Search Results

In this chapter, the author first presents a standard taxonomy of the major alternative positions about color ontology. The distinction between color realism and color irrealism is explored. Several difficulties with the Standard Taxonomy are discussed including some directions in which one might proceed to refine the characterization of the options. The distinction between relationalist and non-relationalist accounts of color is then illustrated. The author argues that this distinction is useful in understanding the space of alternative views on color ontology because it crystallizes a central set of issues that divides the accounts, and does so while sidestepping problems that plague the Standard Taxonomy. Further, an alternative Refined Taxonomy of positions on color ontology is then provided as a useful way to clarify the relationship of color relationalism to other views.

A relationalist treatment of the phenomenology of color is offered in this chapter. It explores the accusation that color relationalism is inconsistent with the ordinary color phenomenology, and that it cannot be coherently combined with plausible theories of the nature of color phenomenology. To defend relationalism against both types of phenomenological objections, the aim of this chapter is to illustrate that color relationalism is not in conflict with the phenomenological evidence about color once one understands just how phenomenology can be useful in addressing questions of color ontology and that it presents no special difficulties regarding the metaphysics of color experience. Furthermore, the threat of regress dissolves when it is seen that it depends crucially on substitution instances that one has reason to reject, and that relationalism is not ungrounded in any sense that would prevent understanding of the theory.

This chapter compares role functionalism with other forms of color relationalism that have attracted philosophical adherents and argues that these alternative forms of relationalism all have serious drawbacks. Specifically, these forms include color dispositionalism, ecological relationalism, and sensory classificationalism. The author argues that dispositionalism either collapses onto role functionalism or rests on an implausible account of the relationship between dispositions and their bases. Ecological relationalism, on the other hand, falls prey to worries about multiple realization and is committed either to an unacceptable form of idealism or mislocates colors. Lastly, sensory classficationism links too tightly the perceptual classificatory responses of organisms and their subsequent epistemic or non-epistemic actions. With these contentions at hand, this chapter asserts that the role functionalism is the most promising species of relationalist color ontology.

This chapter introduces the reader to the philosophical debate around color and gives an overview of the central themes and conclusions of the book. It proposes that there are two distinct ways of setting up the problem of color ontology. The first is through cases of perceptual variation (as illustrated by Betrand Russell) and the second is through the clash of the “manifest” and “scientific images” (as illustrated by Arthur Eddington and Wilfrid Sellars). Comparisons are drawn between the debate over color and other topics in philosophy concerning the nature of perceptual experience, the relationship between neurophysiology and psychology, and more generally, the place of mind in nature.