Physiolinguistics: Physics: Natural Philosophy.

[realunoriginal]

[size=120]A red crayon is red.[/size]

So lately I have heard a bunch of idiots talking about epistemology, and it really disappointed me regarding my faith in Mankind. So, to defend my spirit as Man, and how I associate with my fellow mankind, I have decided to make a thread that clears up some of the superficial and nihilistic doubt around here (and elsewhere). Let me begin by saying that: a red crayon is red. Anybody who disagrees with me is either 1) an idiot, or 2) colorblind. And I do not mean to speak offensively-toward my fellow mankind here & now. What I mean to say is: if you do not grasp this basic philosophical truth and scientific fact, that a red crayon is qualitatively & quantitatively red, then you should just leave this forum right now. Honestly, you should disavow yourself from ever thinking philosophically or scientifically ever again. Go play Nintendo instead. Go watch Amerikan Idol. Go listen to some rap music.

Why is a red crayon red?

Well, it is easy to figure out. A red crayon is red, because it has been named “red”. That is the only [reason] that a red crayon is red and not blue instead. The difference of name is the actual-differentiation of symbology & form. If you have not figured this out by now, then you must bow to me as your master, because apparently I know a great, great deal more than you do about everything. If you were me, then first of all, you would not be confused about why a red crayon is red, and second of all, you would not be confused why everything else is like everything else either. I am talking about this: [identity]. This concept dominates [everything] that you can possibly-know or even possibly-claim to know. Without ‘identity’, you literally-have [nothing] at all. Now, I have already given/offered some of my personal disproofs against Identity before, on ILP, but they were erased/censored, because nobody can be bothered to really think about anything at all around here. Thus, I am not going to repeat myself now. I am just going to move forward and ignore the prior indiscretions.

Let us take a look at the etymology:

@Moral Authority

red

O.E. read, from P.Gmc. *rauthaz (cf. O.N. rauðr, Dan. rød, O.Fris. rad, M.Du. root, Ger. rot, Goth. rauþs), from PIE base *reudh- (cf. L. ruber, also dial. rufus “light red,” mostly of hair; Gk. erythros; Skt. rudhira-; Avestan raoidita-; O.C.S. rudru, Pol. rumiany, Rus. rumjanyj “flushed, red,” of complexions, etc.; Lith. raudas; O.Ir. ruad, Welsh rhudd, Bret. ruz “red”). The only color for which a definite common PIE root word has been found. The surname Read/Reid retains the original O.E. long vowel pronunciation. The color as characteristic of “British possessions” on a map, is attested from 1916. The red flag was used as a symbol of defiance in battle on land or sea from 1602. To see red “get angry” is an Amer.Eng. expression first recorded 1900. Red light as a sign to stop is from 1849, long before traffic signals. As the sign of a brothel, it is attested from 1900. As a children’s game (in ref. to the traffic light meaning) it is recorded from 1953. Red-letter day (c.1385) was originally a saint’s day, marked on church calendars in red letters. Red ball signifying “express” in railroad jargon is 1927, from the red ball mounted on a pole as a controlling signal. Red-blooded “vigorous, spirited” is recorded from 1877. Red dog, type of U.S. football pass rush, is recorded from 1959. Red shift in spectography is first recorded 1923. Red carpet “sumptuous welcome” is from 1934, but the custom for dignitaries is described as far back as Aeschylus (e.g. “Agamemnon”).

As we can see here, a red crayon is linguistically-‘red’, because of how the phenomena, the noumena, relates to conceptual knowledge formed over time. In other words, the so-called “redness” of the red crayon is actually-red only because of how the noumena relates to real-world experiences, encounters, and concepts of ‘red’ throughout history. This symbol & form has a real world occurrence regarding the “Read/Reid” family. Thus, there is a connection there with the [identity] of ‘red’ to a name, or more precisely, a surname. Thus, the “redness” of the crayon can stop right there. I know where ‘red’ came from, but you did not. You figured it out only because I helped you figure it out. So think about this the next time you go doubting stupid epistemological questions that are right in front of your face. “Why is a tree a tree?” Get the hell out of here with that crap!

I am going to stop right now, because this should be pretty self-explanatory as is.

[PavlovianModel146]

@realunoriginal

I know where ‘red’ came from, but you did not. You figured it out only because I helped you figure it out.

That’s the only thing you say above that I disagree with.

I was reading your post thinking, “Yeah, right, well, RU is not really telling me anything that I don’t know here.”

Red is red
Blue is blue
A tree is a tree
Pavement is pavement
A dog is a dog

Why?

Because the majority of us say that such is the case.

[realunoriginal]

@Pavlovianmodel146

Why?

Because the majority of us say that such is the case.

That is exactly-correct Pav; my statements do not apply to you then. They apply to people who must ask themselves the question over-and-over.

[Anthem]

Why are you so red, er, angry?

[realunoriginal]

@Anthem

Why are you so red, er, angry?

I’m not angry; I’m green.

[Liteninbolt]

So, If I read your OP right, what is…is.

[realunoriginal]

@Liteninbolt

So, If I read your OP right, what is…is.

Yes and no!

And by “no”, I mean: you have to keep looking.

[Fin666]

So if im colour blind is it still red? if there is no red light to reflect off it is it still red? If the wavelength of the light is red shifted by gravity is it still red?

I would suggest that the crayon is only subjectively red not objectively red.

your right that a red crayon is red because it was named red. But i may be looking at the same thing and see a different colored crayon for any number of reasons

[Cyrene]

@Fin666

So if im colour blind is it still red? if there is no red light to reflect off it is it still red? If the wavelength of the light is red shifted by gravity is it still red?

I would suggest that the crayon is only subjectively red not objectively red.

your right that a red crayon is red because it was named red. But i may be looking at the same thing and see a different colored crayon for any number of reasons

Probably not. Minus color blindness. or brain malfunction.

Maybe you see green for what I see as red that we ALL label red but you probably see red. Color blind people have differences in pattern detection (somtimes better/somtimes worse) theres selection pressure to make complex adaptations universal, why wouldn’t color detection follow those rules?