“I want to call only that a ‘name || name’ only that which cannot stand in the connection ‘X exists’. – And we || thus you cannot || can't say ‘red exists’, because if there were no red you could not speak about it.” More correctly: If “X exists” amounts to saying || is to say, “X” exists || “‘X’ exists”, then it is not a sentence about “X” || X but a sentence about our use of language || usage of words, namely || viz., the use of the word “X”.
     It seems to us as thoughwe were saying something about the nature of red in saying that the words “red exists” make no sense || in saying that the words “red exists” do not make sense we were saying something about the nature of red || , saying that the words “red exists” do not make sense, said something about the nature of red. It exists just || – as it were – “in itself” || ‘in itself’. The same idea, that this is a metaphysical statement about red, is expressed also when we say that red is timeless, and perhaps still more strongly in the word “indestructible”.
     Butactually || , as a matter of fact, we want only to take “red exists” || to regard “red exists” only || to regard “red exists” as a || the statement: The || the word “red” has meaning. Or perhaps more correctly: “Red does not exist” as “‘Red’ has no meaning”. Only we do not || don't want to say that this expression says that || the expression says this, but that it would have to say that || this is what it would have to say if it has || had a meaning. But || ; but that in trying to say that || this it contradicts itself – since red exists “in itself” || ‘in itself’. Whereas a
43
¤ contradictioncould only be said to lie || could only lie || , if anywhere, lies || might be said to lie in the fact that the sentence looks as though it were speaking of || about the colour, whereas || when || while really || , in fact, it is supposed to say something about the use of the word “red”. In reality || As a matter of fact || In fact, however, we may very well say || do say a particular || that such & such a colour exists; || In reality, however, it is quite a natural thing to say that a particular colour exists; and this means simply || simply means something exists || that something exists || that there is something that has this colour. And the first expression is not || no less exact than the second; especially not in the case where “that which has the colour” || ‘that which has the colour’ is not a physical object.