Jacek Jadacki
A few thoughts about justification
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.
