Kilka myśli o uzasadnianiu
A few thoughts about justification

Summary/Abstract: 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.

• Details
• Contents