A chair is red.
Is the chair red because it is of the color red, or is it of the color red because it is red?
>>458795
bush did 9/11
is it because steel beams can't be melted by jet fuel or is it because jet fuel can't melt steel beams
This is going to explode into thread arguing about qualia.
The chair is 'red' by virtue of being red.
A chair is red.
A chair is red because our eye can absorb the red spectrum which the brain interprets as red. If we couldn't, then we'd be blind.
A chair is red because the paint on the chair reflect most other light spectrum except for red (or is it the opposite?).
A chair is also red because you are told it is red.
>>458811
So, the Chair is Red as it is viewed as Red?
>>458819
A chair is red because its the possible outcome (red light reflected from chair, red light absorbed by our eye). And ofcourse we are told of certain spectrum as red.
>>458795
Its shit like this that makes people laugh at philosophy
I really hope society collapses so it cant afford to keep navel gazers alive anymore.
>>458795
Don't be fooled, these two are one and the same.
>>458825
This is just a game for the mind, go back to your Game of Thrones general.
>>458825
Actually there's a lot of use to this. Wittgenstein's works on such maters is one of the pillars of modern linguistics.
>>458842
Oh. I guess I should go read some of that then. . .
Any place I should start?
>>458842
Can modern linguestics take you to the fucking moon? Or be used as a war weapon? No. Stop acting as if any of this shit is useful.
>>458825
It could be worse. This exercise is stupid to most people because the answer to this problem has already been solved.
>>458848
mind to share the answer, kind anon?
>>458848
The answer was a problem?
>>458855
Merry Christmas friend
>>458830
how can a property ('red') and its definition (having the right color in the spectrum) be the same?
Why did they have to include other humanities on this board
>>458877
This. I just want to talk about fucking battles and epic shit. Not boring shit like this.
I love that people think that colours are already solved. They are not.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/color/
>>458893
Was there ever a philosophical topic that is now solved?
>>458795
Is it a man because it is a featherless biped, or is it a featherless biped because it is a man?
>>458902
>Does God exist?
No.
>>458902
Depends on your axioms.
>>458893
Physically it's not as well.
That's the point, where science ends, Philosophy can still make an useful contribution to understanding certain phenomena, which will help scientists as well.
>>458848
>because the answer to this problem has already been solved
They realized that the fucking chair is red?
>>458893
I'll read that. The Stanford Encyclopedia is such a great resource.
>>458795
This is why I follow Diogenes, he doesn't ask me these bullshit loaded questions.
>>458795
>A chair is red.
>Is the chair red because it is of the color red, or is it of the color red because it is red?
and people say philosophy is worthless wankery
>>458924
A FEATHERLESS BIPED IS MAN.
IS THE FEATHERLESS BIPED A MAN BECAUSE IT IS OF THE SPECIES MAN, OR IS IT OF THE SPECIES MAN BECAUSE IT IS A FEATHERLESS BIPED??
>>458921
It is everything Wikipedia has failed to become.
No endless tabs to really understand a concept, just everything you need on one page revised and updated by experts with scholarly citations.
>>458795
A chair being 'red' means that the chair 'has the color red'.
There can't be one without the other.
They are the same.
No one of them is the cause of the other.
>>458927
You know, the OP is just a troll version of the infamous dispositional dilemma: Socrates asks whether the gods love the pious because it is the pious, or whether the pious is pious only because it is loved by the gods
>>458960
The Pious is prosecuting the impious
>>458960
OP here. That is correct, that was my source (Euthyphro).
In particular it was the part where Socrates says the following:
SOCRATES : It is not being seen because it is a thing seen but on the contrary it is a thing seen because it is being seen;
nor is it because it is something led that it is being led but because it is being led that it is something led;
nor is something being carried because it is something carried, but it is something carried because it is being carried.
>>458795
Certain photons get reflected by the chair. We refer to objects that reflect this particular wavelength of photons as "red".
>>458972
I remember Euthyphro, great introduction to critical thinking and philosophy.
>>458972
Yet Socrates never explains why he's so sure of one way but not the other
> Trollcrates
>>458795
>A chair is red.
No it's not. A chair is not red. The materials which constitute the chair absorb all of the colors on the light spectrum apart from red.
>>458989
And how do you call such a chair in common parlance?
>>459005
I don't get what you're asking to be frank.
>>458795
>>458795
It Participates in Redness.
>>458795
Certain Unknown properties lead you to the conclusion of the color red -Peter Millican.
>>459018
How does one "be" Frank is one is not already Frank?
>>459022
It fits the template of 'redness'
>>459026
>>459018
We say that such a chair is 'red'.
Therefore, a chair can be red. There is such a thing as a red chair
>>459030
Are you Frank, anon? If you are not Frank, how can you be Frank?
>>459037
>We say that such a chair is 'red'.
That's right. "We say" such a chair is red. But in reality, it is an object with a coating that absorbs everything on the light spectrum apart from red.
>>458795
what is red? red is different to every human on the planet, but one will never know what anyone else sees because one will always only have one's eyes
>>459058
For the sake of argument, let's say that red is the color of a given wavelength range.
>>459038
>Are you Frank, anon? If you are not Frank, how can you be Frank?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/frankness
>>459070
>a member of a group of ancient Germanic peoples dwelling in the regions of the Rhine, one division of whom, the Salians, conquered Gaul about a.d. 500, founded an extensive kingdom, and gave origin to the name France.
>>459075
TIL France is German, AMA
>>458846
can posting on 4chan take you to the fucking moon or be used as a war weapon? no. stop posting like you're doing anything useful
>>458846
Why is going to the moon or a war weapon more useful/important than modern linguistics?
What the fuck is this useless question.
What good is there in answering it?
I hate philosophy because of this bullshit. So much shit to dealt with and you come up with this red chair vs chair red waste of time. And who the fuck is that in OP's pic? Looks like some hippie protester that rioted against the war in Vietnam. Fucking liberals you need to get a job.
>>458846
Moon landing was a hoax.
>>459107
Actually he was an upper class Greek aristocrat with enough time in his hands to think all this shit all day long.
>>459107
Why is it useless?
What good is there in answering any question?
![tumblr_lg8bsl71uP1qdfv3oo1_500[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/rfYvxj3.gif "tumblr_lg8bsl71uP1qdfv3oo1_500[1].gif")
>>458846
> Why can't I kill people with this? It's utterly useless!
Literary ooga booga tier. Bet you follow the "doctrine of swine" as well.
>>458873
They are and you just showed how. Saying "this is red" and "this is 620–750 nm, 400–484 THz and 1.65–2.00 eV" is the same thing, just how saying "this is water" and "this is h20" is the same.
>>458921
Holy fuck this, it's downright essential. For shit and giggles I compared epistemological contexturalism on Standford and Wikipedia, and it took Wikipedia 5 fucking years after I checked before they even had an article called contextualism.
>>459122
It is useless because the conclusions that will derive from answering the questtion have no practical use to humanity. Regardless of the answer, life will continue to be the same. The answer won't solve world hunger, it won't make everyone in the world happy, it won't make building houses easier, it won't help contain inflation, it won't help me get a rise, it won't move a fucking atom.
However there are questions that, when answered correctly, can direct us to development of technology, society, economy, etc. For instance, the answer of the question "what happens when a dynamo spins arround itself " made it possible for the development of car batteries and wind energy.
>>458924
>This is why I follow Diogenes
>As he continued sitting in front of his computer, posting on 4chan.
>>459149
The natural-scientific method is a product of philosophical thought.
> But it doesn't matter any more now when we have it!
If you think this you're the same kind of duce who think we've already invented everything.
We're on the fucking brink of new discoveries every fucking day within the philosophy of the mind, where philosophers, neurologists and computer scientists are researching AI. But hey it's not like strong AI would have any sort of impact on society :^)
>>459149
Why is solving world hunger, making people happier, development of technology, etc. useful?
>>459188
survival of humanity, bro
>>459203
Why is the survival of humanity useful?
>>459214
It's our fucking duty to survive and progress enough to try to understand the mysteries of the universe.
Heck, we may be the only intelligent beings around. It can be the only chance for the universe to understand itself and see what the fuck happens, we should not waste it.
>>459236
Why is understanding the mysteries of the universe useful?
>>459254
I didn't say that it is useful.
I only said the we should do it, because we can.
>>459203
Such things are not necessary for survival.
>>459291
As an example, development of technology is important to prevent heat death of the universe (if possible), and other more immediate threats.
>>459285
So all questions are ultimately useless?
>>459311
Where does that come from? How did you concluded that from what I said?
>>459322
If understanding the mysteries of the universe is the goal behind questions such as "how to solve world hunger" and "how to make everyone happy in the world"(>>459149
)
and understanding the mysteries of the universe is not useful(>>459285)
then those questions are useless because their answers serve no useful purpose.
Those were your examples of useful questions, and none of them turned out to be useful(>>459285). So what follows is that all questions are useless.
>>458904
>with broad, flat nails
>>459364
Kek
>>459363
'understanding the mysteries of the universe' is not useful in itself, but it's the right thing to do.
Therefore, all things that contribute to that are useful to reach that goal.
>>459152
>Implying Diogenes wouldn't be a NEET shitposter on 4chan
>>459402
Why is it the right thing to do?
And if you are judging a question's usefulness by its ability to achieve a goal then OP's question and "how do we solve world hunger?" are equally useful questions because they both contribute to reaching a (useless) goal.
>>459711
Well, maybe it isn't right. I'm not so sure.
Maybe it is useful, or has a chance of being useful. Maybe something else.
Not sure bro, you win.
>>458795
>the chair is red, because its NOT blue.
>>458795
The chair is red because "we agree" that it is 'red'
>>458795
The chair reflects the color red, and absorbs all the other colors. You could argue it's anything but red.
>>458846
It's currently finding a place in AI theory.
It's red because red cones absorb the reflected red light.
It's called "red" because that's the name the English language dictates it as. In Spanish it's una silla "roja".
This seems useless senpai.
>>459742
thanks for playing gaylord
>>458904
This is pretty dated.
Species are based on genetic distance.
The man is a man regardless. The featherless biped is a man if it is composed of solely human DNA and not a man if it has another species' DNA.
>>458795
Isnt this just repeating what he just said?
The fuck is he trying to say?
Is he trying to talk about what makes something red to us?
I can explain away how the photons bounce off of the object in question and hit our retinas, stimulating the cone receptors and feeding that information to the brain.
Or is this some "how can our reflections be real if our eyes arnt real" bullshit?
Who is this faggot anyways?
>>459985
Red photons are photons of a certain wavelength. The red chair reflects that group of photons with that wavelength ("red"). The photons are the source of the qualia. We just process it. Stop playing the philosophical equivalent of Zeno.
Red itself is subjective though. When something turns reddish orange is actually pretty different from person to person.
>subject-object distinction
>2015
>>458795
The chair is a chair because it is red, if it was not red, it would not be a chair.
>>458795
Domesticating aurochs
