It’s fine, I’ve written some pieces that read the same in hindsight; You’re certainly going to have moments like that as a writer.

The piece about the chair was the point I was looking to grab hold/sink my teeth into the article. But, I found myself reading it several times to really absorb it. I eventually got what you were trying to say, but when I break down concepts in my writing? I insert myself and space out my ideas to where it sounds and looks more like a conversation instead of a paragraph.

“For example, we say that a chair exists because we perceive a chair to exist. We don’t call a chair “something that causes the perception of a chair, but which objectively we cannot call a chair since its existence as such is subject to our perceptions of it.” Instead, we call it a chair.”

If I had to rephrase, it would look like.

“Let’s say we are looking at a chair. It has the traditional characteristics… Four legs, a seat, and a splat/seat back.”

“We wouldn’t look at it and say “It’s the culmination of four legs, a seat, and a splat, giving the image that some would perceive of a chair”… If it were created with the purpose of being a chair? Then, its purpose isn’t up for subjectification; It’s a chair.”