Jadacki Jacek
PDF Print Email
45(2009)1 - In honour of Professor Edward Nieznański

Jacek Jadacki

A few thoughts about justification

  • language: Polish


Summary

 

According to the author, only either our convictions or actions are objects of justifying. When we say, e.g.:

(1) The sentence S is justified

we have in mind that:

(2) A conviction of a certain x, expressed in the sentence S, is justified.

By:

(3) The conviction of x that q is justified

I mean:

(4) There is such a J that x is justifiably convinced that q on the ground of J.

What does the phrase “to be convinced on the ground of” in (4) mean?

I am inclined to understand this phrase in such a way that (4) is equivalent to:

(5) There is such an ‘α’ that

(a) α;

(b) x is convinced that if α, then x is justifiably convinced that q.

Depending on what is α – either:

(6) x perceives that q

or:

(7) x is convinced that p

the formula (4) adopts one of the two following forms:

(8)

(a) x perceives that q;

(b) x is convinced that if x perceives that q, then x is justifiable convinced that q;

(9) There is such a ‘p’ that

(a) x is convinced that p;

(b) x is convinced that if x is convinced that p, then x is justifiable convinced that q.

The formulae (8) and (9) relate the fact that there are two kinds of justifying: direct (8) and indirect (9) respectively.

The degree of justifying the conviction that q depends on the degree of justifying (b) in the formulae (8) and (9). I am inclined to think that justifying (b) in the formula (8) is near to certitude.