This question needs some clarification, but is basically sound. First, Absurdism
is not exactly a philosophy so much as a style, the expression of the possibility that “meaning” is a human construct, one that can be negated or bypassed by looking at the world as “nonlogical”, “non-constructed”, in short, as absurd. In this sense, then, a chair is a “construction,” designed and constructed for a purpose, which is the opposite of a human, whose existence (according to existential philosophy, a relative of Absurdism) is accidental and without “design.” A chair is a very good contrast, then, in the Absurdist’s metaphors, to human beings. Consider Ionesco’s play, “The Chairs.” Here, the proliferation of chairs is in sharp contrast to the two actual persons on stage in this production; the chairs are clearly substitutes for living beings. In another “meaning,” in Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, Pozzo’s stool is treated as a throne, separating the “class” status of Pozzo from his menial, Lucky.