Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Locke Properties - Dye
So I think I understand the distinction that Locke is describing of primary and secondary properties that an object has. That these secondary properties are the things that the mind makes of the physical objects is fine, but I'm confused about how Locke would deal with something like orange dye. Down to its smallest piece, this dye retains the secondary property of orange, and is not dependent on the mind to see the color. Or does he still contend that because the mind sees the color and it can be different for everyone that it would still be a secondary property? But just because it is different to someone else, doesnt mean it can't be a property of the object, just that someone is incorrect in their perception...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Well I think the color orange would still be a secondary property b/c it is a sensory perception. What you may consider orange or the manufacturer creating the orange dye may consider orange, may not be univeral. I may think it looks golden or yellow. We can argue back and forth about it but it still would hold true in your mind that it's orange and in my mind it's gold.
but then isn't every thing then just a figment of our imagination. every property that we say is a property is not a property because the specific object we are referring to has that property, but because they are watched by us.
i don't agree with locke when he says that there are two different types of properties.
Post a Comment