But what if no such sample
belongs to || is
used in the language, if
41
for
instance || e.g., we
remember the colour
which a word stands for?
“And if we remember it,
then || that
means it comes before our mind's eye when we
utter the word.
The colour
in itself must therefore be
indestructible
, if it is to be possible for us
at any time to
remember it || to remember it at any time.”
But what do we take
then as the criterion
that we remember || for
remembering it correctly? –
If we work with a sample instead of with our memory,
then we
say
, on
occasion || under certain
circumstances || sometimes,
that the sample has changed its colour, and we judge this by
our memory.
But
may we not || mayn't
we,
in || under certain
circumstances
, speak
also || also speak of a darkening
– for
instance
– || (e.g.) of our
memory image?
Aren't we just as much at the mercy of memory as we are of a
sample?
(For someone might
want || wish
to say
, || :
“If we had no memory we should be at the mercy of a
sample.”)
Or
, say
, of a chemical reaction:
–
Suppose || imagine
you had to paint a particular colour, its name is
“
S || F”,
and it is the colour which you see when
you combine the substance
S || the substance S combines with the
substance T under such and such conditions.
–
Suppose the co
lour appeared to you one day brighter than
on another,
shouldn't || wouldn't
you then
, under certain circumstances
,
say
, “I must be mistaken, the colour is certainly the
same as yesterday”
?
This shows that we do not always
treat || regard what memory says as
the
highest verdict, || verdict of the highest court,
beyond which there is no appeal.