The purpose of a chair is to be comfortable. If a chair isn't comfortable it isn't a good chair

>The purpose of a chair is to be comfortable. If a chair isn't comfortable it isn't a good chair.

How do you respond?

Y-yes sir.

I disagree. The chair has no inherent purpose. The creator may have intended it to be comfortable but it can be used for other purposes.

Other than that, the purpose of a chair is to provide a place to sit, being comfortable is merely a boon, not a requirement to be a good chair.

Efficient cause?

The creator of the chair intended the chair to be a chair. Comfort is tertiary.

What if you think a chair is comfortable, but I do not think that that same chair is comfortable? Does that make it a good chair or a not-good chair?

The purpose of a chair is to provide one with a seat. If it achieves this purpose the chair is fulfilling its function.

Is fulfilling its function all it takes for a thing to be a "good" thing?

If the purpose of the chair is fulfilled after providing comfort. Then what is the difference between a comfortable bed and a chair. Or if one sits on a chair that is uncomfortable does one not sit on a chair.

Thus the purpose of a chair isn't comfort. Its purpose is seating someone. Comfort is merely an indicator if the chair is close to the ideal chair

The whole point of sitting is that it's more comfortable than standing. An uncomfortable chair is therefore a contradiction. Simply being able to use a tool doesn't mean anything if it can't fulfill its intended purpose.

define "good"

>the purpose of a chair is to be defined is used as such

YOU CANNOT KNOW NUFFIN ABOUT CHAIRS

>purpose

Also, what would falsify this?

I'd say that as long as I can sit on the chair then it's doing its job. But it's not good or bad.

An uncomfortable chair would probably motivate me to remain standing or just sit on the floor. If it makes me actively not want to sit on it then it is a bad chair, I think.

comfort is intrinsic to the chair. if you disagree you are a dumb.

How do you know that ?

>comfort is intrinsic to sitting
ftfy

The manual to chairs written by his apprentices directly from the creator's mouth.

Both, read Marx.

then maybe it will be best to look at the reasons of why you don't find the chair comfortable? maybe you are a bit fat? or is it that your back is malformed? maybe you are tall? or short? whatever the reasons are which puts a distance between you and a good chair, they are non the less observable comprehensible and adjustable to meet the requirements of a good chair after all.

>I disagree. The chair has no inherent purpose

It doesn't. It's intrniscly just a piece of wood. The only reason we consider it a chair is because we have all aggred that objects of that particular shape are called chairs.

>It's intrniscly just a piece of wood

Yeah but that's not the same as saying it has no purpose, because it does. The chair has a purpose and that purpose is to sit in.

It being intrinsically pieces of wood doesn't change the fact that it has a purpose.

is the geometry that determines the shape of your butt intrinsic?
are the physics that makes the sittable intrinsic?
are the physiological phenomenona which results in the pleasure of comfortableness to manifest in your consciousness intrinsic?
is the logical thought process which produced the first chair the result of intrinsic physical values?

the geometry of

>Chairs were pieces of furniture humanoids could sit in or on (depending on the type of the chair). Chairs came in many shapes and styles, and chairs that could hover also existed. Chairs were common household items throughout the galaxy.

This can be argued for eternity because the word 'good' is used
The statement isnt objective and so it can only be debated but never fully rebuked

>le edgy analytic autismo
You're doing it wrong. I won't even bother to refute you because you're probably an euphoric 12 year-old enlightened by his own """"intellect"""".

You too, you don't know what the meaning of 'good' is in the context of ancient Greek philosophy, therefore you're philosophically illiterate and I won't debate you, because it's not my job to educate you either. Just giving you a tip: read a book.

Another sixteen year old who thinks everyone else is an edgy twelve year old. You're just displaying a different kind of faggotry.
We're talking about fuckin chairs here dude.

Uht the whole point of the thread is edgy analytic autismo desu.

It's a good chair if it keeps being a chair

The purpose of a chair is to be sat on, comfort doesnt change whether or it can be sat om

BETTER UPDATE THE WOOK

Wood isn't crafted

What if I want to make a chair for my personal office and I design it specifically to be uncomfortable so that people who visit me are disturbed when seing me?
What if I want uncomfortable chairs in the resting room of my office building so my employees don't spend all their time there?

The purpose of a chair is to be somewhere to sit. Period.

Where is this "Chairness" that you define?

Aristotle was right.

It's a chair, you fucking sit on it and to have a good seat it needs to be comfortable so you do not feel uncomfortable you chuckle fuck.