posted
A philosophy professor once told me that there's no such thing as a perfect definition of any word. He used "chair" as an example. I haven't thought about it much, but it seems to me that it shouldn't be too difficult to make a very good definition of a chair.
Doing a definition search on google gives me:
quote:Chair: a seat for one person, with a support for the back.
That's a decent start, but obviously it's lacking. I'll add to that definition the requirement that the thing be man-made. So we have
quote:Chair: a man-made seat for one person with a support for the back.
I suspect there are a fair number of non-chair items that fit that definition, though. Can anyone make it better? Anything that should be eliminated?
(If we can get a good enough definition of chair, we can move on to a more difficult word. Links to google images encouraged - I couldn't find an image of a backless chair, for instance, that didn't make me think "stool", but perhaps someone else can.)
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
There's also the question of whether you want to describe the idea of a chair or classify real world chairs. For example, there are many stories in which aliens have chairs. Chairs made by aliens or whatnot, but chairs nonetheless. That would amend the definition of the former but not the latter. (i.e. man-made?)
Edit: Bah, too late but whatever
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Chair: a person-created seat for one creature with a support for the back.
Mucus, are the alien chairs you're thinking of different in form than that described above, or are they just not man-made?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jhai: I was thinking not man-made, like Vulcan-made or Cylon-made. I don't know whether person really covers Cylon either, but neither do the people on BSG either Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you may have misunderstood your professor's point. A word is a concept that we apply to objects (whether they be real or theoretical). To apply to your example, each of us has our own concept that is signified by the word "chair." It varies from person to person and the word in general use has a flexibility to it that could, in a poetical application, be used to describe a group of rocks. By tacking on additional qualifiers to the definition, you begin to inch closer to defining a specific object or sub-set of objects instead of the word itself.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Shigosei - do you have an image? I'm not sure what you're describing? Maybe there needs to be free-standing clause?
Alcon - do you have an image? Do you really think the item you have is "chair-like" or is just called a cell-phone chair? Was it created for a cell-phone specifically?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, one other example. The Replicators on SG1 created chairs, but they're definitely not people, especially the non-human form ones.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, so I'm with your prof and Godric. There is no definition that is both precise and concise that encompasses all chairs and excludes all non chairs. Language doesn't have that kind of mathematical elegance.
You can approach such a definition, but by the time you do, I don't think you'll have anything functionally more useful than "Chair: a seat for one person, with a support for the back." People who understand the concept of chair will not get a better understanding from your 99% complete definition than they do from this approximation.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:[quote]Chair: an artificially created seat for a single living creature or single inanimate object with support for the back.
Yeah, I fixed that as soon as the post went through. I hit submit post before I noticed it. I'm bad at editing.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
But that includes stools. Which I guess begs the question, is a stool a chair? Are the set of stools a subset of chairs?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: OK, so I'm with your prof and Godric. There is no definition that is both precise and concise that encompasses all chairs and excludes all non chairs. Language doesn't have that kind of mathematical elegance.
You can approach such a definition, but by the time you do, I don't think you'll have anything functionally more useful than "Chair: a seat for one person, with a support for the back." People who understand the concept of chair will not get a better understanding from your 99% complete definition than they do from this approximation.
Although, now that I'm thinking about it, and seeing the interesting responses so far, maybe "Chair: a seat for one person or object, with a support for the back" might be a better general definition. You might arrive there by mashing up definitions 1 & 5 from Merriam-Webster.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Godric & scifibum - it's a game. I don't disagree that you can't get a perfect definition of anything. I am very interested to see how good of one we can get.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
But that includes stools. Which I guess begs the question, is a stool a chair? Are the set of stools a subset of chairs?
But it kind of contradicts Leonide's example of a dollhouse chair which is never intended to be sat on. (Not even by a doll if you purchase it alone without any dolls)
BB: "Stand on its own" could be just as tricky a concept as "chair."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: OK, so I'm with your prof and Godric. There is no definition that is both precise and concise that encompasses all chairs and excludes all non chairs. Language doesn't have that kind of mathematical elegance.
You can approach such a definition, but by the time you do, I don't think you'll have anything functionally more useful than "Chair: a seat for one person, with a support for the back." People who understand the concept of chair will not get a better understanding from your 99% complete definition than they do from this approximation.
Although, now that I'm thinking about it, and seeing the interesting responses so far, maybe "Chair: a seat for one person or object, with a support for the back" might be a better general definition. You might arrive there by mashing up definitions 1 & 5 from Merriam-Webster.
It's still a fun game to try and come up with that precise definition. Regardless of whether or not it'd be useful.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would argue that an object has chair-ness through the intent you have for it, not through its physical properties. A Laz-Y-Boy hanging upside down from the ceiling as part of an art piece is not a chair. But a toadstool is, if Alice in Wonderland uses it as one.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Godric & scifibum - it's a game. I don't disagree that you can't get a perfect definition of anything. I am very interested to see how good of one we can get.
I realize it's a game. And I'm fairly series about my submission in regards to it being as good a definition of chair you can get. But then, I guess that depends on your definition of... heh... definition. Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can think of a variety of ergonomically designed chairs that don't have back support. examplePosts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to that logic, though, afr, a stool is a chair and a couch is a chair. I don't think that can be accurate. But intent as a whole might be a worthwhile concept - I'd go with the intent of the creator, though, and not the user. So a dollhouse chair is still a chair, even if you purchase it with the intent to never sit a doll in it.
Regarding "free-standing" - would a chair carved out of a rock (but still attached to the rock at the place the feet touch the ground) still be a chair? My gut is telling me yes, but my gut is also very hungry.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"An artifact that is intended for one person-shaped entity to sit on, with support for the back (of a person-shaped entity), and is not an integral part of another object with an overriding artificial purpose, or any artifact which is shaped to look the same as such an artifact but is not intended for use as a seat. "
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless we can call Rabbit's example a non-chair, she's tossed a significant wrench into the working definitions so far offered.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "An artifact that is intended for one person-shaped entity to sit on, with support for the back (of a person-shaped entity), and is not an integral part of another object with an overriding artificial purpose, or any artifact which is shaped to look the same as such an artifact but is not intended for use as a seat. "
posted
Mucus: Could you extrapolate? Free standing to me entails standing on it's own.
Jhai: If such a place of sitting was simply hewn out of the side of a rock I would think that it was a seat, not a chair. There might be cracks with "free-standing" but I think the fact that the person sitting must be elevated off the ground is important.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is another really unusual chair. This type of chair is typical called a massage chair but presume that the head support has an adequate hole in it, I think it looks like it would be a great position for reading.
I always have a hard time find a comfortable reading position.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "An artifact that is intended for one person-shaped entity to sit on, with support for the back (of a person-shaped entity), and is not an integral part of another object with an overriding artificial purpose, or any artifact which is shaped to look the same as such an artifact but is not intended for use as a seat. "
I love it!
I like it, but now I'm thinking of a seat carved out of a big boulder. I'd say it's not a chair, but it doesn't seem to be caught by any of the conditionals, since it's not an integral part of another object with an overriding artificial purpose.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Here is another really unusual chair. This type of chair is typical called a massage chair but presume that the head support has an adequate hole in it, I think it looks like it would be a great position for reading.
I always have a hard time find a comfortable reading position.
Well that example throws out most of our working definition. I don't think I have any contention that that is a chair.
As for reading positions, do you find your biggest problem is that your arms start to hurt when they are bent for long periods of time?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't think the kneeling-chair is a chair; it seems much more stool like, despite its name.
The upright massage chair looks more chair like to me. Maybe we can change "back support" to "trunk support"?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still don't like the intent clause of "or any artifact which is shaped to look the same as such an artifact but is not intended for use as a seat." If someone fashions a chair out of heroin, carefully disguised to pass a border check, its still a chair and can still be sat on if one wishes, its just one that is never intended by the creator for use.
BB: Well, free standing is a tricky concept.
Jhai noted one complication. I can add another. Say you're on the holodeck on the Enterprise and you sit in a chair, carefully fashioned by holograms to look like a chair and using forcefields to hold up your body. Its hard to say that the chair stands on its own, it requires a constant input of energy. But for all intents and purposes it looks like a chair and serves the purpose of a chair.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Any object that the designated chair-recogniser accepts as a chair. The current DCR for purposes of this thread is Jhai."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Rabbit, how do you sit in that?
Edit: found an image. I'd be more inclined to call that a stool.
You might call it a stool, but I've never seen it called that. Its sometimes called a kneeling chair or and ergonomic chair but never a stool.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I like it, but now I'm thinking of a seat carved out of a big boulder. I'd say it's not a chair, but it doesn't seem to be caught by any of the conditionals, since it's not an integral part of another object with an overriding artificial purpose."
I'd call that a chair, in fact I was thinking of that as something I wanted to include.
Mucus, I knew that was poorly written. I am saying that objects which are not intended to be sat on by person-shaped entities, but are intended to look like chairs, and are shaped like chairs, are still chairs. This includes doll chairs and cell phone chairs, and excludes paintings of chairs.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I still don't like the intent clause of "or any artifact which is shaped to look the same as such an artifact but is not intended for use as a seat." If someone fashions a chair out of heroin, carefully disguised to pass a border check, its still a chair and can still be sat on if one wishes, its just one that is never intended by the creator for use.
BB: Well, free standing is a tricky concept.
Jhai noted one complication. I can add another. Say you're on the holodeck on the Enterprise and you sit in a chair, carefully fashioned by holograms to look like a chair and using forcefields to hold up your body. Its hard to say that the chair stands on its own, it requires a constant input of energy. But for all intents and purposes it looks like a chair and serves the purpose of a chair.
That would still be a holodeck chair. I think "holodeck" would be a necessary addendum when describing the chair. You could certainly call it a chair just for simplicities sake but that's no different than looking at a photograph of a chair and saying, "look a chair."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to clearly distinguish between chairs and stools there is another problem. Bar stools frequently have back rest and fit all the other aspects of the definition.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
