Kant’s Modalities of Judgment and the Clarity of Modern Discourse
In this my soul’s deep toil, I seek to rend asunder the false chain that binds the sin of malice to the light of intellect, through circles of doubt descending.
Introduction
In an age of heated debates and rampant misinformation, much of our conflict stems from a basic confusion: we often fail to distinguish what might be true, what is true, and what must be true. Speculations are treated as facts, opinions are delivered as certainties, and some claims are declared beyond question. Over two centuries ago, the philosopher Immanuel Kant provided a framework that could bring much-needed clarity to today’s discourse. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant outlined three “modalities” of judgment – the problematic (possible), the assertoric (actual), and the apodictic (necessary) . These categories describe not the content of a statement, but the speaker’s degree of commitment to its truth. If all public and private statements were clearly labeled in this way, our conversations might be far more constructive. This essay will explain Kant’s three modalities and explore how modern discourse often misuses or conflates them. Using concrete examples from social media, politics, conspiracy theories and culture, we will see how problematicjudgments (“maybe”) get treated as evidence, assertoric claims (“is”) are stated with unwarranted certainty, and an apodictic tone (“must be”) is adopted to silence dissent. Finally, we reflect on how restoring awareness of these distinctions can improve communication, reduce ideological conflict, and promote a healthy dose of philosophical humility in our world today.
Kant’s Modalities of Judgment: Possible, Actual, Necessary
Kant’s three modalities of judgment are three ways a statement can be held with respect to truth value. In simple terms, they correspond to whether something is entertained as possible, claimed as true, or asserted as necessarily true. In Kant’s logic, these modalities don’t change the content of a statement but rather indicate the speaker’s level of certainty or necessity attached to it . We can illustrate each modality with an example:
1. Problematic Judgment (Possible) – a statement that is put forward tentatively, as something that may be true. It involves conjecture or hypothesis without commitment. For example: “A corporation could be wealthier than a country.” This claim merely asserts a possibility, without saying it actually is the case. In Kant’s terms, the judgment is entertained as logically possible, with no assertion of truth .
2. Assertoric Judgment (Actual) – a statement that is presented as actually true. Here the speaker asserts the content as a fact about reality (though it might be a subjective belief, they speak as if it’s true). For example: “Chicago is larger than Omaha.” This is an assertoric claim – it purports to state a factual truth (indeed, it’s a true empirical statement) . The assertoric mode is the default mode of ordinary statements: we claim something is the case. Kant describes this as accepting a judgment as true – a logical actuality in the mind .
3. Apodictic Judgment (Necessary) – a statement that is asserted as necessarilytrue, incontrovertibly and by logical necessity. These judgments carry a tone of absolute certainty. For example: “Three plus one must equal four.” This proposition is apodictic because it is true by definition or logical proof. In everyday terms, apodictic claims are those treated as certain beyond doubt . Kant explains that an apodictic judgment is one we consider necessarily valid, an “inseparable” truth grounded in reason . Apodictic statements leave no room for exception or alternative.
Kant’s insight was that any given proposition (say, “X causes Y”) can be thought in any of these modes – as a mere hypothesis, as an asserted fact, or as a necessary truth – independent of the actual content. The modality reflects our epistemic stance toward the claim (possible, actual, or necessary) rather than new information about X or Y themselves. For instance, one could say, “Possibly it will rain tomorrow” (problematic), versus “It is raining now” (assertoric), versus “Rainfall requires clouds” (apodictic in a scientific sense). In theory, rational thinkers should know which mode they are in – differentiating what they guess or suspect from what they know and from what they consider certain. Unfortunately, in practice, these distinctions are often blurred. In modern public and interpersonal discourse, problematic, assertoric, and apodictic statements frequently get mixed up or misrepresented, leading to confusion and conflict. We will now examine each modality in turn to see how such mix-ups occur in contemporary debates.
Problematic Judgments in Modern Discourse: “Maybe” Is Not Proof
Problematic judgments are supposed to indicate mere possibility – a claim one does not (yet) have enough evidence to assert as true. In healthy discourse, we use the problematic mode to propose ideas, hypotheses, or suspicions with an appropriate level of uncertainty (“It might be the case that…”). However, in modern communication, especially on the internet, problematic judgments often get treated as if they were evidence or truth rather than speculation. A rumor or question can quickly take on the weight of an assertion once it spreads beyond its origin.
Social media provides endless examples. Consider how a conspiracy theory might begin: one person, lacking proof, floats a problematic claim like “I wonder if this virus was engineered in a lab?” or “Could the election have been rigged?” Initially, these are mere possibilities – maybe yes, maybe no. But once posted online, such conjectures can rapidly harden into “fact” in the echo chambers of cyberspace. Others pick up the claim, often ignoring the tentative “could” or “might,” and soon you see confident statements in tweets or forums that “The virus was bio-engineered” or “The election was stolen.” The problematic judgment (“X could be true”) mutates into an assertoric one (“X is true”) without ever acquiring new evidence. We have essentially promoted a possibility to a pseudo-fact simply through repetition and belief.
A common tactic in spreading misinformation is the “Just Asking Questions”approach, where a person introduces a controversial idea in the form of a question or hypothetical – a problematic stance in form that nonetheless implies a claim. For example, a conspiracy theorist might say, “I’m not saying it was a government cover-up; I’m just asking if it’s possible.” This so-called JAQing off tactic uses the guise of possibility to insinuate that something is likely or true . If challenged, the speaker deflects criticism by retreating to “I was only questioning, not claiming.” In reality, however, the question often plants a strong suggestion in the audience’s mind. The problematic framing serves as a Trojan horse for belief. Wikipedia describes “Just Asking Questions” as a pseudoskeptical tactic whereby conspiracy proponents present “false or distorted claims by framing them as questions” . In other words, they float a possibility not as an innocent inquiry but as a way to insinuate that the content is true – hoping others will take the bait and treat the mere possibility as a reality that needs addressing.
Beyond outright conspiracy theories, even mainstream discourse suffers when possibilities are misconstrued as facts. Early reporting in news often uses tentative language (“sources suggest it could be X,” or “investigators suspect Y”). Yet by the time the story is circulating on social media, the nuances vanish. A headline that originally said “Authorities investigating possible link between A and B” might be shared with someone’s commentary, “A is linked to B,” dropping the crucial modal qualifier. Likewise, scientific studies frequently explore hypotheses and report things like “X may increase the risk of Y,” indicating a problematic (possible) finding. But popular media might translate this into “New study finds X causes Y,” turning a tentative result into an assertoric statement of fact. The result is a public that is alternately over-alarmed and then cynical, having been misled by speculative possibilities presented as confirmed truths.
The viral nature of online media exacerbates this issue. Sensational or alarming possibilities spread quickly, often faster than careful confirmations or refutations. As one analysis noted, on social platforms false or misleading claims can gain traction rapidly – indeed, historically “falsehoods spread faster than the truth” on social media . A provocative unproven claim (“possibly X happened”) is more likely to go viral than a nuanced correction (“X actually did not happen, according to evidence”), because novelty and drama capture attention. Thus, problematic judgments, when sensational, often leap to wide audience before they can be vetted. People see the sheer volume of discussion or the emotional reactions and assume “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”. A mere maybe starts to look like “everyone is talking about it, so it might be true,” and in the echo chamber it becomes “we all know it’s true.”
The misuse of the problematic modality – treating possibility as proof – leads to confusion, misinformation, and mistrust. It undermines productive discourse because arguments get built on foundations of sand. If we could clearly label and recognize a statement as problematic (“here’s a hypothesis, not a certainty”), we might handle it more responsibly. Rather than dismiss all speculation, the key is to keep it in its place: possible means not proven. The world would benefit if media consumers and debaters consistently asked: Is this claim being presented with the appropriate caution, or is a maybe being sold as a yes? By resisting the temptation to treat problematic judgments as established facts, we would shut down many conspiracy theories and false rumors before they distort our understanding.
Assertoric Claims and Unwarranted Certainty: Stating Opinion as Fact
An assertoric judgment is, by definition, a straightforward assertion that something is true. There is nothing wrong with making assertoric claims – we must do so to communicate any believed fact or opinion. The problem in modern discourse is notthat people make assertoric statements, but that many such statements are delivered with a level of certainty or authority far beyond what the evidence justifies. In other words, individuals often state personal opinions or unverified claims in the assertoric mode (as if they were established facts), and do so with great confidence. This lends an unwarranted air of certainty to claims that are, in reality, debatable or unproven.
Social media again provides a stage for this tendency. On Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms, nuance and uncertainty often get lost. A user is far more likely to write “This policy will destroy our economy!” than to write “I think this policy might damage the economy, but I’m not sure.” The former is an assertoric proclamation with absolute conviction; the latter, while perhaps more honest, sounds hesitant and garners less attention. Indeed, studies have found that messages phrased with certainty and absolutes get significantly more engagement online. Marketing research shows that posts containing words of certainty like “always” or “never” receive higher likes and shares, because expressing confidence makes the speaker (or brand) seem more powerful . In the battle for visibility and influence, a confident assertion beats a cautious comment. This dynamic encourages everyone – from advertisers to politicians to ordinary people – to state things as boldly and definitively as possible. Unfortunately, the volume or boldness of an assertion has no bearing on its truth, but it can mislead audiences into equating confidence with credibility.
In political rhetoric, the misuse of assertoric claims is rampant. Complex issues with many unknowns are painted in black-and-white certainty. Politicians and pundits make sweeping statements: “Tax cuts always pay for themselves,” or “This measure will save lives,” or conversely “It will not save a single life.” Often these claims are asserted without adequate evidence or with cherry-picked data, yet they are delivered in an authoritative, assertoric tone that brooks no uncertainty. The goal is persuasion and rallying the base, not a fair-minded analysis. As one commentary on political communication observed, “Instead of presenting life as it is – complex and full of trade-offs and uncertainty – rhetoric paints a world of certainty, glorifying the in-group and demonizing the out-group.” In other words, political language often pretends that contentious issues are simple and settled. This not only misleads people about the facts, but also deepens division: if our side’s assertions are unquestionable, then their side must be lying, and no middle ground exists.
Another area where assertoric certainty is unwarranted is in punditry and news commentary. Experts or commentators are asked for opinions on unfolding situations – say, an economic forecast or a developing international crisis. A responsible expert might want to say, “There are many possibilities and much uncertainty.” Yet soundbites and headlines demand clarity and decisiveness. As a result, we hear a lot of assertoric predictions stated with confidence that belies the shakiness of the actual prediction. When those predictions fail, public trust erodes, but by then new confident claims have taken their place. The cycle continues, rewarding the appearance of certainty more than accuracy.
In everyday interpersonal conversations, too, how often do we hear someone state subjective personal views as if they were objective facts? Whether it’s debates about diet, parenting, or which movie is the “best of the year,” people tend to drop phrases like “in my opinion” or “I feel” and simply declare “This is how it is.” That assertoric style can make discussion difficult, as it leaves little room for other perspectives. Listeners may feel that any disagreement is not just a difference of opinion, but a challenge to truth itself – since the original speaker presented their view as The Truth.
The consequence of this conflation of opinion with fact is a breakdown in meaningful dialogue. When each person in a debate speaks in assertoric absolutes, they are less likely to listen to the other side or to admit any doubt. Disagreements become a clash of competing “facts” rather than an exchange of viewpoints that might be synthesized or compromised. Moreover, the loudest, most certain voices tend to drown out more measured voices that acknowledge uncertainty. As a result, public discourse skews toward extremes and overconfidence.
How could Kant’s modality distinctions help here? By reminding us to dial back assertoric language to match evidence. An assertoric claim ideally should be backed by sufficient justification to say “it is true.” If our evidence is tentative, we should downgrade to problematic mode (“it may be true”). And if our conviction is based mostly on our own values or perspective, we might explicitly frame it as personal (“for me, it is true that…”). In practice, of course, people will always state opinions as if they’re facts – it’s natural in conversation and rhetoric. But greater awareness of this pitfall could encourage a cultural shift where a little more humility is injected. Even on social media, a person who habitually phrased things with careful nuance might set a positive example (even if they get slightly fewer likes). At the very least, audiences can learn to mentally add an asterisk to assertoric claims they encounter: Is this person really stating a proven fact, or just their viewpoint with high confidence? Such skepticism would be healthy. It doesn’t mean we disbelieve everything, only that we evaluate the actual support behind assertoric statements instead of being swayed purely by the forcefulness of their delivery. In short, recognizing unwarranted certainty for what it is would make us less gullible and less prone to polarize over competing “certain” assertions.
Apodictic Tone and Dogmatism: “Beyond Question” and Silencing Dissent
The apodictic mode is the realm of absolute certainty and necessity. Outside of mathematics, logic, or perhaps some aspects of theology, humans rarely have legitimate cause to speak in apodictic terms about complex issues. And yet, in modern discourse we frequently encounter an apodictic tone – a manner of stating things as incontrovertible, as if any rational person must agree. When someone adopts this tone inappropriately, it often serves to shut down debate. If a claim is presented as unquestionably true (or morally beyond doubt), then anyone who does question it can be dismissed or even vilified. This is how an apodictic attitude can silence dissentand stifle the healthy exchange of ideas.
We see this phenomenon when discussions turn dogmatic. Dogmatism means holding beliefs in an unshakeable, inflexible way, often without regard for contrary evidence. A dogmatic speaker delivers their opinions as incontrovertible truths – essentially usurping the apodictic modality for claims that are not truly necessarily true. For example, a cultural commentator might say: “It is absolutely certain that our social system is just – anyone who denies this is simply wrong.” Or in a heated moral debate one might hear: “It is necessarily the case that my position is the only ethical one; to question it is immoral.” Such statements carry an apodictic flavor (“absolutely certain,” “necessarily the case”). The intent is to make the claim immune to challenge. If you disagree, you are not just holding a different opinion; you are defying what has been stated as a necessary, almost self-evident truth. This rhetorical strategy is intimidating and can silence those who might object – exactly as intended.
Public discourse in politics and social issues often features this apodictic posturing. Phrases like “It’s undeniable that…”, “No one with any sense can disagree that…”, or “This truth is self-evident” get thrown around to preempt debate. Declaring one’s position as “on the right side of history” implies a kind of inevitability and moral necessity – that one’s view will prevail as an unquestionable good, so opposition is futile or nefarious. Another example is when a leader says, “Let me be clear: there is no alternative,” effectively framing their policy as the only possible option (thus necessary). Whether or not that is true, the apodictic framing seeks to discourage scrutiny. It’s a power move in rhetoric: by claiming necessity or absolute certainty, you claim a high ground that places your view beyond ordinary critique.
In interpersonal dynamics, an apodictic tone can appear as intellectual or moral arrogance. We might encounter a colleague or family member who speaks ex cathedra on every topic: their pronouncements brook no contradiction. If you offer a different perspective, they respond as if you’ve said the earth is flat – they are shocked you could question what they see as obviously true. This attitude shuts down the conversation; the implied message is “I’m right, end of story. If you disagree, you’re just wrong (or ignorant or biased).” Feeling dismissed or attacked, most people will retreat rather than escalate – which is exactly how apodictic dogmatists win by default.
The danger of falsely assuming an apodictic stance is not only that it stifles others, but that it blinds the speaker to their own fallibility. No matter how certain we feel, we could be wrong. Kant himself emphasized the importance of critical examinationand warned against treating subjective certainty as objective necessity without proper justification. Perhaps no one put this warning more eloquently than John Stuart Mill, who argued for freedom of speech and thought. Mill famously wrote that “To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because one is sure it is false, is to assume that one’s certainty is the same as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.” In other words, when we shut others down on the grounds that “I know I’m right, so you must have nothing to contribute,” we are behaving as though we ourselves cannot possibly be wrong. That is claiming infallibility, a hallmark of misused apodictic certainty. Mill’s point is that this is a deeply flawed approach: we “can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.” To assume we hold necessary truth in realms of empirical or social debate is to close our minds to learning and to the correction of error.
If we consciously respected the boundary between assertoric and apodictic, we would be less prone to such dogmatism. Truly apodictic judgments are extremely rare in everyday discourse – they belong to mathematics (“2+2=4”), formal logic, or perhaps statements like “all humans are mortal” which are analytically or definitionally certain. For everything else, we should maintain at least a sliver of openness to dissent. Realizing “I believe I am right, but that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily, universally, immutably true” is a form of intellectual humility that welcomes dialogue. By keeping the apodictic mode in its proper place (mostly in pure reasoning contexts), and not using it as a blunt instrument in debates, we encourage a culture where disagreement is not heresy. People could voice minority opinions without instantly being branded fools or villains, and majority views would have to continuously earn their status rather than resting on dogma. In short, shedding false apodictic certainty would make our discourse more open and self-correcting.
Restoring Modal Clarity: Better Communication and Humility
Having examined how each of Kant’s modalities can be twisted in contemporary discourse, we come to the question: What would change if everyone kept these distinctions in mind? How would clear categorization of statements as possible, actual, or necessary improve the world of communication and debate?
Firstly, communication would become clearer and more honest. Participants in discourse could signal their degree of certainty. Imagine if a politician prefaced, “Here is a hypothesis about our economy (problematic), which I think is likely but I’m not entirely sure,” before floating an idea, or if a debater explicitly said, “For the sake of argument, let’s assume this point (problematic) and see where it leads.” If social media users were more disciplined about tagging speculation as such – even with a simple “…just a thought, not proven” – the audience would know how much salt to take it with. Likewise, readers and listeners trained in these distinctions might better parse what they consume: Is this claim being presented as a possibility, a fact, or an absolute? Instead of treating all statements in the same way, we would evaluate them on the appropriate terms. Misunderstandings would decrease because we wouldn’t as often mistake someone’s tentative idea for a firm assertion or vice versa.
Secondly, this clarity would reduce ideological conflict and polarization. Much polarization comes from each side feeling the other is absolutely wrong and their side absolutely right. If we dialed back the apodictic posturing, we’d find more room for common ground or at least peaceful disagreement. When no one claims a monopoly on Truth with a capital T, opposing groups can converse without immediately triggering defensive outrage. For example, two people discussing a contentious issue (say climate policy or social justice) could admit that some of their positions are assertoric (based on evidence they accept but open to new information) rather than apodictically ordained. Then, if new data or arguments come, they have the flexibility to update their views without feeling they’ve betrayed an eternal principle. Similarly, distinguishing possibility from actuality can calm conflict: one political faction often accuses the other of nefarious intentions based on speculative claims (“They mightwant to do X, which means they will do X, which means they are evil!”). Recognizing that “might” is not “will” (problematic is not assertoric) could slow the rush to demonize the other side on the basis of imagined scenarios. In short, clearly separating what is known from what is merely conjectured would strip away a lot of the paranoia and straw-man arguments that fuel ideological feuds.
Thirdly, embracing Kant’s modalities in everyday reasoning fosters philosophical humility. Humility comes from understanding the limits of one’s knowledge and certainty. By habitually asking ourselves, “Am I sure, or is this just one possibility? Have I proven this, or am I assuming it must be true?”, we keep ego in check. We learn to say, “I don’t know for sure” more often. This humility is not a weakness; it is the foundation of genuine open-mindedness and learning. When people admit the modal status of their beliefs, they are essentially acknowledging, “I might be wrong or things could be otherwise.” That attitude diffuses the tense winner-takes-all atmosphere of many debates. It transforms discussions from contests of who’s right into cooperative searches for truth or at least understanding. Each person becomes less a prophet and more a partner in inquiry.
Notably, Kant’s own critical philosophy was all about recognizing the limits of certainty. He famously argued that while we can know some things with apodictic certainty (e.g., truths of arithmetic or the structure of reasoning), our knowledge of the empirical world is never absolute – it’s conditional, based on experience and the categories of our understanding. This inherently places most of our day-to-day judgments in the assertoric camp (things we believe to be true, but which could be otherwise), not in the apodictic camp of ironclad necessity. Remembering this can make us kinder and more tolerant interlocutors. We become less likely to brand those who disagree with us as fools or heretics, and more likely to see them as fellow reasoning beings who happen to have different assertoric beliefs about the world.
In a conversation where each party recognizes the modal status of their claims, you might hear phrases like, “I assert this as true based on what I know, but it’s not a necessary truth – convince me otherwise if you can,” or “That scenario is possible, but have we confirmed it? Perhaps we should gather more evidence before treating it as fact.” This kind of dialogue is more rational and less personal. It focuses on moving claims from problematic to assertoric by finding evidence, and it rarely if ever invokes apodictic finality, because all sides accept that only very special kinds of statements can have that status. As a result, discussions remain fluid and self-correcting instead of deadlocked by clashing certainties.
Conclusion: Kant’s Lasting Relevance for Civil Discourse Today
In an era of information overload, fake news, and ideological echo chambers, Immanuel Kant’s centuries-old insights into how we frame our judgments are strikingly relevant. The modalities of judgment – problematic, assertoric, apodictic – might at first seem like dry logical categories from a bygone philosophical system. Yet, as we have seen, they cut to the heart of problems that plague modern discourse. Distinguishing what is possible from what is actual, and both from what is necessary, could greatly improve the civility and efficacy of our communications. It would help prevent the escalation of rumor into dogma, encourage speakers to calibrate their certainty to the evidence, and remind all of us that very few matters in human affairs are beyond question.
Reaffirming Kant’s distinctions today is not about imposing archaic rules on conversation, but about injecting critical thinking and self-awareness into our interactions. Kant’s philosophy urges us to critically examine not just what we believe, but how we are holding that belief. Are we entertaining it as a hypothesis? As a working truth? As an inviolable certainty? This self-examination can guard us from the arrogance of thinking that everything we believe is surely true, or the folly of taking every passing idea as a solid fact. In a sense, Kant gives us a vocabulary for intellectual humility: it’s okay to say you suspect something (problematic), or that you believe something (assertoric) rather than claiming you know with absolute certainty. Embracing that vocabulary can make public dialogue more honest and less combative.
Ultimately, restoring awareness of these modalities would promote what we might call a Kantian ethos in discourse – one marked by rigor, openness, and respect. Rigor, because speakers and listeners alike would pay closer attention to the status of a claim and demand appropriate justification for moving a claim up the ladder from possible to actual to necessary. Openness, because recognizing a claim as problematic or an opinion as just assertoric leaves room for new information and perspectives, whereas false apodictic certainty seals minds shut. And respect, because treating few if any issues as settled for all time means we must keep engaging with those who disagree, giving them a hearing rather than dismissing them outright.
In sum, if we all spoke a bit more like Kantian philosophers – carefully differentiating maybe from is and both from must – our world of public, political, and interpersonal discourse would likely be less confused and less angry. We would argue, to be sure, but we would argue better, with more light and less heat. By remembering that possibility is not proof, assertion is not infallibility, and certainty is not to be claimed lightly, we honor the complexity of truth and the dignity of our fellow thinkers. Kant’s simple trio of modalities offers a powerful reminder that in the pursuit of understanding, humility and clarity are not obstacles to winning an argument – they are the pathway to finding real truth and common ground. In this way, Kant’s legacy lives on, guiding us toward saner conversations and a more enlightened public life.
Sources: Kant’s distinction between problematic (possible), assertoric (actual), and apodictic (necessary) judgments ; examples of misleading problematic claims framed as “just asking questions” in conspiracy rhetoric ; research on certainty-driven engagement in social media and the faster spread of falsehoods online ; observations on political rhetoric’s overconfidence ; and John Stuart Mill on the assumption of infallibility in silencing dissent .
The truth is that reason is subterranean—not because it prefers silence or secrecy, but because it has been driven underground by a public sphere that rewards noise, bravado, and pure stupidity. This wouldn’t be a problem were it not for the fact that irrationality has turned aggressive, increasingly hostile toward those courageous enough to practice reason openly. Yet, contrary to the timid notion that reason must quietly endure this exile, the truth is that reason waits beneath the surface, gathering strength. It is not meant merely to survive; it was entrusted to emerge as a messiah of discourse—a force capable of reclaiming public dialogue from those who’ve reduced it to spectacle. Reason, when it rises again, will not whisper apologetically but speak clearly, boldly, and unapologetically, restoring intellectual dignity and depth to a world desperate for genuine thought.
ov1d.com 