Yes, but the definition of "red" is partial. If you have two red apples, but one is darker, can you still say that both are red? What's the limit between "red" and "black"? If you create the expression "dark red", what'd be the limit between "dark red" and "red"? If you have two apples near exact limit of "red" and "dark red", but one is 0.000001% darker and the other is 0.000001% brighter, human eyes can't know which one is "red" and which one is "dark red". If the definition of the words are partial, how can truth be absolute?
Okay, that actually makes sense. I'd say both are red. Because the statement, "the apple is red," DOESN'T assign the shade, amount of light hitting it and affecting its lightness, or its exact pigment, it's still telling the truth; its just not a super long scientific explanation of the exact and absolute color.
Furthermore, the word "red" in general use and common assumption designates any shade of the color we know as red. It's a general term, and obviously not as descriptive as you'd like, but its still truth I say.
Now before you say that what I'm talking about is colour blindness hear me out. if my red is the same as your blue and to make things simple, my blue is the same as your red then how could we tell what red really looks like?
Dude, I had that theory when I was a little kid once. I thought maybe blue-eyed people saw colors differently than brown-eyed people, and they each knew each color by that name and had no way of knowing how their opposite-shaded friends saw the same colors. But then I realized that the iris doesn't have anything to do with color perception.
But the thing is, aside from people who are colorblind, all people see all colors the same. Maybe there are people who had eye damage who don't see as clearly or something, but colors don't vary to individual perceptions-- again, aside from color blindness. . . Well, as far as we know.
Author
Topic: Truth is not relative! (Read 15747 times)