A philosophical test

the jpg. definitely exists, in fact it is now in a state of hyper-existance since it exists simultaneously in a large number of interconected digital systems and can be reproduced, in fact it is sponatenously reproducing istelf each time another user opens /his or the thread

here it is again, except thats not the same jpg. its a reproduction

If "it" is not a chair in the actual sense (as agreed), then may I ask what exactly it is that shall not exist? The picture exists, as far as we can collectively observe it and cojoin our understanding of it's properties (for example, the picture displays a BROWN color). The chair does not exist because it is not a chair, unless you consider the perceptional idea of it as a chair to define it's existence, in which case you can only say that it exists. Atleast in the collectively objective conciousness, separated from an individual subjective perspective (itself true) which defines for the individual wether or not said "chair" exists.

if it doesn't exist, then how are you referring to it?

and if you're not referring to anything, then the question is pointless.

Do you mean prove that the chair itself does not exist, or did not exist, or that the .jpg of the chair doesn't exist?
The former is "it does/did retard", the second is (slightly) more complicated, the chair exists as a projection of what does or did exist, but is not the thing in of itself, just a representation of a thing that does/did exist, i.e yes you pedantic fuck it exists.

theres something about this thread that leaves a bad taste in my mouth

Why should I?

Not a chair, its a representation of a chair in jpg format. Etc etc.

But if something is merely a reproduction, a reflection can it be said that it really exists as is? When you look in the mirror surely your reflection is not you?

The reflection exists, and we acknowledge the reflection as an extension of the object. If you want to go further, imagine the fact that the idea of the object, or the concept of it, is real and existing as soon as we recognise what it is. When such concept has arisen, can the thing not be said to exist, albeit only in ideal form?

it does exist in thought-form but thats hardly and 'ideal' form, except in the sense of being a set of ideas

realy what exists is knowledge of what a chair is and notions of how it usualy looks like and how it can be used or made or what things can be used as one

this exists in the neural setup of humans both as a result of experiencing chairs and the making of them and of a basic set of inherent concepts, to sit down, to sit somewhere dry and firm that dosent hurt, for the position not to be on the ground, to be able to lean back, to make sure the material can support weight and so on... so in a sense it exists physicaly because it is a manifestation, and what its a manifestation of is that logical derivative 'thought-form chair', which in a sense is a thing that has intrinsic existence in reality as long as theres humans around to concieve it

in that sense even a physical piece of furniture is a reproduction

this makes even more tautological sense if you consider mass production, and furniture is usualy made typicaly or serialy since ever so its all reproductions of reproductions, with a few 'original' sets like sacral or regal furniture, but even those are made in a defined schema of things that they are a reproduction of and contain as added information

in the case of the jpg. thats in the nature of the jpg. as such and part and realisation of its function and what it does and so is the full manifestation of its being, its a jpg. someone saved, copyed and posted a jpg. online

but it is not a chair

on the other hand ones reflection on a mirror or other reflective surface is not so much a thing in itself as much as a experience of a general phenomenon, and as such is a thing that exists mainly in a brain that sintetises the image, but so it is real, and its about the momentary experience of you seeing you and recognising your own reflection and all the multiple connected implications of that, the notion of reproduction dosent realy come into it

I cannot smash a London terrorist's face with pixels.

maybe you can make someone do it with pixels?

ARGUMENT FROM MEREOLOGICAL NIHILISM
P1: Distinct objects cannot be one object, i.e. composite objects do not exist.
P2: Chairs are composite objects.
C: So chairs do not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM NATURALISM
P3: Chairs are not a natural kind but an artificial, vague/gerrymandered/arbitrary category.
P4: The only categories that exist in reality are natural kinds.
C: So chairs do not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM IDEALISM
P5: Nothing mind-external exists.
P6: Chairs are mind-external objects.
C: So chairs do not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM ANTI-OBJECT ONTOLOGY
P7: All that exists is processes/relations/etc., i.e. object-property ontology is false.
P8: Chairs are objects.
C: So chairs do not exist.

ARGUMENT FROM PARMENIDEANISM
P9: True existence is changeless and one.
P10: Chairs belong to the realm of change and plurality.
C: So chairs do not exist.

The existence of a chair is contingent on the chair having some "chairness" which we can define and measure.

This image contains only the image of chairness, but none of the actuall essence that defines a chair.

The 'chair' in the image is actually the indexical record of the light of a specific point (a very brief duration) in time reflected off the object and rendered digitally by a camera. The specific arrangement of photons that were reflected off this chair at this given point have since dispersed and now exist elsewhere, separately -- the arrangement, as recorded in the image, no longer exists. We have a record of that arrangement translated from real environmental effects but what we see of the chair in the image does not exist.

Chairs aren't things, they're a class of "sit-on-tool". A rock can be a chair, your own fat ass can be a chair.

Is an object which looks like a chair not also a chair?
There are many object in this world which are classified as chairs that you have never sat upon, nor will you ever sit upon them. Are they not chairs?
"Chairness" is a potential to become a chair. A physical chair, you may sit upon. An imaginary chair, you may also sit upon, but not with your physical bottom.

You said it was a chair. If it's in fact not a chair then it's nothing. Unless your premise is wrong

wtf are you guys talking about of course it exists its right there in the picture

no wonder why philosophers have such a bad rep

really wish this was just a history board

Define "exists".

A self-evident positive property that all objects necessarily possess

>le not a chair, but an image of a chair mee mee

>implying that is a chair instead of a representation of a chair

The chair only appears to exist because of your perception of time. If you were to observe the chair from the beginning of time to the end of time compressed into a few minutes, you wouldn't see a chair. You would have no evidence that it ever existed.

What you see now is only a flash of what is real.

Chairs are a spook, and so is existance.

What chair?

you passed

Bring forth this "chair" so that I may sit.

who passed?

dubs guy passed

He answered the question by looking for the ideal chair, not in the physical realm but in the subjective realm. He suggested that all chairs in the physical realm are imperfect variations of the ideal chair that exists in the subjective realm completely.

Fake and gay

there is no dubs guy, prove he exists

dubs guy makes 10% of the posts on this site; i make the other 90%
if dubs guy doesn't exist then that means I am Veeky Forums