If you subscribe to philosophical schools that aren't too much concerned about existential matters, then I'd say "yes", or at least "maybe". As for how you would define a chair, I think it can either be defined by its basic form or function, or both in the same definition. Something like "a flat surface raised on a set amount of balanced legs, sometimes just one, intended for increased comfort while seating". Besides that, there is plenty of room for further definitions based on narrowing of function (work-related or exclusively for rest) and socioeconomic factors, which makes some chairs more attractive than others.
Spiky chairs intended for torture, or chairs that have bumps in them.
Perhaps it's your definition, but remove the comfort and flat surface parts.
Edited by CardboardBot on May 27th 2023 at 4:49:03 PM
Checking in on this account after leaving the site, MAN that is a cringy forum post history. Daaamn. Never again.If you're going to define a chair in technical terms, your standard chair is a flat horizontal plank elevated on four legs, typically made of wood or metal, with a flat vertical panel back to support one's back often made of the same material as the legs and panel for seating.
Edit: also, having been beamed in the head with a chair once I can verify that they are indeed very real
Edited by TheLibrarian1701 on May 27th 2023 at 10:24:48 AM
Quoth Grin from the Mighty Ducks:
Pain is an illusion... an illusion that really, really hurts!
I can see the allure of trying to solve a puzzle about whether things really exist and whether you can trust your senses at all, but I also doubt most philosophers would distrust their eyes and ears all the time. Sounds exhausting and debilitating.
I'd say a chair intended for torture is something we might call a chair, but is outside of what we (to borrow a term from linguistics) prototypically think of as a chair, which is made to offer some comfort from standing, and avoid dirtying ourselves on the floor.
I think that since a chair is an artificial object, we can define it by its intended use.
There are many variants, but they made with a similar aim. This makes defining it is easier than for natural or accidental objects, such as a species (look up ring species), a planet (remember Pluto?) or a heap
.
All I know about chairs is that sometimes people sit on them. And obviously that's important to mention.
Cold turkey's getting stale. Tonight I'm eating crow.I myself am not too interested in philosophy about whether things really exist for realsies, or even the most basic definition or function of things. I'm more interested in philosophy that deals with human behaviour, ethics, societal context, and such things. With chairs I'd look at how certain chairs are seen as better than others, due to whose backside gets to sit on it, or other ways how a chair reflects power-dynamics and economical chains that connect multiple people together in a massive network.
Edited by Mara999 on May 28th 2023 at 1:24:18 PM
to be fair if we wanna know if chairs are real we need to deduce wether tables are real
"...This is too much information for a brain that just wants to visit Planet Tensuns..."

(not a shit posting topic before you get any funny ideas!)
Well,are they? How do you even define what a chair is?
have a listen and have a link to my discord server