From this it should follow that we sometimes rightly sometimes wrongly teach a man to say that he is blind: For what if he saw all the time but nevertheless behaved ˇexactly like a blind man? – Or should we say: “Nature wouldn't play such a trick on us!”.
    We can see here that we don't quite
understand the real use of the
expression
word
“to see something” or “to see nothing”.

    And what is so misleading to us about when we consider this use is the following: We say “Surely we can see something without ever saying or showing that we do & on the other hand we can say that we see so & so without seeing it, therefore seeing is one process & expressing that we see an other, & all they have to do with each other is that they sometimes coincide; they have the same connection as being red & being sweet. Sometimes what is red is sweet, etc.”
 Now this is obviously not quite true & not quite false. It seems we somehow that we look at the use of these words with some prejudice.
It is clear that we in our language use the
words
expression
‘seeing red’ in such 1 a way that we can say “he A sees … red, but doesn't show it” on the other hand it is easy to see that we would have no use for these words if their application was severed from the criteria which in of behaviour, that is to say, to the language game which we play with these words it is, both, essential that the people who play it (should) behave in the particular way we call
saying, showing
expressing
what
they see, & also that
under certain circumstances
sometimes
they should ˇmore or less or entirely conceal what they see.
  Balance: The point of the game depends upon what usually happens.
    Point of a game
  ¥
How does he know that he
has the visual image
sees
red i.e. how does he connect ˇthe word ‘red’ with ‘a particular colour? In fact what does the expression ‘a particular’ here mean. What is the criterium for his connecting
the word
it
always to the same
experience
colour
? Is it not often just that he calls it red?