Well, chickens do exist if that’s what you mean.
Here’s one account:
“Proof that fearsome T-Rex evolved into a chicken. Palaeontologists have long accepted that birds are a form of dinosaur. Now the theory that the most feared dinosaur of all, Tyrannosaurus Rex, evolved into the modern-day chicken has been given scientific backing with the discovery of some pre-historic collagen.” From the Daily Mail, U.K.
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … icken.html
A dasein dude can ask “which particular chicken in which particular context” you are talking about.
Not pertaining to the actual evolution of the chicken embedded in the evolution of life on earth. That transcends dasein as I have come to encompass it re the world of is/ought.
In the is/ought world dasein revolves largely around the question of consuming the chicken — eating the flesh of animals.
Is this in fact rational or irrational?
Is this in fact something that philosophers and scientists can ascertain?
He can say that the definition of chicken just a bunch is words dependent on the meaning of other words.
No, he can say that a definition of this sort – “a domestic fowl kept for its eggs or meat, especially a young one” – is true objectively for all of us. These words [among English language speaking folks] are simply words that we invented in order to describe what a chicken is.
He can say that two or more people can have a conflict about what a chicken is or is not. And nothing will make those arguments go away.
No, not pertaining to the definition above. Yes, pertaining to the arguments broached regarding the rights of animals.
He can say that you can’t demonstrate a chicken so that all reasonable men and women are obligated to accept that it is a chicken.
Not this dasein dude.
Unless of course this is all just an exercise in irony on your part. Tongue in cheek as it were?