw my mind? I think Ani has the answer to this one, and that is that phenomena are cross-connected. “Red” isn’t a color isolated from the rest of reality - we know what “red” is in the context of our perceptions.

Ugh. Ani’s general semantics are getting to me.

Maybe your “red” is a truer “red” or a more intense “red”: perhaps you have a better grasp or closer grip on what God has in mind when He thinks of what “red” is, and my idea of “red” is a pale smoky grey in comparison. If you were a great artist you could tell me what you mean by “red” and so reveal some of what God’s mind is to me that I cannot see. Likewise I maybe I could tell you about green, if I were a great artist.

 

[anthony022071]

If a man talks in the woods and there is no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?

His wife or girlfriend will,of course,find out about it and berate him
for being sneaky.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

How about Heraclitus’ “You can never step into the same river twice”?

Thinking back to freshmen philosophy class there are two things going on; first is what makes a river? Water. So if you step into a river, take your foot out and put it back in, the water that you had put your foot in the first time had moved down stream and you are putting your foot into different water, ie a different river.

Second, if we go by experience, by the time you put your foot back in a second time you have already experienced it and are not the same person as you were before. This one I don’t really understand, it shouldn’t matter based on experience whether you can do something twice. But this is what my philosophy professor had to say, who am I to argue

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Truthstalker:

Ugh. Ani’s general semantics are getting to me.

You created a monster, TS.

Truthstalker:

Maybe your “red” is a truer “red” or a more intense “red”: perhaps you have a better grasp or closer grip on what God has in mind when He thinks of what “red” is, and my idea of “red” is a pale smoky grey in comparison.

Speaking about red being a pale smoky grey take a look at Mark Rothko’scolour fields. He said that the only source of art is tragic experience.

imagecache2.allposters.com/images/PA2/vp483_b.jpg

Truthstalker:

If you were a great artist you could tell me what you mean by “red” and so reveal some of what God’s mind is to me that I cannot see.

Rothko is your man. although my favourite Abstract Expressionist is Richard Diebenkorn. So satisfying. He said that art should be difficult.

imagecache2.allposters.com/images/MEW/3092_b.jpg

Truthstalker:

Likewise I maybe I could tell you about green, if I were a great artist.

Or even if you were not a great artist.

Now this may seem off topic but it is not. And it may seem frivolous but it is not. Look how Rothko makes the transference from the dichotomy between underlyingreality/analogousreality to red/greygreenred. Without words. And what is the effect of that? Direct experience of a spiritual reality.

So I forget who said that we cannot know something without having a word for it. Is this true with Rothko? Hint: no. How does that work?

 

[chevalier]

“Red” is a convention without any necessary base in reality. As such, it’s intersubjective and not objective. There’s therefore no question of some abstract objective standard of red, even if we can indeed define colours in numbers and replicate that experience (RGB for instance). When we say a rose is red, we don’t necessarily mean it’s objectively red, but we mean it’s what we and most people understand under the word “red”.

While there are objective standards of good and beauty (not physical of a person, but more in the kallos k’agathos sense and referred to God) and truth and all, there’s no need for objective standards of yellow or red or what else. And we can’t actually establish them, either, because that would still be intersubjective like what we have now, just more clearly defined.

If we were to insist that there is an objective red, we would have to assume that God has some need for objective red or that it’s in some relation to Him. But truly, does God need the concept of red or is it a human one? There’s no reason to claim colours are not human concepts but rather something divine. Nope, colours are concepts - that concept is based on intersubjective human experience (and subjective judgement and intersubjective experience of that judgement) of objective light waves.

So, once again, red is a linguistic convention and if God had any need for it, it would be for the purpose of communication with us and for the reason of our limitations. So even if God says “red” somewhere in the Bible, it refers to our concepts and doesn’t mean any objective red exists.

 

[cor]

While there are objective standards of good and beauty (not physical of a person, but more in the kallos k’agathos sense and referred to God)

I strongly disagree with you. Goodness and beauty are known in medieval philosophy as transcendentals and everything to the extent to which it exists possesses goodness and beauty, including physical things. Physical things, though in a lesser way than spiritual things, reflect the goodness and beauty of God – they reflect so, objectively – that is, really, in fact. The physical realm is a reflection of the glory of God as is, though in a greater manner, the spiritual realm.

 

[chevalier]

I strongly disagree with you. Goodness and beauty are known in medieval philosophy as transcendentals and everything to the extent to which it exists possesses goodness and beauty, including physical things. Physical things, though in a lesser way than spiritual things, reflect the goodness and beauty of God – they reflect so, objectively – that is, really, in fact. The physical realm is a reflection of the glory of God as is, though in a greater manner, the spiritual realm.

Are therefore objective standards of female charms? Or male, for that matter? Which is the only thing I denied? Is model X objectively prettier than model Y? If we disagree about this, is one of us in error?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Are therefore objective standards of female charms? Or male, for that matter?

There is an underlying reality which is beauty. Female or male charms are analogues of that underlying reality.

 

[chevalier]

There is an underlying reality which is beauty. Female or male charms are analogues of that underlying reality.

But to reiterate my question: is there an objective standard according to which one woman is prettier than another or one man handsomer? We can talk all we want about how it reflects God’s own beauty and the spiritual world, but the question stands: is one model objectively prettier than another?

I believe not. I believe intersubjectives come into play in such things. Similarly, there’s no such thing as objective red.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

But to reiterate my question: is there an objective standard according to which one woman is prettier than another or one man handsomer? We can talk all we want about how it reflects God’s own beauty and the spiritual world, but the question stands: is one model objectively prettier than another?

I believe not. I believe intersubjectives come into play in such things. Similarly, there’s no such thing as objective red.

Perhaps there is no objective interpretation of red. Does that work?

 

[freesoulhope]

Perhaps there is no objective interpretation of red. Does that work?

There is no such thing as red; the world is really black and white. Colour is a projection of the mind.

Dont ask me why i think this; i dont think it for any reason other then that i like the idea of it. Peace.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

There is no such thing as red; the world is really black and white.

Nope.

 

[freesoulhope]

Nope.

Okay ; the rose is red, and the reason we regognise it biologically, is because red has an essence of which is apart of the material universe. Twist your head around that one.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Okay ; the rose is red…

I believe the rose is red. I see the rose as anything including or excluding red because I live in a fallen world and I cannot see perfectly.

But then you’d think the rose would clue in and be something I could see more clearly. Or change colour like a chamaeleon according to who was looking at it.

Brother! Now I am really bent out of shape about roses.

 

[freesoulhope]

I believe the rose is red. I see the rose as anything including or excluding red because I live in a fallen world and I cannot see perfectly.

Hmmm it seems as if your mood has changed.

What if i said to you that the dark void we see in universe is really a black canvas wrapped around a spherical object, of which exists in a mega-marcoscopic universe; what is your reaction to this comment?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

What if i said to you that the dark void we see in universe is really a black canvas wrapped around a spherical object, of which exists in a mega-marcoscopic universe; what is your reaction to this comment?

Does it deliver? :bounce:

 

[cpayne]

But to reiterate my question: is there an objective standard according to which one woman is prettier than another or one man handsomer? We can talk all we want about how it reflects God’s own beauty and the spiritual world, but the question stands: is one model objectively prettier than another?

I believe not. I believe intersubjectives come into play in such things. Similarly, there’s no such thing as objective red.

Some objective criteria for beauty / handsomeness: a symmetry and harmony in the relation of all parts to the whole; an exemplification of the form of whatever it is one is contemplating (“form” in the philosophic sense); an organic unity in the thing being contemplated. I can maintain my desire for one person (for whatever reasons) while still recognizing that another is objectively more beautiful, could I not? On the other hand, I could recognize someone as objectively beautiful and still have no desire for that person. My subjective response doesn’t negate the judgment of beauty.

As for “objective red.” A previous statement was something like, “Red is a convention without any basis in reality.” Well, no. Red is a word used to describe an experience that is quite rooted in reality. (No pun intended on “rose.” Rooted, you know.) This is what’s called a “moderate realist” stance: Our perceptions may disagree (which is why perceptions aren’t genuine knowledge), but the object giving rise to our various perceptions does have reality, as an object of knowledge. If it had no basis in reality, we couldn’t even talk about the object, let alone its color, could we?