Philosophy is an attempt to systematically organize human thought regarding what kind of judgments can or cannot be made, in what contexts, and on what basis. It is an endeavor that encompasses the very conditions that precede judgment itself.
One of the crucial facets of philosophy is ethics. When humans seek to make decisions in various situations, ethics provides the criteria for making judgments that are humanely sound. In this context, philosophy begins by contemplating what exactly constitutes a “humanely sound” judgment.
Regardless of the judgment made, as long as the thought belongs to a human being, one must consider what a “sound judgment for humanity” entails. However, while this is a major aspect of philosophy, it is by no means the whole.
In what context can what kind of judgment be made, and based on what? The thorough examination of these questions is the very essence of philosophical practice. As long as humans make judgments through thought to sustain their lives, this is something from which we cannot escape.
The fields of philosophy are diverse, spanning the philosophy of science, political philosophy, legal philosophy, and the philosophy of language. For instance, how should one provide explanations for natural phenomena, and how should those explanations be applied? The philosophy of science provides the path that serves as a benchmark for such inquiries.
Observing natural phenomena, forming hypotheses, and verifying them—this process requires a continuous series of judgments. The same applies to political philosophy. How should a nation be governed, and how should it interact with other nations? Philosophy serves as the foundation for explaining these matters and rendering these judgments.
Legal philosophy follows the same principle, given that politics must be based on law. The philosophy of language considers how language exists, how it is used, and how we use it, given that human thought requires language.
By examining language—the cornerstone of thought—this field attempts to provide a precise explanation for the validity of judgments. Furthermore, it can be viewed as a tool that can be applied critically toward the very act of philosophizing.
On the other hand, the origin and practice of philosophy do not necessarily require a “purpose” for judgment. There is a distinction between practicing philosophy and relying on it; these involve different layers of engagement with the discipline, and it is argued they should remain distinct. As mentioned earlier, ethics is one vital aspect of philosophy.
Practicing philosophy for the sake of a specific goal risks introducing arbitrariness into the criteria for judgment, driven by that very goal. At the very least, one must be rigorously conscious of this possibility.
The aforementioned point is a particularly significant issue for ontology and epistemology. Since these fields concern existence and cognition in general, judgments regarding them must not be made based on a specific, predetermined purpose of judgment.
What is being stated here is that even ontology and epistemology are not exempt from the human act of “making judgments.” However, there remains a concern regarding what “arbitrary judgment” or “arbitrariness” truly means.
This arbitrariness refers not to the judgment of a purpose, but to the purpose of a judgment. That is, it is not about what one wishes to judge, but how one wishes the judgment to turn out. While it is acceptable to determine the object of judgment, one must not place the conclusion before the inquiry.
I believe it was precisely this understanding that led Kant to write the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Judgment. The points presented here are, I suspect, the very motivations behind Kant’s work.
