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 colour 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.