[hist-analytic] Incompatibilities of Colour (Was: Synthetic Necessary Truth

jlsperanza at aol.com jlsperanza at aol.com
Fri Jan 1 19:11:47 EST 2010

In a message dated 1/1/2010 12:29:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
Baynesr at comcast.net writes:

A. One problem with Putnam's approach is that because in order  
to "prove" his case that the nothing can be red and blue all
over he  introduces the right postulates to get what he wants.
And since he CAN  

Thanks for this, Steve.
For the record, on revising the recently deceased D. F. Pears, I see -- and 
 I add this as an addendum to my previous note re Grice's consideration in 
asking  children:
       'can a sweater be green and red all  over? No stripes allowed'  
(reported in S. Chapman, _Grice_)
-- the Pears quote being
Pears, D. F, "Incompatibilities of Colour"in Flew, (tutee of Grice, as it  
happens), ed. Language and Logic. And this is vintage 1953,
Oddly, the anon. obituarist for Pears in The Times uses the example as a  
typical philosophese:
"[Pears's] first papers were on philosophic conundrums, 
such as the Incongruity of Counterparts 
      -- why exactly a left-hand glove will not 
      fit a right hand; 
      why are right and left but not top and  bottom reversed in a mirror; 
       and the like --
    Colour Incompatibility -- 
     what is the nature of the impossibility for a  thing to be red and 
green all over --
    and the like. 

Some googling retrieves hits by
Radford on "Incompatibilites of Colours" and Sanford's comment on Radford,  
"Green, Red, and Absolute Determinacy", and Hilton, Red and green all over  
again, in Analysis.
The Pears festschrift notes that Pears's "Incompatibilites of Colours" in  
Flew was an expanded version of his previous Mind article, "Synthetic 
Necessary  Truth" (1950). 
J. L. Speranza

More information about the hist-analytic mailing list