The purpose of a chair is to permit sitting. If a chair doesn't permit sitting it isn't a good chair

>stand up
>intermittently gaze at him and the chair
>pretend to be in mindblowingly deep thought

>The purpose of a literature board is to discuss literature. If a literature board does not discuss literature it is not a good board.

>is a "the greeks were complete retards again" chapter

More like sitting is one function of the chair.
It can have a lot of other smaller functions too, like giving the appearance of a chair, which would be desirable in different ways, for aesthetic purposes, or for social purposes.
If a chair is unsittable it can still be a chair. The only thing that determines if it is not a chair is if it doesn't tick any boxes that a chair might tick, such as looking like a chair.
For a simplified example, say you have a hunk of wood that almost looks like a chair, and you can sit on it. That's a chair.
Say you have a hunk of wood that looks like a chair, but you can't sit on it for whatever reason. that's a chair.
Say you have a hunk of wood that almost looks like a chair, but you can't sit on it. That is not a chair.
What I mean is that most things do not have one purpose, and are not defined by one attribute, but many purposes and attributes, which are probably defined subconsciously in society.

Seems to me like you're gerrymandering the definition of the word "chair".

You're essentially saying that the word chair has nothing to do with the actual act of sitting in the first place.

Chairness is a spectrum.

Hehe, nice spooks kiddo.

It doesn't, because everyone knows what a chairs function is, and what a chairs appearance is, and has known for so long.
If I have a small child's chair, that neither one of us could sit in, then it's still a chair, right?
Well what if I have a chair that is so small no child that you've ever seen could sit in it, is that still a chair?
What if I have a model chair on my desk? Is that a chair?
When we are discussing this does "chair" mean "usable chair?"

Aristotle, would you agree that this chair is more of a chair than you?
>Y-yes?
So you are less of a chair than the chair?
>Sure, b-but where are you going with this?
Well, chairness is a sliding scale, this means that you too are a chair.
>Eh wat, user?

I proceed to sit on Aristotle.

>tfw no qt girl to use as a chair

>It doesn't, because everyone knows what a chairs function is, and what a chairs appearance is, and has known for so long.

So explain a beanbag.

Wrong. A good chair is someone who is dutiful and takes his position of authority with seriousness. It has nothing to do with permitting someone to sit on him or other degenerate hobbies of yours. I knew something was wrong when I heard Aristotle wasn't gay like his peers. Turns out he was into facesitting fetish play eh?

No. A chair was simply 'made'. Nothing, even if its creator intends so, has an "espressive purpose" inherent in it.
If a chair is bad for sitting but good for feeding my cat somehow, it is still good.

>the function is literally the object

This.

Interesting fact: The majority of Homer's descriptions of objects detail their function or definitive qualities rather than their appearance.

>it is still good.

But it isn't a chair anymore. It's a good feeding device for your cat.

that's cus he was still a bicameral man

No. Homer's characters have clear and complex introspective proclivities, so that rules out him having a bicameral mind. He also gives elaborate descriptions of appearances, just very rarely.

The bicameral theory of mind is nonsense that is disproved by the existence of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

so why did psychology take until the 19th century to be discovered

>it is still good.
But not a good chair.

If the chair doesn't promote good sitting, it's that the object is simply chair-like, and not close enough to it's true form to promote good sitting.

That being said, sitting is degenerate.

>tfw no qt girl to use my face as a chair

A bean bag is a large bag of small pellets, which when sat in shifts to your body, and supports you.
It is a chair even when it doesn't look like one traditionally, because we know what it is, what it looks like, and it's function.
it can be sat in, even if it doesn't look like a chair, that is its purpose.
That means it is a chair. And because it's a chair, and we know it is, and what it looks like, then it both looks and functions as a chair.

>It is something, even when it isn't something

#WOKE

there is no purpose to anything you stupid fuck

but I'd probably send it in an email as he'd probably stab me with a spear or something

>bust into the classroom
>pull down my sunglasses
>look him straight in the eye
>pull a bald chicken out of my pants and hold it up high
>BEHOLD, A VERY GOOD CHAIR

Cringeworthy joke

>there is no purpose to anything
>even this statement is hypocrisy

i'll be here all night

>it is still good.
but not:
a. a good chair
b. any less of a chair

>If a chair doesn't permit sitting it isn't a good chair.

Not necessarily; there could be someone else sitting on the chair.

Good. I like cringeworthy jokes.

It is not.

But please, for me, try to pull your intellectual self-delusions into a bundle and tell me why it is.

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll be right in the end. Haha!

This chair permits good sitting, therefore it is a good chair.

Oh, my thank you for humoring me!

If nothing has no purpose then your way of communication to me should have no purpose and yet the intent and feelings that you wanted to portray are clear. Word's purposes are to be interpreted and understood by people, in the same way a chair's purpose is to be sat in by people. These are clear purposes even if they're only useful to us.

For you.

Just because we suffer and think does not mean there is meaning. That's always the trick, especially for Dostoevsky. "Oh, you think there is no meaning yet you suffer!" As if suffering or the result of acknowledging there is no meaning where somehow proofs that there is some type of meaning.

Suffering IS meaning you moron.

If everything was meaningless nobody would ever experience existential anxiety.

Not really, some sufferings are meaningless/unnecessary. Suffering is what you make out of it.

It isn't meaning. Suffering is survival instinct.
It really is bizarre how you people fool yourselves.
If God exists, would me pretending he doesn't change that? No.
Yet you people think the opposite is true.

Enjoy living life dead you resentful clowns.

If a man who thinks god exists changes his entire being to live in a manner suiting him. How can you say this has no meaning?

Fictional or not meaning comes from everything.

Ah, at last, I have unmasked the confidence trickster.

No, you haven't. You're just a pathetic bourgeois nihilist, just like most of this board.

Run along to your cocktail party now.

You, confidence trickster.

I am not saying that you can't have a meaningful life out of suffering. Most people find meaning through suffering. But then there are sufferings that are just meaningless e.g being born disabled/crippled or something like that; that makes you non-functional. Meaning isn't something intrinsic to suffering. You give meaning to your suffering, that's all.

If the telos is the correct purpose of the object and the object is only the object because it has that correct function - meaning that the object only respects the form of correctness when it is serves its purpose; then are rapists only good/correct when they rape because they respect their inherent objective? Are guillotines only good guillotines when they behead? If this is plausible, does this mean that any action deemed by the average human bad can be thought as good or correct if it fulfills its purpose? If we agree with that, then morality seems pretty ambiguous since there can be things like "correct murderer" or a "correct way of raping" or a "correct rapist" since they fulfill their own telos designated by the very word. If we also agree with this, then we can also say that the very form of correctness includes a correct way of evil, and therefore correctness becomes the very idea of perfectness and that every possible form being it dis-pleasurable or pleasurable to us is in that high form of correctness. But then a question arises: can a world be perfect where there is perfect evil?

I'm not so sure you understand what I am talking about at all.

There are plenty of people who think that there is only one conclusion to the suffering of life, regardless of what kind of suffering it is, and that conclusion is resentful nihilism and bitterness.

You're sort of missing the bigger picture here I think. Sure, it makes sense to say that the "perfect" rapist would be the one who does the most raping, since that would be maximizing the rapist purpose. However, our society has decided that raping is a bad thing, so that no matter how perfect of a rapist you are, you are still looked down on as flawed. Conversely, a chair being sittable is a positive value in the human mind, so its perfection in sittability is good.

I get where you're coming from, but I think you're jumping over the part where humans judge values independent of their correctness or perfectness. Something can be perfect at its function while still being deemed bad.

Excuse me; but I think that is you that doesn't get the big picture. A Telos is independent of what subjects/minds/people value. To say that society has a say on what an Ought-to-be is [correct form/perfectness] is to say that correctness is subjective and therefore arbitrary. The problem with this is that subjectivity doesn't work with absolute concepts such as truth, correctness or perfection but with narrative, validity and other criteria that we have that helps value something in comparison to what we THINK that is perfect. It doesn't work with such concepts because they reside in objectivity, id est, in being-it-self or thing-it-self. Since we're imperfect and limited by our own natural flaws or weaknesses, then to say that we can reach absolute concepts seems very implausible. Correctness and Truth either are or are not: truth and correctness only are if they are in every time and in every space, thus to say that X or Y will be forever and always was seems like a very strange thing to say.

Get a job, nigga

Well meme'd.

>anglo history

a minuscule toy chair is still a chair. checkmate OP

>Correct.
damn that was real hard OP

No, it's just a toy.

>then are rapists only good/correct when they rape because they respect their inherent objective? Are guillotines only good guillotines when they behead? If this is plausible, does this mean that any action deemed by the average human bad can be thought as good or correct if it fulfills its purpose?

What makes a good rapist does not necessarily make a good human being. The qualities that make a good boxer do not necessarily make a good human bring. The functions or definitive qualities of rapists and human beings are not the same.

A good guillotine fulfills its function well. That does not necessarily mean beheading people is inherently good, it only means that the guillotine is good at what it does.

But you could sit something on it no? It is a chair but not for people.

In the end, your whole post was void of meaning. I did not say that being a good rapist makes you a good person. I said that any sort of action done in a correct way is good because it is correct. You argument is also void because if we apply Aristotle's reasoning of what the human telos is - justice -, then we can say that a person who performs justice through rape is a good person, or that a person who does justice through a mass genocide both fulfill both the telos of a human being or of a rapist/murderer. Besides, even if the function or definitive qualities of rapists and human beings are different you do good either way: if I'm rapist and I rape I'm a good rapist, therefore I partake in the form of goodness, if you are a human being and you're just then you also partake in the form of correctness. Both of us have a share of goodness in us. As I said, this makes the idea of morality quite ambiguous. You provided no substantial arguments or solutions to what I said. If you're going to reply to a post do it in a way you become useful to the community.

more like because he was blind

>if we apply Aristotle's reasoning of what the human telos is - justice -, then we can say that a person who performs justice through rape is a good person
Are you implying the Rapeman isn't a good person?

You just lack a good enough grasp of logic.

>then we can say that a person who performs justice through rape is a good person, or that a person who does justice through a mass genocide both fulfill both the telos of a human being or of a rapist/murderer.

If a person rapes well, then he is good at raping. It doesn't at all follow that rape is good for human beings.

I don't understand why you are bringing justice into this either because it is entirely distinct, or how it follows that justice can be performed through rape.

You are either trolling or very confused.

No. Re-read the comment.

>Damn, this guy is dumb.
This is my initial and only reaction. You accuse me not good enough grasp of logic yet you clearly show that you don't what the fuck you're talking about.

>It doesn't at all follow that rape is good for human beings.
IT DOESN'T NEED TO FOLLOW. If we're talking about objective concepts like goodness why the fuck do we, or I or anyone need to prove that rape is good for humans? If rape partakes in the form of correctness IT IS GOOD PERIOD. You're confusing subjectivity with objectivity.

>I don't understand why you are bringing justice into this either because it is entirely distinct
You don't understand because you're a pseud who hasn't read The Nicomachean Ethics which the book being discussed in this thread. If you stopped posting your worthless drivel and read actual philosophy maybe you would understand something.

>or how it follows that justice can be performed through rape.
But WHO the fuck said that? I said the following:
>then we can say that a person who performs justice through rape is a good person
MEANING that you can be a good person and a rapist at the same time. Is this too much for your little brain to handle? Holy fuck the amount of sheer stupidity you have is ridiculous. You can't even read right and you accuse others of having a poor grasp of logic.

>>The purpose of a chair is to permit sitting. If a chair doesn't permit sitting it isn't a good chair.

Not every spine is the same, which means that the same chair may be comfortable to a person and uncomfortable to another. At best you can say that a chair is good for a set of people, but this does not imply any hierarchies between different people and different needs.
Although one can still identify evidently bad chairs (imagine for example a chair with broken pointy glasses glued on it), I think that your statement is still too simplistic, and it is not useful enough to tackle such a matter in even the most superficial manner.

>Although one can still identify evidently bad chairs (imagine for example a chair with broken pointy glasses glued on it)
what if you're trying to rest but it's a swampy area with lots of leeches so you want to sit someplace that they can't climb on so you sit on a spiny chair but it's ok because you're wearing armor which can stop the spines but not the leeches

Is a bare existence sufficient for chairhood? Are all chairfolk not mere wood scrap without a human perspective? The quality of being a chair is related to its benefit to mankind, as OP stated.

the quality of being a chair is related to closeness to idea of chair
there are lots of ideas who are of completely no benefit to mankind, an existing horned horse is reckoned a unicorn if it resembles the idea of unicorn, even though unicorns have no purpose, or final cause, in the first place.