Provided that one accepts Hägerström’s line of argumentation with respect to his critique of Kant, then objective knowledge consequently cannot rest solely upon the subjectivistic position (see chapters 2 and 3).The reason for this is that subjectivism is a philosophical position according to which the mere psychological existence of subjective certainty of the thinking subject’s own existence is regarded as a sufficient condition for the establishment of objective object knowledge.151 An additional aspect of subjectivism is its aspirations to establish apodictic knowledge by the use of subjective existence as its main epistemological principle.152 Subjectivism thus bases objective knowledge upon nothing more than the presence of subjective conviction and self-assertiveness. From Hägerström’s point of view, the issue of objectivity must be directed against the fundamentals of subjectivism, and it must be asked if it is objectively impossible that the subject can notexist. In other words, is it objectively possible that the subject does not exist? The outline of Hägerström’s argumentation is in this respect formulated as a direct refutation of Descartes’ epistemological standpoint, which asks: Is it the subject’s non-existence objectively possible?153 Descartes’ answer to this is that the subject necessarily exists. However, Hägerström’s answer is that it is not necessary for the subject to exist.154 What Descartes dep a r t i 1 82 Subjectivism - Objectivism: Hägerström’s Copernican Revolution Continued 151 Hägerström, Selbstdarstellungen, p. 5. See also Hägerström,“Filosofien som vetenskap.” 152 Hägerström, Selbstdarstellungen, pp. 1-5. 153 Hägerström, P. d.W., pp. 68-69 and 76-77; Selbstdarstellungen, pp. 5-6 and 21. 154 Hägerström, P. d.W., pp. 76-77. chap te r 3
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=