If something is used as a chair, does it become part of the category "chair"? An interesting science fiction example of a situation in which the categories litterally blurs is in the novel series "Dune". By the 5th book, there has been bred a type of dog used as a chair, called a "chairdog" fittingly enough. Is this a dog, a chair, or both? Of course, this question is applicable to all universals, the chair is only an easy example.
It would only be a chair if there was something to sit upon it. In the absense of that some thing or someone it could not be a chair. So from a human perspective looking down on Dune it would appear to be a chair that is animated somewhat like a dog but to a slug type creature that rest only upon the ground it would not be considered as such. Thus the notion chair is directly related to that which percieves that object. Thus not universal. In essence what I am attempting to delve into here is that the the chairs utility and function is only relative to that which might employ that utility or function.
If you sit on a dog it is fulfilling the function of a chair - The chair remains the original prototype and specially bred dogs remain essentially dogs that have the capacity to act like chairs, rather than chairs that have the ability to act like dogs - the reason for such a distinction is that it is not required for a chair to have a sense of self that a dog requires. - And if you were to compare it to say a large stone being used as a chair it would remain essentially a large stone serving the purpose of the chair since the stone could also serve many other purposes (eg stone masonary etc) - in other words function is the essential quality which determines how an object (whether conscious or dull matter) interacts with objective reality (the medium that we all interact in)
But is the dog a "seat", or a dog? And what about taking a few pieces of wood and gluing them together and using those pieces of wood as a chair, is it really the prototype of "a few pieces of wood" or is it a "chair"? You must admit that the pieces of wood are a "chair". So why isn't the dog also a "chair"? Words are fun toys.
cole grey I thought I made that clear - its a dog Depends on its utility - although it sounds like a chair to me The dog has extra qualities that a chair doesn't have - it is a dog that can serve the purposes of a chair
So the dog used as a chair isn't a seat? But you said the stone was essentially a stone, and now you say the sticks are essentially a chair???
cole grey No - because it has numerous other qualities beyond being a mere seat an object is greater than the sum of its parts - more than being an assembly of sticks it is a chair - just like in inter it generally works out more practical for us to buy a woolen jumper rather than a ball of wool even though they are both essentially the same thing
So what is an assembly of sticks, which was a chair, after it is taken apart? Sticks, or a disassembled chair? And what is a natural assembly of stones, around which a house is built in such a way as to make the stones the "chair" in front of the tv?
A casual passerby, having no prior knowledge that the sticks were a chair, would see them as just sticks. The same passerby, wandering into the house, would probably see the stone as a chair. The context is important, and can give an object multiple meanings. A woman can be a wife to her husband, a mother to her children and a doctor to her patients. The perception of the chairdog will change, depending on whether it's functioning as a dog or as chair. When feeding, it's a dog; when being sat on, it's a chair; when doing both, it's both simultaneously.
I was asking my question of lightgigantic, who seems to know the platonic forms of things or some such single meaning classification system. Asking my question to someone who can say "both" isn't much fun. Thanks anyway.
Quantum Quack: "It would only be a chair if there was something to sit upon it. In the absense of that some thing or someone it could not be a chair." So chairs lose their chairness when there is not someone to sit upon it? "So from a human perspective looking down on Dune it would appear to be a chair that is animated somewhat like a dog but to a slug type creature that rest only upon the ground it would not be considered as such. Thus the notion chair is directly related to that which percieves that object. Thus not universal." So basically, categories are mental and have no real bearing? lightgigantic: "The chair remains the original prototype and specially bred dogs remain essentially dogs that have the capacity to act like chairs, rather than chairs that have the ability to act like dogs - the reason for such a distinction is that it is not required for a chair to have a sense of self that a dog requires." So you conceive that there can be a primacy of function based on the nature of thething/being in question? Here's a question: What if the dog meowed and started acting like a cat? Would it be a dog or a cat? "in other words function is the essential quality which determines how an object (whether conscious or dull matter) interacts with objective reality (the medium that we all interact in) " So function determines an object's categorization and thus, if employed for different functions, can change the object? Cole_Grey: "So what is an assembly of sticks, which was a chair, after it is taken apart? Sticks, or a disassembled chair?" Excellent question!
I guess the ultimate distinction between what makes a cat a cat or not is its ability to reproduce with other cats (in a normal state of functional health) -
This distinction isn't as ultimate as you assume: inter-species mating is uncommon but not unheard of.
Lightgigantic: So if one were to make a robot and fill its phallus with "cat juice", would it be a cat?
Chair is an adjective, or a definition. Any object that fulfills the criteria can be called such. Wether it is or not is propably based on what we want to convey. If it's easier to say "grab that chair and get over here", while the chair is a dog, it is a chair. Words apply to whatever they need to apply to. They simply convey the thougths and images we need to convey (they have no existence outside or without thougths).
