What some call a useful abstraction, and what others think is actually false, is exactly how we actually understand the term, "real color" when we speak English. But then, philosophers always know better about the meanings of terms than people who actually use them. Philosophers, after all, have theories as to how the terms ought to be used. Theories which have little to do with how the terms are actually used.

It seems like many people like to display these theories, even if they aren't philosophers. I know I'm being repetitious, but it just fascinates me how people play dumb while "philosophizing".

It does not seem to me that a red apple is potentially blue or green. What would make you think that? But the issue is (again) how does it follow that because a blue car looks green when it is under a yellow light, that it is not a blue car?

The question: 'Is colour an accidental property of objects?' is a reasonable one to ask in a philosophy forum. It is unreasonable to reject the question without providing a clear case. I could understand the ridicule of such a question if we were in a women's dress shop.

Wow!!! That is about the most illogical thing I have ever seen you write. How do you make the leap from color to shape? You cannot be that stupid, perhaps you lost your mind for a second so I will nt hold this one against you. Although I would feel better if you admitted that this analogy is insane.
-
I am afraid you are wrong, almost nobody would agree with you.
-
Just think about what you wrote here. Maybe your confusion will come to light.

It is not a blue car because colour is, according to Locke and others, a secondary quality of empirical matter.

.

Why are we justified in dismissing reason on a philosophy forum, but aren't in a women's dress shop?

And remember, even if colors are accidental properties, they are still properties. The blueness of a car is still a property of the car, even if it is an accidental property of the car. It seems the belief in this thread is that accidental properties are not real properties, but that doesn't seem true. If, however, you think it is true, I'd like to know why.

---------- Post added 05-10-2010 at 02:56 PM ----------



You never actually offered a rebuttal to anything I said here, just to remind you, in case you were under the impression you did.

I think we are beginning to confuse accidental properties with secondary properties. They are not at all the same. But yes, what makes someone think that a secondary property is not a property (or for that matter, think that an accidental property is not a property) eludes me.

Just for the sake of clarification, isn't the color of a car both an accidental and secondary property? It is a secondary property because it is a property which requires an observer to be understood (some use the word subjective here), and it is also an accidental property because the color of the car is not essential for the car to be a car. Isn't that right?

I wonder what sort of look recon. and tris. give people when they stop at red lights. Do they curse at the other drivers, arguing that the color is subjective? I suppose that's a good argument to present to a police officer who's about to give you a ticket for driving through a traffic light.

Edited*

You never actually offered a rebuttal to anything I said here, just to remind you, in case you were under the impression you did.

Now you are comparing the color of light with an objects perceived color. Come on, you keep jumping your argument fom one abstraction to another. Pick one and try to stick with it, will you.

The observed properties of an object depend on the relationship between the perceiving observer and the percieved object. They can not be separated in any true and meaningful way. The notion that objects are independent of their surrounding reality and that properties are intrinsic to an object independent of the method of observation is questionable. This is especially well demonstrated in quantum observations or events. Things do not have a true color. The color is dependent on the method of observation and the observer. ???

Things do not have a true color.

This does not make all properties relative, however, as some properties are essential parts of things dependent upon the observer. Otherwise you will find yourself stuck in solipsism and that is never a good foundation for a philosophy.

The true color of an object is the color the object is, observed under normal conditions. That what is meant by true color.

It is a wonder why people stop of red lights, if red is not the true color of the light. It is a wonder why police, in the case of an auto accident, document not only the makes and models of the cars involved, but also the colors. It's a wonder why people have color preferences. It's a wonder why children are taught the names of colors, and why one method used is to identify a color with a specific fruit or vegetable (e.g. spinach green, carrot orange, strawberry red). It's a wonder why my wife won't eat tonight's dinner because she won't eat anything that is too brown.

I just wonder why these, and a million other instances like these, take place if things do not have true colors.

The true color of an object is the color the object is observed under normal conditions. That what is meant by true color.

It is a wonder why people stop of red lights, if red is not the true color of the light. It is a wonder why police, in the case of an auto accident, document not only the makes and models of the cars involved, but also the colors. It's a wonder why people have color preferences. It's a wonder why children are taught the names of colors, and why one method used is to identify a color with a specific fruit or vegetable (e.g. spinach green, carrot orange, strawberry red). It's a wonder why my wife won't eat tonight's dinner because she won't eat anything that is too brown.

I just wonder why these, and a million other instances like these, take place if things do not have true colors.



Remember that even though the color of an object is a secondary and accidental property, it is still a property. Things can be certain colors. What is being confused in this thread is that since color is a secondary and accidental property, it is not a property. But this is false.

I wonder what sort of look recon. and tris. give people when they stop at red lights. Do they curse at the other drivers, arguing that the color is subjective? I suppose that's a good argument to present to a police officer who's about to give you a ticket for driving through a traffic light.

Edited*

The red ball that rolled under my shed was still red even when it was under my shed with no light reaching it.

I wouldn't classify the color of an object a property of the thing. To me accidentals aren't properties because they aren't necessary parts of the thing, they are relative based on the observer. Properties, on the other hand, are abilities which are essential to the being of the thing.

A person that es colorblind may experience a white car while a person with normal vision experiences a yellow one. Therefore, all that is known for sure is that the car has the property to appear as yellow or white.

We experience "qualia" and our physics guys assure us this is reflected electromagnetic radiation bouncing off of this and that. When we see a red apple we are seeing what frequencies that apple refused to absorb. And the light source is a mixture of frequencies. If the light source has a different mixture of frequencies, then the object is going to reflect different frequencies. Obviously, our light sources are consistent enough for our color-names to be useful. If we lived off the energy of a blue star, the world would presumably look different.
Electromagnetic radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No it wasn't. That's the flaw in everything you have written. The attribute of color only applies when exposed to a light source and an eyeball. Why can't you grasp this simple fact.

The color of every thing is dependent on the spectrum of the light source and the type of eye perceiving it. I am sorry but you are kidding yourself if you hold any other belief.

Accidental properties are properties. That's why they're called accidental properties, and not just accidentals.

:

That is why I made it clear I was not talking about accidental properties, but accidentals in an Aristotelian sense. I feel Locke was mistaken by classifying accidents as properties for the reasons listed above.

As noted, the true color of an object is the color which the object is under normal circumstances. Being colorblind is an abnormal circumstance.

:

What you consistently fail to comprehend is that no one experiences these "normal circumstances", as everyone's experience of things is different, but related.

If no one experiences the world in which normal circumstances describe then why study it? How do we then relate it to our experience?