One of the surprising things I find when I go through some encyclopedias is that —I find the phrase “naïve realism” in reference to people like myself and others who attempt to describe and define the world exactly how it appears by following the third law of logic i.e. the law of identity which states that observable objects in the real world are exactly how they appear i.e. everything is what it is; there is no treeness, stoneness, rockness, sweetness, bitterness, or hotness there is just a tree, stone, rock, sweet, bitter, and hot — made up of atoms respectively; there should never be any mystical digression by adding the suffix “ness” into our adjectives―which is extremely dangerous as a thought process. How can there be a secondary quality called “treeness”, “stoneness”, “painness”, “bitterness” or “happiness”? There can only be a tree, stone, pain, bitter and happy. Unfortunately, these idealistic and mystical regressions are inculcated in our languages and lexicons— that it is becoming onerous to dispel altogether in our writing and locution; These so called “secondary qualities” which are supposed to be “created” by the mind do not exist because they are created by the errors in our grammar; I would like to turn the table around and litigate the idealist himself as naïve and accuse him of naïve idealism. There are no secondary qualities; idealists are the ones who are naïve; and people who explain the world exactly how it appears are called sapient realists and you are invited to be one of them.



Now, secondary qualities stated by Locke are supposed to be entities that do not exist in the outside world beyond the observer; like happiness, hatred, love, beauty and so on; they are supposed to be “abstract”; now you should take notice that by stating such arguments we are knocking the door of “spirituality” and mysticism; further on if these entities are independently created by the mind; and do not exist in the outside world; then why do we need senses to trigger these feelings? Why does not the mind just spontaneously create love, hatred and beauty without primary quality stimulation; if these secondary qualities existed; were not errors in our grammar and most importantly if the mind has a power of spontaneous generation independently of primary qualities?Secondary qualities are not independent but extensions of primary qualities. Consider the following: Can you feel hatred without something loathsome? Can you feel happy without something blissful out there in the real world? Can you feel love without observing something lovely? Can you denominate something as beautiful without the figures,dimension, and color which make up that very subject? Can you be conscious without something stimulating; which triggers your awareness? Therefore, these so called secondary qualities are not secondary; but primary.

I think it is the idealist who is naive and immature in his cogitation and conclusion; attempting to assign mystical notions to primary qualities; by distorting their nature at the stage of epistemology and finally metaphysics. Idealism is an epistemological disaster and a huge fallacy; how can we call some body naïve; if he observes the color of the ocean and calls it blue; or the color of the eyes of his fiancé blue; does he really have any option but to submit himself to the dictums of primary qualities and objective reality? Should he dream that the color of the ocean or the color of the eyes his fiancé is blueness in order to be called sage? Should he convince himself that he is not just conscious but a “consciousness” so that he could join the ranks of the wise?Because we should always remember that when we add the suffix “ness” to adjectives or nouns we are attempting to create an independent entity capable of spontaneity; free from objective reality and when we place these entities under scrutiny to discern whether they function independently without the dictum of reality; they fail miserably.If we tested whether the consciousness can be conscious without any stimulation it fails; if we attempted whether someone can be happy without a primary quality it fails; if we attempted to create a memory without primary qualities it fails again.



People who observe reality for exactly for what it is are astute and sensible; the man who calls an ocean blue is functioning exactly how he ought to function; he is translating the spectrum of light efficiently; he does not need to call his perception blueness; he does not need to call himself a consciousness as stated above but just conscious; because his brain is a translator of information not a generator of reality. You are not committing any crime by describing the world exactly how you observe it ―even if you have defects in your design like color blindness; and other sensory defects that you are born with or acquire later in life; the most important thing to note is that you have no option; but to imbibe primary qualities—which create your understanding of the natural world.


Finally, the attempt to distort and mysticize objective reality comes from errors in our grammar; this error will lead to the creation of spirituality which fruitlessly attempts to detach the essence of matter and mould it into some sort of mystical dimension that no one could understand; because it doesn’t exist and most importantly because it is an errors in our languages which leads to the creation of inane concepts like idealism and spirituality; which deserve to be called naïve; they all attempt to denominate concepts like love, happiness,consciousness, beauty and so on as abstract ―which may sound abstract but are not abstract at all! But extensions of primary qualities.