Categories are placeholders, designed to group together items or ideas that we experience as related. We do this instinctually, for the sake of efficiency of thought and communication, and it is not in and of itself an unwise tendency. Children for instance wouldn’t be able to learn the world without the use of strict categories. At its logical conclusion, however, every category that includes two or more discrete items will ultimately come up short, since by its very nature a category will always be limiting. Given this, a fundamental problem arises when, after exploiting categories to gain a basic understanding of a particular idea or thing, an individual never gets back to re-questioning the initial assumptions upon which his or her crude but useful categories were based. This can lead to a situation in which the thought process of the individual acts as de facto slave to an unconscious collection of categorical rules, as opposed to the individual simply using the categories as tools toward his or her broader understanding of the world.
Like the zero, the category holds a crucial place in our comprehension of reality. The ultimate point however is to understand the larger meaning of what’s being represented by the placeholder, the actual purpose behind this communicative tool. Broad categories are like mental training wheels or the kiddie pool - they help bring us into the fold of a new concept. However, in order to make sure that this automatic impulse doesn’t end up ruling our existence and limiting us from proceeding to a higher level of communication, we must at some point realize that the categories as they were given are barely a point of departure, a temporary and patchwork crutch. Consequently, in order to engage in any actual thinking an individual has to reach beyond the necessity for large categorical rules, to see a thing as discrete and in some way classification unto itself. The initial, wider category is merely an instigation - a stepping stone to get us closer to the real idea of the individual - and this tool should not be permitted to instead become a leash. Ironically, the actual thing or idea toward which we are driving, as it is individual and discrete, will always ultimately remain beyond the perimeter of true categorization.
I don’t believe in the concept of an a priori “chair.” Or, if it does exist, it’s only in the collective agreement of a particular culture as to the definitional characteristics of “chair." A common use definition of “chair” is functional and it arises out of a majority consensus of those using the term at that time. It is not an eternal idea to which we strive to be privy - as there is no permanent “chair,” only the “chair” upon which we here presently agree for our needs as we try to understand the world and talk to each other. A great deal of time seems to be wasted adamantly arguing over who’s version of “chair” is the “correct” one. This mistakenly treats the idea of something like “chair” as sacred, as if it were a notion to which we are beholden and not the other way around. The point here is not for us to understand an eternal concept or category (nonetheless nonexistent beyond our own consensus), but simply to make use of the most ideal tools for our own communication given the context in which we find ourselves. The end goal is the communication and our greater understanding of the discrete and unique - the category is simply a jumpstart to help get us there.
