Several recent discussions of omniscience have attempted to defend a more restricted account than offered by the preceding definitions. For example, Langtry (2008: 39) suggests that God is omniscient just in case, for every true proposition p, “either God knows that p, or else he does not but his knowing that p is not precluded by any defect or limitation in his intrinsic cognitive capacities.” Nagasawa (2017) claims that a stronger version of perfect being theology would hold that God has a “maximally consistent set” of the divine attributes of knowledge, power, and benevolence. This would allow that a perfect being could be omniscient without knowing all truths, if knowing all truths would reduce the amount of power or benevolence the being could possess. Another departure from the traditional understanding presented above appeals to feminist epistemology. See the Section 3.1 of the entry on feminist philosophy of religion, which hints at this possibility in its discussion of “so-called divine attributes”, although it limits its discussion to perfect power and divine aseity. Farmer (2010), however, draws more directly on feminist epistemology as an application to understanding omniscience. The negative claim in this work is that “propositional ideals of human knowledge” exclude “marginalized and maligned” forms of knowledge. Thus omniscience could be better understood by appealing, positively, to these other forms of knowledge. Farmer cites “knowing other people in personal relationships”, the “centrality of care” which leads to “the acknowledgement of the otherness of the object of knowledge”, and the role of emotion in leading to knowledge. (Farmer cites (Code, 1993), (Dalmiya 2002), and (Jaggar 1989), respectively, for these ideas.) However this approach is to be worked out, the intention is that omniscience would not simply be defined by reference to knowledge of true propositions.