Do Chairs Exist?

[Ranjr]

I don't remember what Watts was claiming other than it is apparent through Zen.  It wasn't something I could explain much less defend.  Forty years ago.

[brewer]

And I hate to ask, but could you mail me some shrooms? I am without.

Sorry, they're not imported here that often. I could send you some jimsonweed but I doubt you'd like it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I lean towards mereological nihilism.  But I was just yanking brewer's chain.

I liked mereological nihilism too. One of the reasons it seems so appealing is that, otherwise, there would have to be a Platonic form of the chair "out there" somewhere. And I have trouble believing that. But if that isn't true at all, then mereological nihilism must be true.

That Platonic forms, if they exist, must be "out there" is the misguided notion based on folk experiences of time and space. Another way to think of them are as telelogical laws and limiting principles embedded within reality, not out there, but latent.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I lean towards mereological nihilism.  But I was just yanking brewer's chain.

I liked mereological nihilism too. One of the reasons it seems so appealing is that, otherwise, there would have to be a Platonic form of the chair "out there" somewhere. And I have trouble believing that. But if that isn't true at all, then mereological nihilism must be true.

Mereological nihilism has always struck me as word play. Instead of saying, ‘This is a chair and it is made of chair parts’ we should say, ‘This is a collection of simples arranged chair-wise.’

Am I missing something, or are those semantically equivalent statements?

Boru

[Angrboda]

I liked mereological nihilism too. One of the reasons it seems so appealing is that, otherwise, there would have to be a Platonic form of the chair "out there" somewhere. And I have trouble believing that. But if that isn't true at all, then mereological nihilism must be true.

Mereological nihilism has always struck me as word play. Instead of saying, ‘This is a chair and it is made of chair parts’ we should say, ‘This is a collection of simples arranged chair-wise.’

Am I missing something, or are those semantically equivalent statements?

Boru

Vulcan can answer for himself, but mereology is the philosophy concerning parts and wholes. Mereological nihilism is the position that there are no parts and wholes in the world, that identifying something as a part and something else as a whole is just an arbitrary convention that we adopt which has no basis in the features of reality. So yeah, you can say this is a chair, or that these are simples behaving chair-wise, but mereological nihilism is the position that there is no objective fact of the matter.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Mereological nihilism has always struck me as word play. Instead of saying, ‘This is a chair and it is made of chair parts’ we should say, ‘This is a collection of simples arranged chair-wise.’

Am I missing something, or are those semantically equivalent statements?

Boru

Vulcan can answer for himself, but mereology is the philosophy concerning parts and wholes.  Mereological nihilism is the position that there are no parts and wholes in the world, that identifying something as a part and something else as a whole is just an arbitrary convention that we adopt which has no basis in the features of reality.  So yeah, you can say this is a chair, or that these are simples behaving chair-wise, but mereological nihilism is the position that there is no objective fact of the matter.

Right now, I’m sitting on a four-legged, cushioned object that keeps my bony arse from colliding with the floor. Conventionally, this is called ‘a chair’. In fact, this convention is so widespread (I’m tempted to use the term ‘universal’) I think it’s safe to state that an object with this form and function is objectively a chair.

Boru

[Angrboda]

Vulcan can answer for himself, but mereology is the philosophy concerning parts and wholes.  Mereological nihilism is the position that there are no parts and wholes in the world, that identifying something as a part and something else as a whole is just an arbitrary convention that we adopt which has no basis in the features of reality.  So yeah, you can say this is a chair, or that these are simples behaving chair-wise, but mereological nihilism is the position that there is no objective fact of the matter.

Right now, I’m sitting on a four-legged, cushioned object that keeps my bony arse from colliding with the floor. Conventionally, this is called ‘a chair’. In fact, this convention is so widespread (I’m tempted to use the term ‘universal’) I think it’s safe to state that an object with this form and function is objectively a chair.

Boru

In what way is it a chair independent of convention? If it's only a chair by convention, that's a subjective fact, not an objective one.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Right now, I’m sitting on a four-legged, cushioned object that keeps my bony arse from colliding with the floor. Conventionally, this is called ‘a chair’. In fact, this convention is so widespread (I’m tempted to use the term ‘universal’) I think it’s safe to state that an object with this form and function is objectively a chair.

Boru

In what way is it a chair independent of convention?  If it's only a chair by convention, that's a subjective fact, not an objective one.

Near enough.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

This all confuses me so much...it's a stretch I can't get to with my brain.

I am pretty sure I am sitting in a chair. I mean, I bought it, I put it together when it arrived, I made the final adjustments to it, I think I am in the sitting position with something solid holding me up.

Philosophy just isn't my thing...obviously.

[purplepurpose]

First world average philosopher guy: do chairs exist?
Average african: Where to get food?
Average fat guy: How to stop overeating?