Omniscience and realism

Marginal notes about a workshop in Hawai'i

A non-intelligible entity cannot be conceived to exist. But, if the world needs to be known in order to exist, we need to postulate a non-partial perspective out of which it can be known. Since the perspectives of all human beings (as well as those of other animals, I would add) are necessarily partial and cannot be reconciled (how could one reconcile our perspective of the world with that of a bat?), this perspective needs to be God.

Is the use of arguments from authority “irrational”?

Basically, I would say no, since there are topics for which it is meaningful and rational to resort to arguments from authority. To name an example, if I want to know how you feel, the best thing to do is to ask you.

But even if you don’t agree, let me point to the distinction between

  • the use of such arguments as a way to close a discussion (e.g., “It is the case that X, because an authoritative source said it”)
  • the use of such arguments as part of a discussion or as opening a discussion (e.g., “An authoritative source tells us that X, how shall we understand it?”)

What would you understand out of the following Sanskrit sentences?


I am trying to figure out how to best translate one of my projects into Sanskrit. What would you understand if I were to tell you any of the following?

१ तर्कयुक्तयो वेदमीमांसायां तद्विनियोगश्च ।
२ कार्यविषयान्विक्षिकी वेदमीमांसायां तद्विनियोगश्च ।
३ कार्यविषययुक्तिर्वेदमीमांसायां तद्विनियोगश्च ।


४ कार्यविषयकर्ममीमांसोपकारकाः न्यायाः वेदनिर्णयार्थं तद्विनियोगश्च । (adapted from a suggestion by Sudipta Munsi)

५ कार्यार्थविषये युक्तिन्यायाः वेदमीमांसायां तद्विनियोगश्च ।
६ कर्त्तव्यविषयान्विक्षिकी वेदमीमांसायां तद्विनियोगश्च । (adapted from a suggestion by Robert Zydenbos)
३ कर्त्तव्यविषययुक्तिर्वेदमीमांसायां च तद्विनियोग: । (adapted from a suggestion by Robert Zydenbos)

Many thanks for your help!