“Something red can be destroyed, but red cannot be destroyed and so the meaning of the word “red” || ‘red’ is independent of the existence of a red thing.” Certainly it has no sense to say that the colour red (hue, not pigment) has been torn up or pounded || smashed to pieces || bits. But don't we say, “the redness vanishes”? And don't cling to the fact || idea that we can call it || redness before our mind's eye when nothing

Ts-226,42

¤ red exists any more. This is just as though you were to say || said that then there is still always a chemical reaction which produces a red flame. || This is no different from wanting to say that there is still always a chemical reaction which produces a red flame. – For what if you can't remember the colour any longer || can no longer remember the colour? – If we forget what colour it is that || which || which colour it is that has this name, then the name loses its meaning for us; that is || means, we can no longer play a particular || certain language game with it. And the situation is then comparable to that in which || which arrives when the paradigm || sample, which was an instrument || implement of our language, has been lost.