The Instigator
AllUnpowerful
Pro (for)
The Contender
GrahamSigismund
Con (against)

Blue is blue

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
AllUnpowerful has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2018 Category: Funny
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 550 times Debate No: 114701
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

AllUnpowerful

Pro

I'm just curious if anyone will contend me on this.

Blue is observed to be blue by almost all people who see blue and consider if it is blue. Therefore, blue is blue.
GrahamSigismund

Con

This seems like a very obvious and true thing to say "blue is blue" and when used in common speech it seems that it would be perfectly acceptable. Yet, must we look deeper into the actual claim that is being made? Are there further ambiguities encoded in the statement that must be uncovered? To truly understand the phrase "Blue is Blue" we must unpack the meaning of this statement. First, the word "is" refers to the existence of something. If I say, "my pet IS a dog", what I am pointing to is the actual existence of my pet dog. If my dog does not exist, that is, if he is not a tangible thing but some concept that I have of some fictional dog that I have in my mind which does not truly exist, I could not properly say that "my dog IS." Now in the case of color, there is an issue of existence. In terms of science, the question of the actual existence of color is closed; there is no such thing as color in the external world. The human brain "creates" an experience of color through the differences perceived in certain wavelengths of light. Yet, this does not really exist. Blue does not actually exist because no color actually exists. Furthermore, the subjective nature of perceiving color and the non-existence of real color prove that even the ideas that we have of color are not objective and universal ideas. When we refer to specific colors, we are not ever referring to an objective color, but simply our own subjective perceptions, uniquely created by our brains, through some sense experience. The only objective experience that we perceive is a wavelength of light. We all perceive particular wavelengths according to the subjective creations of our own mind, which is how we are deceived by the false experience of color. Thus, since color does not actually exist in the external world we cannot really say that it "is" when properly speaking. And being that all experiences of color are subjective creations of our own unique minds, we cannot communicate coherently about a specific color such as "Blue" with each other, since we do not share authentic common ground.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by GrahamSigismund 3 years ago
GrahamSigismund
I would just say in conclusion that our senses should generally be trusted, both because they are often accurate with the information that they present about the external world. Also, scientific experimentation is a type of system of checks and balances for our senses. We do use the senses for experimentation, but we have many different resources which make them more accurate. I believe that it is helpful to use science when evaluating metaphysical systems. There are obviously popular idealists and radical skeptics, but I believe that the senses are what we have. We cannot fully rely on them with absolute certitude but we obviously cannot reject them.
Posted by GrahamSigismund 3 years ago
GrahamSigismund
Interesting question. First, just let me say since the debate is over that the statement "blue is blue" is obviously true. It follows the "law of identity" which states that a thing is identical with itself (one of the most basic principles of logic). It does not even matter what you are referencing. In symbolic notation, it appears this way: a=a. Blue does not have to exist for this statement to be correct, as you could just as well say "nothing is nothing" and that would be equally correct. I just thought it would be amusing to argue the other side of the debate.

In response to your comment, blue does actually exist, even if not in a material way. It at least exists as a real concept in the same way as love or friendship. A thing does not have to be tangible to exist in this way.

Now the comparison between color and light has a nuance. Both color and light can be perceived by our senses, but color is a creation of the brain. Light exists independent of us. Think of it this way, if there were no humans (or anything that could create color) in existence, then color would not exist, as there would be no brain to create it. But light itself would still exist since it exists independently from man. That is, in the external world. We generally think of our senses giving us an accurate representation of the external world as it truly is. In this way, we are slightly deceived by color. Light, on the other hand, has proven to be more similar both in how we perceive it casually through the senses, and how we believe it to exist externally to us through in-depth scientific experimentaion.

In reference to the wavelength, science seems to have a limited understanding. Light is technically considered a "field" which has no mass. It is somewhere between a ray and a wave. The "wavelength" is simply the way that science chooses to measure light. It is not so much an invention as a method of labeling observable data.
Posted by Lizard3eyes 3 years ago
Lizard3eyes
Sorry for the spelling errors
Posted by Lizard3eyes 3 years ago
Lizard3eyes
Con. If you say that due to blue not existing as a result of it being a meaningless juxtaposition of our senses perceiving a specific wavelength of light. Then would that not imply that that wavelength does not exist as well. Die to the fact that it is only through our senses that we made things capapble of divining the wavelengths of light. Wavelengths are something humans came up with as a result of experimentation. Which, to reiterate, is preformed using fallible human faculties that create meaning out of nothing. If this is true. Then nothing exists as we know it to exist. And if we know nothing to exist as we percieve it does. Nothing exists to us. Correct me if im wrong
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.