shayfrogel@hotmail.com

The subjectivity of judgment constitutes an essential problem in philosophical thinking. The philosopher, as a critical thinker, cannot but consider himself the superior judge of his beliefs, but for the same reason he has to convince himself his judgment is not a subjective one.

A comparison between Descartes’ criterion of "clearness and distinction" and Hume’s criterion of "force and liveliness" illustrates this point. Both Descartes and Hume argued that the subject, the individual person, is the supreme judge of his beliefs, and both assumed that subjective judgment cannot fit the aim of philosophical inquiry, which is to reach necessary truths. The two philosophers differ in that whereas Descartes, ultimately, posited an exclusive state of certainty, which does fit the aim of philosophy, Hume emphasized the subjective status of any certainty and by doing so he rejected the possibility of achieving this aim. Neither of them addressed explicitly the assumption that determined their thinking and led to their opposed conclusions: the philosophical demand for subjective thinking but objective conclusions.

My claim is that this philosophical ambivalent attitude vis a vis subjective judgment underlines both the paradoxical nature of the challenge facing any individual philosopher, and the character of public philosophical discourse.

The result is that any individual philosopher is locked in a paradoxical situation in which he can argue for truth only when he is convinced his self-judgment is not a subjective judgment. Hence, philosophical thinking is mainly a process of self-conviction and so accordingly are its arguments: their first objective is to convince the philosopher that his subjective judgment is not a subjective one. Therefore, much like philosophical thinking is fertile ground for self-deception (a subjective judgment which is not a subjective judgment), philosophical argumentation is fertile ground for public controversies and disagreements.