/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15721701]

Can you define chair, /lit/?


I know I am supposed to post philosophy on /his/ but they don't discuss humanities at all so I am posting my bait thread here

[Anonymous No.15721749]

You reposted this from earlier you fucking tranny.

>>/lit/thread/S15719663

Take your tranny tourist bullshit elsewhere or I will pack you up in a crate and ship you to a country where nobody pretends a man in drag is a woman and you'll be beaten up and forced to detransition.

[Anonymous No.15721787]

>>15721749
lol I hate trannies, I found it on twitter. i am not him i swear

[Anonymous No.15721817]

>>15721701
Yeah hold up watch this
A chair is whatever the fuck I feel like sitting on. Horse? Chair. Bed? Chair. Table? Chair. Fuck you bitch.

[Anonymous No.15721862]

Damn that guy got rekt, serves him right. I suppose it's possible to envisage an abstract theoretical reality where people sit on horses around their kitchen tables, the only reason the horse isn't a 'chair' is because it's already been determined to be a 'horse.' Does it have the potential to be a chair as parsed by the guy in the pic? Definitely

[Anonymous No.15721868]

>>15721701
I understand the tranny viewpoint actually. The Progs have been going on forever about how socially constructed and relative everything is, in that sense 'woman' really is a very vague thing.

If you want to really be explicit about what women are you need to frame it biologically. And not just 'women have vaginas and breasts' but the entirety of it including different brains and hormone profiles and their reproductive functions. This means that you have to recognize concepts like 'defective woman' for barren women, and 'atypical woman' for the ones that act like guys and so on. TERFs seem to not like viewing women as being 'intended' for pregnancy but this is the only consistent way to separate the sexes, since that is why they exist.

to be clear this means a barren woman is still a woman, and a tranny is not, but you have to swallow the 'defective' part or else the trannies can get you with semantic games.

[Anonymous No.15721871]

>>15721817
define "feel like". and isn't that definition too narrow, are only the things you deem sitworthy chairs?

[Anonymous No.15721872]

>>15721701
Why would I fucking bother?

[Anonymous No.15721876]

>>15721701
Words have no meaning BUT FUCK YOU IF YOU MISGENDER ME, BIGOT

[Anonymous No.15721880]

>>15721817
>Everything is a chair
>'Chair' can no longer be used to distinguish one thing from another
>Chair is no longer a category, but an essential property of objects

[Anonymous No.15721882]

>>15721868
Woman= XX

[Anonymous No.15721887]

>>15721701
The people who think horses are chairs are mentally ill freaks who deserve sympathy and medical help for the delusions, much like people who think men are women.

[Anonymous No.15721890]

>>15721868
"women are humans with xx chromosomes" what is wrong with this definition and why are all doctors and experts against it, saying it is a specter? also funny how the guy who came up with the difference between sex and gender, john money, is a fucking psychopath who forced a guy into being a girl half his life

[Anonymous No.15721891]

>>15721862
>Damn that guy got rekt
Owning the libs/alt-right with facts and logic has become the mark of mid-wit quick-thinking. You are a very good example.

[Anonymous No.15721895]

>>15721890
>specter

[Anonymous No.15721899]

>>15721890
>>15721882
because genotype really can't be understood without phenotype, and the reason that there is XX vs XY chromosomes in the first place

[Anonymous No.15721905]

>>15721891
I'll rephrase, MickeyDee's response was pretty clever.

[Anonymous No.15721912]

>>15721895
You think I misspelled spectrum? No, I meant specter as in spook as in fake. BTFO

[Anonymous No.15721916]

>>15721912
Damn you rekt that guy

[Anonymous No.15721918]

>>15721912
mmm sure you did

[Anonymous No.15721920]

everyone with a twitter account should be shot and dumped in a mass grave.

[Anonymous No.15721921]

>>15721905
And you finding it clever is the problem. He went the featherless chicken route, which is funny, but ultimately doesn't address the fact that categories evidently have definitions.

[Anonymous No.15721924]

>>15721920
I’m starting to like this pasta.

[Anonymous No.15721929]

>>15721921
He was just responding in adherence to the criteria the other person set. It wasn't some bold philosophical statement, he was just pointing out the non-specificity of the guys criteria. Categories do have definitions, I agree, but evidently the guy in the pic thought he could get away with giving a more simplistic definition than was required.

[Anonymous No.15721935]

>>15721701
My attempt:
A chair is a piece of furniture made by humans for the purpose of one person to sit upon

[Anonymous No.15721947]

>>15721935
Park benches that can seat multiple people?

[Anonymous No.15721950]

>>15721935
So no robot manufacturing?

[Anonymous No.15721953]

>>15721935
What about a log which has organically become a perfect chair. Does that count? How about if you get 5 of those and place them around a kitchen table?

[Anonymous No.15721954]

>>15721929
Oh, if that's your perspective then I totally agree, anon. I apologize for thinking that you were saying that he got rekt as in his point of view was rekt, not is shitty example.

[Anonymous No.15721957]

>>15721935
What if someone was creating an extremely chair-like sculpture for purely aesthetic purposes and never considers its use as an actual chair?

[Anonymous No.15721960]

>>15721954
Blessings upon thee

[Anonymous No.15721971]

>>15721868
The thing trannies want to do is convince people that social construction is the entirety of the matter. People get owned because they reflexively assume the opposite position which is equally as absurd but much easier to deconstruct in twitter semantic games.

Likewise speaking bout "intent" only works if you are talking about men and women as created by a higher power. Progs have no metaphysics and will simply disengage or mock by at that point.
Otherwise you are assigning agency to the evolutionary process which is is another opening for you to get dunked on.

[Anonymous No.15721972]

>>15721701
Chair is a very imperfect analogy. It has no discernible capacity for self definition and is obviously and completely fallacious when used to draw a comparison to humans defining themselves. The analogy completely sidesteps the whole issue of, you know, HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS. I'm not even defending trannies, it's just that it's a fucking retarded argument.

[Anonymous No.15721973]

>>15721947
I don't consider benches chairs.
>>15721950
That's dumb, but if you want you could cross out 'made by humans' and just have 'for the purpose' so as to include all chairs made by AI, aliens and gods, as long as it's for the purpose of some creature to sit upon. Obviously you'll ask for the defintion of 'to sit', at which point I'll tell you to go ram your sophism up your asshole.

[Anonymous No.15721975]

>>15721947
>Park benches that can seat multiple people?
A bench

[Anonymous No.15721984]

>>15721971
>Otherwise you are assigning agency to the evolutionary process which is is another opening for you to get dunked on.
Not really though, that's why I put 'intended' in quotes. The XX genes are to create a womb that can reproduce, in the sense that they only exist because they have done so in the past.

[Anonymous No.15721986]

>>15721975
>>15721973
Are you telling me a bench can't be described as a type of chair?

[Anonymous No.15721995]

>>15721972
Anon, their half-assed worldview isn’t based on logic or reason. A witty response is all the validation they need to believe that they are right.

[Anonymous No.15721998]

>>15721986
Yes

[Anonymous No.15722002]

>>15721972
In what sense does one's internal capacity for self-definition alter an external appraisal? I don't see why that's a relevant factor.

[Anonymous No.15722005]

>>15721986
Sure, in your classification of furniture you could consider benches to fall into the class of objects called chairs, I'll disagree.
You could also consider a pig with lipstick and a dress a woman. Objectivity has fallen by the wayside long ago. What you've got to accept is that some people will continue to think men cannot be women and there's nothing you can say that will prove them wrong.

[Anonymous No.15722006]

>>15721995
>isn't based on logic or reason
>Defining gender as a condition determined strictly by a person’s genitals is based on a notion that doctors and scientists abandoned long ago as oversimplified and often medically meaningless.

Researchers who have studied gender issues and provided health care to people who do not fit the typical M/F pigeonholes said that the Trump administration’s latest plan to define gender goes beyond the limits of scientific knowledge.

“The idea that a person’s sex is determined by their anatomy at birth is not true, and we’ve known that it’s not true for decades,” said Dr. Joshua D. Safer, an endocrinologist and executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery at Mount Sinai Health System in New York. He is also president of the United States Professional Association of Transgender Health.
racist btfo

[Anonymous No.15722007]

>>15721701
>mfw people define things

[Anonymous No.15722011]

>>15721998
If you make a park bench shorter and shorter on the horizontal axis, at what point does it cease to be a bench and become a chair? I'm talking about a bench like pic related.

[Anonymous No.15722013]

>>15722011
when it's ajar

[Anonymous No.15722018]

>>15722011
At the point where it was designed for one(1) person.

[Anonymous No.15722022]

>>15722006
>trusting in the doctor who is benefiting the most from providing mentally deranged patients with the reassurance they need to satisfy their confirmation bias

I’m the doctor of anti-transgender studies and I say that other doctor is a fag.

[Anonymous No.15722027]

A chair is whatever I want it to be. Come all you needy and those of you who are tired, let me designate what are chairs and what are not.

[Anonymous No.15722028]

>>15722005
>You could also consider a pig with lipstick and a dress a woman
Surely objectivity can extend to a certain point though, rather than just being done away with completely. Any semblance of functional society depends on some degree of objectivity, or at least common subjectivity (are objectivity and common subjectivity the same thing?)

[Anonymous No.15722031]

>>15722002
I'm not going to get sucked into that debate. My point is only that the CAPACITY to even consider yourself as an entity is a consideration which the "argument" in question completely ignores, which is illogical because it's directly addressing humans' self-consideration.

[Anonymous No.15722037]

>>15722018
How about if a gigantic fat guy got a bench specifically designed for him to sit in because he needed something the size of a bench to fit his fat ass. Designed for one person, correct?

[Anonymous No.15722040]

>>15722031
I just asked you to extrapolate the main point of your entire post, not trying to suck you into a debate lol.

[Anonymous No.15722051]

>>15722037
Sure. But a fat guy occupying a bench designed for 4 people is not sitting on a chair.
>>15722031
> Any semblance of functional society depends on some degree of objectivity, or at least common subjectivity
We are currently testing this hypothesis and it is not going well

[Anonymous No.15722053]

if I say I am a woman, I AM a woman. period!

[Anonymous No.15722071]

>>15721957
>for purely aesthetic purposes
What is the aesthetic purpose?

[Anonymous No.15722088]

>>15722071
The same as any other sculpture
>>15722051
hmmm

[Anonymous No.15722090]

>>15722040
I don't want to try to speak definitively on it, but my main sticking point has less to do with the person than it does the chair. A chair cannot define itself to be anything other than a chair since it can't define itself at all. On a purely objective level, it can't define itself at all as anything other than an arbitrarily arranged collection of atoms. If we go by our conventional definitions of life and consciousness, that's all it is, and it lacks the power to either physically redefine itself (since it is dead) or attempt to convince us otherwise. A human can both physically rearrange itself (albeit extremely crudely without assistance, think knives) and attempt to convince other humans that it's something other than what it presents as.

[Anonymous No.15722096]

>>15722007
Hot Ziggety is nothing but a hollow deconstructionist.

[Anonymous No.15722101]

>>15722088
>The same as any other sculpture
Which is?

[Anonymous No.15722108]

>>15721986
Depends how autistic we want to be about it. The other guy defined a chair as being for one person, so we could say that a chair and a bench are both seats, as they seat people, but a chair is a seat for one, a bench is a seat for many. And we could likely break it down further in to multiple subcategories.

[Anonymous No.15722114]

>>15721984
This is different from intention. You see what something happens to do isn't the same as it being "intended" to do. And if you think this is splitting hairs wait until you try and debate someone who actually disagrees with you on this.

[Anonymous No.15722117]

>>15721701
This does a good job highlighting the reality-defying logic of leftist psychology. Everyone knows damn well what a chair is, just like everyone knows what a woman is. That thing with the ballsack and shriveled cock aint it.

[Anonymous No.15722122]

>>15722117
Bait

[Anonymous No.15722124]

>>15722117
>. Everyone knows damn well what a chair is, just like everyone knows what a woman is.
You should have no problem explaining them to me then as I am an alien from another planet without chairs or women.

[Anonymous No.15722128]

>>15722114
Again hence the quotes around intention. Defining male/female still requires that you understand why they exist, and this involves looking at reproduction. Female is the genetic/phenotypic pattern that does x in the reproductive cycle of genes.

[Anonymous No.15722135]

>>15722124
We have these cool things on earth called dictionaries - you probably found your way past a search engine that doubles as one before you discovered 4chan. I sympathize with your struggle since somebody would literally have to be born on Mars and be retarded to think Hulk Hogan in a dress a woman makes.

[Anonymous No.15722139]

>>15722124
It’s a manmade device created for the sole purpose of seating yourself comfortably.

[Anonymous No.15722145]

>>15722135
Cool. Consult a dictionary and give me your answer then.

[Anonymous No.15722153]

Words are just useful labels for things, and it literally doesn't matter if they are rigid or comprehensive so long as everyone is more or less on the same page about what your talking about (if you aren't, this may lead to problems, but thats why you provide your own definitions as part of the foundations of your argument when that's important)
These people are acting like words require definition as encompassing as Platonic Forms. This is not only stupid but it's not possible (as Plato put it, you can't know the forms from our material perspective).

[Anonymous No.15722155]

>>15722145
You're the one with the retarded questions. It would be for your own benefit to learn how to work one so that you don't require being spoonfed from being a dumbass in the future.

[Anonymous No.15722163]

>>15721701
Person C proves Person A's point. Person A's position is that a word's meaning is derived from a shared set of essential properties. Person B's position is that a word's meaning is fuzzy, and cannot be derived from a shared set of essential properties, but rather, all properties are incidental. Person A then provides an inadequate definition of "chair," one which focuses on incidental properties (like having four legs), and not essential properties (belong to a larger class which we call "furniture"). Person C then shows the inadequacy of Person A's definition by posting a picture of a horse and calling it a chair, a statement which derives its humor from the fact that the two references (chair, horse) share some incidental properties, but do not share any essential properties. It's ironic, because we might precisely the same thing about so-called "transsexuals" - they share incidental properties, but they are missing a shared essential property.

[Anonymous No.15722166]

>>15722155
Thanks for derailing a decent thread, shitheel.

[Anonymous No.15722167]

>>15722128
Then if I were you I wouldn't bother with chromosomes and phenotypes but rather focus on the production of motile and nonmotile gametes. This is harder to "problematize" than chromosomes which are subject to more variation.

[Anonymous No.15722172]

>>15722153
>acting like words require definition
Well, you could pretend they don't - but then that defeats any purpose of grammar(which semantics are part of), dialectic, and rhetoric.
You know, those things that Plato found essential enough to teach.

[Anonymous No.15722173]

>>15722155
Seems like this guy is too fragile to answer a simple question.

[Anonymous No.15722174]

>no definition of a woman
So what the fuck makes you one then?

[Anonymous No.15722176]

>>15722166
If it was a "decent thread" it wouldn't have been "derailed" by common sense.

[Anonymous No.15722180]

>>15722167
>but rather focus on the production of motile and nonmotile gametes
Can you explain what you mean by this for those of us who slept through bio?

[Anonymous No.15722183]

>>15722173
Seems like this guy is too fragile to pick up a book.

[Anonymous No.15722187]

>woman
a member of the species Hss with 44+XX chromosomes
>inb4 b-but muh Turner syndrome!!!

[Anonymous No.15722190]

>>15722172
They are useful, but it's easy to get bogged down in it instead of actually discussing important things or real ideas. I'm not saying "words don't require definition", rather that no single definition is going to be perfect, and there's nothing wrong with that so long as we have a shared understanding of the words meaning.

[Anonymous No.15722191]

>>15722167
>the production of motile and nonmotile gametes
this is part of phenotype isn't it? but I agree that it is the entire complex, the only point I was making was the defining elements of 'female' are going to be related to the 'purpose' of reproduction. I realize it's not a purpose in the sense in which we use the term otherwise, but we don't seem to have intuitive words for evolutionary logic. within the complicated system we're looking at though, male and female refer to two different patterns of gene reproduction.

[Anonymous No.15722194]

>>15722090
I see what you're saying, it's an interesting line of thinking. Thanks for elaborating
>>15722101
Lol, I'm not sure. Something designed for external appraisal looking towards principles like symmetry, balance etc? That's a whole other can of worms, though you are doing a good job of illustrating the black hole of definitions.
>>15722108
That's the thing. I'm not convinced it's intelligent philosophical thinking to just keep breaking down and categorising things with the full knowledge that there's no end to that process. A true 'definition' of a chair would be ridiculously convoluted and I guess pointless, if such a thing is even possible. All signs point towards some sort of subjectivity, I suppose

[Anonymous No.15722195]

>>15722180
>for those of us who slept
Indeed, you must still be fucking asleep if you're this much of a colossal dipshit to need the concept of a "woman" explained.

[Anonymous No.15722196]

>>15722183
Yes. My species lacks arms. Please kind earthly define male and female. I believe when you said you knew, so it pains me that you are so reluctant to impart your knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15722197]

>>15721950
Robots are tools in the manufacturing process just like hammers
If we want to pull the post apart we should probably ask if I make a pile of magazines to sit on, does that become a chair? Does it stop being a chair when someone else comes along and wants to read one? Doesn't this price that the idea of the chair is subjective rather than objective?

[Anonymous No.15722204]

Here is your definition of a fucking chair right here: >>15722139

Are you retards done arguing over literally nothing, now? Can we end this embarrassing discussion?

[Anonymous No.15722208]

>>15722196
>My species lacks arms.
They clearly lack brains too, if you were able to type out this nonsense without arms you could reach a dictionary in no time.

[Anonymous No.15722211]

>>15722190
But we don't have a shared understanding though.

[Anonymous No.15722219]

>>15722211
That's because you are too much of a subhuman troglodyte to pick up a dictionary, which would immediately cease all confusion.

[Anonymous No.15722220]

>>15721701
The horse would not qualify, because the definition keeps the "seat" part seperate from the "back" part.

The horses back would also be its seat. The definition would have to add that a chair is an inanimate and manmade item.

Also fuzzy borders dont matter as long as there is a concrete definition in the center

[Anonymous No.15722225]

>>15722153
>These people are acting like words require definition as encompassing as Platonic Forms.
True! It seems to become clear pretty quickly that an all-encompassing definition for something can't emerge just through reasoning.
>>15722163
Nice anon. I guess the natural question extending from your post is whether in our human society incidental or essential properties are more important. Does one's essential woman-ness (having XX chromosomes) inform your identity moreso than one's incidental properties (I feel like I'm a woman)?

[Anonymous No.15722230]

>>15722204
>What about a log which has organically become a perfect chair. Does that count? How about if you get 5 of those and place them around a kitchen table?

[Anonymous No.15722236]

>the ongoing chair discussion in this thread

[Anonymous No.15722239]

>>15722230
No that's not a chair.

[Anonymous No.15722245]

>>15721787
>Twitter
Even worse

[Anonymous No.15722248]

>>15721701
Not a fan of so-called "gender", but obviously chairs don't exist either.

[Anonymous No.15722252]

>>15721890
Because there are wome with X0 genotype. Or with XY, the Morris syndrome.
The sex has a cromosomical aspect, as well as a hormonal one, a phenotipical one, a sexual one (more controversial) and a social one.
So reducing being a woman to having xx will leave actual women out of the definition, making it unacceptable in scientific circles. Just like saying women are people with uterus leave out women with hysterectomies or agenesis, like Rokitansky syndrome.

t. Only actual doctor in this god forsaken board.

[Anonymous No.15722253]

>>15722219
But that doesn't reconcile the distinction between the two sides.

[Anonymous No.15722266]

>>15722236
sorry lads this is the best I could do

[Anonymous No.15722272]

>>15721701

A platform with legs supported horizontally made for sitting upon

[Anonymous No.15722273]

>>15722230
A chair is manmade. Even if a naturally occurring log looks exactly like a chair and gives us the unknowing impression that it’s a chair, it’s still a log.

[Anonymous No.15722279]

My swing:
A thirty is a chair if and only if it is an inanimate object (to include still living trees, plants) upon which a anatomically typical human could/would sit

[Anonymous No.15722282]

>>15722225
How you feel doesn't effect whether or not you are capable of getting pregnant, and this is really the cause of your unwillingness to accept the definitions as they are. Just because you "feel" like an acorn doesn't make it so.
Your inability to conform with reality is psychosis.

[Anonymous No.15722285]

>>15722279
Goddamn it.
A THING*

[Anonymous No.15722286]

>>15722005
The dude in that picture literally grew up with his 3 brothers within walking distance of my home. Small world. He ended up being banned from female sport because obviously, he fucking dominated.

[Anonymous No.15722288]

>>15721935
based and Aristotle-pilled
>>15721701
tell """her""" that billionaires define themselves as spiritual paupers and therefore cannot be taxed at high rates

[Anonymous No.15722289]

Computer chairs only have one leg that rotates.

[Anonymous No.15722291]

>>15722253
No reconciliation is needed. You may choose to be willfully ignorant and it isn't my responsibility to "reconcile" reality with your ignorance and delusions, it is yours.

[Anonymous No.15722292]

>>15722252
does this mean we should cater to the 0.01% by saying "people who menstruate" instead of women, and allow anyone to call themselves women?

[Anonymous No.15722301]

>>15722288
>billionaires define themselves as spiritual
The sad truth is that they are. They just use it for evil.