Fascinating discussion, thanks to Dr. Petrucelli and Dr. Madden for the reading recommendations.
I read "Colors, Culture, and Practices" yesterday. Very difficult to know what to think. He actually mentions "gorm" in the paper which, even being bilingual, I can't properly convey in English. It's a known translation problem. So I can't deny most of what he says in section III. And yet there is an aspect of what Pat says in that there is some objective grounding for our colour vocabulary, even across cultures, in the properties of light itself. I would say beyond what MacIntyre says in Section II, although this is only clear if you know the quantum treatment of light. It certainly gets over some of what he sketches out as objections in Section III, I think, but hard to know if it gets over all of them.
So I'm oscillating between Pat and the lads, great stuff!
Also, fwiw, I haven’t read MacIntyre’s Colors (yet); though I am a color realist, my disagreement (or so it seemed) with the lads was really about whether being able to answer the relativist concerns with respect to his virtue ethic was significant or even necessary.
Thank you Pat for that paper. I'm a colour realist myself. There's a lot I could say in light of that paper, especially concerning shape/colour primacy and quantum theory, but not to overload the comment the gist is I agree with Cutter, although his argument is much neater than the jargon filled argument I would produce.
I actually went to the colour paper in light of the ethical discussion, where I could see things both from your perspective and the lads, hoping that colour would be easier than ethics! It seems fairly subtle in the ethical case.
MacIntyre does agree that there stance-independently is The Good, he seems to be saying that the prudent man perceives The Good through a tradition and some traditions are objectively better than others in this regard, but one cannot demonstrate The Good to those who unfortunately have not inculcated sufficient virtue from their tradition. I think here I would agree with you that such demonstrations are still sensical and have value. My analogy would be like proofs for the existence of God as you mention. They might not be able to move one's heart until they are at the right stage of their journey and require a certain level of clear thought, but they will move some and even when you believe in God they can correct errors in one's conception.
Fascinating discussion, thanks to Dr. Petrucelli and Dr. Madden for the reading recommendations.
I read "Colors, Culture, and Practices" yesterday. Very difficult to know what to think. He actually mentions "gorm" in the paper which, even being bilingual, I can't properly convey in English. It's a known translation problem. So I can't deny most of what he says in section III. And yet there is an aspect of what Pat says in that there is some objective grounding for our colour vocabulary, even across cultures, in the properties of light itself. I would say beyond what MacIntyre says in Section II, although this is only clear if you know the quantum treatment of light. It certainly gets over some of what he sketches out as objections in Section III, I think, but hard to know if it gets over all of them.
So I'm oscillating between Pat and the lads, great stuff!
You might want to have a look at Brian Cutter’s stuff on color realism: https://philpapers.org/rec/CUTCAS
I’ll be curious to hear if that moves you at all.
Also, fwiw, I haven’t read MacIntyre’s Colors (yet); though I am a color realist, my disagreement (or so it seemed) with the lads was really about whether being able to answer the relativist concerns with respect to his virtue ethic was significant or even necessary.
Thank you Pat for that paper. I'm a colour realist myself. There's a lot I could say in light of that paper, especially concerning shape/colour primacy and quantum theory, but not to overload the comment the gist is I agree with Cutter, although his argument is much neater than the jargon filled argument I would produce.
I actually went to the colour paper in light of the ethical discussion, where I could see things both from your perspective and the lads, hoping that colour would be easier than ethics! It seems fairly subtle in the ethical case.
MacIntyre does agree that there stance-independently is The Good, he seems to be saying that the prudent man perceives The Good through a tradition and some traditions are objectively better than others in this regard, but one cannot demonstrate The Good to those who unfortunately have not inculcated sufficient virtue from their tradition. I think here I would agree with you that such demonstrations are still sensical and have value. My analogy would be like proofs for the existence of God as you mention. They might not be able to move one's heart until they are at the right stage of their journey and require a certain level of clear thought, but they will move some and even when you believe in God they can correct errors in one's conception.