Red Circle or Blue Square?

Time for some random thought.

An exercise I've considered as part of a critical thinking course is to ask the students to answer the following question: How is this red circle a blue square? I've always imagined that such a simple and ludicrous question would force students to open their minds to impossible answers and make them possible. I should note that I am confident this is not a novel exercise. Surely it has been thought up before. I am not aware of where, when, and by who. I suppose it doesn't matter.

So the exercise will be used but it does seem only fair that I attempt it myself first.

How is this red circle a blue square?

On first consideration, the answer to the question, how is this red circle a blue square seems rather simple. It isn't. Of course, a red circle is in no way a blue square. It is not possible, for the definitions contradict one another. A red object cannot be blue and an object that is a circle cannot be a square.

So, what is the purpose of this question? The person asking is trying to fool us in some way. Surely, there must be a trick to the question.

A basic approach to structuring a philosophical paper is to introduce the topic and next work through definitions, to bring transparency to the rest of the paper. So it makes sense to do the same here. We shall work in order, and the first definition to address is red. We know red is one of the primary colors. It exists as a frequency and wavelength of light, something that our eyes detect, and relay a signal to the brain, which then interprets the light as a visual sense. A circle is a shape that lacks corners and is the subject of too many mathematical equations. The shape's boundaries are always of equal distance to its center point. Next is blue, another primary color and another frequency and wavelength, only this time it is objectively a different frequency and wavelength to that of red. And finally, the square, which is another shape. This shape, of course, is defined by its four equal-length sides and four right angles, or corners.

If there is indeed a trick to the question or the person asking the question is fooling us in some way, it must be regarding how we perceive light. That is, the light our eyes see is actually the only color that is not absorbed by an object. When light hits an object, most of the light is absorbed and 'stored' in the object's material. Some light, however, reflects and it is this light that our eyes detect and it is this light that we use to describe the object. Ironically, when we say a circle is red, it is every color but red. And there we have the basis of our first argument.

The red object is a blue object because the color blue is not reflecting, and therefore it embodies the color blue. This embodiment and absorption of the color blue permits us to describe it as a blue object. A more accurate description in this case would be to say the object is every color other than red - but this surely allows us to claim one of those colors by default, and we will use blue. Of course, this only provides an argument for the colors and not the shapes.

So is it a trick question or does the person asking the question hold different definitions to us? Is it possible that our asker has always called objects that are red circles, blue squares? That is, has this person always called something red, blue, and always called a circle, a square? To this person, their understanding is correct internally. Only externally, when trying to communicate and convey a message, does a problem arise. We are left to question, then, who is right? The majority of English speakers would agree that the object in question is a red circle, but that is only a reality of language and not a reality of thought. The image perceived internally by both parties, the asker and all other English speakers, is the same. The question arises, who is setting our definitions?

Our second argument, therefore, is that we see the same object and the terminology we use is irrelevant. What right do we have to say what is red and a circle and what is blue and a square? To a large portion of the world, that does not speak English, the question would not even be understood. Whatever language we speak, whatever definitions we hold for words, and whether we choose to describe something as a red circle or a blue square, it does not matter. We are still seeing the same object.

But are we truly seeing the same object? Might it be that we are viewing two completely separate objects? If we consider the possibility of parallel universes, we may find ourselves in a situation where universes have overlapped. Perhaps we are experiencing a sort of atomic problem.

Our third argument then is, according to parallel universe theory, there are an infinite number of possible universes out there, and therefore, this red circle must be a blue square in one of them.

So there we have it. Many other arguments can be made and questions asked, but it doesn't seem worth going on further. I'm satisfied that this question helps you think critically about a situation and curiously explore the 'impossible'.