Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A omniscient being need not know truths via set-membership but through direct, non-propositional acquaintance with reality as a whole.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Without propositional structure, there is no way to distinguish knowing P from knowing not-P, making 'direct acquaintance' epistemically empty.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim conflates subjective phenomenal experience with objective knowledge; feeling unified with reality differs from knowing specific facts about it.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Omniscience standardly means knowing all truths. Rejecting propositional knowledge makes the notion of 'all truths' incoherent or undefined.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Propositional knowledge requires linguistic structure that may artificially fragment reality into subject-predicate form, missing holistic understanding.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Mystical traditions report direct experiential knowledge of totality that transcends conceptual decomposition, suggesting non-propositional modes are possible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
An omniscient being unbounded by human cognitive architecture need not depend on the propositional method we require to organize knowledge.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42