>Not quite (and I don't want this to become a game of
>pedantry). I think that emotions largely correspond with the
>existence of (loosely uniform) subjective impulses.




So when you cry cause your kid's kidnapped... it's not cause kid's are not supposed to be kidnapped... it's just cause you, personally, subjectively, didn't want your particular kid kidnapped. But that storm of emotion that you feel when it happens... that has no correspondance to univeral moral law???

This must be where we part ways man.
By the way, you've just invalidated every emotion you'll ever feel, as it corresponds to nothing real.









>>What about a few deciding to relocate so that everyone can
>>live. Isn't this both emotionally and rationally satisfying
>>in a way your disjunction isn't? I'm not sure there's
>>anywhere futher to go with this example, I just wanted to
>>point that out, seems like your dichotomy was false, and
>that
>>there is a potential decision that satisfies the emotive and
>>the rational in accordance with objective moral facts. No?
>
>
>But that's besides the point. It is supposed to be a
>hypothetical situation in which only two options exist.


I don't care what it was supposed to be... a hypothetical in which only two options exist does nothing to further your argument if your ignoring a very obvious third option!

Yes, if this is the way you reason, we're quite almost done here.



>I believe that behaviour is a manifestation of the interplay
>between emotional and rational impulses. Psychomachia!

All that is fine and good! But do you believe that emotions themselves, in any way, in any instance, correspond to universal moral law?? If not, where did they come from? Why did slaves write spirituals? Is slavery wrong. or just wrong in the opinions of the slaves?


>>No, I just read the one that said "It becomes subjective".
>>Which is not true. It does not, because we are talking
>about
>>the perceived, not the perception.
>
>
>What is the difference?



Are you serious man? Do you think that there is no difference between opinion and fact? Cause that is what you just said by asking that question.




>I'm sorry, but one is subjectively right and the other
>subjectively wrong! How can anything exist beyond our
>understanding? We've 'created' the world. Without us, there
>would be an 'object' world, but no 'reality'. Reality is a
>subjective concept.



BRO!!
Line every human being that has ever existed up outside the room with the light on inside. Tell them all to form a quick opinion about whether the room's light is on or not, then open the door and let them all file in and out. Some of their opinions will have turned out to be right, objectively right, and some wrong, objectively wrong.

If you're going to maintain that it's only a subjective truth that the light is on, what you're saying is that two people could walk into the room (with the light on), then walk out, and one could say "it was on, and the other say "it was off", and they'd both be right. That's the implication of what you're saying.



PS - Regarding Derrida and meaning... you should see the very obvious logical self-contradiction there. Just read what you wrote about him again, and think about it in light of what he's trying to tell you. Here's a hint, it renders his own words meaningless, and thus you could not have garnered any truth from them, and thus it would pointless for you to even bring them up. It would also render your participation in ANY rational debate pointless. My conclusion is that you don't really believe what he said, but are only bringing it up cause you don't see this contradiction yet.