![FFF Color Photo-hunt,Did a color hunt with my FFF friends, and I chose blue. Well, I wanted green at first, so that I could just take photos of trees and their leaves, but Fidelise beat me to thatā¦ ju nlikuwa juu ya nduthi at the time of choosing oneās colors, so nika delay ku respond , but nonetheless, I loved blue . Didnāt take a photo of the sky anyway. Too cliche.But in this moment, I remembered how both colors are easily-confusing to people with tritanomaly (color-blindess) and to them, theyāre basically indistinguishable .Which again, made me remember reading about Idealism (from George Berkeley, in his book, āThree Dialogues between Hylas & Philonousā) vs Logical Positivism, a response to it (from Bertrand Russell, in his book āProblems of Philosophyā) back in my Philosophy days (as a kid, hehe).Color, as a form of sense-data, was one of the causes of dispute on whether anything is real, because, as they argued (from a point of Physics), an object appears to be green because light bounces off it with a frequency of 500 nanometers (nm), while another appears to be blue because light bounces off it with a frequency of 450 nanometers (nm).Therefore, the objects are blue/green, not because they are innately blue/green, but because an external factor (light) makes our eyes perceive them as blue/green (both colors are next to each other on the visible light spectrum. Remember ROYGBIV on the rainbow?).So, the argument was that our eyes, and all senses in extension, donāt tell us the truth about objects themselves, but only the truth about certain sense-data (color, texture, sweetness, noise, smell), which, as we can see, depend on the relations between us and the object. Thus, what we directly see and feel is merely āappearanceā, which we believe to be reality. But if the reality is not what appears, do we have any means of knowing what the reality is at all? And if the answer is yes, how do we do so?Berkeleyās response to this was a no, saying that nothing else is real except we who perceive - āEsse est Precipiā. But Russellās answer was yes, and he deconstructed this whole theory in a single paragraph (reached the word limit).15.2.26]()
FFF Color Photo-hunt,
Did a color hunt with my FFF friends, and I chose blue. Well, I wanted green at first, so that I could just take photos of trees and their leaves, but Fidelise beat me to thatā¦ ju nlikuwa juu ya nduthi at the time of choosing oneās colors, so nika delay ku respond š, but nonetheless, I loved blue š. Didnāt take a photo of the sky anyway. Too cliche.
But in this moment, I remembered how both colors are easily-confusing to people with tritanomaly (color-blindess) and to them, theyāre basically indistinguishable š
.
Which again, made me remember reading about Idealism (from George Berkeley, in his book, āThree Dialogues between Hylas & Philonousā) vs Logical Positivism, a response to it (from Bertrand Russell, in his book āProblems of Philosophyā) back in my Philosophy days (as a kid, hehe).
Color, as a form of sense-data, was one of the causes of dispute on whether anything is real, because, as they argued (from a point of Physics), an object appears to be green because light bounces off it with a frequency of 500 nanometers (nm), while another appears to be blue because light bounces off it with a frequency of 450 nanometers (nm).
Therefore, the objects are blue/green, not because they are innately blue/green, but because an external factor (light) makes our eyes perceive them as blue/green (both colors are next to each other on the visible light spectrum. Remember ROYGBIV on the rainbow?).
So, the argument was that our eyes, and all senses in extension, donāt tell us the truth about objects themselves, but only the truth about certain sense-data (color, texture, sweetness, noise, smell), which, as we can see, depend on the relations between us and the object. Thus, what we directly see and feel is merely āappearanceā, which we believe to be reality. But if the reality is not what appears, do we have any means of knowing what the reality is at all? And if the answer is yes, how do we do so?
Berkeleyās response to this was a no, saying that nothing else is real except we who perceive - āEsse est Precipiā. But Russellās answer was yes, and he deconstructed this whole theory in a single paragraph (reached the word limit).
15.2.26
2 months ago
