Philosophy Now Forum

Banno wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: The quotes are functionless in this instance. As by their use you are implying an objective reality for chair. This misses the whole point.

An object we call a "chair" is still not a chair in China. It is a cleverly constructed wooden object designed for sitting on.
All of which sentence would have to have quotes by your rubric. In China that object known in English as a chair is called by another name, but that does not make it chair.

Muddled nonsense.

A chair is an object, while "chair" is a word.

I love the statement "In China that object known in English as a chair is called by another name, but that does not make it chair"! So only the English have chairs? You are claiming that the sentence "what is the Chinese word for 'Chair'" is nonsense?

No. A chair is a label we attach to an object which is, and of itself. It is only chair due to human interest.
Without people to see it and nominate a word for it, it is just so many atoms.
Only English speakers have chairs, the Spanish have Silla, and entity without an arse to sit on has neither, despite the existence of objects know by the Anglophones as chairs.
And some people without the ability to understand the world, thinks that the world is adjusted for human existence. A person without imagination or discrimination believes that existence is a teleology of human needs.
But some people grow up.

Humans use labels to relate to a function, but they never exhaust the object. You might be a brother, a student, a worker a pedestrian, a son, a shopper. But these are labels, all.
In the same way a chair can be a weapon, or fuel for a fire. These are not want the thing is, but a label we apply to facilitate communication and understanding.

Again, by your argument one cannot say that the Spanish word for "chair" is "silla".

But obviously we can; therefore your argument is in error.

Banno wrote:Again, by your argument one cannot say that the Spanish word for "chair" is "silla".

But obviously we can; therefore your argument is in error.

Obviously I have already said that Spanish Silla is the equivalent to the English Chair and so prove my argument fully. They are both labels, as I have been saying all along.
There is no Ideal Form of a chair waiting patiently in Platonic space for human to uncover it. It is all human conceit.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Banno wrote:Again, by your argument one cannot say that the Spanish word for "chair" is "silla".

But obviously we can; therefore your argument is in error.

Obviously I have already said that Spanish Silla is the equivalent to the English Chair and so prove my argument fully. They are both labels, as I have been saying all along.
There is no Ideal Form of a chair waiting patiently in Platonic space for human to uncover it. It is all human conceit.

...but you previously said that the chair was not a chair for the Spanish, nor for the Chinese. Now you say that it is.

Think you had best think it through before you reply.

Banno wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Banno wrote:Again, by your argument one cannot say that the Spanish word for "chair" is "silla".

But obviously we can; therefore your argument is in error.

Obviously I have already said that Spanish Silla is the equivalent to the English Chair and so prove my argument fully. They are both labels, as I have been saying all along.
There is no Ideal Form of a chair waiting patiently in Platonic space for human to uncover it. It is all human conceit.

...but you previously said that the chair was not a chair for the Spanish, nor for the Chinese. Now you say that it is.

Think you had best think it through before you reply.

What do you mean by the word chair?
I think you are confused.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: What do you mean by the word chair?
I think you are confused.

I think I mean much the same as you mean. I do not think the confusion is mine.

I am sitting on a chair. "Chair" is a word. Do you agree with me so far?

Banno wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: What do you mean by the word chair?
I think you are confused.

I think I mean much the same as you mean. I do not think the confusion is mine.

I am sitting on a chair. "Chair" is a word. Do you agree with me so far?

Your quotation marks are redundant, as I said before.

"I am sitting on a chair. Chair is a word"
Conveys the same meaning.

The word chair refers to an object which has been designed with the purpose of sitting in mind. A statue designed suitably for sitting on, would be both a chair and a statue. So chairs have a conceptual existence, and physical existence only when in the presence of man. No people means no chair, even if such a construction survived the extinction of the humanoid form.

James Markham wrote:The word chair refers to an object which has been designed with the purpose of sitting in mind. A statue designed suitably for sitting on, would be both a chair and a statue. So chairs have a conceptual existence, and physical existence only when in the presence of man. No people means no chair, even if such a construction survived the extinction of the humanoid form.

Why is this non sequitur so popular? Stove's Gem.

Do you mean my post was irrelevant, or illogical?

And what does stoves gem mean?

James Markham wrote:The word chair refers to an object which has been designed with the purpose of sitting in mind. A statue designed suitably for sitting on, would be both a chair and a statue. So chairs have a conceptual existence, and physical existence only when in the presence of man. No people means no chair, even if such a construction survived the extinction of the humanoid form.

True.
Without a person to sit the physical objects we call chairs are no longer chairs.

Banno wrote:

James Markham wrote:The word chair refers to an object which has been designed with the purpose of sitting in mind. A statue designed suitably for sitting on, would be both a chair and a statue. So chairs have a conceptual existence, and physical existence only when in the presence of man. No people means no chair, even if such a construction survived the extinction of the humanoid form.

Why is this non sequitur so popular? Stove's Gem.

There is no non sequitur here. Maybe is it so popular because it is true, and you are missing a fundamental point.

Without a sitter, the sound chair is a meaningless noise.

Complete this syllogism:

The word "chair" refers to an object which has been designed with the purpose of sitting in mind.

Therefore chairs are only concepts, and exist only in the presence of people.

Banno wrote:Complete this syllogism:

The word "chair" refers to an object which has been designed with the purpose of sitting in mind.

Therefore chairs are only concepts, and exist only in the presence of people.

The use of word in the sentence above implies the redundant quotation marks.

Thus: the word chair refers to an object.... Has the same meaning.