Color and a priori knowledge

Abstract

Some truths about color are knowable a priori. For example, it is knowable a priori that redness is not identical to the property of being square. This extremely modest and plausible claim has significant philosophical implications, or so I shall argue. First, I show that this claim entails the falsity of standard forms of color functionalism, the view that our color concepts are functional concepts that pick out their referents by way of functional descriptions that make reference to the subjective responses of perceivers. I then argue that, while some sophisticated forms of color functionalism can accommodate the a priori knowability of a truth like “redness is not identical to squareness,” they can only do so by abandoning color realism, the thesis that colors are instantiated by external material objects. In practice, color functionalists are almost invariably color realists. Thus, given extremely modest assumptions concerning what can be known a priori about color, we should conclude that color functionalism, at least in its typical realist form, is false.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The intended logical form here is A[~ (redness = squareness)], with the negation taking scope over everything else within the apriority operator.

  2. 2.

    Cf. Chalmers (2006: 50–51).

  3. 3.

    Proponents of presentationalism, or something near enough, include Tye (1995), Dretske (1995), Byrne and Hilbert (1997), Horgan and Tienson (2002), Pautz (2010), Speaks (2015), and Mendelovici (2018). Anti-presentationalism is defended by Peacocke (1983), Block (1990), Chalmers (2006, 2018), and Thompson (2009). Both views are characterized here under the assumption that experience is representational. Many naïve realists would object to assumption but otherwise accept views much in the spirit of presentationalism.

  4. 4.

    For scientific and philosophical arguments from presentationalism to color irrealism, see Chalmers (2006) and Pautz (2010).

  5. 5.

    See, for example, Campbell (1993), Dretske (1995), Lycan (1996), Byrne and Tye (2006), Allen (2016), and Cutter (2018).

  6. 6.

    Functionalists who apparently endorse some such view of experience include Reid (1764), Kripke (1980), Block (1990), Lewis (1997), McLaughlin (2003), and Morrison (2018).

  7. 7.

    Because I take color concepts to be unanalyzable, I regard “redness ≠ squareness” as an instance of the synthetic a priori, at least if “synthetic” truths are understood as those that cannot be transformed into logical truths by replacing expressions with their analyses.

  8. 8.

    Some color functionalists endorse a slightly more complicated analysis, one that relativizes colors to perceivers and circumstances of perception. Thus, Jackson and Pargetter (1987: 72) propose the following analysis: “Redness for S in C at t is the property which causes (or would cause) objects to look red to S in C at t.” (Cf. McLaughlin 2003: 122; Cohen 2003: 6). The functionalist’s relativization of color to perceivers and circumstances of perception is motivated by the familiar fact that color appearances can vary across different subjects and viewing conditions. The phenomenon of perceptual variation plays no role in the argument below, so we can harmlessly ignore the functionalist’s relativism and focus on simpler analyses like the one above.

  9. 9.

    Compare McLaughlin’s (2003) explanation of why we are tempted to accept Revelation about color.

  10. 10.

    A variation on the response above, which might appeal to Chalmers (2006), is to say that Apriority holds for perfect redness and squareness, but not for ordinary redness and squareness. My reply is similar: the intuitive support for Apriority retains its full force even when we are careful to employ our ordinary concepts of redness and squareness.

  11. 11.

    The term “core belief” comes from Johnston (1992), but it is not clear that Johnston takes it to be a conceptual truth that colors are whatever properties satisfy our core beliefs. Thus, it is not clear that Johnston qualifies as a core belief functionalist, though Lewis certainly does.

  12. 12.

    For endorsements of Intrinsicality (or its pre-theoretic plausibility), see: Johnston (1992: 223), Yablo (1995: 489), McGinn (1996: 542), and Tye (2000: 153). Also noteworthy is the scientific practice of classifying as an “illusion” any case where two intrinsically identical surfaces look different in respect of color, as in Kitaoka’s (2006) lightness illusion or Adelson’s (1995) checker-shadow illusion. This classification strikes us as appropriate because we tacitly assume that color is intrinsic. For endorsements of Categoricity (or its pre-theoretic plausibility) see Boghossian and Velleman (1989: 86), Yablo (1995: 490), McGinn (1996: 545), and Cutter (2018: 41). For endorsements of Similarity-Grounding (or its pre-theoretic plausibility), see Yablo (1995: 486), Cohen (2009: 188–193), and Cutter (2018: 41–42). An endorsement of Similarity-Grounding also appears to be implicit in Hardin’s (1988: 2–6, 64–67) objection to physicalist views of color, which moves from the premise that there is no non-disjunctive physical property common to the things we call blue to the conclusion that blue isn’t an objective physical property.

  13. 13.

    For explanations of color structure along these lines, see Shoemaker (1991), Lewis (1997), Cohen (2003), McLaughlin (2003). For a convincing argument that these strategies do not do full justice to our pre-theoretic beliefs about color structure, see Pautz (2006).

  14. 14.

    See, for example, Hardin’s (1988: 2–6) brief summary of the many and widely varying physical causes of blue appearances.

  15. 15.

    In my view, the only plausible cases where familiarity with paradigms may be a prerequisite for possessing a color concept are colors named after their paradigms, such as Johnston’s example of canary yellow. Even if paradigms play a role in the analysis of canary yellow, I think the same cannot be said of the more standard color concepts like red, yellow, or purple.

  16. 16.

    See also Allen (2016: 83–85) for Kripke-inspired arguments against some forms of functionalism.

References

  1. Adelson, E. (1995). Checkershadow illusion. Retrieved March 26, 2019 from http://persci.mit.edu/gallery/checkershadow.

  2. Allen, K. (2016). A naïve realist theory of colour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Armstrong, D. (1968). A materialist theory of mind. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Block, N. (1990). Inverted earth. Philosophical Perspectives, 4, 53–79.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boghossian, P., & Velleman, D. (1989). Color as a secondary quality. Mind, 98(January), 81–103.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Byrne, A., & Hilbert, D. (1997). Colors and reflectances. In A. Byrne & D. R. Hilbert (Eds.), Readings on color, volume 1: The philosophy of color. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Byrne, A., & Hilbert, D. (2003). Color realism and color science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26(1), 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Byrne, A., & Tye, M. (2006). Qualia ain’t in the head. Noûs, 40(2), 241–255.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Campbell, J. (1993). A simple view of colour. In J. Haldane & C. Wright (Eds.), Reality: Representation and projection (pp. 257–268). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chalmers, D. (2006). Perception and the fall from Eden. In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perceptual experience (pp. 49–125). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chalmers, D. (2011). The nature of epistemic space. In A. Egan & B. Weatherson (Eds.), Epistemic modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chalmers, D. (2012). Constructing the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chalmers, D. (2018). Three puzzles about spatial experience. In A. Pautz & D. Stoljar (Eds.), Blockheads!: Essays on ned block’s philosophy of mind and consciousness. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen, J. (2003). Color: A functionalist proposal. Philosophical Studies, 113(1), 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cohen, J. (2009). The red and the real: An essay on color ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cutter, B. (2016). Color and shape: A plea for equal treatment. Philosophers’ Imprint, 16, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cutter, B. (2018). Paradise regained: A non-reductive realist account of the sensible qualities. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 96(1), 38–52.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cutter, B. (2019). Indeterminate perception and colour relationism. Analysis, 79(1), 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Descartes, R. (1644/1988) Principles of philosophy. In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, D. Murdoch, & A. Kenny (Eds.), Descartes: Selected philosophical writings (pp. 160–212). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  20. Dretske, F. (1995). Naturalizing the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hardin, C. L. (1988). Color for philosophers: Unweaving the rainbow. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Horgan, T., & Tienson, J. (2002). The intentionality of phenomenology and the phenomenology of intentionality. In D. J. Chalmers (Ed.), Philosophy of mind: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 520–533). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jackson, F., & Pargetter, R. (1987). An objectivist’s guide to subjectivism about colour. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 41, 127–141.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Johnston, M. (1992). How to speak of the colors. Philosophical Studies, 68(3), 221–263.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Johnston, M. (1996). Is the external world invisible? Philosophical Issues, 7, 185–198.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kitaoka, A. (2006). Luminance-gradient-dependent lightness illusion. Retrieved March 26, 2019 from http://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/akitaoka/gilchrist2006mytalke.html#LGLI.

  27. Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Levin, J. (2000). Dispositional theories of color and the claims of common sense. Philosophical Studies, 100(2), 151–174.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lewis, D. (1983). New work for a theory of universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61, 343–377.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lewis, D. (1997). Naming the colours. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 75(3), 325–342.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lycan, W. (1996). Consciousness and experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Maund, B. (1995). Colours: Their nature and representation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. McGinn, C. (1983). The subjective view: Secondary qualities and indexical thoughts. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. McGinn, C. (1996). Another look at color. Journal of Philosophy, 93(11), 537–553.

    Google Scholar 

  35. McLaughlin, B. (2003). The place of color in nature. In R. Mausfeld & D. Heyer (Eds.), Colour: Connecting the mind to the physical world (pp. 475–505). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mendelovici, A. (2018). The phenomenal basis of intentionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Morrison, J. (2018). Perceptual variation and structuralism. Noûs. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pautz, A. (2006). Can the physicalist explain colour structure in terms of colour experience? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 84(4), 535–564.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Pautz, A. (2010). Do theories of consciousness rest on a mistake? Philosophical Issues, 20(1), 333–367.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Peacocke, C. (1983). Sense and content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Prior, E., Pargetter, R., & Jackson, F. (1982). Three theses about dispositions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 19(3), 251–257.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Reid, T. (1764/1970) An inquiry into the human mind on the principles of common sense (T. Duggan, Ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  43. Shoemaker, S. (1991). Qualia and consciousness. Mind, 100(399), 507–524.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Speaks, J. (2015). The phenomenal and the representational. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Thompson, B. (2009). Senses for senses. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 87(1), 99–117.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Tye, M. (1995). Ten problems of consciousness: A representational theory of the phenomenal mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Tye, M. (2000). Consciousness, color, and content. Cambridge, MA: MIT/Bradford.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Yablo, S. (1995). Singling out properties. Philosophical Perspectives, 9, 477–502.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Neil Mehta, Andrew Lee, and Jeff Speaks for helpful discussion and detailed feedback on an earlier draft. This paper also benefitted from the exceptionally helpful comments of an anonymous referee.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian Cutter.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cutter, B. Color and a priori knowledge. Philos Stud 178, 293–315 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-020-01432-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Color
  • Perception
  • Consciousness
  • A priori knowledge