Interesting point, Floree, but I don't think it applies all that well the way you put it. Calling it light red does imply that there's a dark red, but the thing is, that's irrelevant. And the reason why is, it's still the same color even if we don't call it light red. It's still the same color, even if we have no other red to compare it to. "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet."
Looks like I got ninja'd and you clarified before I did. Oops. I still think shakespeare knew the future and anticipated us having this discussion, though.
Eh, true, but i can't think properly right now, im really tired XD I mean, if i wasnt, id be making more profound comparisons like that whole weed thing rather than just colours.
XD totally, ill tell my english teacher shakespear can see into the future then.
stuntdude: but colors, unlike emotions, are an objective part of reality
Quantum: Um, no, they aren't. Like for colourblind people, they perceive colour differently. Also, a colour must be compared to another colour to actually be that colour.
There's a video on colour. Basically, the same colour something is can be percieved differently by different people, and there it's a subjective thing.
I'll look at the video in a minute, but my initial response is that while we might percieve them slightly differently we can also describe them objectively by the wavelength of the light that makes them
The wavelength of the light is an objective thing. The color it's perceived as is a subjective thing that depends on the individual.
^ Exactly as stuntdude said. I mean, emotions could be looked at that way by how much edorphins are released into the brain or something, but it's still a subjective thing. Same goes for light.