Judgement is the evaluation of evidence to make a decision. The term has four distinct uses:
Informal – opinions expressed as facts.
Informal and psychological – used in reference to the quality of cognitive faculties and adjudicational capabilities of particular individuals, typically called wisdom or discernment.
Legal – used in the context of legal trial, to refer to a final finding, statement, or ruling, based on a considered weighing of evidence, called, “adjudication”. See spelling note for further explanation.
Religious – used in the concept of salvation to refer to the adjudication of God in determining Heaven or Hell for each and all human beings. God’s assessment of a person’s worth: a determination of “good” conveys great value while “evil” conveys worthless).
Additionally, judgement can mean:
Personality judgment, a psychological phenomenon of a person forming opinions of other people.
The judgment in classical philosophy
The traditional definition of judgment regards this as the act of preaching something of something: thus, to say “the dog is beautiful” is to attribute a predicate, “beauty,” to a subject, “the dog “. This classical definition comes from Aristotle, and has been taken up in particular by Kant, for whom judgment is an act of the understanding by which he adds a concept to an empirical intuition (I add the concept of beauty to empirical intuition, that is, here, to sensation or perceptionof a dog). To this extent, a judgment is said to be true when it corresponds with the real : if I say “this building is three stories high”, this judgment is true if the building is actually three stories, not five.
The paradigmatic paradigmatic example is that of optical illusions : when I see the figure on the left (the two orange circles), I say that “these two circles are of different sizes”, I am mistaken. To interpret this “deception”, philosophers have developed, since antiquity, many reflections of which a majority position has emerged, supported by classical philosophy (Descartes ). It consists in saying that deception or error does not come from the sensation itself, but from the judgment that the mind, or the understanding, bears on what it perceives. So, we do not make a mistake if we say that orange circles are the same size according to their geometric size ” real And I am not mistaken either if I say that these same orange circles are of different sizes according to the phenomenal appearance that I perceive, that is to say from my point of view (see the astonishing theory of simulacra of Epicureanism ).
It is therefore the problem of the relation of reality to appearance that is raised. Now Plato, which makes of the sensible world a “copy” or “image” of the intelligible world, endowed, to this extent, with a certain ontological reality, up to Kant, which distinguishes between phenomena (what appears to us, the “appearing”, not the appearance) and the noumenes, few philosophers have removed in an integral way any ontological consistency to what appears to us. Kant also distinguished, in the Critique of Pure Reason, between analytic judgments, a priori, and synthetic judgments. Among the synthetic judgments, he again distinguished between the synthetic judgments a posteriori, or empirical, and the synthetic judgments a priori. This is also the denial of the existence of these that founded at the beginning of the 20th century, the central theses of logical positivism of the Vienna Circle (Carnap, etc.).
The judgment of taste
The judgment is not always a cognitive judgment: it can also be, according to the Critique of Judgment of Kant, a ” judgment of taste “.
Judgments of facts and value judgments
From an epistemological point of view, one can distinguish, globally, two types of judgments: “judgments of facts” and “judgments of value”. The judgment of fact implies a neutral and objective observation. The value judgment implies an evaluation and a subjective appreciation :
Allogeneous theories of Judgement
These theories come from the division of psychic phenomena introduced by Johannes Nikolaus Tetens, Moses Mendelssohn and Immanuel Kant. They shared them for knowledge, affection and desire. The courts belong to the field of cognition and are considered to be a certain arrangement of representations (ideas or concepts). In order for a court to appear, at least two performances are required, one of which is usually referred to as the subject and the other as a judgment.
Idiogenic theories of Judgement
Idiogenic theories are based on the division introduced by Descartes, who distinguished ideas, judgments and feelings (wishes). Franz Brentano introduces the developed theory of courts based on this division. What Kant describes as “cognition” in Brentano is broken up into performances and judgments, which are various species phenomena. Performances are not a component of the courts (the courts are not a combination of performances), but they allow them. All it takes is one performance, not two as in the above position. The third fundamental difference is the classification of the act of judging – it is a psychic phenomenon sui generiswhereas, in the meantime, all such facts are only representations that are only synthesized, analyzed or combined.
The Brentano theses were developed by Kazimierz Twardowski, who distinguished the act, content and subject matter of the court. An act of court is a statement or denial. The content of the court is determined reality (existence or non-existence). The object, however, is what existence (or non-existence) is found or denied. Thanks to this construction of the court, Twardowski avoids the error that Brentano committed, without distinguishing between the subject itself and its presentation. Consequently, objects existing in the mind are treated equally with objects existing in the non-sense reality and in fact one can not deny their existence.
Referring to idiotic court theory, Twardowski states that their source was the fact that the subject of the courts are most often different relations. For this reason, it was argued that the court is a phenomenon composed of several performances. According to him, however, this does not exhaust all possible judgments. In case when we state in a simple way that something exists (eg “Earth exists”), we deal only with one show (“Earth”), which is the subject of the court. Such sentences are supposed to indicate that the idiogenic theories are more accurate, i.e. they explain a wider range of accidents than the allogeneic theories.
The logic according to Aristotle is that discipline which deals with assertory (or declarative) statements and has as its object the common form of all the sciences, that is, the demonstrative-deductive procedure, or the various modes of reasoning used by them. Of these it is possible to determine with certainty whether they are true or false using the intuitive ability of our intellect to give a universal and objective foundation to syllogisms, logical enunciations expressed in a deductive form. In this way science is obtained, which according to Aristotle is preliminary to every other form of particular knowledge. The declarative statements say something about reality and can be compared with it.
Aristotle classifies the possible judgments based on two variables:
the quantity (to which the universal or particular judgments refer);
the quality (to which the affirmative or negative ones refer).
The result is four kinds of possible judgments:
Among these types of judgments there are specific relationships, which depend on their formal structure. The relationships that exist between the four types of judgment can be:
contrary relations, the two propositions are excluded (if one is true, the other is false); but it is possible that both are false;
subcontrary relationships, the two propositions can be both true but can not be both false (if I say that some men are white I do not exclude the possibility that some men are of another color);
subaltern relations, the two propositions are linked to each other, that is, the particular proposition is linked to the universal one: the truth of the universal proposition implies the truth of the particular one, but the opposite is not true (for example if I say “all men they are white “the particular proposition will be true” some men are white “, but if on the contrary I affirm that” some men are white “it is not correct to affirm that” all men are white “, because it is possible that other men are of other color);
contradictory relations, the two propositions are mutually exclusive, that is, a proposition will be true and a proposition will be false. The falsity of one of them implies the truth of the other or vice versa. These propositions can not both be false. This is the principle of non-contradiction.
Based on this principle the twentieth century scholar Karl Popper has elaborated the falsification principle, according to which if two propositions are opposed to each other and one of them is true, the other will certainly be false.
The judgment corresponds for Kant to the union of a predicate and a subject through a copula; he therefore distinguishes:
analytical judgments (always a priori )
synthetic hindsight (or empirical)
synthetic a priori (or scientific ) judgments
Analytical evaluations a priori
The a priori analytic judgments are obvious and do not derive from experience. Eg:
“The bodies are extended. »
The predicate here attributed to the subject bodies does not say anything more than what is already known, the extension is already implicit in the definition of body, and no experience is needed to formulate this proposition. This type of judgment therefore does not allow progress.
Synthetic a posteriori opinions
The retrospective judgments on the other hand, say something more than what we already know, but derive only from ‘ personal experience, so they can not be used in science. Eg:
“A rose is red. »
The ” red ” determination is not implicit in the “pink” subject, but it is a determination that can not have any universal value, because it depends on a factual finding.
Synthetic a priori reviews
The a priori synthetic judgments are those able to guarantee progress to science. They preach something that is not implicit in the definition of the subject, but attribute this predicate based on an objective calculation, which does not derive from personal experience, and is therefore perfectly reliable. Mathematical judgments are, according to Kant, an example of this particular case:
7 + 5 = 12.
This judgment is synthetic, because we do not find the number 12 in 7 or 5, so getting to the result means progress. This operation is universally valid, it is not empirically referring to a particular case, therefore it is called “a priori”.
A future metaphysics, according to Kant, must therefore be based on synthetic a priori judgments, the only ones that allow scientific advancement.
Kant uses the term “judgment” also in the aesthetic field. For example, even judging “beautiful” a vision or a spectacle of nature is a form of judgment. As in the Critique of Pure Reason, also in this case it is a matter of uniting a predicate with a subject, only that the subject of which we now speak is precisely the self, ie the author of such a unification: he does not link A with B, but connects A with Io. It is the so – called reflective judgment, with which the intellect reflects the external reality within the interior as a mirror.
Example of factual judgments:
The door of the car is badly closed
It’s raining tonight, etc.
Example of value judgments:
“The musical joke” is one of the funniest plays of Mozart.
“This painter has no talent” etc.
There are several ways of conceiving this distinction between judgments of fact and value. One can, like logical positivism (Carnap, Alfred Ayer ), consider it as a dichotomy : there would be on the one hand the factual, descriptive and objective judgments, and on the other the value judgments, prescriptive and subjective. The scientific utterances would then correspond to judgments of fact, and ethical or metaphysical statementsvalue judgments. But we can also mitigate this dichotomy, by speaking only of a distinction between facts and values: this is the perspective taken by Hilary Putnam (2002), for whom facts and values are intertwined. ‘other. Therefore, for Putnam, the fact-value distinction no longer intersects with the objectivity / subjectivity distinction. Putnam in particular rely on the example of ” thick ethical concepts ” (thick ethical concepts ), which mix aspects descriptive and prescriptive. This debate is decisive for the possibility of adopting an axiologically neutral perspectiveand for the conception of the objectivity that one makes oneself – provided one admits a possible form of objectivity, whatever it may be, which would not be the case of an integral relativism, point of view supported by Protagoras, the opponent sophist of Plato.
Simple and complex
Simple judgments are judgments, the components of which are concepts. A simple proposition can be decomposed only into concepts.
Complex judgments are judgments, the constituent parts of which are simple judgments or their combinations. A complex judgment can be regarded as an education from several initial judgments that are joined within a given complex judgment by logical unions (links). On the basis of which union simple judgments are associated, the logical feature of a complex judgment depends.
The composition of a simple proposition
A simple (attributive) judgment is a judgment about belonging to objects of properties (attributes ), as well as judgments about the absence of objects of any properties. In attributive judgment, the terms of judgment – the subject, the predicate, the bundle, the quantifier – can be distinguished.
The subject of judgment is the thought of some object, the concept of the object of judgment (the logical subject).
The predicate of judgment is the thought of a certain part of the content of an object that is considered in judgment (a logical predicate).
Logical link – the idea of the relationship between the subject and the selected part of its content (sometimes only implied).
Quantifier – indicates whether the judgment refers to the whole volume of the concept expressing the subject, or only to its part: “some”, “all”, etc.
Example: “All bones are organs of a living organism.”
Subject – “bone”;
Predicate – “organs of a living organism”;
Logical link – “are”;
Quantifier – “all”.
The composition of a complex proposition
Complex judgments consist of a number of simple ones (“Man does not strive for what he does not believe in, and any enthusiasm, without being supported by real achievements, gradually fades away”), each of which in mathematical logic is denoted by Latin letters (A, B, C, D… a, b, c, d…). Depending on the mode of education, there are conjunctive, disjunctive, implicative, equivalent and negative judgments.
Disjunctive judgments are formed with the help of separative (disjunctive ) logical connectives (similar to the “or” union). Like simple dividing judgments, they happen to be:
Conjunctive judgments are formed with the help of logical conjunctions of a combination or conjunction (equivalent to a comma or unions “and”, “a”, “but”, “yes”, “though”, “which”, “but” and others). Writes as .
Equivalent judgments indicate the identity of the parts of the judgment to each other (they hold an equal sign between them). In addition to the definitions that clarify a term, they can be presented by judgments connected by unions ” if and only if “, “it is necessary and sufficient” (for example: “To the number divided by 3, it is necessary and sufficient that the sum of the digits composing it be divided to 3 “). Writes as (for different mathematicians in different ways, although the mathematical sign of identity still .
Negative judgments are constructed with the help of the links of the negation “not.” They are written either as a ~ b, or as ab (for internal negation of the type “the machine is not a luxury”), and also with the help of a line above the whole judgment with an external denial (rebuttal): “it is not true that…” (ab).
Classification of simple judgments
In terms of quality
Affirmative – S is P. Example: “People are partial to themselves.”
Negative – S is not P. Example: “People do not succumb to flattery.”
General – judgments that are valid with respect to the entire scope of the concept (All S is P). Example: “All plants live”.
Private – judgments that are valid with respect to part of the concept’s scope (Some S are P). Example: “Some coniferous plants”.
With respect to
Categorical – judgments, in which the predicate is affirmed with respect to the subject without limitations in time, in space or circumstances; unconditional judgment (S is P). Example: “All people are mortal.”
Conditional – judgments in which the predicate restricts the relationship to some condition (If A is B, then C is D). Example: “If the rain goes, then the soil will be wet.” For conditional propositions
The basis is the (previous) proposition that contains the condition.
A consequence is a (subsequent) judgment that contains a consequence.
With respect to the subject and predicate
The subject and the predicate of the judgment can be distributed (index “+” ) or not distributed (index “-” ).
Distributed – when in judgment the subject (S) or predicate (P) is taken in full.
Not distributed – when in judgment the subject (S) or predicate (P) is not taken in full.
Judgments A (general-affirmative judgments) Distributes its subject (S), but does not distribute its predicate (P)
The volume of the subject (S) is less than the volume of the predicate (P)
Note: “All fish are vertebrates”
The volumes of subject and predicate coincide
Note: “All squares are parallelograms with equal sides and equal angles”
Judgments E (general negative judgments) Distributes both the subject (S) and the predicate (P)
In this proposition we deny any coincidence between the subject and the predicate
Note: “No insect is a vertebral”
Judgments I (privately-affirmative judgments) Neither the subject (S) nor the predicate (P) is distributed
Part of the class of the subject belongs to the class of the predicate.
Note: “Some books are useful”
Note: “Some animals are Vertebrates”
Judgments O (private-negative judgments) Distributes its predicate (P), but does not distribute its subject (S) In these judgments, we pay attention to what is there is a mismatch between them (the shaded area)
Note: “Some animals are not vertebrates (S)”
Note: “Some snakes do not have poisonous teeth (S)”
allocation table of subject and predicate
Subject to (S) The predicate (P)
OU A distributed undistributed
about E distributed distributed
in I undistributed undistributed
about ABOUT undistributed distributed
general affirmative (A ) – both general and affirmative (“All S + is P – “)
private (I ) – private and affirmative (“Some S – essence of P – “) Note: “Some people have black skin”
universal negative (E ) – the total and negative (“None of the S + is not the essence of P + “) Note: “No man is omniscient”
privately negative (O ) – private and negative (“Some S are not P + “) Note: “Some people do not have black skin”
1) S is either A, or B, or C
2) or A, or B, or C is P when the place of uncertainty remains in the judgment
Conditional-separative judgments –
If A is B, then C is D or E is F
if there is A, that is a, or b, or with Prim: “If anyone wants to get a higher education, then he must study either at the university, or at the institute, or at the academy”
Judgments of identity – the concepts of subject and predicate have the same volume. Example: “Every equilateral triangle is an equiangular triangle”.
Judgments of subordination – a concept with a lesser scope is subject to a concept with a wider scope. Example: “A dog is a pet”.
Judgments of the relationship – namely space, time, attitude. Example: “The house is on the street”.
Existential judgments or judgments of existence are such judgments that ascribe only existence.
Analytical judgments are judgments in which we express something about the subject that is already contained in it.
Synthetic judgments are judgments that broaden knowledge. They do not disclose the content of the subject, but something new is attached.
Source from Wikipedia