“Something red can be destroyed, but red cannot be destroyed
and so the meaning of the word
“red” || ‘red’ is
independent of the existence of a red thing.”
Certain
ly it has no sense to say that the colour red
(hue, not pigment) has been torn up or
pounded || smashed to
pieces || bits.
But don't we say
, “the redness
vanishes”
?
And don't cling to the
fact || idea that we can call
it || redness before our mind's eye when
nothing
42
¤ red exists
any more.
This is just as though you were to say || said
that then there is still always a chemical
reaction which produces a red flame. || This is no different from wanting to say that
there is still always a chemical reaction which produces
a red flame. –
For what if you
can't remember the colour any
longer || can no longer remember the colour? –
If we forget
what colour it
is that || which || which colour it is that has
this name, then the name loses its meaning for us; that
is || means, we can no longer play a
particular || certain language
game with it.
And the situation is then compar
able to that
in
which || which arrives when the
paradigm || sample, which was an
instrument || implement of our
language, has been lost.