The "chairness" of a chair is just as real as the "Batman-ness" of the comic book character Batman or the "unicornness" ...

The "chairness" of a chair is just as real as the "Batman-ness" of the comic book character Batman or the "unicornness" of a unicorn.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >no refutation

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        What am I supposed to be refuting?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nice so you agree batmanness is just as real as chairness

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Does a chair have the quality of being a chair? Yes or no.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I reject your presupposition that "a chair" exists. "a chair" is just a collection of atoms we by convention group together and call "a chair"

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What convention?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The definition of a chair

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            And what would that be?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It depends on the person, that's the point. You can't prove to me you have the right definition of what a chair is and I don't

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            But we can still generally agree on what is a chair and what is not a chair.
            Consider this. Though we may have different preferences and perceptions of color, we can both generally agree that the sky is blue. The sky is something that is blue, or in other words, it has the quality of blueness. Blueness isn't something that physically exists, but that doesn't mean it isn't 'real.'
            >Aha! But blueless *does* physically exist, in the form of electromagnetic radiation!
            Aha back! Chairs also physically exist, in the form of collections of atoms with a particular geometric shape. You said this much yourself.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But we can still generally agree on what is a chair and what is not a chair.
            >we can both generally agree that the sky is blue.
            Appeal to majority fallacy

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok so you're not just trolling and you actually do have profound mental moronation.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >no argument

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Correct. Now kys.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >no argument

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Correct. Now kys.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your sophistry got obliterated by Wittgenstein ages ago. You should spend less time shitposting about religion and more time reading philosophy.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    yes, and?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Math is invented. Not discovered.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        but unlike chairs and unicorns mathematical truths do not depend on the existence of a subject

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Putting one apple next to another apple didn't make two apples until one day someone decided to invent that?

      • 5 months ago
        Une Chienne Andalou

        but unlike chairs and unicorns mathematical truths do not depend on the existence of a subject

        define math

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Not the brainlets but it's a term for several related concepts
          >a game people play in their heads to get around the limitations of their brain's working memory by substitution of collections with singletons while keeping track of their relationships
          >the process of discovering new useful rules to add to this game
          >the collective library of knowledge about playing the game humanity has so far catalogued

          Play the game the same way and you always get the same result. It therefore has "true" statements within it in a purely abstract sense, ones which hold independent of anything so long as you accept the basic conceit of this abstract game-playing activity.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Of course, the manner of manifestation doesn't affect the form.

  4. 5 months ago
    Une Chienne Andalou

    “Chairness” and “unicornness” are mental constructs/concepts extrapolated from multiple individual unicorns or chairs. “chairness” depends on the individual chairs which cause our minds to construct this concept and so they are less real than the individuals. These concepts also have no independent existence outside of our minds.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Catagories don't exist
    >So what replaces them?
    >*disappears to write meaningless political satyre*
    Wow I really want to trust his ideas

    • 5 months ago
      Une Chienne Andalou

      it isn’t that simple midwit. it’s not so much “categories don’t exist” so much as it is “categories don’t exist in the way we think they do”. Meaning categories don’t exist independently from the objects they contain or from the minds perceiving them

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes he said some exist and other don't.
        The point is he completely disrupted medieval society and refused to even attempt to fix it because even he knew he painted himself into a corner hence he spent his life writing political treaties afterwards.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Categories are very useful but let's not pretend they're something they're not.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Unicorns are real tho.

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    isn't this plato's theory of forms? Somewhere in the mindspace there is the perfect chair, and we judge other chairs by its relation to it

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yep, it's just as real as those. As in "only in some dude's mind"

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I disagree, as anything distinguishqble from another thing, that is having a different quality, is in absolute terms also unequal quantitatively. The realness of the various given things are not equal in a measurable sense.

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Philosophy was a mistake

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    nominalism is correct
    forms only exist *after* particulars and have no independent existence based on shared properties

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. Buddhist philosophy (from people like Dignaga, Chandrakirti, Nagarjuna etc.) actually have good material regarding this problem (the problem of universals). They make a very strong case not necessarily for nominalism, but for a middle ground conceptualist view (though some of them are nominalist arguments iirc). They absolutely demolish the Platonist/Aristotelian views

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      read kant

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        i have
        conceptualism is completely wrong

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    this is the kind of drivel we came to expect from philosophers.

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    What do you mean? Why wouldn't it be real or at least a theoretical abstraction like numbers etc?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *