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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Omnisubjectivity is better thought of as a further extension of divine cognitive perfection rather than a rejection of standard definitions of omniscience.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Subjective experiential states are not reducible to propositional content, as Nagel's 'What Is It Like to Be a Bat?' demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If omnisubjectivity requires knowing qualia that resist propositional encoding, it introduces a categorically distinct cognitive mode, not an extension of propositional omniscience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A genuine extension of omniscience must operate within the same epistemic register; crossing into irreducibly phenomenal knowledge constitutes a revision, not an expansion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Zagzebski's entailment claim presupposes that omnipresence grants God causal access sufficient for phenomenal knowledge, but causal access alone does not entail experiential identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Jackson's knowledge argument shows that Mary gains new knowledge upon seeing red despite complete physical information, meaning propositional saturation cannot ground subjective knowing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If omnisubjectivity cannot be derived from propositional omniscience without an additional, non-standard epistemic principle, the entailment argument fails and omnisubjectivity remains a conceptually independent attribute.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Zagzebski claims that omnisubjectivity is entailed by omniscience, or entailed by the conjunction of omniscience and omnipresence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Since omnisubjectivity follows from omniscience (or omniscience plus omnipresence), it does not replace the standard propositional definitions but extends them.
      ?

      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.