Do chairs exist?
>>18733209No they are a social construct.
>>>/lit/25581518
>>18733209No, they are creations of the imagination
>>18733209
>>18733209I chair-ish this post. My mind says no but my butt says yes.
>>18733224You do understand that Platonists don't have to be committed to the existence of every type of universal, right? It was pretty common in antiquity actually for certain Platonists to distinguish things like aggregates, relations, or artifacts (such as chairs) from natural things like animals and plants, or mathematicals like numbers and shapes, or from universal concepts like justice, goodness, and beauty. You can be a Platonist about some universals and a non-Platonist about other universals as well. As I understand it most committed Platonists would be fine with denying that there is an eternal, unchanging, form of the chair.
>>18733209It's a category of things that we invented
>>18733232Do we know for sure that Plato believed in chairs?At best he might have believed in the klismos, which is a specific type of chair, not a "chair" in generalhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klismos
>>18733245Well I do know Plato explicitly rejects that there is a form for aggregates like dirt or weird arbitrary things like hair (Parmenides 130c-130d). Platonists are evidently not committed to the reality of every predicate. The Neoplatonists famously rejected the actual existence of evil so that "John is evil" is an example of something predicable which Platonists have historically denied existing.
If God exists, yes
>>18733209>>18733224In a purely physical sense there is no such thing as a given object having inherent "chairness" so in that sense, no chairs do not exist. But that's not what anyone means when they refer to chairs existing. This "problem" is yet another example of philosophags being useless time vampires whose sole purpose is to steal humanity's collective mental capacity and waste it on arguing about stupid bullshit that doesn't matter.
>>18733224Absolutely BTFO chair believers
>>18733232>It was pretty common in antiquity actually for certain Platonists to distinguish things like aggregates, relations, or artifacts (such as chairs) from natural things like animals and plantsAnd they were proven wrong by evolution!
>>18733209Ive never seen a chair in my life...I only see seats to be taken and returned upon standing.
>>18733346Evolution doesn't disprove Platonism lol. Total non-sequitur.
>>18733353>low iqoid needs to be spoonfedThey were proven wrong wrt distinguishing between aggregates and things like plants and animals because plants and animals are aggregates.
>>18733356You're confusing the material cause of organisms with their formal cause.
>>18733362There's no such thing as discrete species. Evilution is an inherently nominalist theory that cannot accommodate pie in the sky gobbledygook.
no
>>18733408>Evilution is an inherently nominalist theory that cannot accommodate pie in the sky gobbledygook.It's literally not and you are entirely wrong.
The "chair" is a man made invention
>>18733209Yes, just not בפני עצמוHope that helps
>>18733325>no chairs do not exist. But that's not what anyone means when they refer to chairs existing"Chairs do not exist but they're real in mind" average chairoid delusion lmao
>>18734177You don't exist.
