Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[creation]

Now, if you disagree with (A), (B), and (C), then why?

Re (A), there is no "actual right and wrong."

Now is this absolutely, without doubt 100% actually Right, or is this just a view you have, which you may or may not assume and/or believe is right?

See, a person cannot state that something like: There is no actual right and wrong, which admitting that this could actually be WRONG itself.

So, if what you said could be wrong, then why do you claim it to be absolutely right, as this is exactly the way your statement is proposed as being.

What it would be for there to be an "actual right and wrong," what it would require for anything to do the work of an "actual right and wrong," would be for moral stances to be "embedded" in the extramental world somehow.

As I said previously: Agreement (and acceptance if you like). It really is this SIMPLE.

If, and when, you stop thinking of 'right and wrong', or 'true and false', being "embedded" in the extramental world, then you will decease with the constant absolute beliefs that you have and are sharing here with us now.

Right and wrong in regards to moral issues/discussions is about how human beings behave (and/or misbehave). The way human beings behave (or misbehave) creates the so called "world" they live. This "world" is not some extramental physical only world like earth and the objects on it are. This "world" is the 'way of life' human beings are living in and with.

What is actually right and wrong in relation to the way human beings behave just simply comes down to what 'way of life' do human beings really want to be living in, or with?

If human beings want to live in and with peace and harmony with each other, then they just need to be only doing 'that' what is right in Life.

If, however, human beings want to live in, and with, the way that they attempt to get as much 'things' as they can for their own self and a few select others, then they will just continue on doing the wrong, which they are continually doing now.

What the 'anything' is that would be required to do the "work" of an 'actual right and wrong', which you say would be "for moral stances to be "embedded" in the extramental world somehow" is actually not "embedded" in the extramental world but rather 'embedded' within human beings instead. Human beings choose to do the right, or the wrong, that they do do. Human beings are completely free to choose what they want to do. Human beings, however, in the days of when this is written, have not yet obtained enough of the 'right' views of things in order to yet be able to do only 'that' what is right in Life.

To obtain the knowledge of what is right, and what is wrong, in Life, then one just needs to be Truly Honest and Open, and seriously Want to change for the better. Not just for themselves but for others, and especially for children.

But they're not. No other option (with respect to anything we name "actual right and wrong") can do the same work that moral stances embedded in the extramental world would do.

Among your views is it even possible for 'actual right and wrong' to even be embedded in the extramental world?

If yes, then how could this even be possible?

But if no, then why even bring this up?

(B) There is no fact that everyone agrees on.

If this is what you believe is true, then it must be true, correct?

For you to have arrived at such a conclusive without any doubt at all absolute conclusion, then that would infer that you have considered absolutely EVERY known thing and checked that there is not one fact in the entire Universe that everyone agrees with, correct?

Also, have you ever considered if something is a 'fact' then no one could actually logically disagree with it?

But you may have and be using a different definition for the word 'fact'?

(C) Multiple reasons here:
(i) No moral stance of mine amounts to, "Just in case one does not need to do x, then x is wrong" (For all conceivable x)
(ii) I don't at all feel that it's wrong to eat animals. Moral stances are ultimately ways that we FEEL about behavior.

How we FEEL are based on FEELINGS (emotions or internal feelings). You might say 'moral stances' are 'ultimately' ways that you FEEL about behavior. But I would suggest 'moral issues' are based around logically reasoned discussions.

Are you aware that some children for example LOVE being sexually abused? If not, then you are now. So, for them, and their so called 'moral stance', which, according to you, revolves ultimately around the way they FEEL about a behavior, means to them child sexual abuse is an all right behavior, this is according to your "logic" anyway, which does not need to be said but I will anyway is a WRONG behavior.

See, what is right and what is wrong in Life is 'that' what we ALL agree with.

(i) Why do you use the word 'stance' with the word 'moral'? This implies there is no changing the way one already FEELS about a behavior.
You completely MISSED the point I was making. I NEVER said nor implied anything like, "Just in case one does not need to do x, then x is wrong". This is just a manufactured illusion of your own making, which has come from your own presumptive thinking. But I accept that no 'moral stance' of yours amounts to what you wrote here.
By the way, what do your 'moral stances' amount to, or from, exactly? Are they only to, or from, the way you, alone, FEEL about a behavior?

If yes, then I would suggest never letting your FEELINGS control the way you behave.

But if no, then what else do your 'moral stances' amount to, or from other than just the way you, alone, FEEL about a behavior?

See, because you are looking at this solely from your own personal subjective point of view only, then that is why you have not yet seen and understood what is ACTUALLY right and wrong in Life. You are also, unfortunately, missing out on seeing and understanding what thee actual Truth of things is here as well, by the way. But this is the consequence of not looking at things from the Truly objective perspective.

Because absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, if you only look at things from your own perspective only, then you will not see anything else other than what you already assume and/or believe is what is right and true.

[GE Morton]

No, it doesn't. But all "addressing" it does.

Sure, but the tasking isn't primarily to analyze addressing it. That's for linguists, etc. The task is analyze the world.

Any analysis you come up with will be conceptualized via a linguistic construct.

What they are "really like" is whatever we say they are really like,

No. It's not dependent on that at all. People can and frequently do get things wrong. It's not determined by what people say. That's an argumentum ad populum.

Well, you left off the qualifier in the statement you quoted there, namely, " . . . provided that what we say allows us to communicate information to one another and to anticipate and predict future experiences." That's how we decide whether what someone says is right or wrong.

You (and many others) need to give up this idea that there is some perfect description of the world, some external "reality" to which our humble conceptions can be compared and of which they are mere approximations. That is a Quixotic quest; no such comparison is possible. The "real world" is the world we perceive, plus any constructs, entities, processes, categories, hypotheticals we might invent that help us understand what we perceive. The "real world" we experience and conceive is largely our own invention --- a mental model we've constructed to organize and relate the information our several senses deliver to us. We've improved on that model over the centuries, and more improvements are surely possible, but the criterion for improvement is whether the new model better enables us to predict future phenomenal experience --- NOT whether it is "closer to reality." That imagined "reality" is forever inaccessible to us.

[GE Morton]

Because absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, if you only look at things from your own perspective only, then you will not see anything else other than what you already assume and/or believe is what is right and true.

Er, creation, no one can possibly look at things from any perspective but his own. One can evaluate what someone else SAYS about something, but that is not the same as "seeing things from his perspective."

Nor is "everything relative to an observer." "2+2 = 4," and, "Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen" are not relative to any observers.

[creation]

I've had to delete the rest of your idiotic ramblings.

Why do you believe that you 'had to'?

You 'could have' just left them here.

See, if you want to look at and see thee actual Truth of things, then you have to speak thee Truth of things.

I'll just deal with your idiotic concluding remarks.

Okay, if this is all you can do and will do, then this is okay with me.

You believe that you have the right to protect your own dog, and you have no doubt that you would protect you own dog to the detriment of any other being - human or animal if she were in danger, correct?

Yes

If yes, then is this right to protect also afforded to others and their dogs, or children, or just to you and your dog?

I don't care about others as much as my dog.

Although what you said here was already clearly obvious before, you exposing this yourself now says and shows a great deal about 'you'.

See, if I was walking with my baby and your dog started to not trust my child, then do I have a right to protect my own child to the detriment of your dog?

No an issue. She is scared of toddlers and wont go near them. If you were to be stupid enough to allow your child to pester and tease my dog then I would see that as just were she to give your child a nip.

Then I could see that as an excuse to protect my own child to the detriment of your dog, which, according to your rules, would be perfectly fine and acceptable under your circumstances but I am not sure that this would be perfectly fine and acceptable for me to do this, in this circumstance.

See, if you are going to hold a view about something like this, then it is best that you hold for ALL, and not just yourself. Unless of course you think and/or believe that you are better and/or more superior than others.

If you complained I probably have to give you a lesson in child control. If you persisted in your stupid behaviour I'd have to give you a slap.

And, then I could shoot you dead, to protect myself to the detriment of 'you'.

See, your way of thinking is part of the reason WHY there is so much hostility and warring in the world.

Would you allow me to protect my child or dog by shooting your dog dead for instance if I thought my dog or my child was in danger from your dog?

You hurt my dog, you die.

Just as I suspected your most narrowest and most selfish of views would be.

The amount of selfishness in the "world" that exists in the days of when this is being written is absolutely astounding, especially considering what human beings are and where they came from.

Obviously, if your dog did not trust my child, and I wanted to make the interpretation that your dog was showing aggression to my child so now my child was in danger, then do I have the same right as you believe you have to protect your dog?

You are worth less to me than my dog's welfare.
Reading what you wrote in your last response you are worth less to the world than infected yeast.
Have a nice day.

So, once again, you actually believe that 'you' and the selected few to you, are the only important things in Life and if you feel anything against you and your dog, then you believe that you have the right to so called "protect" to the detriment of any other living thing/human being. Yet, you do not afford this same right to absolutely anything else in the Universe when this is turned around it is you and your dog that we are protecting ourselves from.

You actually believe that you have the right to go around slapping others, scaring others with your dog, and even killing others whenever you feel like it. But, absolutely NOTHING in the Universe has the right to ever do absolutely anything like this to you, nor to your dog.

[creation]

Well you have obviously made assumptions and jumped to wrong conclusions without ever clarifying with me what I am actually saying and meaning. This assuming and jumping to conclusions, without clarity, is probably the biggest fundamental and elementary reason why there is so much misunderstanding and confusion among adult human beings in the days of when this is being written.

I am NOT trying to derive an "ought" from an "is" at all. To me, an "ought" is like a "should", which both are just one's own view of things, which are being expected to be agreed with and/or followed by others. This is exactly NOT what I do.

If you read what I actually wrote, instead of just making assumptions based on your own already previously held views and/or beliefs, then you might have seen what I was actually getting at. That is; what is 'necessary' in Life plays a part, with 'agreement and acceptance' with and by everyone, on what is (morally) right and wrong in Life.

Well, you just contradicted yourself, and your own previous claim. You say, "I am NOT trying to derive an "ought" from an "is" at all," then proceed immediately to do just that: " . . .what is 'necessary' in Life plays a part, with 'agreement and acceptance' with and by everyone, on what is (morally) right and wrong in Life."

This is not a contradiction at all, that is; IF you want to delve into this. Do you want to look fully into this, or have you already decided what that I said is a contradiction, and this is the end of the matter?

Or, would you like to know WHY what I wrote is not a contradiction?

"What is morally right and wrong in life" is a normative, an "ought," statement.

Obviously what can be seen when looked at FULLY is, 'What is morally right and wrong in Life' is NOT a normative, an "ought" statement at all.

'What is morally right and wrong in Life' is just a statement that is not yet finished.

"What is necessary" and "Agreement and acceptance by everyone" are factual statements ("is" statements).

So what?

What is moral cannot be deduced from what is necessary or what is accepted. That is a logical error.

You are free to believe whatever you like in Life, and if this is what you believe, then so be it.

But what you believe is not necessarily true, right, nor correct at all.

And,



"Oughts" are not "just one's own view of things." They are advisories, are instrumental, and can be objective.

Name just ONE so called "ought", which is objective.

By the way, where do you think 'advisories' and/or 'instrumentals' in relation to "oughts" come from exactly if they do not come from one's own view of things?

You're clearly not familiar with the terminology of this field. I'd suggest trying to acquire a deeper background in moral philosophy.

LOL

As if you or any other of the millions of human beings prior to you have some True understanding of 'moral philosophy' YET.

Have you, or any of those others, ever considered WHY none of you have arrived at any conclusive resolution yet, although human beings have been trying for thousands upon thousands of years?

Have any of you ever considered that it is the actual 'terminology' that you have been using is the cause of why you are all still so utterly confused in relation to something, which is in essence absolutely simple, and extremely easy to understand?

Of course I did not know previously some of the terminology used here. This is the very reason WHY I asked some of the very specific clarifying questions I did. And, unlike every other person I have dealt with in these forums "terrapin station" is the only one who has always clarified my questions in regards to my not yet knowing some of the terminology being used.

What do you think is the best thing to do if you believe someone is not yet familiar with the terminology in a particular field? Just telling them that they are clearly not familiar with that terminology, informing them of what that terminology means, TO YOU, or doing something else?

If it is the latter, then what else do you think is the best thing to do.

Also, I do NOT want to acquire more of the so called "deeper background" into the thousands of years of disagreeing.

I only want to express some of my views regarding 'morality', which I KNOW can and will create what the whole purpose of morality is for, as well as ask some clarifying questions to gauge more understanding of what other's views are, and where they came from exactly.

Now, hopefully you have clarified some and better still ALL of my clarifying questions asked to you here, but either way you have made the claim that "What is moral cannot be deduced from ...". So, if you know what is moral cannot be deduced from, then this implies that you do know what is moral can actually be deduced from.

Therefore, what do you say what is moral can be deduced from exactly?

[GE Morton]

Obviously what can be seen when looked at FULLY is, 'What is morally right and wrong in Life' is NOT a normative, an "ought" statement at all.

Sorry, but it is. You need to learn the meanings of those words.

[GE Morton]

What do you think is the best thing to do if you believe someone is not yet familiar with the terminology in a particular field? Just telling them that they are clearly not familiar with that terminology, informing them of what that terminology means, TO YOU, or doing something else?

If it is the latter, then what else do you think is the best thing to do.

I already answered that: try to acquire some background in philosophy. If you''re not familiar with the terminology, then you'll surely not be familiar with the many questions that have been asked and issues that have been raised and the various answers and solutions offered, or with the theories developed and the arguments for them. It is not subject you can approach naively, "off the top of your head," and expect to contribute anything constructive, or even coherent.

What the history of philosophy provides, if not definitive answers to every philosophical question, is a framework for cogent discussion of those issues. You need to study that history so you can make use of that framework.

Now, hopefully you have clarified some and better still ALL of my clarifying questions asked to you here, but either way you have made the claim that "What is moral cannot be deduced from ...". So, if you know what is moral cannot be deduced from, then this implies that you do know what is moral can actually be deduced from.

Therefore, what do you say what is moral can be deduced from exactly?

Read the backthread of this thread. That should give you some idea.

[creation]

An option where a larger field of view is able to be obtained from.

Or,

An option where one is able to gain a wider and bigger perspective of things from.

This obviously means to look at any and all things from the objective point of view is better than looking from a subjective point of view only.

What makes a "larger field of view," a "wider and bigger perspective" or "the objective point of view" better?

Because a view from ALL things will obviously always provide a much better view or better perspective than a view from a smaller number of things.

1. While everyone is agreeing on an issue being right, then, for that time being, there is obviously no one saying it could be wrong. Therefore, for that time, what is said is right has to be right.

It's not possible for everyone to be wrong?

Again you are making a statement, and just putting a question mark at the end of it.

Of course it is possible for everyone to be wrong if they are all saying some thing that is wrong. But, because I, for one, would NOT agree with something, which could be wrong, then this means that it is not possible for everyone to be wrong.

The only way for people to be wrong is to assume, believe, and/or say something is true without KNOWING ALL of the facts.

I do not like to assume anything, nor do I believe any thing, so that leaves me to say something is right or true, which is actually wrong or false. I would not say some thing is right (or true) if I was unsure, therefore not everyone will be agreeing. So, if not everyone is agreeing, then it could not be and is not possible for everyone to be wrong.

I would only agree on something that I KNOW is right (true, or correct). So, everyone will only agree on only 'that', which is true, right, and correct.

2. Not everyone would agree on an issue being right if it could be wrong in any possible way.

Weird. That seems like a completely arbitrary thing to think.

This may well appear weird and seem like a completely arbitrary thing to think, to you, but, depending on how you are defining the 'arbitrary' word here, is there anything wrong in thinking arbitrarily?

If you would like to delve into this more, look at it further and more carefully, and discuss this in more detail, then what can be shown is that this is true, right, and correct, in and of itself.

Would you agree on an issue being right if it could be wrong in any possible way?

If yes, then why?

But, if no, then I have just proven that that statement to be factually true.

[creation]

There are some views that are known and there are some views that have yet to be made aware of. Of course those views that are shared are known, but there are other views that you are unaware of.

See, when 'you' discover who and what thee 'I' is actually, and who and what the 'you' actually is, then this will be much better understood, and much easier to understand.

I don't buy that I can have a view that I'm not aware of.

With every view you obtain were you previously aware that you could have that view?

Also, this is not about 'buying' any thing.

This is about the views that you will obtain, of which you were or are not yet aware of.

If thee actual Truth be known absolutely every view you have you were not previously aware of.

[creation]

Because absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, if you only look at things from your own perspective only, then you will not see anything else other than what you already assume and/or believe is what is right and true.

Er, creation, no one can possibly look at things from any perspective but his own.

As I just said, and clearly wrote: If you only look at things from your own perspective only, (which you are doing right here now), then you will not see anything else other than what you already assume and/or believe is what is right and true, which has just been clearly demonstrated and proven to be a true fact from the very words you just wrote here now.

If you assume and/or believe this is true and right, then you are not able to discover, learn, and/or understand just how you are able to see things from the perspective of others, or more commonly known as 'through the eyes of others'.

One can evaluate what someone else SAYS about something, but that is not the same as "seeing things from his perspective."

So, are you not at all able in absolutely any way at all to 'see things from another's perspective'?

Are you completely incapacitated of this ability and thus have absolutely no ability at all to 'see things from other's perspectives'?

If you answer 'yes' to both or either of these clarifying questions, then there is a name for this 'disorder'.

Nor is "everything relative to an observer." "2+2 = 4," and, "Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen" are not relative to any observers.

So, who is looking at this and deciding if this is true, right, and/or correct or not?

If there is not an observer looking at these things and making decisions relative to what they see, then what exactly is going on here?

Was there NO observer/s around at all when the numbers 2 and 4 were dreamed up, devised, invented, and/or created, and were there NO observers around who decided that when we add 2 to 2 then it makes 4? Is there NO observers anywhere agreeing with and accepting that 2+2=4 as this is relative to my views, which are based solely upon my past experiences, which tells me that this is true, right, and correct?

If 2+2 equaling 4 is not relative to any observers, and, water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen is also not relative to any observers, then how exactly did this math and knowledge actually come about?

You are clearly not familiar with the way I look at and see thing, which you have already partly explained and shown that you do not have the capability at all to do this anyway, so this is understandable. We will just have to wait for clarification though.

Also, I would suggest you acquiring a deeper background in understanding, and in just knowledge itself before you start making statements as though you KNOW thee actual Truth of things. For example, name one thing that is NOT relative to the observer, or if you want to stick with your examples above, then did you answer my clarifying questions and explain how knowledge comes about if it is not relative to any observer?

From my perspective it appears now you are fighting/arguing for one side with me, yet fighting/arguing for the exact opposite side, with "terrapin station". But, admittedly, I have read just about nothing of what you two are talking about.

By the way, have you yet provided a view of; "What could make morality objective?"

Either way, would you like to share it (again)?

[creation]

Obviously what can be seen when looked at FULLY is, 'What is morally right and wrong in Life' is NOT a normative, an "ought" statement at all.

Sorry, but it is. You need to learn the meanings of those words.

I did learn the meaning of some of those words when "terrapin station" kindly provided me with this learning. But, I apologize profusely if I do not have the exact same meanings of those words as you do. But if you expect others to have and hold the exact same meanings of words as you do, then just to forewarn you, you are going to be very disappointed and upset.

As for how I mean the words "should" and "ought" is as being forceful words, which, obviously, NO one likes being forced to do any thing at all. Unless of course when some people like to be forced to do some things, but only of their wanting. Obviously, in most case regarding living a moral life, for all of their life, NO one wants to be forced to be doing things all of this time.

If you believe that 'what is morally right and wrong in Life' is a statement proposed, which others "should" or "ought" to agree with, accept, and/or follow, then you have got the absolutely WRONG idea about what being 'moral' is really all about. Unless of course you can prove that you do KNOW what being 'moral' is all about. And, if you can prove this, then I await your proof.

Are you even at all able to name just one What is morally right and wrong in Life "ought" statement?

If you think or believe you can, then go right ahead and show it to us. I, for one, would love to see it.

By the way, have you even considered to even just stop and wonder what I actually mean when I wrote: 'What is morally right and wrong in Life' is NOT a normative, an "ought" statement at all? Or, is this not even worth considering in doing because you believe you already KNOW what is true, right, and correct here?

[creation]

What do you think is the best thing to do if you believe someone is not yet familiar with the terminology in a particular field? Just telling them that they are clearly not familiar with that terminology, informing them of what that terminology means, TO YOU, or doing something else?

If it is the latter, then what else do you think is the best thing to do.

I already answered that: try to acquire some background in philosophy.

Why?

Philosophy has CERTAINLY not solved this issue and many other issues.

If fact it could be argued and shown just how through so called "philosophical" discussions things only get more complicated, more misunderstood, and harder to discuss and resolve.

If you''re not familiar with the terminology, then you'll surely not be familiar with the many questions that have been asked and issues that have been raised and the various answers and solutions offered, or with the theories developed and the arguments for them.

The only terminology here so far, if I recall correctly, that I was not familiar with was the word 'normative' and that was very quickly rectified thankfully because of "terrapin station".

So, what so called "various answers and solutions" have been offered, and what have they supposedly answered and solved exactly? There could not have been to much answering and solving going on if human beings, in this day and age of when this is being written, are still ridiculing, harming, and/or killing each other, over the most stupid and idiotic of things too I might add.

It is not subject you can approach naively, "off the top of your head," and expect to contribute anything constructive, or even coherent.

And you making the most ridiculous of assumptions, based on your own personal past experiences, is one of the most idiotic things human beings do.

This subject is just the most simplistic and basic of subjects as are all of the other so called philosophical subjects ARE.

Morality is based on around what is wrong and right in Life in regards to the way human beings behave.

To find out what the right thing to do in Life and what the wrong thing to do in Life is reached very simply and easily by KNOWING what it is that everyone agrees with and what is needed in Life. Separating need from want just helps in making the process of discovering what is actually right in Life much quicker.

Why what you call "off the top of my head" is because morality and ethics is just that simple and easy to learn, see and understand then knowledge could literally be said to just "roll of the top of the head".

What the history of philosophy provides, if not definitive answers to every philosophical question, is a framework for cogent discussion of those issues.

Well that so called "framework for cogent discussion" has certain NOT produced anything worthy for thousands of years YET.

Have you considered that just maybe something else might be better. For example, just looking at what IS only instead of complicating and making hard what is essentially just very simple and easy?

You need to study that history so you can make use of that framework.

But I do NOT want to make use of that framework at all.

I was to make use of that framework, then I would probably end up where all of you are now. That is; disagreeing, disputing, debating, and destroying each other.

Now, hopefully you have clarified some and better still ALL of my clarifying questions asked to you here, but either way you have made the claim that "What is moral cannot be deduced from ...". So, if you know what is moral cannot be deduced from, then this implies that you do know what is moral can actually be deduced from.

Therefore, what do you say what is moral can be deduced from exactly?

Read the backthread of this thread. That should give you some idea.

In other words, besides you complete inability to answer any of my previous clarifying questions, you also are completely incapable of just saying what is moral can be deduced from exactly.

You also use the most deflective way possible to detract of one's complete incompetence to answer the most simplest of clarifying questions, and this is done by just saying something like: "Go back and read what has been previously written."

If you cannot or will not just express your views asked, then this is a sign that that one really does not understand at all what they are saying and/or claiming.

What is morally right and wrong in Life IS what everyone agrees with. Full stop.

[Belindi]

right/ wrong and true/false have in common at least that both parameters imply or explain criteria.
For 'criteria' read also frames, models, metre sticks, paradigms , and so forth.

Wild animals are sure about the truth/falsehood and right/wrong of their choices as they act according to what may be called instinct, and their cultural inheritance even among more intelligent species is slight compared with ours.

The Romantic worldview was a good idea but omitted to consider cultural inertia. The noble savage never existed in human form; you do find her and him among other animals including domesticated animals.

Frames, models, meter sticks, paradigms, and so forth are cultural devices. It is the human condition that we need to decide for ourselves which model or paradigm we will use to measure true/false and also good/bad.

The big question is not true/false or good/bad but use of reason, as against emotional reaction, in the making of all our choices.Use of reason includes self knowledge.

[Terrapin Station]

If, and when, you stop thinking of 'right and wrong', or 'true and false', being "embedded" in the extramental world, then you will decease with the constant absolute beliefs that you have and are sharing here with us now.

What is the distinction you make between an "absolute belief" and just plain old beliefs?

Right and wrong in regards to moral issues/discussions is about how human beings behave (and/or misbehave). The way human beings behave (or misbehave) creates the so called "world" they live. This "world" is not some extramental physical only world like earth and the objects on it are. This "world" is the 'way of life' human beings are living in and with.

So where do you figure that humans are living if not an extramental, physical world?

Just so you know, just in case you care, I didn't read most of your post. If you want me to read all of what you write, don't write so much. If you don't care if I read it, then no problem.

[Terrapin Station]

Sure, but the tasking isn't primarily to analyze addressing it. That's for linguists, etc. The task is analyze the world.

Any analysis you come up with will be conceptualized via a linguistic construct.
[/quote]

Maybe we could think of a more "duh!" comment than that, but I'm not sure what a candidate would be.

Why you think this has anything to do with what our task as philosophers is, who knows? It's akin to you saying that we have to limit the subject matter of our painting to paintbrushes, paint tubes, canvases, etc., because anything we paint will be executed with paintbrushes, tubes of paint, canvases, etc.

In other words, it's just as stupid as that.

Well, you left off the qualifier in the statement you quoted there, namely, " . . . provided that what we say allows us to communicate information to one another and to anticipate and predict future experiences." That's how we decide whether what someone says is right or wrong.

No, it's not. We don't decide linguistically. We decide based on whether the claim gets the world right.

You (and many others) need to give up this idea that there is some perfect description of the world,

"Perfect" has nothing to do with it. But for what that's worth, we could just as well say, "You (and many others) need to give up this idea that there is some perfect understanding of language" etc.

some external "reality" to which our humble conceptions can be compared and of which they are mere approximations.

If you don't think there's an external reality or that we have any problem in accessing it, you have far more serious problems than confusing linguistics for philosophy.