Do words have definitions?

I'd say that for everyday words like "chair" definitions are not primary: An infant sees a chair and hears an adult call it "chair". This happens several times with different chairs, so the kid finds the common traits. Therefore, a chair is actually "something similar to all those chairs I've seen till now."

Concepts are extended to new objects that don't have names yet. For example, suppose the only existing pens are fountain pens. Now when the ball pen is invented, people will call it a (new kind of) pen because this is the most similar concept in existence. If the inventor makes up a name for this new pen in ads, e.g., "bop", and succeeds in making everyone call his invention "bop" instead of "pen", "pen" might retain the old meaning only. On the other hand, our concept of pen as "something that writes with ink" is useful for saying, e.g., "Does anybody have a pen?", so maybe in that hypothetical world "pen" would still have the more general meaning.

So the extension of concepts is influenced by many factors, and the definition / content of a concept may change as new types of objects emerge.

blah blah blah too much time on your hands

A stool is a chair of a specific type.
kind of like a brand name it performs the same functions but generally adapted to a different situation.
Then again, withe huge variety of chair now can we really say chair is a sufficient word there is something very different to me between a plastic round chair on a metal bar in a bus and an lazy-boy.

a chair is any item that we refer to as a chair - this will vary by local population, but a reasonably continuous map would exist over the human terrain

I suppose we're all misusing the word "chair" in lieu of the word "seat"...a seat is something which was meant to be sat on...whereas in addition to that, a chair is recognized as something that is made up of legs and a back. Respectively, a stool is a seat as well as it is defined as something which has legs but no backing.

Although I have better things to do, because I’m reading this on a Friday I am trying to avoid them, so I’ve decided to be contrary and nit-picky just for the sake of the mental exercise.

Nit Pick: The challenge regarding the definition of the word chair and its relation to bean bag chairs and stools is faulty because of the word “chair.”

Definitions:
Stool – at least in the intentions of the author, (I doubt he meant bowel movements,) is a seat for an individual that has neither back or arms. Stools can be on a pedestal or on legs, they can be high or low. You can stand or kneel on them, sit on them or prop your feet up on them. A “Bar Stool” with arms and a back is named incorrectly. It is not a stool.

Bean Bag Chair – Well, these are just silly in light of what a chair really is.

Chair – Comes from the Latin word Cathedra, which was the location of a throne of a bishop of a diocese. Originally all very large and impressive church buildings weren’t known as cathedrals, only the principal church of a diocese, the one containing the throne of the bishop was a cathedra.

There is a perception that authority and power come with a pretty cool place to sit. Kings and queens, (and Bishops) come and go, but the throne will sit in the same place for many generations, and the idea of someone inheriting a throne, or usurping a throne implies that they now have the power and authority that comes with the big shiny chair. This is why you get your head cut off if they find you relaxing in the kings favorite place to rest his behind. Technically it doesn’t mean anything if you’re sitting on the throne, but what it implies is something else.

A “chair” is the literal or figurative location from which the authority within a given social structure is exercised… which is why calling a Bean Bag Chair a Chair is silly. We see this all the time too. If you buy a dining room set, the two seats that go at the heads of the table will likely be slightly larger. If you walk into a room where a committee meets, the only chair in there is the one the head of the committee sits in… the rest are just seats.

Of course, modern usage of the word “chair” has created a collective agreement that all of the seats around the table are chairs now. Folding chairs, lawn chairs, reclining chairs and directors chairs are all readily recognizable and each bring a visual notion to mind. And this is what the rest of the article is about. How can words be defined using other words if the collective understanding of what the word, or the words defining it aren’t static? Time, knowledge, perspective and education will constantly change how we interpret what we experience.

The problem has more to do with the way we process and translate words into information that our brains can work with. We don’t think in terms of written language. If I say the word “mouse” you won’t create a mental image of letters placed in a specific order in your mind. You will probably have a mental image of a small furry rodent running across a floor or of Mickey Mouse, or more likely a small hand held tool used as an input device for your computer. Our experiences will change the exact mental picture we see, but most of us will come up with something similar enough in nature that we will have some common ground.

The reason why we are able to have a written and verbal language is not because of any sort of ingrained understanding or even specific knowledge. It is because we all have very similar sensory capabilities, and although we don’t always interpret things the same, or create each thing we see in exactitude, we do have sufficient numbers of commonality to reference which allow others to interpret what we say into something they can understand.

Basically I wrote this whole thing so I would have a reason to use that topic.

This is one of those arguments that exists solely so stoned undergrads can sit around and go "whoa, man...deep!"
It's basically mental masturbation, because the way they have defined the argument automatically leads into philosophical territories that are rich in stupidity and completely fail to map to reality, thus also failing to yield any conclusions of intrinsic worth whatsoever.

To put it another way- you can always create a philosophical conundrum if you frame the issue in a loose enough way, but it doesn't mean you've discovered some new paradigm of thought- it just means you managed to completely miss the point, and you're apparently not capable of accurate analysis.

Language is not about definitions or symantics. It is about communication and getting your point across.

Beren

By asking me to define a chair to include beanbag chairs but not stools, you assume that I know the difference between beanbag chairs and stools. I cannot define 'chair' in such a way without knowledge of what a beanbag or stool are. Since beanbags and stools have different meanings for me, a precise definition is unimportant. If I understand what you're asking me, then there are preconceived notions of what a stool, beanbag, or chair already is.

Furthermore, defining a chair to exclude stools could be similar to defining mammals to exclude cats. How do you define silverware to include Krazy Straws, but exlude salad forks?
If you know what Krazy Straws and salad forks are, no further definition is required.

Beren

this is (most likely) because of w00t being word for the year last year..

As is quoted by many in my communications field "words have no meaning - people have meaning." No wonder it's so hard to create definitions.

Different evolutionary paths create different words for objects that appear to have a similar function. And so, don't you think it is more valuable to follow the pathway of the arisal of a word to its source than to twist all the meanings and parimutations into a cable to pass through to one definitive meaning?
Stool could very well have evolved from a three legged milking chair that was different from a higher kitchen chair and so was given another name to prevent confusion. When stool became taller or wider or was given a back it did not change but evolved from a root meaning attacted to an original object description.
And so a stool is not a chair and a sofa is not a chair in its evolutionary or its root meaning and those knowledgeable in furniture are not confused.
The confusion arises when you want to extract deep understanding of the nature of meaning and words based upon a tempest in a teapot riddle that can be contadicted at every turn.
Understanding meaning comes from the application of valid pricipals that are tested and applied. Such as root meanings of important word choices so that the desired object can be understood.
That is how we do it in Buddhism.

A chair is not the sum of it's parts.
A back, a seat, a leg...are also not a chair.
A chair is something physical which serves a function.
Sitting.
It is mapped to sitting. Sitting more comfortably than sitting on what many would call a stool. It has an...innate meaning to us? Or possibly leanred -there is their debate, not mine.
Chair = sitting in something that we feel should be called a chair.

Without knowing what a chair is, can you know what a stool is? Does it stop being a stool and start being a chair when you have no prior knowledge of either?

I argue that unless you have a preconcieved notion of "chair", you cannot percieve the difference between "chair" and "stool". The word itself is irrelevant, so if you know of neither chair nor stool, and encounter a stool, it's a chair. If you do have knowledge of a chair, then it's obviously a different kind of chair, for a slightly more specific but very similar purpose. It's impossible to know what a stool is without comparing it to a chair, so it's impossible that one would know about stools but not about chairs. Ergo, Stool = Chair, but Chair != Stool.

Perhaps there's a more elegant way of putting it than that, but if such an eloquent form exists, I do not know of it.

Yeah But a stool does the same. I would consider a stool a chair.

Jackendoff's solution just moves the problem back from innate concepts (expressed in words) to innate meanings.

A chair is something that has been manufactured for the sole intent of alleviating the need to stand in one place for long periods of time.

no?

chairs have back support. stools don't.