Here's the problem with this kind of philosophy. It's arguing about how many angels on a pinhead. It wastes time and it doesn't resolve anything.

I much prefer the type that Alain de Botton from the London School of Life focuses on.

It doesn't matter if the chairs are different and cost more (and believe in, in my interior design degree, I studied chairs - the history of chairs, the shapes of chairs, the purpose of chairs, whatever). The point is that we don't have to know any of that in order to sit on a chair.

And that's why so much of philosophy is a complete waste of time. Philosophers generally can't see the wood for the trees. Or is it the trees for the wood?

Every now and then, of course, a gem comes through. But that only happens when it is accepted that the word 'is accepted in exactly the way the general public does accept it, and the purpose of the chair is understood - standing on it to reach the lighbulb on the ceiling so that it can be changed.

Oh, wait. Sorry. To sit on it. :)