Let M be a principle of justification.

M states:

If P is justified, then there exist Q, such that Q justifies P, or we can denote Q=>P.


There are 3 possible cases for Q.
There are:

1. Q is self-justified.
2. Q is not justified.
3. Q is justified.

case 2: Look, if we say P is justified because of Q, and Q is not justify, then it seems we are not justified in P. Contradiction.

case 3: Since Q is justified, then we can apply principle M to Q, and thus produce E, such that E=>Q. I see a regress.

case 1: The only case i see such that Q is self-justified are analytic propositions. Propositions like "1+1=2", and "bachelors are unmarry" etc. They can` t really "touch" reality. Knowing only analytic propositions will not tell me if gravity is described be newton` s theory of gravitation, or enstein` s theory of gravitation. There need to be "synthetic propositions" ( as philosophers will say). So, we can be more specific, and ask the justification of a synthetic proposition P, and apply the same reasoning as i have done

Symbols and implication
Careful with that symbolization. "⇒" is usually used to mean logical/material implication. But most of the propositions that we believe are not logically/materially implied by other propositions that we believe. .

Your categories
Your categories are not mutually exclusive. (1) is a subset of (3). You could change (3) to "justified by other proposition(s)". Then they would be mutually exclusive. I think I would categorize them as this:
[INDENT]1. Justified
1.1. Justified by self (or similar)
1.2. Justified by others
2. Not justified.
[/INDENT]

Why, if Q is not justified, but Q justifies P, is not P justified? Why must the justifier be justified?

Not saying it is.

Sure. I personally am not compel to change it.

It seems right that if we believe P because of Q, then there ought to be some compelling reasons for our acceptence of Q as a premise to support P. Don` t you think?

Let M be a principle of justification.

M states:

If P is justified, then there exist Q, such that Q justifies P, or we can denote Q=>P.


There are 3 possible cases for Q.
There are:

1. Q is self-justified.
2. Q is not justified.
3. Q is justified.

case 2: Look, if we say P is justified because of Q, and Q is not justify, then it seems we are not justified in P. Contradiction.

case 3: Since Q is justified, then we can apply principle M to Q, and thus produce E, such that E=>Q. I see a regress.

case 1: The only case i see such that Q is self-justified are analytic propositions. Propositions like "1+1=2", and "bachelors are unmarry" etc. They can` t really "touch" reality. Knowing only analytic propositions will not tell me if gravity is described be newton` s theory of gravitation, or enstein` s theory of gravitation. There need to be "synthetic propositions" ( as philosophers will say). So, we can be more specific, and ask the justification of a synthetic proposition P, and apply the same reasoning as i have done

Not saying it is.




Sure. I personally am not compel to change it.

---------- Post added 10-15-2009 at 02:32 AM ----------



It seems right that if we believe P because of Q, then there ought to be some compelling reasons for our acceptence of Q as a premise to support P. Don` t you think?

"Is the justification justified?" isn't very clear at all, and it seems like we are questioning the justification of things in different logical categories, so we should try to break it down.

When we say something is justified we are saying that it meets certain justification conditions, any other understanding of justification is meaningless. For example, in causal theories of knowledge, X is justified in believing P if P caused X to believe P. The justification condition "P caused X to believe P" is not something that can be described as justified or unjustified, it is a statement, it is either true or false. To say "Is 'P caused X to believe P' justified?" and mean anything other than "Is it true?" is literal nonsense.

You could ask, "is causation a good justification condition for knowledge?" which could be clumsily rephrased as, "are we justified in using causation as a justification criterion for knowledge?" Well, we are if it accurately captures the meaning knowledge, which is another statement that is either true or false, and it's hard to see where to go from there. I don't think there's any regress.

No. We may have no justification for Q, but that does not mean that Q does not justify P. Q justifies P if Q makes it likely that P is true. Whether Q is true or is justified is an important, but different issue. Justification need not be like a pyramid, but like a boat (or a raft).

Can you give an example of a case where you would say that Q is unjustified but nevertheless justifies P? Does "unjustified" mean the same as "irrational", and if not, what is the difference?

U for Universe, its self justified as it is the condition for justification itself, if one consider that U is everything of course...P as a part of the Universe is justified by U witch is self justified...but P as a result of the total "Gestalt" inflection of U is also self justified once it matches U nature presence in itself, witch is self justified...therefore U is justified by P as P also reflects its presence in U...
U is ONE ! ...and P a definition of U...

P = U

Principles:
1- Being is a justification for itself.
2- being a part of something is a valid condition for justification.

P = U reminds me that P = nP

(unfinished)

Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

Things like the universe are not justified or unjustified anymore than chairs or tables are justified or unjustified. It is beliefs or propositions that can be either justified or unjustified. Just as it makes no sense to point to a table and say of it that the table is justified or unjustified, so it makes no sense to say of the universe that it is either justified or unjustified.

By justification I mean Cause, that simple !
The point is about Cause not the specific term that is in use...

Thanks anyway

Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

Causes are not justifications. The cause of someone's death may be a heart attack, but it is not a justification of his heart attack (whatever that might be). So, if you mean "cause", then say "cause". Otherwise, how can we tell what you are saying? If you mean by "self-justified", "self-caused", then the question is how anything can be self-caused, since in order for C to cause E, C must occur before E. But nothing can occur before itself, so nothing can be self-caused.

Beliefs are justified or not justified relative to some threshold. Usually the one required for knowledge. Beliefs are more or less justified. It is a continuum. Beliefs are not true or false.

Propositions are not justified or not justified. They are not more or less justified either. They are true or false.

Beliefs are justified or not justified relative to some threshold. Usually the one required for knowledge. Beliefs are more or less justified. It is a continuum. Beliefs are not true or false.

Propositions are not justified or not justified. They are not more or less justified either. They are true or false.

...In my point of view only what its true is justified...

My belief that Quito is the capital of Ecuador is true, and therefore, it is true or false.
My belief that the person who just moved into the house next door is nice is justified (he smiled at me) but that justification does not amount to being adequate for knowledge.
To say that propositions are neither justified or not seems to me a bit of linguistic legislation. I don't see how you know that is true, since "proposition" is a technical term. So to say that is a stipulation. It may be a justified stipulation, but right now, I don't see why it is.

My belief that Quito is the capital of Ecuador is true, and therefore, it is true or false. (Justified or not...)

My belief that the person who just moved into the house next door is nice is justified (he smiled at me) (therefore Truthful...) but that justification does not amount to being adequate for knowledge. ( The smile is proof, in this case, of being nice...)

To say that propositions are neither justified or not seems to me a bit of linguistic legislation. I don't see how you know that is true, since "proposition" is a technical term. So to say that is a stipulation. It may be a justified

JUS = Right = LAW = TRUE

Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE