to whom ...

When we say or write anything in philosophy we are making a positive or negative truth claim. We delude ourselves into thinking that some statements lack judgment - but upon inspection this is impossible. If they lack judgment, they would in fact be non-philosophical. To make a claim is to believe something, no matter how tentative or skeptical we couch it.

I would even argue that all statements contain ethical claims, but that doesn't change my point.

My question is: When we make any claim, it is relevant to consider this: whom are we trying to convince? I think the answer to this has in the past been taken for granted. In addition, it appears that this answer is defined by two historically useful possibilities.

The possibilities are that we are trying to convince 1) peers, thinkers, and academics or 2) everyone. There is even a "hidden" evolution of these two threads, the former being Epicurean and the latter Stoic. Examples of each can be categorized as Neo-Kantian and Reidian, respectively.

The Kantians are concerned about convincing other academics. Scottish Commonsense thinkers are aiming toward the general population.

Clarifying this question, even for different and varied answers, positions a thinker to examine his or her goals. It also allows a writer to place a measure of historicity behind his or her claims.