What is Ignosticism?

[vulcanlogician]

From my experience, everyone I have ever met means the same thing by "chair". The same goes for many other concepts. There are some words, however, that people vastly disagree about, and it’s those that I require clarification on. The irony is that even after years and years pursuing this question, that 4 part dissection is the best I can do. Most theists don’t even try to define it, in my experience, expecting me to debate myself I suppose!

You didn't answer the question.  I asked you how you go about determining what they mean.  And no, not everybody means the same thing by chair if there even is a good definition of it, which there really isn't.  What does the Platonic form of a chair look like?  Does it have three legs or four?  Or does it have any legs at all?

The Platonic Form of the chair doesn't "look like" anything. A Form is only intelligible through logic, not the senses.

To understand the Platonic Form of the chair we must ask, "What is a chair in principle?" Not "what are examples of chairs?" And not "what is the ideal chair?" (Although this latter question hits pretty close to the mark in regards to what Plato was getting at.) 

All would-be chairs partake in the Form of the chair. A two-legged failure of a chair would partake less in the Form of a chair than a three-legged chair. Why? Because, in principle, a chair is something that can stand on its own, which a two-legged chair could not. Another principle of a good chair is that a person sitting on it is able to rock back and forth without tipping it over (as, in principle, a good chair is something designed to comfortably seat a person at a table, and when people sit at a table, they often rock back and forth during the course of their meal). As such, a four-legged chair would be a better chair than a three-legged chair, perhaps. (Because you can rock back and forth on a four-legged chair without tipping it over more easily than you could on a three-legged chair). It really depends on whether the chair more resembles "what a chair is in principle" or not. And (in principle) a chair is a GOOD chair.

Also note that all Forms themselves are things that partake in the Form of the good. That's why considering Forms to be ideals is close to the mark. Because one chair can be "better" than another, a good chair partakes in the Form of the chair MORE than some shitty chair. Plato wasn't shy about asserting that some things were objectively better than other things. But he also argued that the discernment of "what is better" had nothing to do with opinion or subjectivity.

I don't personally agree with Plato's theory of Forms in its entirety. But I do think Plato was saying something valuable in his theory of Forms... something that most philosophers who followed him were too timid to say... namely that some things are objectively better than others, and that a true philosopher is one who sets out to determine these "objective goods."