In a message dated 2/1/2016 10:48:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
profdritchie@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Marco Rubio just thanked, “an all-powerful and mighty god.” If “
all-powerful” is what the god is, why do we need “mighty”? I bet Speranza
knows.
But you might lost your bet.
J. L. Austin studied 1,321 illocutionary verbs and noted that only 'bet'
REQUIRED 'uptake'. According to J. L. Austin, you cannot 'bet' unless someone
takes up your bet.
Who did THINK he knew was A. J. P. Kenny, a Catholic who taught at Oxford.
Not just 'taught', but gave the so-called Wilde (not after Oxonian Oscar
Wilde, but a relation) Lectures on Natural Religion. They are held annually,
provided they find annual students.
In those conferences, published later by the Clarendon (to add press is for
Nancy Mitford, non-U), he analyses each predicate that philosophers
thought God had, including 'omnipotence'. He notes that 'mighty' and
'almighty'
carry different implicatures, but then 'powerful' and 'all-powerful' do too.
Kenny goes on to symbolise it:
For 'g' to be 'op', i.e. for god to be omnipotent, is to ENTAIL a
conditional: there is no task t such that g cannot perform. One student
remarked,
"But can he attend your lectures, professor Kenny?" Kenny found the remark
sacrilegious. But Geary would not.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
