Talk:Philosophy of color

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Article has merit, needs work[edit]

I think this page is very important, but the information is ridiculously biased! I am taking it upon myself to remove opinionated claims thoughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StatAge (talkcontribs) 22:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion[edit]

I oppose Shadowjams's proposed deletion of this article, Color fictionalism, for the following reasons. While it is a relatively recent theory of color and perception among academic philosophers, it is gaining traction and becoming more well-known. The notability criteria, I believe, is met by seeing in print and on the web several important sources that address the subject. Included in my references is an article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, perhaps the most well-known online encyclopedia of philosophy and one that is written by experts in the field, called "Color" (written by Barry Maund) that devotes several sections to the debate over color fictionalism and color realism (objectivism). More material can be found with regards to Color realism, however, I believe both theories should be included on wikipedia, even if one is more popular. JEN9841 (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There should be more structure in the article. For instance it could be extended by introducing a section about the apparent tension between color physicalism and empirical results from kognitive psychology. And also, perhaps, some stage setting like showing its relation to other important theories in a more tidy manner, and perhaps an indication of the importance of the view in relation to certain theories of content. This way it could be more thoroughly embedded in the overall architecture of the philosophy section of the site. It isn't as though the subject is neglected in academic journals compared to how weirdly specific the topic seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.10.138.68 (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

More structure and info that relates the subject to relevant areas of philosophy to improve overall relevance[edit]

There should be more structure in the article. For instance it could be extended by introducing a section about the apparent tension between color physicalism and empirical results from kognitive psychology. And also, perhaps, some stage setting like showing its relation to other important theories in a more tidy manner, and perhaps an indication of the importance of the view in relation to certain theories of content. This way it could be more thoroughly embedded in the overall architecture of the philosophy section of the site. It isn't as though the subject is neglected in academic journals compared to how weirdly specific the topic seems.

So:

1) And indication of why the theory poses some tough questions (i.e. the various obstacles in relation to intersubjective variability of location of unique hues, resemblance amongst colors that doesn't obviously square well with the structure of the proposed domain of physical properties etc.) 2) An indication of why the theory is worthy of further consideration (i.e. it has been claimed by many that some more popular and important theories of content presuppose the truth of physicalism, hence the question about the relationship between mind and matter is, to a considerable extend dependent upon the success of the theory). 3) An indication of how realism relates to other theories (in a more tidy exposition than what might be found in the article now).

This would improve it considerably and would mirror the way the theory is perceived by philosophers at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.10.138.68 (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)