Objects And Properties

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 9 May, 2010 11:34 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;162305 wrote:
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".
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 05:58 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;162311 wrote:
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".


Yes, that is why Wittgenstein said that so often in philosophy, language "goes on holiday". Or, another metaphor he used was, "language is idling" and, like an engine when it idles, it does no work (but it does have gassy emissions). (I added the last, Wittgenstein did not say that, but I bet he would have approved of it).

It is not so much that people play dumb when philosophizing. It is that they forget how a term or phrase is actually use (because they don't care). And that is why Wittgenstein writes that "philosophy consists in the assemblage of reminders for a particular purpose". It is necessary to remind those with bad memories of how the term or phrase is actually used in ordinary conversation. To quote Wittgenstein again, "Back to the rough ground". So we can gain traction for our thoughts, and stop sliding around in the slippery slick theories. (My addition again). Wittgenstein quotes St. Augustine partly to illustrate this: he quote Augustine as complaining that when people ask him what Time is, he is struck dumb (he does not know). But when he is not asked what Time is, he knows perfectly well what it is. How true!
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 12:15 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;162237 wrote:
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?



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

If human beings under normal circumstances could divine the truth of the matter there would be no need for investigation of anything, certainly no need for a philosophy forum.

The question of what constitutes a real object is meant to be an invitation to philosophize here. It is the kind of question that makes normal philosophers drool.

Kenneth, I would recommend that you read chapter one of Bertrand Russell's "The Problems Of Philosophy". You and he may share some of the final results of his inquiries, but at least he allowed for and of course warmly invited the reasonable discussion of the alternatives. Such a discussion is required in order for you or anyone to make your case. But your method is eristic.

The car is said to be blue under normal circumstances. But this does not bring us any closer as to the philosophical alternatives that are available to us such as realism, naturalism, materialism, idealism etc. And each alternative must be reasoned out for their can be no higher authority here than reason.



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.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 12:53 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
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.


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 ----------

trismegisto;162253 wrote:
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.


You never actually offered a rebuttal to anything I said here, just to remind you, in case you were under the impression you did.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 01:49 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;162452 wrote:
It is not a blue car because colour is, according to Locke and others, a secondary quality of empirical matter.

.


Why would that be a reason for thinking that a blue car is not a blue car? Aren't secondary properties, properties? (Of course, that Locke says that colors are secondary properties, or that Locke says that secondary properties are not properties- if he does, but he doesn't, is neither here nor there anyway. Not unless you are citing Locke as an authority on what is a property or what is not a property. Are you? And if so, what are Locke's credentials for being an authority on what is, and what is not, a property?)

---------- Post added 05-10-2010 at 03:54 PM ----------

Zetherin;162461 wrote:
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.

I AM AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR PROPERTIES AGITATOR. (Won't you join me?)
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 02:04 pm
@Pythagorean,
kennethamy wrote:
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?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 03:07 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;162487 wrote:
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?


Yes. (Of course, we have to accept all those distinctions first).
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 08:51 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;162303 wrote:
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*


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.

---------- Post added 05-10-2010 at 07:58 PM ----------

Zetherin;162461 wrote:


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


That is because you have yet to make a logical, let alone valid, argument in regards to anything I have contributed.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 10:22 pm
@Pythagorean,
trismegisto wrote:
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.


I am questioning your belief that things do not have a true color. The red ball that rolled under my shed was still red even when it was under my shed with no light reaching it. I am wondering why you don't think this is so. And I am wondering what you think of my son who pointed out that the ball in my hand was in fact the red ball he had been looking for. If the ball wasn't red (since you say once in the dark it became a black ball), how did he know that that was the particular ball he had lost?
 
prothero
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 10:36 pm
@Pythagorean,
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. ???
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 10:43 pm
@prothero,
prothero;162708 wrote:
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. ???


This does not make all aspects of things 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.

To me color isn't really a property, but an accidental effect of the manner in which the thing has manifested itself. Accidentals are not associated with the thing itself, but a things essence and its properties are essential to the things being, even though a things essence also exist within a certain context as well.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 10:46 pm
@Pythagorean,
prothero wrote:
Things do not have a true color.


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.

MMP2506 wrote:
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.


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.
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 10:59 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;162714 wrote:
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.


By red, do you mean the stimulus picked up by the eye, or the concept of "redness" in general. People can experience things differently and still be experiencing the same general attribute. Many discussions about this topic involves a breakdown in communication on this issue.

The general concept of "redness" is distinguishable from the perceptual experience encountered when experiencing an object displaying the color red. They exist in relation to each other but they are two different forms of experience.

In order to experience "redness" the concept of "redness" must already be understood by the perceiver, otherwise the object being experienced could never be experienced as a red thing.

Humans all seem to experience colors very similarly, which allows for an illusion of objectivity to exist, but no one person can ever experience the "true color" in terms of an objective sensory experience because experience always has a perspective.

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 12:02 AM ----------

Zetherin;162714 wrote:
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 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.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 11:20 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;162303 wrote:
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*


Come on now, Zeth. "We're all black in the dark."

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
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 11:28 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;162700 wrote:
The red ball that rolled under my shed was still red even when it was under my shed with no light reaching it.


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.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 11:58 pm
@Pythagorean,
MMP2506 wrote:
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.


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

Quote:
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.


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

Reconstructo wrote:
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


Eh, I'm not sure if I want to get into the qualia debate, but the color of a thing is still a property of a thing.

trismegisto wrote:
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.


You believe that if I shine a green light on a carrot and the carrot appears green, it is now a green carrot? Maybe I'm kidding myself, but I believe that the carrot is orange, but that a green light is shining on it which makes it appear green.

-

Mind you all that I have already agreed that color is a secondary and accidental property, so trying to convince me that color is dependent on the mind is just being repetitious. I'm wholly aware of this.

The first mistake being made here is that because a secondary property is dependent on the mind, that it is not a property. And that, again, is false. The second mistake being made here is that because color is dependent on the mind, things cannot be certain colors. But they can be. And we all know this. In fact, you all employ this concept throughout your daily lives, even though the bunch of you will sit here online and try to convince me otherwise.

The next time you guys run a red light, argue with the police officer by saying, "Well actually kind sir, color is dependent on the observer, and that particular light doesn't actually have a particular color. My colorblind friend in the back here sees it as grey, by the way". Know why you wouldn't do that? Because you know the damn light was red, and you know he wouldn't buy that awful argument! :perplexed:
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 12:02 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;162736 wrote:
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.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 12:03 am
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;162737 wrote:
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.


Oh, sorry. Just to clarify, when I said accidental properties earlier, I was referring to accidental properties, and not accidentals.
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 12:05 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;162736 wrote:


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?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 12:10 am
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;162742 wrote:
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?


People do experience the world under normal circumstances. That's why we study it. I don't know exactly what you mean by "as everyone's experience of things is different, but related", but it sounds too "relativistic" to me. There's definitely intersubjectivity in regards to the things we experience. But of course, you already know that. The entirety of this conversation will be just reminding you guys what you already know, while you continue to argue contrary.

Do you stop at red lights? Do you even know what a red light is? And no, those questions are not sarcastic. You are quite literally telling me that people cannot view traffic lights under normal circumstances and see when the light is green, yellow, or red. And this scares me. Especially if you're a driver.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 10/22/2019 at 01:26:08