Is morality objective or subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

...we have to be mindful of the limitations of language.

What are the limitations of language?

What can language not do that it could do if it weren't so limited?
Can a sign be the thing for which it is a sign?
Can a description be the described?
Can S know that p iff p is true? (The JTB truth-condition - one of three.)
Answers, mindful of the limitations of language, on a postcard.

To save me time, here is AI [wR] on the limit of language is representing reality;

Here are some key limitations of language in representing reality, explored by philosophers:

Language as a Model: Language doesn't perfectly mirror reality, but rather offers a simplified model. We use words and concepts to categorize and understand the world, but these categories may not capture the full complexity of experience. For instance, the color spectrum is continuous, but we use discrete terms like "red" and "blue."

Ambiguity and Vagueness: Words can have multiple meanings depending on context, leading to misunderstandings. Vague terms like "tall" or "big" further complicate matters. This ambiguity makes it hard to precisely represent some aspects of reality.

The Limits of Words: Language is discrete. We use definite categories and definitions, but reality can be more fluid and continuous. For example, the color spectrum is a gradient, but we use separate words for distinct colors (red, orange, yellow). This creates gaps and limitations in how precisely we can describe the world.

Unspoken Assumptions and Culture: Language reflects the cultural background of its speakers. Certain concepts or experiences might not have direct translations because they are specific to a particular culture. This makes it difficult to represent reality universally through language.

Limitations of Expression: Some experiences, like emotions, can be difficult to fully express through language. The feeling of awe at a breathtaking vista or the intimacy of love might be too nuanced for words to perfectly capture.

Thinkers who have explored these limitations:

Wittgenstein's Language Games: Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that language functions like a set of tools, each with specific uses. Trying to use language to represent reality outside its intended use can lead to philosophical problems.

These limitations don't negate the power of language. It allows us to share ideas, build knowledge, and connect with others. By understanding these limitations, we can become more precise and nuanced communicators.

Thinkers who have explored these limitations:
I add,
Eastern Philosophers understood the limits of language that they abandon it in their reflection of reality.

Where Western philosophy ends, with the limits of language, marks the beginning of Eastern philosophy. The Tao de jing of Laozi begins with the limitations of language and then proceeds from that as a starting point.
On the other hand, the limitation of language marks the end of Wittgenstein’s cogitations. In contrast to Wittgenstein, who thought that one should remain silent about that which cannot be put into words, the message of the Zhuangzi is that one can speak about that which cannot put into words but the speech will be strange and indirect. Through the focus on the monstrous character, No-Lips in the Zhuangzi, this paper argues that a key message of the Zhuangzi is that the art of transcending language in the Zhuangzi is through the use of crippled speech. The metaphor of crippled speech, speech which is actually unheard, illustrates that philosophical truths cannot be put into words but can be indirectly signified through the art of stretching language beyond its normal contours. This allows Eastern philosophy, through the philosophy of the Zhuangzi to transcend the limits of language.
https://philarchive.org/archive/ALLWLT

Also note, the [arrogant] Linguistic Turn of Analytic Philosophy had been subjected to severe criticisms.

Again,
...we have to be mindful of the limitations of language.

[Peter Holmes]

...we have to be mindful of the limitations of language.

What are the limitations of language?

What can language not do that it could do if it weren't so limited?
Can a sign be the thing for which it is a sign?
Can a description be the described?
Can S know that p iff p is true? (The JTB truth-condition - one of three.)
Answers, mindful of the limitations of language, on a postcard.

To save me time, here is AI [wR] on the limit of language is representing reality;

Here are some key limitations of language in representing reality, explored by philosophers:

As with any programming, AI comes under the RIRO caveat. For example...

A 'representationalist' or 'correspondence' or 'truth-maker/ bearer' theory of language is the delusion that we have to recognise and overcome. And Wittgenstein's 'meaning is use' and 'language game' ideas provide a way to free us from the delusion - including the delusion that language is limited.

Language as a Model: Language doesn't perfectly mirror reality, but rather offers a simplified model. We use words and concepts to categorize and understand the world, but these categories may not capture the full complexity of experience. For instance, the color spectrum is continuous, but we use discrete terms like "red" and "blue."

Ambiguity and Vagueness: Words can have multiple meanings depending on context, leading to misunderstandings. Vague terms like "tall" or "big" further complicate matters. This ambiguity makes it hard to precisely represent some aspects of reality.

The Limits of Words: Language is discrete. We use definite categories and definitions, but reality can be more fluid and continuous. For example, the color spectrum is a gradient, but we use separate words for distinct colors (red, orange, yellow). This creates gaps and limitations in how precisely we can describe the world.

Unspoken Assumptions and Culture: Language reflects the cultural background of its speakers. Certain concepts or experiences might not have direct translations because they are specific to a particular culture. This makes it difficult to represent reality universally through language.

Limitations of Expression: Some experiences, like emotions, can be difficult to fully express through language. The feeling of awe at a breathtaking vista or the intimacy of love might be too nuanced for words to perfectly capture.

Thinkers who have explored these limitations:

Wittgenstein's Language Games: Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that language functions like a set of tools, each with specific uses. Trying to use language to represent reality outside its intended use can lead to philosophical problems.

These limitations don't negate the power of language. It allows us to share ideas, build knowledge, and connect with others. By understanding these limitations, we can become more precise and nuanced communicators.

Thinkers who have explored these limitations:
I add,
Eastern Philosophers understood the limits of language that they abandon it in their reflection of reality.

Where Western philosophy ends, with the limits of language, marks the beginning of Eastern philosophy. The Tao de jing of Laozi begins with the limitations of language and then proceeds from that as a starting point.
On the other hand, the limitation of language marks the end of Wittgenstein’s cogitations. In contrast to Wittgenstein, who thought that one should remain silent about that which cannot be put into words, the message of the Zhuangzi is that one can speak about that which cannot put into words but the speech will be strange and indirect. Through the focus on the monstrous character, No-Lips in the Zhuangzi, this paper argues that a key message of the Zhuangzi is that the art of transcending language in the Zhuangzi is through the use of crippled speech. The metaphor of crippled speech, speech which is actually unheard, illustrates that philosophical truths cannot be put into words but can be indirectly signified through the art of stretching language beyond its normal contours. This allows Eastern philosophy, through the philosophy of the Zhuangzi to transcend the limits of language.
https://philarchive.org/archive/ALLWLT

Also note, the [arrogant] Linguistic Turn of Analytic Philosophy had been subjected to severe criticisms.

Again,
...we have to be mindful of the limitations of language.
[/quote]

[Veritas Aequitas]

What are the limitations of language?

What can language not do that it could do if it weren't so limited?
Can a sign be the thing for which it is a sign?
Can a description be the described?
Can S know that p iff p is true? (The JTB truth-condition - one of three.)
Answers, mindful of the limitations of language, on a postcard.

To save me time, here is AI [wR] on the limit of language is representing reality;

Here are some key limitations of language in representing reality, explored by philosophers:

As with any programming, AI comes under the RIRO caveat. For example...

A 'representationalist' or 'correspondence' or 'truth-maker/ bearer' theory of language is the delusion that we have to recognise and overcome.
And Wittgenstein's 'meaning is use' and 'language game' ideas provide a way to free us from the delusion - including the delusion that language is limited.

I don't get it when you imply the above, that language is limited is a delusion.
Are you saying, the use of language is not limited, i.e. it is absolute? and we do not have to be mindful with the use of language and its inherent limitations?

You can side step the 'representationalist' or 'correspondence' or 'truth-maker/ bearer' theory of language as in Wittgenstein's "picture theory of language" or "picture theory of meaning".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picture_t ... f_language

But you are still caught up [on a ideological and dogmatic] with some refined idea of correspondence between the description [subjective] and absolutely human independent fact-in-itself. This is your philosophical realism (as below, in [mine] ).

Philosophical realism – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has [absolute] mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved [but never perfected to the ideal].

On the other hand, I am with empirical realism where I acknowledge [human]-mind-independence but that is merely relative, contingent, conditional and not absolute.

Btw, I have explained why your clinging-on to philosophical realism is a psychological issue and it is a hindrance to the progress of humanity.

[popeye1945]

All meanings are subjective property, for biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Meaning is never the property of the object, meaning is bestowed upon the object, which is otherwise meaningless. Meanings are the experiences of biology, which biology then projects upon a meaningless SUBJECTIVE WORLD. There is nothing in the physical world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to a conscious SUBJECTIVE subject. You do not know what is out there, what you do know is that what is out there affects you, altering your biological state. Apparent reality is the creation of biology out of the experiences of the surrounding energies to which it is attuned to. Ultimate reality is unmanifested energies, a place of no things.

[Belinda]

All meanings are subjective property, for biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Meaning is never the property of the object, meaning is bestowed upon the object, which is otherwise meaningless. Meanings are the experiences of biology, which biology then projects upon a meaningless SUBJECTIVE WORLD. There is nothing in the physical world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to a conscious SUBJECTIVE subject. You do not know what is out there, what you do know is that what is out there affects you, altering your biological state. Apparent reality is the creation of biology out of the experiences of the surrounding energies to which it is attuned to. Ultimate reality is unmanifested energies, a place of no things.

As an idealist I find that what you call "ultimate reality" and what I call "possibility" is rather hard to picture.

[popeye1945]

All meanings are subjective property, for biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Meaning is never the property of the object, meaning is bestowed upon the object, which is otherwise meaningless. Meanings are the experiences of biology, which biology then projects upon a meaningless SUBJECTIVE WORLD. There is nothing in the physical world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to a conscious SUBJECTIVE subject. You do not know what is out there, what you do know is that what is out there affects you, altering your biological state. Apparent reality is the creation of biology out of the experiences of the surrounding energies to which it is attuned to. Ultimate reality is unmanifested energies, a place of no things.

As an idealist I find that what you call "ultimate reality" and what I call "possibility" is rather hard to picture.

We are both right, ultimate reality as unmanifested energy is the possibility of its emergence through biology as the world of things. A place of no things is indeed difficult to envision.

[Magnus Anderson]

Here's the clincher: if the sequence was infinite to the left, that is, "infinitely regressive," then IT WOULD STILL BE WAITING TO BEGIN. When could it begin? Never. Because an infinite chain of prerequisites is required in order to arrive at the 0 event: and infinity, running backward, never begins.

Thus, if our universe were dependent on a regressing chain of causes, and that chain were infinite, THE UNIVERSE WOULD NOT EXIST. It couldn't ever get started. Its prerequisite conditions would recede infinitely, never finding a starting point.

And you can test it by using the chain we constructed to model the situation. Ask yourself this: if I stipulated to you that you could not write down "0" until you had written "-1" already, and couldn't write "-2" until you'd already written "-3", and so on infinitely, at what point would you get to put pen to paper?

The answer, of course, is "never." Just so, there would never be a universe if the causal sequence that produced it had to be infinitely regressive.

Aren't you presuming what you're supposed to prove, namely, that the universe must have a beginning?

[Magnus Anderson]

Maybe you should look at the etymology and meaning of "define". From the latin "finis" or "finire . End. Finish. To bring to an end.

To define the infinite is to put an end to the infinite. But the infinite is endless.

The sophist had you chasing our own tail because he's operating from a contradiction. He figures his salvation's guaranteed which gives him carte blanche to be intellectually dishonest - don't let him waste your time.

This further enhances my belief that you're operating from the Lockean base of resemblance theory of representation ( which, in itself, is probably a remnant of direct realism. ) Very outdated. But still, quite commonplace.

Representations do not have to RESEMBLE or LOOK LIKE reality in order to be accurate.
For example, you do not need an infinite representation in order to accurately represent something that is infinite.
In other words, by using a finite representation to represent something that is infinite, you are not necessarily "falsifying reality".

Representations are language-laden ( something you stubbornly deny, partly due to your own narrow understanding of the concept of language, but also, no doubt due to your own severe arrogance and stubbornness. )

The language you're using determines what your representation is saying. It determines what you're talking about ( the referenced portion of reality, the subject ) and it also determines what the referenced portion of reality must be in order for the representation to be accurate ( the subject. )

The word "cat" looks nothing like cats, yet it is can be used to accurately represent any cat.

And your definition of the word "define" is obsolete and irrelevant. The relevant meaning of the word "define" is "to describe the meaning of a word -- the concept attached to it."

As for the word "infinite", it simply means "a number larger than every integer"

[Skepdick]

This further enhances my belief that you're operating from the Lockean base of resemblance theory of representation ( which, in itself, is probably a remnant of direct realism. ) Very outdated. But still, quite commonplace.

Representations do not have to RESEMBLE or LOOK LIKE reality in order to be accurate.
For example, you do not need an infinite representation in order to accurately represent something that is infinite.
In other words, by using a finite representation to represent something that is infinite, you are not necessarily "falsifying reality".

Representations are language-laden ( something you stubbornly deny, partly due to your own narrow understanding of the concept of language, but also, no doubt due to your own severe arrogance and stubbornness. )

The language you're using determines what your representation is saying. It determines what you're talking about ( the referenced portion of reality, the subject ) and it also determines what the referenced portion of reality must be in order for the representation to be accurate ( the subject. )

The word "cat" looks nothing like cats, yet it is can be used to accurately represent any cat.

And your definition of the word "define" is obsolete and irrelevant. The relevant meaning of the word "define" is "to describe the meaning of a word -- the concept attached to it."

As for the word "infinite", it simply means "a number larger than every integer"

I mean, you keep getting everything wrong, why not this?

I reject representationalism in all of its forms. Give me your best non-representationalist take.

Try global expressivism. In the footsteps of Rorty and Brandom. Who knows?

[Belinda]

Symbols are representations,

A symbol may either express feelings , or a symbol may be arbitrary as happens with professional jargons.

Onomatopoeia is a symbolic form which literally re-presents a sound.

Some musical forms are intended by the composer and performers to directly represent something. The Vltava symphonic poem by Smetana is an outstanding example of music that represents a river.

Human language evolves by means of metaphor.

[Immanuel Can]

Here's the clincher: if the sequence was infinite to the left, that is, "infinitely regressive," then IT WOULD STILL BE WAITING TO BEGIN. When could it begin? Never. Because an infinite chain of prerequisites is required in order to arrive at the 0 event: and infinity, running backward, never begins.

Thus, if our universe were dependent on a regressing chain of causes, and that chain were infinite, THE UNIVERSE WOULD NOT EXIST. It couldn't ever get started. Its prerequisite conditions would recede infinitely, never finding a starting point.

And you can test it by using the chain we constructed to model the situation. Ask yourself this: if I stipulated to you that you could not write down "0" until you had written "-1" already, and couldn't write "-2" until you'd already written "-3", and so on infinitely, at what point would you get to put pen to paper?

The answer, of course, is "never." Just so, there would never be a universe if the causal sequence that produced it had to be infinitely regressive.

Aren't you presuming what you're supposed to prove, namely, that the universe must have a beginning?

Not a bit. I'm showing that mathematics proves that such a conclusion is inevitable.

[popeye1945]

What is objective is unperceived by organisms, for we do not experience what is; we experience how what is alters our biology, giving us experience/knowledge/meaning which we then bestow or project upon a meaningless world. Knowledge of the physical world is entirely subjective, from which we cannot escape. What is out there plays upon our biology as its instrument, and the melody it plays upon us is biological experience or a biological melody that spells apparent reality.

[Magnus Anderson]

I reject representationalism in all of its forms.

Exactly. And that's your problem.

[Skepdick]

I reject representationalism in all of its forms.

Exactly. And that's your problem.

It really isn't a problem for me. I am not trying to represent anything.

On the other hand you are (apparently) representing a "problem". Whatever that is...

[Martin Peter Clarke]

To the OP, I can't believe that such a dumb question can be asked, unless it was done 'ironically'.