What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Any claim about the nature of reality is realist in nature. And this includes the claim that reality is fundamentally 'uncertain' or 'indeterminate' or 'observer-dependent'. So the claim that quantum mechanics is philosophically antirealist arises from a category error.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Any claim about the nature of reality is realist [not observer-dependent] in nature.
And this includes the claim that reality is fundamentally 'uncertain' or 'indeterminate' or 'observer-dependent'. So the claim that quantum mechanics is philosophically antirealist arises from a category error.

Your above is a contradiction;
see my reply here.
Quantum Mechanics [QM] is Grounded on AntiRealism
viewtopic.php?p=713432#p713432

I do not use the term 'dependent' but go along with you in this case.
What I do use is, 'somehow related to the human conditions' i.e. cannot be separated from the human conditions.

[Peter Holmes]

Philosophy is - and has always been - talk about the ways we do or could use words and other signs - and particularly some important words that we misleadingly call abstract nouns, such as knowledge, truth, mind, consciousness, being, identity, justice, beauty, goodness, and so on.

So the idea that philosophy offers a profound meta analysis of anything outside language - and particularly of the fictions we call concepts - is delusional. It's mistaking what we say for the way things are.

If you disagree, please cite a so-called philosophical problem that isn't about a use of language - and show why it isn't. Examples: what could make morality objective?; are there moral facts?; what is a fact?

[Skepdick]

Philosophy is - and has always been - talk about the ways we do or could use words and other signs

Ironic irony is ironic. Negotiations about the "right" or "wrong"; "acceptable" or "unacceptable"; ways we can and can't use language are moral negotiations.

morality
/məˈralɪti/
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

If morality is NOT objective then how could any group of people possibly determine any standards for acceptable and unacceptable use of words?
How could moral discourse produce "ways in which we could' or couldn't use words"?

What could possibly restrict another person's use of words/signs?

To borrow an idea from Rorty: "Objective (Moral) Truth is what your contemporaries will let you get away with."

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophy is - and has always been - talk about the ways we do or could use words and other signs - and particularly some important words that we misleadingly call abstract nouns, such as knowledge, truth, mind, consciousness, being, identity, justice, beauty, goodness, and so on.

So the idea that philosophy offers a profound meta analysis of anything outside language - and particularly of the fictions we call concepts - is delusional. It's mistaking what we say for the way things are.

If you disagree, please cite a so-called philosophical problem that isn't about a use of language - and show why it isn't. Examples: what could make morality objective?; are there moral facts?; what is a fact?

No wonder your philosophical views are so primitive and limited.

I raised this thread to address your points;
viewtopic.php?t=42381

Language is merely a tool that facilitate higher philosophical deliberations not philosophy in the absolute sense.

[Peter Holmes]

Philosophy is - and has always been - talk about the ways we do or could use words and other signs - and particularly some important words that we misleadingly call abstract nouns, such as knowledge, truth, mind, consciousness, being, identity, justice, beauty, goodness, and so on.

So the idea that philosophy offers a profound meta analysis of anything outside language - and particularly of the fictions we call concepts - is delusional. It's mistaking what we say for the way things are.

If you disagree, please cite a so-called philosophical problem that isn't about a use of language - and show why it isn't. Examples: what could make morality objective?; are there moral facts?; what is a fact?

No wonder your philosophical views are so primitive and limited.

I raised this thread to address your points;
viewtopic.php?t=42381

Language is merely a tool that facilitate higher philosophical deliberations not philosophy in the absolute sense.

Please cite a so-called philosophical problem that isn't about a use of language - and show why it isn't.

And when you can't, rinse and repeat that 'language is merely a tool that facilitate[s] higher philosophical deliberations not philosophy in the absolute sense'. Why bother actually engaging your brain?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophy is - and has always been - talk about the ways we do or could use words and other signs - and particularly some important words that we misleadingly call abstract nouns, such as knowledge, truth, mind, consciousness, being, identity, justice, beauty, goodness, and so on.

So the idea that philosophy offers a profound meta analysis of anything outside language - and particularly of the fictions we call concepts - is delusional. It's mistaking what we say for the way things are.

If you disagree, please cite a so-called philosophical problem that isn't about a use of language - and show why it isn't. Examples: what could make morality objective?; are there moral facts?; what is a fact?

No wonder your philosophical views are so primitive and limited.

I raised this thread to address your points;
viewtopic.php?t=42381

Language is merely a tool that facilitate higher philosophical deliberations not philosophy in the absolute sense.

Please cite a so-called philosophical problem that isn't about a use of language - and show why it isn't.

And when you can't, rinse and repeat that 'language is merely a tool that facilitate[s] higher philosophical deliberations not philosophy in the absolute sense'. Why bother actually engaging your brain?

Did you read the thread I raised in responding to your very narrow view of what is philosophy.

[Peter Holmes]

No wonder your philosophical views are so primitive and limited.

I raised this thread to address your points;
viewtopic.php?t=42381

Language is merely a tool that facilitate higher philosophical deliberations not philosophy in the absolute sense.

Please cite a so-called philosophical problem that isn't about a use of language - and show why it isn't.

And when you can't, rinse and repeat that 'language is merely a tool that facilitate[s] higher philosophical deliberations not philosophy in the absolute sense'. Why bother actually engaging your brain?

Did you read the thread I raised in responding to your very narrow view of what is philosophy.

Yes. Now, please cite a so-called philosophical problem that isn't about a use of language - and show why it isn't. Just one simple example will sort it out.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Please cite a so-called philosophical problem that isn't about a use of language - and show why it isn't.

And when you can't, rinse and repeat that 'language is merely a tool that facilitate[s] higher philosophical deliberations not philosophy in the absolute sense'. Why bother actually engaging your brain?

Did you read the thread I raised in responding to your very narrow view of what is philosophy.

Yes. Now, please cite a so-called philosophical problem that isn't about a use of language - and show why it isn't. Just one simple example will sort it out.

You did not read the latest post with notification to you.
Here again:

Here are some examples of philosophical problems that aren't strictly about language use:

The Problem of Evil: How can a good and all-powerful God allow evil to exist? This grapples with the concepts of good, evil, and God's nature, not just how we define them.

The Mind-Body Problem: What is the relationship between the mind and the physical body? This delves into the nature of consciousness and its interaction with the brain.

Free Will vs. Determinism: Do we have free will, or are all our actions predetermined? This explores our sense of agency and how the world works.
In conclusion, while language plays a vital role, philosophy isn't limited to analyzing it. It's a vast discipline that seeks to understand the world, ourselves, and our place in it.

In Eastern Philosophy, one effective way to understand reality is to avoid language altogether by using Koans.
e.g. what is the sound of one hand clapping, is linguistically meaningless.

Self-reflection, meditation, and the like to achieve the purpose of philosophy do not rely on language.

As I had stated, language is merely a tool to facilitate in achieving the purpose of philosophy, i.e. the well being, flourishing of the individual[s] and the human species.

Language has its advantage but cannot deal with reality all-there-is.
Language limits, compartmentalizes and conditioned reality within its FSERC boundaries which is not credible.

Buddhist schools of thought share two fundamental assumptions about language. On the one hand, language (śabda) is identified with conceptual thinking (kalpanā), which according to the Buddhist doctrine (dharma) separates us from the momentary and fleeting nature of reality (satya, “truth”). Language is comprised of generally applicable forms, which fuel the reificatory proclivity for clinging to the distorted – and ultimately fictious – belief in substantial existence. On the other hand, the distrust of language is mitigated by the doctrine of ineffability (anirdeśya), which although asserts that reality is beyond the scope of linguistic description, submits that philosophical analyses of key Buddhist concepts is a means of overcoming the limitations that language imposes on our experience and facilitating insight into the nature of reality (bodhi). This paper provides an overview of Buddhist philosophy of language, with an emphasis on the dialectical view of language as indispensable but ultimately insufficient for contemplation. The Buddhist discussions of ineffability are explicated and compared with its treatment in modern Occidental thought, specifically the similarities and differences with Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Philosophy

There are tons of discussions from the Eastern Philosophy community on the limitation of language in hindering in attaining the purpose of philosophy [as much as possible] the clearer realization of reality [all there is].

[Iwannaplato]

Did you read the thread I raised in responding to your very narrow view of what is philosophy.

Yes. Now, please cite a so-called philosophical problem that isn't about a use of language - and show why it isn't. Just one simple example will sort it out.

You did not read the latest post with notification to you.
Here again:

Here are some examples of philosophical problems that aren't strictly about language use:

The Problem of Evil: How can a good and all-powerful God allow evil to exist? This grapples with the concepts of good, evil, and God's nature, not just how we define them.

The Mind-Body Problem: What is the relationship between the mind and the physical body? This delves into the nature of consciousness and its interaction with the brain.

Free Will vs. Determinism: Do we have free will, or are all our actions predetermined? This explores our sense of agency and how the world works.
In conclusion, while language plays a vital role, philosophy isn't limited to analyzing it. It's a vast discipline that seeks to understand the world, ourselves, and our place in it.

In Eastern Philosophy, one effective way to understand reality is to avoid language altogether by using Koans.
e.g. what is the sound of one hand clapping, is linguistically meaningless.

Self-reflection, meditation, and the like to achieve the purpose of philosophy do not rely on language.

As I had stated, language is merely a tool to facilitate in achieving the purpose of philosophy, i.e. the well being, flourishing of the individual[s] and the human species.

Language has its advantage but cannot deal with reality all-there-is.
Language limits, compartmentalizes and conditioned reality within its FSERC boundaries which is not credible.

Buddhist schools of thought share two fundamental assumptions about language. On the one hand, language (śabda) is identified with conceptual thinking (kalpanā), which according to the Buddhist doctrine (dharma) separates us from the momentary and fleeting nature of reality (satya, “truth”). Language is comprised of generally applicable forms, which fuel the reificatory proclivity for clinging to the distorted – and ultimately fictious – belief in substantial existence. On the other hand, the distrust of language is mitigated by the doctrine of ineffability (anirdeśya), which although asserts that reality is beyond the scope of linguistic description, submits that philosophical analyses of key Buddhist concepts is a means of overcoming the limitations that language imposes on our experience and facilitating insight into the nature of reality (bodhi). This paper provides an overview of Buddhist philosophy of language, with an emphasis on the dialectical view of language as indispensable but ultimately insufficient for contemplation. The Buddhist discussions of ineffability are explicated and compared with its treatment in modern Occidental thought, specifically the similarities and differences with Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Philosophy

There are tons of discussions from the Eastern Philosophy community on the limitation of language in hindering in attaining the purpose of philosophy [as much as possible] the clearer realization of reality [all there is].

What a strange post. In part because he is essentially agreeing with PH's assertions that he quoted - at most arguing something that does not disagree with what PH said.

In part oddities like....

In Eastern Philosophy, one effective way to understand reality is to avoid language altogether by using Koans.
e.g. what is the sound of one hand clapping, is linguistically meaningless.

Koans are different from much other Zen Buddhist (not Buddhist in general) practices precisely because they do not avoid language altogether. They are language based. They are also not meaningless. Here's a hint question: how is non-dual consciousness like one hand clapping?

And any even short browse in Koans will find many that are 1) obviously meaningful and 2) language based. The first one here...
https://ashidakim.com/zenkoans/1acupoftea.html

. A Cup of Tea
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

It's really rather amazing how often people present Buddhism and other traditions with little or no knowledge of them.

But the more amazing point is that his response to PH is supportive, though it seems he doesn't know this.

[Peter Holmes]

Did you read the thread I raised in responding to your very narrow view of what is philosophy.

Yes. Now, please cite a so-called philosophical problem that isn't about a use of language - and show why it isn't. Just one simple example will sort it out.

Here again:

Here are some examples of philosophical problems that aren't strictly about language use:

The Problem of Evil: How can a good and all-powerful God allow evil to exist? This grapples with the concepts of good, evil, and God's nature, not just how we define them.

QED. What are good and evil? And are they different from the concepts of good and evil? And what is a concept? And is to define any of these things to describe them? So are they things of some kind that exist somewhere, somehow - things that can be described? 'Grappling with the concepts of good and evil' sounds heroic and difficult. But it amounts to nothing more than showing how we do or could use the words good and evil. There's nothing beyond that use.

The Mind-Body Problem: What is the relationship between the mind and the physical body? This delves into the nature of consciousness and its interaction with the brain.

Again, 'delving into the nature of consciousness and its interaction with the brain' sounds profound and difficult. But what are the mind and consciousness? Why do the different ways we use the words and their cognates not exhaust what we call the mind and consciousness? And why are they things that 'interact' with the brain? Why assume this distinction and relationship?

Free Will vs. Determinism: Do we have free will, or are all our actions predetermined? This explores our sense of agency and how the world works.

What is the will, free or not? Try answering that and any other philosophical question, then look at what you've produced. It can only be an explanation of the way(s) we do or could use a word.

The delusion that abstract nouns are names of important but mysterious things - things that can (if only with difficulty) be described - is ancient, potent and pervasive. It's legacy mysticism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes. Now, please cite a so-called philosophical problem that isn't about a use of language - and show why it isn't. Just one simple example will sort it out.

Here again:

Here are some examples of philosophical problems that aren't strictly about language use:

The Problem of Evil: How can a good and all-powerful God allow evil to exist? This grapples with the concepts of good, evil, and God's nature, not just how we define them.

QED. What are good and evil? And are they different from the concepts of good and evil? And what is a concept? And is to define any of these things to describe them? So are they things of some kind that exist somewhere, somehow - things that can be described? 'Grappling with the concepts of good and evil' sounds heroic and difficult. But it amounts to nothing more than showing how we do or could use the words good and evil. There's nothing beyond that use.

The Mind-Body Problem: What is the relationship between the mind and the physical body? This delves into the nature of consciousness and its interaction with the brain.

Again, 'delving into the nature of consciousness and its interaction with the brain' sounds profound and difficult. But what are the mind and consciousness? Why do the different ways we use the words and their cognates not exhaust what we call the mind and consciousness? And why are they things that 'interact' with the brain? Why assume this distinction and relationship?

Free Will vs. Determinism: Do we have free will, or are all our actions predetermined? This explores our sense of agency and how the world works.

What is the will, free or not? Try answering that and any other philosophical question, then look at what you've produced. It can only be an explanation of the way(s) we do or could use a word.

The delusion that abstract nouns are names of important but mysterious things - things that can (if only with difficulty) be described - is ancient, potent and pervasive. It's legacy mysticism.

See my response to the above in the right thread:
viewtopic.php?p=714095#p714095

[Peter Holmes]

Here again:

QED. What are good and evil? And are they different from the concepts of good and evil? And what is a concept? And is to define any of these things to describe them? So are they things of some kind that exist somewhere, somehow - things that can be described? 'Grappling with the concepts of good and evil' sounds heroic and difficult. But it amounts to nothing more than showing how we do or could use the words good and evil. There's nothing beyond that use.

The Mind-Body Problem: What is the relationship between the mind and the physical body? This delves into the nature of consciousness and its interaction with the brain.

Again, 'delving into the nature of consciousness and its interaction with the brain' sounds profound and difficult. But what are the mind and consciousness? Why do the different ways we use the words and their cognates not exhaust what we call the mind and consciousness? And why are they things that 'interact' with the brain? Why assume this distinction and relationship?

Free Will vs. Determinism: Do we have free will, or are all our actions predetermined? This explores our sense of agency and how the world works.

What is the will, free or not? Try answering that and any other philosophical question, then look at what you've produced. It can only be an explanation of the way(s) we do or could use a word.

The delusion that abstract nouns are names of important but mysterious things - things that can (if only with difficulty) be described - is ancient, potent and pervasive. It's legacy mysticism.

See my response to the above in the right thread:
viewtopic.php?p=714095#p714095

You merely repeat the standard, uncritical dogmas - as in the above AI examples of supposed philosophical problems. For example, why is there a mind-body problem? And if there is one, why do we ordinarily talk about our minds and mental things and events unproblematically? Is it because we're ignorant and unreflective - so that philosophers have to sort us out?

[Veritas Aequitas]

QED. What are good and evil? And are they different from the concepts of good and evil? And what is a concept? And is to define any of these things to describe them? So are they things of some kind that exist somewhere, somehow - things that can be described? 'Grappling with the concepts of good and evil' sounds heroic and difficult. But it amounts to nothing more than showing how we do or could use the words good and evil. There's nothing beyond that use.
Again, 'delving into the nature of consciousness and its interaction with the brain' sounds profound and difficult. But what are the mind and consciousness? Why do the different ways we use the words and their cognates not exhaust what we call the mind and consciousness? And why are they things that 'interact' with the brain? Why assume this distinction and relationship?
What is the will, free or not? Try answering that and any other philosophical question, then look at what you've produced. It can only be an explanation of the way(s) we do or could use a word.

The delusion that abstract nouns are names of important but mysterious things - things that can (if only with difficulty) be described - is ancient, potent and pervasive. It's legacy mysticism.

See my response to the above in the right thread:
viewtopic.php?p=714095#p714095

You merely repeat the standard, uncritical dogmas - as in the above AI examples of supposed philosophical problems. For example, why is there a mind-body problem? And if there is one, why do we ordinarily talk about our minds and mental things and events unproblematically? Is it because we're ignorant and unreflective - so that philosophers have to sort us out?

The original argument was you insisted 'language' is imperative for solving philosophical problems.
You could have argued words or alphabets and numbers are necessary for philosophical problems.

I argued, NO! language is merely a tool of philosophy. It cannot be imperative for philosophy.

You asked for ONE example where 'language' is not necessary for philosophy problems.
AI above gave you a few examples and I mentioned language is considered a hindrance for the higher realizations of reality within Eastern Philosophy.
AI view is language in the sense of Philosophy of Language, linguistic and the linguistic turn re Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein and so on.

Note my response in the other post;
viewtopic.php?p=714209#p714209

I'm sure you know enough Buddhism to also know the nature of identity. There is no permanent Abraham Lincoln and there is no permanent sun.
Furthermore, "star", "president" and "USA" are concepts defined into existence. Notice the 'problems' of figuring how many planets there are in the solar system ... it all depends on how one defines the word "planet".

1. The above relies on language to conceptualize things, facilitate communication and survival but such things are not permanent [not its true nature].
2. The purpose of philosophy is to understand the ultimate true nature of things and reality.
3. Therefore language cannot be imperative for philosophy.

The ultimate true nature of reality is nothingness.
Sunyata
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81
The realization of 'nothingness' can only be realized without 'language', i.e. via meditation, via deep reflection within which is the ultimate approach within philosophy.
Therefore language is not imperative within philosophy [to achieve the ultimate purpose of philosophy] - which is my answer to the OP's question.

[Peter Holmes]

The original argument was you insisted 'language' is imperative for solving philosophical problems.

No. My point is that so-called philosophical problems are linguistic in nature. So questions about reality, knowledge and truth - for example - are really about the ways we do or could use those words, their cognates and related words. There is no ' ultimate true nature of things and reality' for philosophy to examine. There's no noumenon - or perhaps you've forgotten that.

The ultimate true nature of reality is nothingness.
Sunyata
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81
The realization of 'nothingness' can only be realized without 'language', i.e. via meditation, via deep reflection within which is the ultimate approach within philosophy.
Therefore language is not imperative within philosophy [to achieve the ultimate purpose of philosophy] - which is my answer to the OP's question.

This is mystical claptrap. Your belief that there is an 'ultimate true nature of reality' is as irrational as belief in a god.