[lit-ideas] Re: Hume's Missing Shade of Blue
- From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:12:04 -0700
JL writes (and quotes RP)
But surely there's no way to prove that the experiment works. I would need
to wait for K. Trogge's description of the missing shade (of blue). And in
any case, why would I trust that that shade is the same as R. Paul _says_
the T-shirt is?
So, if the color of this shade is no different from other shades of
blue, in that it could be directly perceived through the senses, Mr.
[Trogge] need not use his imagination to see it—only his eyes.
I _see_.
Hume's words are deceiving. There is no _single_ shade of blue that is
the missing shade. Any shade of blue may be missing from a color chart
that ranges from the darkest to the lightest shade, so any shade may
turn out to be a missing shade: there will be a long disjunctive list of
'shades,' and whether a certain one is 'missing' is in the eye and the
imagination of the beholder.
So, there cannot be a missing shade of blue until one has found it to be
missing. Even Mr. Troegge cannot tell from looking at his prize garment
if it's one of the missing ones, let alone _the_ missing one. Only by
examining Hume's original chart, which is in the Mutton archives, can
this be known.
How to get out of this predicament is a second-order philosophical
problem; but not for everyone.
Robert Paul,
trying to be helpful.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
