Synthese 68 (September):559-576 (1986)
|Abstract||How are we to define red? We seem to face a dilemma. For it seems that we must define red in terms of looks red. But looks red is semantically complex. We must therefore define looks red in terms of red. Can we avoid this dilemma? Christopher Peacocke thinks we can. He claims that we can define the concept of being red in terms of the concept of being red; the concept of a sensational property of visual experience. Peacocke agrees that his definition of red makes use of a concept that those who possess the concept of being red need not possess; namely, red. But he thinks that this does not matter. For, he says, the definition is justified provided we can specify what it is to possess the concept of being red in terms of the concept of being red. What he tries to show is that this might be so even if no-one could possess the concept of being red unless he possessed the concept of being red. Peacocke has two attempts at showing this. However, both these attempts fail. What Peacocke does show is something weaker. He shows that, using red, we can construct a concept that gives what he calls the constitutive role of the concept of being red; but, importantly, that it gives the constitutive role of red does not suffice for what Peacocke says is required for giving a definition. Thus, if we accept Peacocke's standard for definition, it follows that he gives us no way of avoiding the original dilemma. If this is right then perhaps we should join with those like Colin McGinn who think that we should give up our attempts to define our secondary quality concepts|
|Keywords||Definition Language Secondary Quality Peacocke, C|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Derek H. Brown (2006). On the Dual Referent Approach to Colour Theory. Philosophical Quarterly 56 (222):96-113.
Mark Siebel (2000). Red Watermelons and Large Elephants: A Case Against Compositionality? Theoria 15 (38):263-280.
Murat Aydede (2003). Is Introspection Inferential? In Brie Gertler (ed.), Privileged Access: Philosophical Accounts of Self-Knowledge. Ashgate.
Christopher Peacocke (1986). Reply to Michael Smith's Peacocke on Red and Red. Synthese 68 (September):577-580.
John L. Pollock (1967). Non-Analytic Implication. Inquiry 10 (1-4):196 – 203.
Galen Strawson (1989). Red and 'Red'. Synthese 78 (February):193-232.
David M. Rosenthal (1999). The Colors and Shapes of Visual Experiences. In Denis Fisette (ed.), Consciousness and Intentionality: Models and Modalities of Attribution. Kluwer.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads25 ( #55,649 of 722,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #14,877 of 722,813 )
How can I increase my downloads?