don't quite follow you here

explain further

The chair is thought about when we think about it, but the chair is not thought because we think about it. (As Reconstructo argues).

There is nothing to explain:

The argument:

1. We are thinking beings.

Therefore, 2. whatever we think about is thought (and nothing else).

Is an invalid argument. 2 does not follow from 1.

There is no reason to think that because we think about X, that X is a thought. Suppose I think about a chair. It does not follow that a chair is a thought. A chair is a material object that we sit on. The chair is thought about when we think about it, but the chair is not thought because we think about it. (As Reconstructo argues).

The chair is there, in reality. However, this reality is named in a particular way. In the terms of physics, all the molecules of chair and not-chair are continuous. The chair is being bombarded by air molecules. Perhaps someone is sitting on it. It itself stands on the floor. We have physical continuity, but conceptually we see and refer to a discrete entity. It is organized by thought in a particular way. Do you see what I mean? Of course it's automatic "thought," so another word might be better. But my second point is stronger, in my opinion. To speak of a chair is to offer a thought, even if this thought points immediate to said chair. Of course the whole issue is tangled in the question of the difference between a chair and a "chair." Ah, the famous problem of universals.

Maybe to speak of a chair is sometimes to offer a thought about a chair. But that does not make speaking about a chair, a chair, nor make a thought of a chair, a chair. No doubt we call the physical object we sit on by the term, "chair", but the word "chair" is not a chair anymore than a picture of a pipe is a pipe. What the physicist tells us a chair is, is, of course, a different matter.

A chair is physical object. "Chair" is, of course, a word (which is, of course, also a physical object, but not a chair).

A chair is physical object. "Chair" is, of course, a word (which is, of course, also a physical object, but not a chair).

so what came first though

the physical form of the chair or the name of the physical form , chair ?

sensibly I would say the physical form

Obviously chairs evolved. No one, one say, arose onemorning and said to himself, "let's make a chair". And the term, "chair" clearly has a history. The word is not a neologism like "gas". So the answer is that the word and the thing evolved together.

That sounds right. Still, the problem of universals. Where does the notion of chair reside? And how can we speak of a general chair? What sort of being does a concept like this have?

The word "chair" is a general term. That need not mean that there is some general object ("being") too. There is no need to think that just because a word has a meaning, that it must also have a referent. That is what Frege taught us in his seminal, "On Sense and Reference". (Uber Sinn und Bedeutung).

Sense and reference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't care if we call it "being" or not. We can speak of a general chair, and be understood. And this is crucial to human communication generally. I don't have Platonic leanings on the matter. I'm not attached to "being" more than any other term. But we do have concepts that exist in someone apart from the specific objects that we apply them to. For instance, the word "object." This is something like a class.

Yes, we do have the general term, "chair" which we use to talk about chairs. There is no such thing as a general chair (unless he is in the Pentagon) nor have I ever spoken of a general chair. Now what?

Which particular chair are we speaking about just now? If a mother tells her daughter she will need to buy a new chair, because the old one clashes with the drapes, she is not talking about a particular chair.

Why not? She is talking about the particular chair she is going to buy.

How? She hasn't bought it yet. She hasn't picked it out.

Whats the point of philosophy if we cannot make ourselves clear or speak clearly of the facts?

The one she intends to pick out. If she does.

I believe that in order to be a good philosopher one must do the following things:

1. Rid themselves of anthropocentricity.

2. Think critically about all arguments, including their own; and follow a logical conclusion to wherever it may lead.

3. Accept the truth, even when it's inconvenient.

4. Balance emotion with logic.

I would sum up a bad philosopher with the following sentence:

The hallmark of a bad philosopher is that they seek appeasement first and truth second.

Generally, I agree. But what about men like Kant, who dug deeper at the roots of thought than many before him? Sometimes a fresh perspective opens new vistas.

Now doubt the facts are important. But I also love questions such as "what are facts made of?"

Kant brought up what the other schools failed to achieve: a complete logical picture of man. Granted he dug deeper, but he also asked questions that would further elucidate the problem of reality. Instead of reflecting into objects themselves, he relected into the self or the 'I'.

The facts are made up of atomic facts (which are objects). At least thats as far as I have been able to go (with the help of L.W.). Maybe Im wrong.