Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Who thinks that they can subdue Leviathan? Strength resides in its neck; dismay goes before it. It is without fear. It looks down on all who are haughty; it is king over all who are proud. These words inspired PJ Wehry to create Chasing Leviathan. Chasing Leviathan was born out of two ideals: that truth is worth pursuing but will never be subjugated, and the discipline of listening is one of the most important habits anyone can develop. Every episode is a dialogue, a journey into the depths of a meaningful question explored through the lens of personal experience or professional expertise.
Hello and welcome to Chasing the Viathan. I'm your host PJ Weary and I'm here today with Dr. Linda Zagzebski, Emerita George Lynn Cross Research Professor and the Emerita Kingfisher College Chair of the Philosophy of Religion at the University of Oklahoma. Dr. Zagzebski, wonderful to have you on today.
Linda Zagzebski (00:26.211)
Well, thank you so much for inviting me.
PJ Wehry (00:29.27)
And we're here to talk about your book Omni Subjectivity, an essay on God and subjectivity. Really like the cover. It's fun. Beautiful book and enjoyed reading it. thank you again, like even just for putting the effort in. was a enjoyable, challenging read. And just that first question, why this book? Why put in that effort?
Linda Zagzebski (00:53.471)
Well, I write about ideas when I get them. And this book started with a paper that I published in 2008. And let me sort of take you through the thinking that led me to write that paper. So I thought of this divine attribute that I call omni-subjectivity.
which I define as the property of having a complete and perfect grasp of the conscious states of every being who has conscious states from their first-person perspective, meaning from their own subjective point of view. And I was led to this idea by thinking about what exists, what's the totality of what exists.
And I came to the conclusion that it's not enough to know all the facts in order to know what exists. Facts could be contained in a big book of the world. You can imagine a big book of the world that lists all the facts about everything that exists, including people's emotions, facts about emotions, thoughts, and so on. And this book,
is describing the world from the outside. A being who knows the world from the outside does not know what you are going through right now, what it's like to have the feelings you have. Suppose you're hungry right now. I might know that you're hungry, but I'm just knowing that from the outside. But you know what it's like to feel hungry in the special way, the particular way you're feeling it.
And so you know something I don't know. So it's part of this, or one way to approach this is knowledge from the outside versus knowledge from the inside. So if you know what it's like to feel hungry, I know what it's like to feel happy, Mary knows what it's like to feel sad, an animal in distress knows what it's like to feel fear and so on.
Linda Zagzebski (03:16.726)
all of these beings know something that a reader of the book of the world doesn't know. And so that made me think about God's knowledge. A very common way to define omniscience, divine omniscience, is the property of knowing the truth value of all propositions. In other words, knowing all the facts. And my conclusion was that God is not omniscient
unless God knows what it's like from the inside to feel what you're feeling, to feel what I'm feeling, to think the thoughts I'm thinking, and so on. And so that led me to identify this property called Omni Subjectivity. It got a lot of attention. I wrote a couple follow-up papers. People liked it. And so I decided to write a book on it.
And the book includes more arguments than just the argument that if God's all-knowing, God must be omnisubjective. It includes more arguments. It includes models of how it's possible to be omnisubjective. And I gave some objections and responses to the objections. So let me just mention two other reasons to think God
has the property of omni-subjectivity. One is the traditional property of omnipresence. So omnipresence is the property of being everywhere. And that presumably means not just being in every physical place, but in being in every mental place. In other words, being in your head, okay?
So I thought that if God is omnipresent, God would have to be in your head and my head and in the heads of all creatures who have any consciousness at all. And so that would be another reason to think that God is omnisubjective. So one reason is that being all-knowing requires omnisubjectivity, and the other reason is omnipresence requires omnisubjectivity.
Linda Zagzebski (05:43.299)
And there's a third reason I would like to mention, because it's more personal and practical. So I think omni-subjectivity is implied, it's assumed, it's presupposed in practices of prayer. So it's true that people pray out loud, you know, in a worship service, a liturgical service. But
I don't think people normally think they have to pray out loud to make sure God hears them. So they think, you you pray in your own head. And so you presumably think God is aware of what you're praying in your head. And in fact, even if you don't use words in your head, you might have pictures or have certain feelings in prayer. I mean, I think
we assume that those are all states that God's aware of. And so I think that being aware of what's going on in our consciousness the way we are from our internal point of view means that God would have to be omnisubjective.
PJ Wehry (07:01.46)
I think of, and I guess you could figure out a way to make it work, but it's a really weird reading of Hannah and Eli that Hannah's praying and Eli can't hear and assumes she's drunk because she's not saying her words out loud. Like you'd have to say like God is lip reading, right? Like, you know, cause the lips are moving. It's like, it's a very strange. Yeah. You're like, it's, it's, and I can't think of a single, and I'm not familiar with all of,
Linda Zagzebski (07:16.637)
Linda Zagzebski (07:20.795)
yeah, that's not going to work.
PJ Wehry (07:30.516)
Muslim traditions, familiar with some, you you mentioned the Jewish tradition, but certainly I can't think of a single Christian tradition, I'm pretty familiar Muslim, where you have to pray out loud. Like, it's a very... I think that was one of the arguments I had not anticipated. Like, when you talk about omni-subjectivity, immediately you see how that works with omnipresence and omniscience.
Linda Zagzebski (07:43.713)
Yeah.
PJ Wehry (07:58.082)
But when you talked about the practice of prayer, was like, of course, like, he has to be there, right? He has to understand, even when we talk about the spirit groaning, speaking for us in ways that we don't understand, I think God understands our wants and desires apart from what we can articulate in our own head.
Linda Zagzebski (08:02.87)
Yeah.
Linda Zagzebski (08:16.93)
Absolutely. Yes. Yes, and I'm glad you know, that's okay. Go ahead
PJ Wehry (08:18.638)
If only someone... I was gonna... I was gonna say... I just... Sorry, it was more of a joke, but I was gonna say, if only someone was working on thoughts and feelings without words, you know, that would be a great follow-up to this. But anyways...
Linda Zagzebski (08:33.978)
yes, there's plenty of thoughts and about words. Yes, and that's what I'm going to write next is a book on emotions that have no names. Well, I'm glad you mentioned Judaism and Islam because I actually propose in the book that even though I'm a Christian and I don't know a lot about the Muslim faith, I think that
PJ Wehry (08:40.329)
Yes.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Linda Zagzebski (09:03.078)
that omnisubjectivity is entailed by properties of God that all the major monotheistic religions recognize. So, in other words, I think that the God of Islam is omnisubjective, that is, Muslims should accept this attribute, I would hope they would, and the same with Judaism.
Actually, there's a paper that was published by some Muslim philosophers endorsing hominid subjectivity after they read my book. So I guess it at least strikes a chord with other religions as well.
PJ Wehry (09:52.43)
Well, and that's, is that part of the reason you included the panentheism view or did you feel like that could work inside the Christian tradition? It seems like that was more aimed at perhaps the Hindu side of things.
Linda Zagzebski (10:02.206)
Well, panentheism is not, you know, it isn't traditional. It's not a view about the relationship between God and the world that is in the classical Christian tradition. But the idea of panentheism is that the world is somehow in God.
although God extends beyond the world, you know, but the world is part of God. Now, if the world was part of God, that would make it easy to explain how God can be omnisubjective, because, you know, your feeling of sadness is part of God's own consciousness. So it's, you know, it would follow immediately that God would be aware of it.
But because that's not the traditional way to think of God in Christianity, even though I take it seriously as a possibility, it's not my first choice. So I propose other models too.
PJ Wehry (11:20.046)
and and maybe I misread this. felt like that part of that was you're referencing the Upanishads, that that fit better, that you were opening a way to include Hindus as I missed reading that. OK.
Linda Zagzebski (11:34.179)
Yes, I was trying to open a way to include Hindus, but I know very little about Hinduism, but I absolutely love reading the Upanishads. So, you know, I read them, I have my interpretation, it's filtered through a translation. You know, I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert on that at all, but it is very revealing to see the affinities between my view about omni-subjectivity.
and what you see in the Aponachads as well as in other monotheistic religions.
PJ Wehry (12:08.334)
Do mind talking about the other two models? we kind of mentioned in passing the panentheism. And actually there was something in particular I wanted to ask you about the empathy model. first to let our audience be ready. I understand, yeah.
Linda Zagzebski (12:13.616)
yes, yes.
Linda Zagzebski (12:21.224)
Yeah. Okay, sure. Sure. So let's start with the one that I don't like as much. So the one I don't like as much is the perceptual model. So you imagine God being like a very close perceiver. So it's like he peers into your mind and watches your thoughts, watches your feelings and so on.
PJ Wehry (12:27.943)
Hahaha
Linda Zagzebski (12:49.474)
Now notice that still separates God from you. God is still knowing you from the outside, not from the inside. It's just closer than it would be if I was trying to know your feeling. So I think it has the same disadvantages that, you know, any
any model in which God is knowing you from the outside has. So that's not my favorite model. The empathy model is the one that has gotten the most attention. It's the one I started with initially. And the empathy model requires extrapolating from the human experience of empathy. So
The way I think of human empathy, you imagine being another person. So if someone else has maybe is grieving over the loss of a parent, you imagine being in their shoes, you imagine being that person with the feeling they have. And in imagination, you sort of take on
their feeling in your own mind, okay? You are in a sense copying it. Now, I propose that even though in human empathy, we usually think of that as being a way of understanding other people's feelings, but you could do the same, you can have the same model for understanding their thoughts.
You know, I can imagine being you having a belief about what you're going to do tomorrow. You know, that's not a feeling, but I can imagine sort of being you, so to speak. And we do that when we watch movies, we do that when we read novels, we imaginatively take on the identity of another person. And so of the model of omni-subjectivity as empathy, perfect empathy, would be a kind of perfect total empathy
Linda Zagzebski (15:13.642)
with every one of a person or creature's conscious states. Now, that model still has, well, it has the idea that empathy is copying. If I empathize with you, I'm attempting to copy what you're feeling or thinking. And this does not,
seem to be good enough to explain what God does. Some people don't mind this, but it's just like God is copying everything. know, God knows by representing, by copying His creation. It seems to me that that's not direct enough. There's still a kind of a...
Well, a separation of some sort. It's not a separation like you have in perception, but it's an imaginative separation. So then I propose that if we could imagine empathy as direct, not a copy, but direct, you know, sort of directly getting what you're feeling in an empathetic way. The problem there is it's not clear what that means. mean, because in our experience, empathy isn't direct.
So it's very hard to see exactly how this model would go. There are some objections to it.
Marilyn Adams shortly before her death offered an objection. She said,
Linda Zagzebski (17:04.124)
So if God takes on in his imagination the feeling of someone who is in despair, suppose there's someone who feels totally hopeless, complete despair, the despair fills their whole consciousness. It's like they can't think of anything except the despair. It fills up their consciousness.
Now, when God takes on that feeling himself in imagination, obviously that person's despair does not fill up his entire mind, does not fully take up all his consciousness. So in a sense, maybe it looks like God isn't really getting what it's like to be you or be this person who's in despair.
because God always knows at the same time what the future will be, how it might help the person, everything else there is that God knows. So it doesn't seem to have the same force when God grasps it than when the despairing person grasps it. So that is a legitimate question because even in human
empathy. You know, you might empathize with someone who's, who's grieving, but of course you're not actually grieving as yourself. And you know things or you're aware of things that the grieving person's not aware of. So, the model is not, I guess I would say the model isn't perfect, although it's the model that gets the most attention.
PJ Wehry (18:56.034)
Do you mind if I When I read that part I was reminded of something I've read recently if you don't mind me just You know give it give me a little bit of rope to hang myself with but the
Linda Zagzebski (19:02.452)
Yeah, sure.
Linda Zagzebski (19:06.486)
That's okay. I've already have written a book that I could hang myself with.
PJ Wehry (19:11.552)
Yeah. So there's a there's a series called Murderbot and I had read it before, loved it. The show came out, so I reread the series and in it there's a grown together cyborg. So half human, half machine. It's kind of all few like a sec unit. He's a security unit or it's a security unit and.
One of the things that's, and this has its parallels in the animal world, so it's actually a real thing, but we don't have an example of it with what we would think of as like a human consciousness.
The second the murder bot can access multiple drones and see through them because it can and it has a pair of eyes that can also see through. And so it can see through the eyes and it can see through the drones. But for for murder bot, it's one unified perspective because that's the way its brain works and manages to put that all together. However. Yeah.
Linda Zagzebski (20:02.198)
What a life story. Yeah. Okay.
Linda Zagzebski (20:18.846)
see. Can I ask a question? So the murder bot sees through its own eyes and through the drones at the same time, and they are unified into a single conscious state. Is that right? Okay.
PJ Wehry (20:35.872)
Yes, yes. so and we actually do this with our eyes. We just don't realize it. And it's hard for us to understand this because our brain just puts the the two eyes together. Right. There was a famous they gave people glasses that flip the world upside down. And after they wore them for two or three days, the the your their brain adjusted it so that went right side up. Yes. So we know that there's that whole I mean.
Linda Zagzebski (20:44.546)
Puts things together, yeah.
Linda Zagzebski (20:58.133)
Adjust it. Yeah. Yeah.
Linda Zagzebski (21:03.009)
Yeah.
PJ Wehry (21:03.01)
We don't need to get into that whole side of things. We see this with mantis shrimp. They actually have multiple facets on their eyes and eyes. You know, any creature has its eyes on the side of its head. creates a unified perspective from multiple angles. And so now this is obviously perception and not consciousness. But when you talk about seeing from when murder by looking from its eyes, it sees the way that a human would see and it would only see what a human sees.
Linda Zagzebski (21:15.732)
Right.
PJ Wehry (21:31.238)
and it would understand exactly what a human would see looking from there, while at the same time being able to see from the drones as well. And I wonder if that's just a capacity we don't have. Maybe with technology, people will be putting, again, speculation we don't need to get into. But what I wonder when I was listening to that objection is that if God has
Linda Zagzebski (21:38.644)
Uh-huh.
PJ Wehry (22:00.16)
a consciousness that could both at the same time, in the same way that the human eyes would see what a human sees, it would have, it would be able to get you. The example you gave was you can understand looking at a painting from closer up, even if you don't see it, you'd have that perspective. I think this is part of your answer. But with a, with murder bot, murder bot could be literally looking at the painting, a way a human would and have the drone at the same time. And so it would have both the
Linda Zagzebski (22:26.08)
Mm-hmm.
PJ Wehry (22:28.138)
experience as a human, perceptually, I understand it's different from the consciousness and the kind of like overlord drone view as well. And would that be an example of that God has greater capacities and abilities, which of course, I mean, that's not hard to argue, that both allow him to see and to be above at the same time?
Linda Zagzebski (22:52.864)
that's I really like this idea. This is a new model. should add your idea the murder bot model to the perceptual model and empathy model. Yeah, now, I've never read murder bot. Isn't there a TV series murder bot?
PJ Wehry (22:57.355)
Okay.
haha
PJ Wehry (23:12.92)
That's why we read it. Yeah, that's why. Yeah. So my wife, I don't think it says good, but you know, but.
Linda Zagzebski (23:15.658)
Yeah, I've seen it mentioned, but I haven't actually watched it, but maybe I will.
PJ Wehry (23:20.078)
I will say this. I will say if you want to understand in the in the movie like or in the show, they reference it. But if you want to really understand that, you have to read it because it's very prominent in the books. So, I mean, you know, I'm probably being a purist like the books are better, you know, but I'm glad that that's at least I'm tracking with you. That was that was useful. OK, that's good.
Linda Zagzebski (23:32.732)
I swear.
Linda Zagzebski (23:39.116)
Yes
Linda Zagzebski (23:43.348)
Yeah, sure. So there's a series of books?
PJ Wehry (23:49.07)
They're novellas, which is also great because it's 150 pages. So you know, peace. Anyways.
Linda Zagzebski (23:51.79)
I see. that's great. Yeah. Okay. Well, thanks for that idea.
PJ Wehry (23:57.718)
I don't know. Yeah, I don't know if that's I was just reading that I was like, that's an interesting I was curious if that tracked so that cool.
Linda Zagzebski (24:03.956)
Yeah, well, I think that is an interesting idea. I mean, we are very limited in our ability to imagine because we're human and we our sensory faculties and imaginative faculties that only go so far. And so we need to come up with analogies or models that are not, they're never going to be perfect.
But I guess my idea was that if we have multiple models of how omni-subjectivity could be possible, that seems to make it easier to think that there's, you know, even if no one model is perfect, it makes it easier to think that there, that
Omni-subjectivity is possible just because there's so many ways we could think about it that might work up to a point. I mean, none of them work perfectly, but that's why I like more than one model.
PJ Wehry (25:07.213)
Yes.
PJ Wehry (25:16.396)
And I love you do a lot of. It was either going to be a 200 page book or it was going to be like three, 1500 page volumes. Right. If you. And so I really appreciated you did a lot of bracketing. It's like, look, all we're establishing is omni subjectivity. It can work this way. It could work this way. Like there's so many ways that it works and it makes so much sense. I mean, and that's where I think the the best positive argument is the prayer one.
Linda Zagzebski (25:27.126)
Yeah, yeah.
Linda Zagzebski (25:33.974)
Yeah.
Yeah.
PJ Wehry (25:45.578)
And it makes sense with omnipresence and omniscience, but the prayer one, you're like, this has like immediate practical value. Like you're leaving everyone in a very strange state otherwise. But then to just like, I appreciated the bracketing. There were times where I was like, I wanted more. But, like you were talking about intellect and imagination. And I was like, she makes a distinction. I wonder. And then you're like.
Linda Zagzebski (25:52.661)
Yes, yeah.
PJ Wehry (26:10.734)
actually, the distinction doesn't necessarily matter. I was like, was like, ah, I'm like, well, that would have been a whole that would have been a 1500 page book, you know. Anyway, so we don't need another critique of pure reason. So anyways, I don't know. Is there was that just you're just trying to kind of start the conversation? Is that kind of the thought with the bracketing? I think I understand, you know, motivation.
Linda Zagzebski (26:18.292)
Yeah, yeah. Okay.
Yeah.
Linda Zagzebski (26:35.454)
Yeah, I mean, I like to, I don't want to ask people to think of too many things at the same time. So, you know, as you said, as we think, as we reflect, as we go along, discussing something like Omni-subjectivity, side questions come up, and then you can go down another path.
on the sidetrack and then that might, well, some people get off the boat at that point. And if you know what I mean, mean, because of their, and so I want to keep it where, you can, read it, you take away the main points and then whatever questions arise for you, you can.
PJ Wehry (27:15.5)
Yeah, yeah.
Linda Zagzebski (27:30.218)
You know, you can pursue them yourself and write a different paper if you are in the mood to write a paper.
PJ Wehry (27:37.725)
hmm.
Linda Zagzebski (27:41.506)
Do you want to talk about the objections?
PJ Wehry (27:41.966)
Sorry, there's a couple different paths. Well, I wanted to ask you about intersubjectivity too. even the model that you propose, I think for the length of the book was surprisingly muscular. It felt rigorous for what you gave it, probably five, 10 pages.
Linda Zagzebski (27:50.97)
yeah.
PJ Wehry (28:11.372)
read all of Richard of St. Victor's The Trinity. Did you feel like there was any influence from Richard St. Victor because he often talks about they love each other so much that they are the Trinity? think that's a very popularizing way of saying that. I understand that, but.
Linda Zagzebski (28:25.707)
Uh-huh.
I don't know how to answer that question. Maybe I forgot about Richard of St. Victor and was influenced and didn't realize that I don't know. I just thought on my own about how omni-subjectivity would apply to the Trinity. And one takeaway that I would want people to get from that is that
PJ Wehry (28:50.637)
Yes.
Linda Zagzebski (29:01.154)
Two takeaways. One is that subjectivity is primary in reality. Subjectivity existed before anything physical existed. Subjectivity existed before anything outside of God existed, whether it's physical or non-physical. And inner subjectivity existed before anything outside of God existed. If you think...
of the Trinity as having each member of the Trinity as being omnisubjective of each other member of the Trinity. So there is inner subjectivity in existence eternally. And so I don't know, would you like to comment about what, why that's similar to Richard of St. Victor?
PJ Wehry (29:52.272)
I just understood the popular understanding of it was that he started kind of from the three persons who loved each other so much that they were one essence, which has, because he doesn't have the language for, and I think you referenced him once in the book, but it was on the Trinity, but on something slightly different. So I didn't know if there was any, that was a shot in the dark. That was completely, I'm not.
Linda Zagzebski (30:00.413)
I see. Yeah.
Linda Zagzebski (30:13.834)
Yeah, I see.
PJ Wehry (30:17.228)
Yeah. If you came up with that on your own, you came up with your own. don't, haven't like, that was just a try it. Yeah.
Linda Zagzebski (30:17.602)
Okay, yeah. Well, idea that I had was that there's one God, one nature, one essence, one will, one intellect, but three distinct subjectivities. So that's why there are three persons because each subjectivity makes a person. But they have one will.
PJ Wehry (30:37.399)
Yes.
PJ Wehry (30:43.97)
Yes, and that's.
Linda Zagzebski (30:47.744)
because they're so perfectly intersubjective that they always, you they will together.
PJ Wehry (30:47.789)
Yes.
PJ Wehry (30:54.082)
Yes. Yes. And that's kind of, I think that part comes from his discussion of love. And like this is to your point is that you are, you are writing after Descartes. And so you're using the language of subjectivity. And of course, Richard St. Victor is before Descartes. So of course, like there was good, just going to be differences. Like he's going to use something like love to talk about it because he doesn't have subjectivity as, a category. And so,
Linda Zagzebski (31:18.274)
Right.
PJ Wehry (31:24.15)
yeah, I didn't know what similarities there were apart from, know, I just noticed that. But the. Yeah, they, So that was a shot in the dark. Obviously, that question didn't land. That's OK. I love hearing about the Trinity. I also I loved your work on Jesus and the way that you made the person valuable.
Linda Zagzebski (31:40.438)
Thank you.
PJ Wehry (31:51.502)
that all the interesting things were in the natures. Do you mind talking a little bit about your work on Jesus' person and two natures and explain how you walk through that with subjectivity?
Linda Zagzebski (32:02.974)
Well,
Linda Zagzebski (32:09.27)
I'm not sure I remember it well enough. I use this analogy of supposing that you loved dogs so much, you wanted to be incarnated as a dog while still being you. You'd still be the person that you are, but you would take on another nature in addition to your human nature.
And I sort of had fun with doing that and sort of imagining what that would be like. But the idea there is one person could have two natures. And the way we think about that has got to be limited by
you know, something like this analogy I made, where you sort of imagine a person like yourself, assuming another nature in addition to your own. I don't remember anything else particular. Was there something you wanted to talk about in that section of the book?
PJ Wehry (33:24.162)
Yes, and I wanted to make sure I say it right.
You talked to one of the things that you mentioned was that all the interesting bits are in the nature's part. And then person is just kind of like this placeholder for the two natures. And you said if we can do if we can make the person the subjectivity, the the eye as like this unified eye, then then we could have the two nature separate in their powers. And I can't remember the other things that are that are part of it. I want to make sure I get this correct. the the intellect.
So he can have the intellects and the natures can be distinct, but the experience of the eye is unified. so Jesus and me.
Linda Zagzebski (34:06.466)
is unified because the I is the person. Yeah. I mean, I don't want to make too much of a fuss about this because it's my proposal without
PJ Wehry (34:09.814)
Yes.
Linda Zagzebski (34:30.528)
you know, without going into the history of the theology of the incarnation or the Trinity, either one. And so I guess I'm just suggesting that people think about that and do their own their own work on it. I'm not intending to pursue it anymore. I mean, maybe I'll think of something, but I doubt it.
because I'm on to other things. But it wasn't meant to be a full-fledged account of either the Trinity or the incarnation. So that's the way I think.
PJ Wehry (35:16.054)
Yeah, yeah, I apologize. I was not trying to get you in trouble. I read it and I thought I found it interesting.
Linda Zagzebski (35:20.308)
No, no, that's just the way I think. I'm not. Yeah. So I mean, it's it would be kind of embarrassing to compare what I say about the Trinity and the incarnation in a few pages with the tomes that people have written on either one of them. You know, I'm not trying to do that. So, yeah, I mean, one time, one time a Dominican priest asked me now,
PJ Wehry (35:41.08)
You
Linda Zagzebski (35:50.243)
So what would you say, is there historical precedent for your view? I don't know if there is or not, you could tell me if there is.
PJ Wehry (35:55.822)
Yeah
PJ Wehry (36:02.594)
Yeah. And people get touchy about that stuff. So I understand.
Linda Zagzebski (36:07.872)
Yeah, yeah. So it's like, well, maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I guess I don't care that much. So people who do care can, you know, do what they want with it or dismiss it, whichever they wish.
PJ Wehry (36:21.322)
Absolutely. Yeah. And I think I can see that's at the end of the book. And what you're doing is you're providing applications and giving people threads to kind of lead to further research. mean, and that's kind of what I felt throughout. really appreciated. I love your motivations. Like, I want people to only have to think about one thing that's so refreshing in a philosophy book. And so
Linda Zagzebski (36:43.51)
Yeah.
PJ Wehry (36:48.942)
But leave it but you're like this seems fruitful and then being like, do you know any more than that? It's like no, I just think it's fruitful. I think that's a great Well, I I Really appreciate the intellectual humility be like and the rest of that is just not me and I'd happy to see someone else do that work
Linda Zagzebski (36:56.705)
Yeah.
Linda Zagzebski (37:07.81)
I'm surprised you haven't brought up the moral objection to omni-subjectivity because that's what people usually think of. So do you want to talk about that? Yeah, okay. Now is next. So I figured out what we would ask next. Yeah, so people will say something like this. They'll say don't wait. If God fully grasps
PJ Wehry (37:16.781)
Yeah.
It's on here. I was on my questions. Yes, that was next. Yeah, so you anticipated it.
Linda Zagzebski (37:37.451)
what it's like for someone to hate, to feel jealous, to feel spiteful, to feel afraid. Well, let's leave out of fear because fear isn't immoral. But let's, you know, there's plenty of emotions that we probably think are immoral.
Maybe not every instance of the emotion is immoral, but in some instances we think it's immoral to hate this particular person, to have racist feelings, to feel spiteful towards someone they're jealous of, you know, and you can think of lots of examples. And so the objection is that you would think that it would be immoral of God.
to actually fully 100 % grasp what that's like. Because if God really grasps what it's like to hate, it seems like God hates. Or if God really fully accurately grasps what it's like to feel spiteful, one would think God feels spiteful. Now,
There's more than one response to this. The line that I took in the book
And I'm not completely convinced of this myself, but in the book, I argued that fully grasping an emotion is not the same thing as having it. So in other words, you could fully grasp what it's like to hate without hating. And I had analogies with watching a movie, reading literature.
Linda Zagzebski (39:45.673)
If the novelist is really good at describing what's going on in the character's head, you might really get what it's like to hate, what it's like for that character to hate in this situation. But you don't hate. You get it, but you don't actually hate yourself. I mean, as yourself, you don't hate anything or anybody. And so
I argued that God can fully grasp what it's like to be you and everybody else, all other creatures, without actually having their feelings. Now, let me pause and ask you if you find that convincing.
Linda Zagzebski (40:43.899)
I mean because you could, yeah.
PJ Wehry (40:44.494)
I think there's, I think there's some, think it actually, this was something else I wanted to talk to you about. There are some, I think one of your other ideas helps fill in some gaps with that, but please continue.
Linda Zagzebski (40:58.242)
Mm-hmm. Oh, okay. So I also, well, so the main line of response is that perfectly imagining a feeling is not the same thing as having the feeling. But then I go on to say, well, wouldn't it be odd?
if God is somehow contaminated by his own creation. I mean, after all, God created the world and created the emotions that people have. It'd be very odd if God didn't know what he had created fully, accurately, and to think that somehow this would contaminate God and make him less than God by...
PJ Wehry (41:31.875)
Yes.
Linda Zagzebski (41:51.893)
really getting what he'd created seems a little strange. So I took that line also. I mean, there's other things you can say besides that. I think I also said in the book that,
that a feeling all by itself is never immoral. Just the pure feeling is not immoral. What's immoral is the context in which it's felt. So Cain hates Abel. That context is immoral, but just the pure feeling itself is not immoral. Feelings are not actually immoral in themselves. That was another line I took in the book that...
may, might or might not work. So that's basically, as I recall, that's what I said.
PJ Wehry (42:51.53)
Yeah, it's and you talk about and I wonder if you don't mind again giving me enough enough rope to hang myself here the
PJ Wehry (43:01.87)
There are two kind of trains of thought that came off of your metaphor or analogy of light. That kind of dovetail. I, one, I think it's, it definitely seems to help with this discussion, right? You're talking about how is God contaminated? He is the source for all of this, right?
Linda Zagzebski (43:09.004)
yeah, yeah.
Linda Zagzebski (43:20.086)
Mm-hmm.
PJ Wehry (43:21.934)
In On First Principles, Origen has at the end talks about the Trinity and talks about it in terms of light. I think at the time he might mention the Holy Spirit, but this is kind of pre-Calcedon and Nicaea and all that. So he's talking about that God is the Son and Jesus and the Spirit are the light. But then the interesting thing, and I hadn't heard this before, is that our intellect, and I think obviously he...
there's a translation there and you could probably feed in subjectivity, are our eyes and they only properly function with the light. Which I think is maybe just a little bit of an addition to what you're talking about, that we only really function right because of God's light, because of the subjectivity of the intersubstituted...
Linda Zagzebski (44:02.242)
Mm-hmm.
PJ Wehry (44:21.034)
intersubjectivity of the Trinity. And alongside that, it's kind of gone by the wayside. We've had a lot of family emergencies in the last couple of months. But in the next couple of months, I'm hoping to put out some study on Charles Taylor's The Language Animal. he kind of traces there's this Cartesian critique that Descartes forms the eye directly from the thoughts of an adult.
But if you go from a child, his model doesn't really work well. And one of the studies that Charles Taylor references is there seems to be studies, and I have five kids and I literally have just been watching this happen, that there are cases of feral children, if they don't engage with humans, that they don't really seem to have consciousness. Certainly not a developed eye. Right? They have it in an animal sense. And what you see with kids is kids don't normally start
by saying I, they say, like my daughter's Frankie, when she first started talking, she says, Frankie is pretty, right? And so instead of saying, yes, and eventually she starts to develop, that's a big moment for her when she goes, I am pretty, right? And so that there is a, obviously even at an animal level, children get their consciousness from their parents because
Linda Zagzebski (45:29.762)
Because that's what you would say, yeah.
Linda Zagzebski (45:40.844)
Mm-hmm.
PJ Wehry (45:49.582)
you know we give birth to them right but then whoever is feeding into that child language literally helps create i mean that that's the idea of like asking children to reason from first principles to you know like the whole cartesian you know framework that doesn't work right like children don't do that you have to kind of tell children what to do and this is part of that process so if
And I, hopefully this makes sense, but when you're talking about intersubjectivity, if subjectivity is something we are given even in the process of language and it's something that only works because we have the intersubjectivity from God. I, I, I, I'm struggling to make that last connection, but I think that that would help with like, the directness of the empathy, which also I think helps with.
the, which was something you'd been talking about earlier. And it helps with this objection that, that God has us. It's like, no, he, he gave us the ability to feel these things. He understands because he generates it in us. Does that make sense?
Linda Zagzebski (47:02.484)
Yes, well, I have more than one idea from what you said. One was the idea that we develop our subjectivity through inner subjectivity and God's inner subjectivity with God permits us to develop subjectivity just as with
PJ Wehry (47:06.082)
Sorry, that was a lot.
Linda Zagzebski (47:29.204)
inner subjectivity with parents allows the child to develop subjectivity. That's an interesting idea. And then the other idea had to do with the metaphor of light. So I thought of the metaphor of light in the context of coming up with models of omni-subjectivity.
PJ Wehry (47:44.941)
Yes.
Linda Zagzebski (47:59.113)
where the perceptual model isn't good because there's a separation between the perceiver and the object of the perception. And so then I thought of how light permeates transparent objects so that God's consciousness could be like light that permeates the consciousness of all beings who have consciousness.
I thought of it as a metaphor for how omni-subjectivity would be possible. But now you're bringing up that metaphor in the context of inner subjectivity. Am I interpreting you right?
PJ Wehry (48:45.134)
I think so. Yeah, it makes it potluck. Inner subjectivity makes it possible in the same way that light makes eyes function.
Linda Zagzebski (48:56.37)
makes eyes function. Okay, but now you brought this up in the context of the moral objection. So how, I wasn't sure I understood how that helps with the objection that God would be immoral if he was able to perfectly grasp your, you know, our immoral feelings. Was that connected with light in your mind?
PJ Wehry (49:24.014)
It was, think if I follow, I tend to follow Augustine and say that the evil is the corruption of good. And so in the same way that we use language to help our children, right? That's the foundation of our communication. Like you can think of language and gestures, like hugging as well, that communicates things. just as the way that forms.
the subjectivity, that intersubjectivity forms subjectivity in the child. And then the child will of course say things and will say, no, that's not how that word works. Right. But we understand both how they're using it poorly and how they're and what it's supposed to mean. And I think that would fit with the feelings. I'll be honest, I finished your book last night, so these are very.
Linda Zagzebski (49:55.946)
Mm-hmm.
Linda Zagzebski (50:02.722)
Right.
Linda Zagzebski (50:07.392)
Yeah, we're right.
Linda Zagzebski (50:15.394)
The feelings are sort of, so the feelings are distortions, kind of like uses of words can be distortions. Yeah, that's right. distorted feelings comes with finitude. That's the way humans are. Yeah, I think that's good. Yeah, again, we are talking in metaphors.
PJ Wehry (50:19.182)
Very, yeah.
PJ Wehry (50:43.17)
Yes!
Linda Zagzebski (50:43.882)
by analogy and I think that's the best we can do. And so that's how we think.
PJ Wehry (50:53.112)
Yeah. And I appreciated that so much about your book, that you would, your heart is always for, that the devout worshiper and then on the other side that it, that we're just doing our best, but that it's always going to be like, we can push back on the mystery and learn more as part of our worship and enjoyment, but that it's never like, if we were to fully comprehend God, we would have to be God. And that's
Linda Zagzebski (51:09.473)
Mm-hmm.
PJ Wehry (51:21.73)
That's okay. That's what makes him worthy of worship.
Linda Zagzebski (51:22.55)
That's right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right.
PJ Wehry (51:26.942)
so I want to be respectful of your time. and you've been very patient. I've had these like shower thoughts and you've been very gracious listening to them, but
Linda Zagzebski (51:34.047)
I guess that's the best place to get thoughts is in the shower. Yes.
PJ Wehry (51:36.942)
Yeah
so I wanted to, to ask you, and this is something I generally ask my guests, besides reading your excellent book, what would you recommend to someone who just listened to this podcast? They just spent an hour kind of listening to us talk, for the next week, what's something they should meditate on or they should do over the next week in response to this?
Linda Zagzebski (52:04.926)
Well, do you mean somebody who wants to investigate omni-subjectivity more intellectually? Or do you mean someone who would want to experience it? I mean, what did you have in mind? If you mean... Well, I mean, I don't know what to say exactly about reading about omni-subjectivity, because I'm the one that made it up. But
PJ Wehry (52:23.309)
Which one would you prefer?
PJ Wehry (52:33.902)
Yeah. I was like, is there another book? Oh, no.
Linda Zagzebski (52:34.914)
Yeah, but there have been, let me think where it's going to be published, there were.
There's a periodical, journal, philosophy journal, where I give a pricey of the book and then there's several papers about it. Can I remember where that is coming out? No, I can't. So I wasn't prepared to answer this question. Actually, there will be, so there will be like a, you know,
a journal sort of symposium on it. There was also an author meets critics session at the Central Division American Philosophical Association, this last whenever it was, March or something, February maybe. And I'm not sure how...
PJ Wehry (53:22.542)
good.
Linda Zagzebski (53:45.975)
to get a hold of those papers, but it's possible to do so. So I'm not, I don't really know what to say except to read, you know, read the things that I reference in the book, of course, that's the idea.
PJ Wehry (54:00.364)
Yeah. Yeah, definitely start by reading the book. so, then you mentioned that kind of intellectual side. What is something, and you've put it beautifully in the book at several different points, but just what is something you would say to the devout worshiper? Like what is, what should they take away from this, the God who is omni-subjective?
Linda Zagzebski (54:18.794)
Yeah, I think that this is an attribute, the way I intended the attribute to be understood is that it's both a high metaphysical attribute, you know, on the level of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, perfect goodness, you know, it's one of the traditional
attributes that has gotten a lot of attention by philosophers who give it very deep analysis. So it's meant to be on a par with other high metaphysical attributes. But at the same time, it's personal. It's an attribute that connects us with God. So it isn't just something of intellectual interest.
but also a personal, practical, religious, significance and religious practice. So, yeah, and so people go one way or the other depending upon whether they're philosophically inclined or not so much. And then, you know, I think I'm intended it to be,
important for both kinds of minds.
PJ Wehry (55:45.742)
And it definitely came across that way. was a joy to read Dr. Zygzebski. Absolute joy having you on today. Thank you.
Linda Zagzebski (55:50.43)
Thank you.
Linda Zagzebski (55:54.272)
Well, thank you so much for having me.