The Colour Paradox -- The Flaw of Human Logic
Updated: 3 days ago
Colors are traits of perception that we usually see as objective facts. It is accepted that apples are red or green and oranges are, well, oranges, but what we fail to realize is that the perception of colors is as subjective as a single individual's opinion on some video game.
How come? The answer is simple; it's just that most of humanity sees the same colors the same way.
Therefore, though people are entitled to opinion, they are also entitled to their vision. Again, it's just that most people see it as the same color, like an opinion could be accepted as true by a majority of people.
And even more things in the world are subjective than meets the eye! Music, art, shows, movies, and yes, even word definitions Their true worth is subjective simply because it is subjected to the human experience and doesn't necessarily exist outside of it.
An objective fact is something that is independent of our experience and can exist even if humanity ceases to exist after a nuclear holocaust. How do we know if an orange is actually orange? Should we go extinct, and there be no one to perceive it?
I believe the term "color blindness" only exists because most people see the same color variations. Imagine an alternative universe where we would all be colorblind, but not see ourselves as such, because our colorblindness is "objective" or simply general.
In that scenario, add a minority who can see all the colors WE can see -- red, blue, yellow, and so on, while we, in the alternative scenario, cannot.
In this case, the "normal" color seer would actually experience something extraordinary, a blessing, rather than a typical sight. I assure you, that if we were all colorblind, a.k.a. very limited in our sight of color, then there would not be a need to call ourselves such. Why? Because that'll be the norm, a fact as clear as day.
The problem with "objectivity" is that we are bound by subjectivity. We are prisoners of our own minds, unless something truly has nothing to do with us.
However, we may be objective at times, but it's debatable if we're able to be purely objective. AKA: clear of bias.
Because of that, I don't really understand why objectivity is so important, when subjectivity could be just as relatable.
When someone says that oranges are colored orange, most of us will agree, because we see with our own eyes that they are. However, once again, we cannot truly know its color beyond our common vision.
Who's to say it's an orange, when someone comes and says it's actually green? It's impossible to determine, because objectivity is not something that is democratic, like when electing a politician.
The fact that most of us see the fruit as that color isn't technically enough to determine it as that. The fact that a democratic nation votes for someone, doesn't mean they're a good leader. Do you see the problem?
Philosophy in general is problematic because of how easy it is to meet another philosopher who disagrees with you, on things you might see as basic. If a crowd of people agrees with me more than they agree with someone else, it doesn't mean that my case for the discussion is true, and vice versa.
Terms like "pretentious" and the like are simply ways to say that you don't agree with someone; because you don't believe they are actually what they are.
It's difficult to determine philosophy as an objective method of truth-seeking, when it is bound to the entitlement of the various philosophers, who can easily disagree with each other.
Likewise, the fact that someone sees an orange as green, doesn't mean that they are wrong or right; they simply see the same thing differently. Who can determine what is true or not? Only your sense of logic.
And it is the sense of logic that philosophy uses to extract potential truths. Perhaps that's the reason why some people minimize it, because it isn't as reassuring as the sciences. You see, philosophy is a long, and sometimes tedious, search for a truth that you may or may not find.
If you see my writing as tedious, I wouldn't be surprised, as philosophizing could always be fogged in doubt and uncertainty. It's ironic, because skepticism is a major trait in this occupation. Who knew that the very thing that allows one to philosophize also limits one to philosophizing?
That is also a problem with logical reasoning, because the universe does not always limit our ability to reason. The world isn't dichotomous, and yet, a basic claim in logic, is that "A" cannot be "B" and vice versa, unless they are the same.
The world doesn't work like that, because things might be paradoxical yet still exist. Bitter chocolate, for example, is both bitter and sweet, even though they are opposites.
And yet, bitter is not sweet, and sweet is not bitter. And still, they can exist together in the same object without breaking the fabric of time and space.
I believe it was Osho who said that the truth can be paradoxical. It is paradoxical, theoretically, because it's a fact that contradictions, otherwise marketed as fallacies, exist in the world despite logic.
Because of that, the fact that an orange is orange to me, does not have to contradict this fruit being a different color to a colorblind person. Since popularity does not determine truth, we are both technically right.
This is why objectivity and subjectivity don't matter, at least as long as we are confined to our limited consciousness. We can't just, you know, exit our minds and see the world independently of our flawed sense of logic.
Do you know why robots in fiction are flawed? It's because they were created by humans, and like humans, they follow a specific logical reasoning, that might not correlate with ours.
Why is Scar from The Lion King a villain when the natural way to replace the king in a monarchy is through death of any kind? You can't just re-elect Mufasa "normally"; the kingdom belongs to him exclusively, like North Korea belongs exclusively to the Kim dynasty! But I digress.
In order to better understand the world, we must be more flexible. We must be open to accepting that someone else's argument could be true like ours, even if the arguments themselves are different.
It's just like bitter or black chocolate, the two sides of the same coin, the color gray, and so on. We live in a universe that is filled with contradictions and even absurdity, but that doesn't have to be fallacious.
In a sense, it makes me even hate my original name, which means purity. There is no purity in this world at large, and there is no need for it, either. In June I will officially be Tomasio, a name that I regard as more than pure.
In conclusion, our experience of the world doesn't necessarily exist outside of the world. Even our dreams are a part of it. Why? Because everything that exists, whether "real" or not, exists, no matter how many will disagree with you.
The concept of things existing outside of reality is fallacious, because everything that exists, exists within the universe, just like our different perceptions of color.
The universe, you see, has no bounds. Even if you travel millions of years in space, you will not find a border beyond which your dreams at night exist. It exists in your mind, just as you and I exist in the world, and so on.
Everything's correct, aside from the things that do not, like the height of a tower and the way we truly see, smell, and touch.