Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Definition (D3) is equivalent to definition (D1). — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Definition (D3) is equivalent to definition (D1).

    Divine Attributes
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • It is impossible to believe the denial of a proposition one knows to be true, knows that one knows to be true, knows is the denial of a proposition one knows, etc.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.An agent can know p without knowing that they know p, as Williamson's anti-luminosity argument demonstrates for fallible knowers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If KKp does not follow from Kp, then the infinite regress in D3 imposes strictly stronger conditions than D1's simple knowledge requirement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Believing the denial of a known proposition is psychologically impossible only for beings whose belief states are perfectly transparent to themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A being could satisfy D1 by knowing all truths while lacking the higher-order metacognitive access D3 requires, making D3 non-equivalent to D1.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Divine Attributes

    Related

    A being could satisfy D1 by knowing all truths while lacking the higher-order me...An agent can know p without knowing that they know p, as Williamson's anti-lumin...Believing the denial of a known proposition is psychologically impossible only f...If KKp does not follow from Kp, then the infinite regress in D3 imposes strictly...
    +1 moreShow less
    It is impossible to believe the denial of a proposition one knows to be true, kn...

    Similar

    This revision is equivalent to (D1).80%The Supreme Good is the Supreme Being.80%Substance is one, infinite, and identical with God.80%If X is really identical with Y, X partakes of Y's essential propertie...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: omniscience
    View source passageHide passage
    But (D3) is also equivalent to (D1), at least if it is impossible to believe the denial of a proposition one knows to be true, knows that one knows to be true, knows is the denial of a proposition one knows, etc. (Oppy (2014: 233) claims, more simply, that it is not possible to know a proposition if one believes its denial.) In the recent literature, Swinburne (1993: 167 and 2016: 175) states a version of (D1) (although in both works he later endorses restricted principles (1993: 181–182 and 2016: 196) to yield what he calls an “attenuated” definition). Zagzebski (2007: 262) endorses (D2). Pla...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The source passage explicitly states that (D3) is equivalent to (D1) "at least if" the stated premise holds, making this a conditional support argument clearly present in the passage.

    Confidence: The text explicitly states this equivalence conditional on the given premise. Moderately confident this counts as an argument rather than pure exposition.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit