Miss Ina

Some responses:I would say solipsism is classic in that it's one of the simplest philosophical concepts to consider. I'm really sorry I sound patronizing here—it's just that whenever someone says that I'm reminded of the pseudointellectuals in my classes who loved such questions because they are so tedious to argue against.Can you really think of things in terms of colour then, though? If light is the only thing with which we can distinguish colour, we're not able to imagine what something looks like (as in how it would appear to our eyes) behind the reflection of light, let alone call them by the same names that we use to distinguish between the wavelengths of reflected light.

To say sight is a big lie because we aren't really seeing the object as it really is just doesn't ... you just can't use the same words that you use for sight when you're talking about a lack of sight, y'know? Sight is all about light. Our notion of sight as we know it comes from the fact that light reflects from everything, and eyes are naturally designed to absorb images in the only way they can be absorbed in this world—by relaying and interpreting those combinations of light to our brain. We'd have to consider some sort of non-light-based sense to replace ours. Though I guess if we didn't have light we'd have to come up with a completely different source of the planet's life, too, or just die.

... But that's not really related to the topic anymore. My apologies. Hooray for digressions.

__________________
The word "time" split its husk; poured its riches over him; and from his lips fell like shells, like shavings from a plane, without his making them, hard, white, imperishable words, and flew to attach themselves to their places in an ode to Time; an immortal ode to Time.
—Virginia Woolf, Mrs Dalloway