3 ms·
>As I understand it, it isn't that people don't "see" the colors if they aren't defined but that they haven't learned to distinguish between them. No, this is
by Sangermaine 9y ago
>As I understand it, it isn't that people don't "see" the colors if they aren't defined but that they haven't learned to distinguish between them.
No, this is also wrong and implies some kind of superiority. It's not that other cultures that describe colors differently haven't learned to distinguish between them, it's that they categorize them in different ways. Our terms for colors are not fixed features of the universe, and different peoples will categorize the visible light spectrum differently. No one way is more sensible or right than the other. The historical Japanese word "ao" described a spectrum of colors that covers that part of the visible light spectrum that we in English divide into two categories (blue and green). This isn't an inability to distinguish, it's a different way of thinking.
It's not about seeing or not seeing, it's that they're not organizing what they see in the same way you or I do.
- jccalhoun 9y agoI think I am trying to say the same thing.
- fenomas 9y agoKeep in mind, just because historical Japanese (or anybody) didn't have a name for a given color doesn't mean they couldn't talk about it. There's no reason they couldn't have talked about specific things as being the color of leaves, the sky, oceans, and so forth. All that's being talked about here is how societies decide to group up or split apart general categories of colors, not whether their language allows them to talk about specific things of various colors.
- Sangermaine 9y agoYou've just restated what I wrote.
- fenomas 9y agoI disagree. Note that it wasn't a counter-argument, just added comment. Incidentally if you're interested, the historical "ao" didn't really refer to a specific band of the the visible light spectrum as you suggest, it could mean any pale or ill-defined color, with "red" being used for any strong vivid color. Per wikipedia, anyway.