Philosophy aspires to something more than utility. — Wayfarer
Utility is base metal, what we're looking for is gold. — The Fat Alchemist
Suppose that omniscience entails R (as is no doubt true). It follows from this that R will be necessarily true of God. But everything entails necessary truths, so everything willentail R. — GodlessGirl
if God is omnipotent, then he is capable of ensuring the reliability of his cognitive faculties. And, as a rational being, he would no doubt seek to do this. — GodlessGirl
So, when confronted with the claim that P(R/D*) is low, God could happily grant it but hold that he has no reason to accept D* he has no reason to think that he did not intervene to ensure that R holds for himself (since he is a rational being and is omnipotent). — GodlessGirl
I'm familiar with Plantinga's argument (though the iteration I'm accustomed to gives the supposition that our cognitive faculties are geared towards the truth as K, I think R makes more sense); but I'm not sure what D* represents in your argument and don't see it defined. Same thing with O. What are D* and O? — Astro Cat
Philosophy is a field of study. We aspire. And pragmatists aspire to utility. (and if you read between the lines of other types of philosophers, even they come down to being able to do things. Even if they focus on Being, they need a philosophy that gets them to whatever being they're after. And since I have my pragmatist hat on today - sometimes other hats find their way to my head - I'd say that all knowledge is a doing, but it gets reified into that noun for convenience's not ontology's sake.Philosophy aspires to something more than utility. — Wayfarer
Philosophy aspires to something more than utility. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.