“Something red can be destroyed, but red cannot be destroyed and so the meaning of the word [|]red[|] is independent of the existence of a redt thing.” Certain[y|l]y it has no sense to say that the colour red (hue, not pigment) has been torn up or
smashed
pounded
to
bits
pieces
. But don't we say, “the redness vanishes”? And don't cling to the
idea
fact
that we can call
redness
it
before our mind's eye when nothing
42
nothing red exists any more. This is ˇjust as though you were to sa[y|id] that then there is still always a chemical reˇaction which produces a red flame. // This is no different from wanting to say that … // For what if you can't ˇno longer remember the colour any longer? – If we forget wh[at|ich] colour it is thatch which has this name, then the namech loses its meaning for us; that
means
is
, we can no longer play a
certain
particular
language game with it. And the situation is then compar[i|a]ble to that in which ˇarrives when the
sample
paradigm
, which was an
implement
instrument
of our language, has been lost.