What could make morality objective?

[Iwannaplato]

The ultimate true nature of reality is nothingness.

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

More importantly it is language-based assertion....and what FSK is it conditioned on?

And then, whatever this FSK is, it will be language-based.

[Skepdick]

No. My point is that so-called philosophical problems are linguistic in nature.

No, they aren't. The exact same language or philosophical methods; or arguments; or narratives; or even facts can be used for two different purposes.

One moral. One immoral.

This is but one trivial example of moral judgments being about language use, but not linguistic in nature.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

A Philosophical Realism
You insist there is no noumenon but your argument is directed at 'noumenon' or a thing-in-itself.
But, you have been arguing reality and things exist regardless of whether there are human or not. [this is philosophical realism]
Your claim imply they are noumena [not phenomena] that exists by-themselves or in-themselves absolutely independent of the human conditions [opinions, beliefs, judgments and descriptions]. This is the precise definition of Kant's noumena or things-in-themselves.
For example the moon predated humans and it [supposedly] will exists even if human are extinct.
You are unable to confirm 'ultimate true nature of things and reality' because it exists beyond your empirical thus impossible for you to describe its true nature.

B: Philosophical AntiRealism
If you claim "reality, knowledge and truth" are linguistic in nature thus about the ways WE do and how WE use those words, then it is ultimately contingent upon the WE, i.e. the human conditions.
As such, reality, knowledge and truth" [& objectivity] per your definition is contingent upon a human-based linguistic Framework and System [FS] of realization of reality and the description of realized reality.

If "reality, knowledge and truth" [& objectivity] is contingent upon a human-based [WE] linguistic FS, then logically and deductively, the realized reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions [the WE].

Note this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
For example, "This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact within a human-based linguistic FSERC.

If you refer to 'linguistic' as a foundation to your claim of "reality, knowledge and truth" [& objectivity], then it has to be conditioned upon the human conditions [the WE], there is no other way.

So you are in a contradiction and dilemma between A & B above.
How do you counter 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.

Note:
The ultimate true nature of reality is nothingness.
This nothingness is opposing your claim there is somethingness [of absolute independence] which is illusory.

It cannot be mystical because the "ultimate" true nature of reality is conditioned upon a human-based empirical framework and system.
If it is empirically-based it cannot be mystical because it can be verified and justified within the human-based science FS or FSERC.

On the other hand, your claim of a reality that is absolutely independent of human conditions but grounded on a human "dependent" linguistic framework and system is so contradictory thus mystical.
How can you counter this?

[Iwannaplato]

It cannot be mystical because the "ultimate" true nature of reality is conditioned upon a human-based empirical framework and system.
If it is empirically-based it cannot be mystical because it can be verified and justified within the human-based science FS or FSERC.

None of which are language-independent. All FSKs are language based. This may cause problems for PH, but it certainly causes problems for you and this idea of non-verbal truth and nothingness etc.

[Atla]

The ultimate true nature of reality is nothingness.
...
the "ultimate" true nature of reality is conditioned upon a human-based empirical framework and system.

Marry a perversion of an Eastern insight to a perverson of a Western insight, and use it for campaigning purposes. This is anything but philosophy.

[Iwannaplato]

The ultimate true nature of reality is nothingness.
...
the "ultimate" true nature of reality is conditioned upon a human-based empirical framework and system.

Marry a perversion of an Eastern insight to a perverson of a Western insight, and use it for campaigning purposes. This is anything but philosophy.

I don't know if it's new that he's tossing in empirical before framework and system, perhaps hoping that meditation will now somehow fall into his obviously language-based FSK system. But it's not enough to gloss over the contradictions, which keep piling up.

Also I don't think he's notice that for years he argued that all of reality was dependent on humans and his demonstrations was that others could not demonstrate anything else existed (being humans). This sophistry is now haunting his foray into Eastern 'philosophy'.

[Peter Holmes]

Here's the anatomy of my argument with VA, using trees as an example.

1 Most of us think the things we call trees existed before humans evolved, would have existed had humans not evolved, and probably will exist when humans have gone.

Note. Of course, this belief is based on only - but also all - the evidence we humans have.

2 VA then defines those trees - referred to in #1 - as noumena, or trees-in-themselves.

Note. Like any definition of a thing, this is a linguistic description - not to be mistaken for the described. And anyway, most of us can't assess this description, because we have no idea what it means. The term 'thing-in-itself' is incoherent.

3 VA then stipulates that noumena, such as trees-in-themselves, don't exist.

Note. First, this is to mistake a description for the described. Second, to invent a fiction, and then to deny its existence, is an absurd exercise.

4 VA then concludes that the trees referred to in #1 are illusions - and that only the trees for which we humans have evidence are real.

Perhaps aware of the irrefutably vicious circularity of this argument - based on a silly definition - VA then stirs in some eastern mystical claptrap, as follows.

1 There is no reality-in-itself (noumenon).
2 There is a reality-in-itself (noumenon), but it happens to be nothingness.

There is no cure for the resolutely stupid.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's the anatomy of my argument with VA, using trees as an example.

1 Most of us think the things we call trees existed before humans evolved, would have existed had humans not evolved, and probably will exist when humans have gone.

Note. Of course, this belief is based on only - but also all - the evidence we humans have.

Strawman as usual.
In condemning my views as stupid you are only exposing your own ignorance, shallow-narrow thinking and stupidity.

I don't deny 1, but the difference is I do not insist upon it as absolute and as a dogmatic ideology.
Rather I accept 1 only within the common sense & conventional sense and contingent within a human-based FSERC.

VA believes in an Independent External Reality
viewtopic.php?t=42369&sid=080b3f06a3e20 ... 5fb08027c9

Whatever is within 1 is real but contingent upon a human-based FS or FSERC.

2 VA then defines those trees - referred to in #1 - as noumena, or trees-in-themselves.
Note. Like any definition of a thing, this is a linguistic description - not to be mistaken for the described. And anyway, most of us can't assess this description, because we have no idea what it means. The term 'thing-in-itself' is incoherent.

I did not define what is in 1 in the common sense and conventional as noumena.

As a philosophical realist you differentiate between the linguistic description and THE DESCRIBED which you have no idea what is 'really' means.
This is your problem, you insist there is THE DESCRIBED but you don't even know what it is its real ultimate nature, i.e. you don't know what it mean.
Note Meno's Paradox.

So, you are merely speculating there is something THE DESCRIBED as something absolutely real [to you, not me] and is absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
Since you are merely speculating, there is a possibility there is no such thing.
Kant named this speculated absolute thing as a noumenon or thing-in-itself which is not incoherent when it is linked your speculated real absolute thing.

3 VA then stipulates that noumena, such as trees-in-themselves, don't exist.

Note. First, this is to mistake a description for the described. Second, to invent a fiction, and then to deny its existence, is an absurd exercise.

As explained above, what is noumena or things-in-themselves [tree-in-themselves] is what you claimed as your speculated absolutely real things, THE DESCRIBED.
Kant demonstrated this absolutely independent THE-DESCRIBED-in-itself [tree-in-itself] (not the description) as claimed by you to be real CANNOT exists as real; what your claimed as absolutely independent, i.e. trees-in-themselves are illusions in contrast to what is really real, i.e. FSERC_ed-trees [as verified and justified by the human-based FSERC].

4 VA then concludes that the trees referred to in #1 are illusions - and that only the trees for which we humans have evidence are real.

What I concluded in #1 as illusions are, "what you claimed as real and absolutely independent of the human conditions.

What I claimed as trees that are real are what emerged and is realized within a human-based FSER and FSK, e.g. the scientific FSERC as the most credible and objective realization of reality.

Perhaps aware of the irrefutably vicious circularity of this argument - based on a silly definition - VA then stirs in some eastern mystical claptrap, as follows.

1 There is no reality-in-itself (noumenon).
2 There is a reality-in-itself (noumenon), but it happens to be nothingness.

There is no cure for the resolutely stupid.

Why you think there is circularity is merely based on your own primitive and kindi level of thinking.

My claim is, only the philosophical realists like you insist ideologically and dogmatically there is reality-in-itself [noumenon] when such is merely nothingness and illusory.

1 There is no reality-in-itself (noumenon) as claimed by PH as a philosophical realist.
2 PH claims, there is a reality-in-itself (noumenon), but it happens to be nothingness and is illusory.

When the Eastern philosophers understood the above illusory claims of the philosophical realists, they claimed to be enlightened. So, "Chop Wood, Carry Water".

There is no cure for the resolutely stupid.

To condemn something as stupid when you have not understand [not agree with] it merely expose your kindi-, primitive, shallow-narrow thinking and stupidity.

[Atla]

1 There is no reality-in-itself (noumenon) as claimed by PH as a philosophical realist.
2 PH claims, there is a reality-in-itself (noumenon), but it happens to be nothingness and is illusory.

When the Eastern philosophers understood the above illusory claims of the philosophical realists, they claimed to be enlightened. So, "Chop Wood, Carry Water".

What is illusory is dividing reality into distinct things, and thinking that these distinct things have their own essences. "Enlightenment" roughly comes from realizing what this means for the human self.

It's not about Kant's dumb philosophy and it's no about some idiotic idea about literal nothingness.

[Peter Holmes]

Here's the anatomy of my argument with VA, using trees as an example.

1 Most of us think the things we call trees existed before humans evolved, would have existed had humans not evolved, and probably will exist when humans have gone.

Note. Of course, this belief is based on only - but also all - the evidence we humans have.

Strawman as usual.
In condemning my views as stupid you are only exposing your own ignorance, shallow-narrow thinking and stupidity.

I don't deny 1, but the difference is I do not insist upon it as absolute and as a dogmatic ideology.
Rather I accept 1 only within the common sense & conventional sense and contingent within a human-based FSERC.

Trees existed, would have existed, and probably will exist WITHOUT HUMANS, FULL STOP. There's nothing ideological or dogmatic or contingent about this fact. It just is the case.

VA believes in an Independent External Reality
viewtopic.php?t=42369&sid=080b3f06a3e20 ... 5fb08027c9

Whatever is within 1 is real but contingent upon a human-based FS or FSERC.

This is a DEFINITION or STIPULATION - not an argument.

2 VA then defines those trees - referred to in #1 - as noumena, or trees-in-themselves.
Note. Like any definition of a thing, this is a linguistic description - not to be mistaken for the described. And anyway, most of us can't assess this description, because we have no idea what it means. The term 'thing-in-itself' is incoherent.

I did not define what is in 1 in the common sense and conventional as noumena.

YES, THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT YOU DO. You claim that those trees - which very obviously existed, would have existed, and probably will exist completely, utterly and absolutely independently from humans - are noumena or trees-in-themselves. Which you then ridiculously claim don't exist.

As a philosophical realist you differentiate between the linguistic description and THE DESCRIBED which you have no idea what is 'really' means.
This is your problem, you insist there is THE DESCRIBED but you don't even know what it is its real ultimate nature, i.e. you don't know what it mean.

But, according to you, TREES HAVE NO REAL ULTIMATE NATURE - there are no noumenal trees - so there's NOTHING for me NOT TO KNOW.

Note Meno's Paradox.

So, you are merely speculating there is something THE DESCRIBED as something absolutely real [to you, not me] and is absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

It's not speculation, ffs. Those trees - that existed, would have existed, and probably will exist - did, do and will exist completely, absolutely, utterly and gloriously independently, regardless of whether there were, are and will be humans. WE KNOW THIS TO BE THE CASE.

Since you are merely speculating, there is a possibility there is no such thing.

Now, there's the actual speculation, with not a scintilla of evidence.

Kant named this speculated absolute thing as a noumenon or thing-in-itself which is not incoherent when it is linked your speculated real absolute thing.

3 VA then stipulates that noumena, such as trees-in-themselves, don't exist.

Note. First, this is to mistake a description for the described. Second, to invent a fiction, and then to deny its existence, is an absurd exercise.

As explained above, what is noumena or things-in-themselves [tree-in-themselves] is what you claimed as your speculated absolutely real things, THE DESCRIBED.
Kant demonstrated this absolutely independent THE-DESCRIBED-in-itself [tree-in-itself] (not the description) as claimed by you to be real CANNOT exists as real; what your claimed as absolutely independent, i.e. trees-in-themselves are illusions in contrast to what is really real, i.e. FSERC_ed-trees [as verified and justified by the human-based FSERC].

And here's the circular idiocy. Define the trees that existed before humans evolved - and therefore independent from humans - as 'trees-in-themselves' - and then declare that there are no trees-in-themselves - that such things are illusions - and that only trees-as-perceived-known-and-described-by-humans are real. It's a complete mind-warp. No wonder it's turned you and many others inside out.

4 VA then concludes that the trees referred to in #1 are illusions - and that only the trees for which we humans have evidence are real.

What I concluded in #1 as illusions are, "what you claimed as real and absolutely independent of the human conditions.

What I claimed as trees that are real are what emerged and is realized within a human-based FSER and FSK, e.g. the scientific FSERC as the most credible and objective realization of reality.

Perhaps aware of the irrefutably vicious circularity of this argument - based on a silly definition - VA then stirs in some eastern mystical claptrap, as follows.

1 There is no reality-in-itself (noumenon).
2 There is a reality-in-itself (noumenon), but it happens to be nothingness.

There is no cure for the resolutely stupid.

Why you think there is circularity is merely based on your own primitive and kindi level of thinking.

My claim is, only the philosophical realists like you insist ideologically and dogmatically there is reality-in-itself [noumenon] when such is merely nothingness and illusory.

1 There is no reality-in-itself (noumenon) as claimed by PH as a philosophical realist.
2 PH claims, there is a reality-in-itself (noumenon), but it happens to be nothingness and is illusory.

When the Eastern philosophers understood the above illusory claims of the philosophical realists, they claimed to be enlightened. So, "Chop Wood, Carry Water".

There is no cure for the resolutely stupid.

To condemn something as stupid when you have not understand [not agree with] it merely expose your kindi-, primitive, shallow-narrow thinking and stupidity.

Sadly, I understand your 'argument' - and your eastern mystical claptrap - only too well. It's been around for a very long time.

[Skepdick]

Sadly, I understand your 'argument' - and your eastern mystical claptrap.

Finally! If you've understood the mystical then surely you must have understood why morality is objective?

Or are you still mystified about that?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's the anatomy of my argument with VA, using trees as an example.

1 Most of us think the things we call trees existed before humans evolved, would have existed had humans not evolved, and probably will exist when humans have gone.

Note. Of course, this belief is based on only - but also all - the evidence we humans have.

Strawman as usual.
In condemning my views as stupid you are only exposing your own ignorance, shallow-narrow thinking and stupidity.

I don't deny 1, but the difference is I do not insist upon it as absolute and as a dogmatic ideology.
Rather I accept 1 only within the common sense & conventional sense and contingent within a human-based FSERC.

Trees existed, would have existed, and probably will exist WITHOUT HUMANS, FULL STOP. There's nothing ideological or dogmatic or contingent about this fact. It just is the case.

You are using your kindi thinking to insist upon the above to generate consonances to soothe the real cognitive dissonance.
This is a serious issue that has been raised within philosophy since > 2500 years ago.

Philosophical skepticism is one important form of skepticism. It rejects knowledge claims that seem certain from the perspective of common sense. Radical forms of philosophical skepticism deny that "knowledge or rational belief is possible" and urge us to suspend judgment on many or all controversial matters. More moderate forms claim only that nothing can be known with certainty, or that we can know little or nothing about nonempirical matters, such as whether God exists, whether human beings have free will, or whether there is an afterlife.
In ancient philosophy, skepticism was understood as a way of life associated with inner peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

You are claiming nonsense to calm your inner peace, while the skeptics simply suspend judgment. The Kantians has other ways to address the cognitive dissonances.

Note this reality.

It is just the case, WITHOUT HUMANS, there is no way the conclusion "Trees existed, would have existed, and probably will exist" is possible at all.
How can you prove it is possible?

No Humans = No Human-based Reality
viewtopic.php?t=42291

I will address the other points later.

[Peter Holmes]

Strawman as usual.
In condemning my views as stupid you are only exposing your own ignorance, shallow-narrow thinking and stupidity.

I don't deny 1, but the difference is I do not insist upon it as absolute and as a dogmatic ideology.
Rather I accept 1 only within the common sense & conventional sense and contingent within a human-based FSERC.

Trees existed, would have existed, and probably will exist WITHOUT HUMANS, FULL STOP. There's nothing ideological or dogmatic or contingent about this fact. It just is the case.

You are using your kindi thinking to insist upon the above to generate consonances to soothe the real cognitive dissonance.
This is a serious issue that has been raised within philosophy since > 2500 years ago.

Philosophical skepticism is one important form of skepticism. It rejects knowledge claims that seem certain from the perspective of common sense. Radical forms of philosophical skepticism deny that "knowledge or rational belief is possible" and urge us to suspend judgment on many or all controversial matters. More moderate forms claim only that nothing can be known with certainty, or that we can know little or nothing about nonempirical matters, such as whether God exists, whether human beings have free will, or whether there is an afterlife.
In ancient philosophy, skepticism was understood as a way of life associated with inner peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

You are claiming nonsense to calm your inner peace, while the skeptics simply suspend judgment. The Kantians has other ways to address the cognitive dissonances.

Note this reality.

It is just the case, WITHOUT HUMANS, there is no way the conclusion "Trees existed, would have existed, and probably will exist" is possible at all.
How can you prove it is possible?

No Humans = No Human-based Reality
viewtopic.php?t=42291

I will address the other points later.

Here's the idiocy, again - beginning with a silly, incoherent, meaningless definition.

P1 Things that exist completely independent from humans are 'things-in-themselves'.
P2 There are no things-in-themselves.*
C Therefore, there are no things that exist completely independent from humans.

*PS Eastern mystical claptrap: reality-in-itself is nothingness.

[Skepdick]

*PS Eastern mystical claptrap: reality-in-itself is nothingness.

It's literally true, dumbo. Reality is NOT a thing. NO-THING-NESS.

How incompetent are you at understanding?

[Skepdick]

Here's the idiocy, again - beginning with a silly, incoherent, meaningless definition.

"Your words are silly, incoherent and meaningless but mine aren't" is always such a cute gambit....