Responsible For Truth? Peirce on Judgment and Assertion

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Tuzet, Giovanni
Data de Publicação: 2013
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)
Texto Completo: https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/13555
Resumo: We consider Peirce’s remarks on judgment focusing on the relations and distinctions between judgment, proposition, belief and assertion. Despite the subtlety of Peirce’s distinctions, we finally argue for a broad conception of judgment. The main reason for that is the difficulty of assessing our responsibility in judging and asserting if judgment and assertion are considered in a narrow and separate sense. The argument goes as follows. Being an act of assent, claims Peirce, judgment is in contrast to assertion: to simply assent is not to assert, for the first is an internal act while the second is external. But such an internal conception of judgment, contrasted to the external dimension of assertion, is in our opinion too narrow a one to account for the social and normative aspects of judging and even asserting. We argue for a broader conception of judgment, with assertion as one of its parts and modeled on the process of legal judgment. In these terms, the idea of someone being responsible for the truth of his assertions would be specified.
id PUC_SP-15_5c84c60a459a85de08a25d58f9ed1d78
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/13555
network_acronym_str PUC_SP-15
network_name_str Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Responsible For Truth? Peirce on Judgment and AssertionResponsável pela Verdade? Peirce sobre Juízo e AsserçãoJuízoAsserçãoJuízo legalResponsabilidadeVerdadeJudgmentAssertionLegal judgmentResponsibilityTruthWe consider Peirce’s remarks on judgment focusing on the relations and distinctions between judgment, proposition, belief and assertion. Despite the subtlety of Peirce’s distinctions, we finally argue for a broad conception of judgment. The main reason for that is the difficulty of assessing our responsibility in judging and asserting if judgment and assertion are considered in a narrow and separate sense. The argument goes as follows. Being an act of assent, claims Peirce, judgment is in contrast to assertion: to simply assent is not to assert, for the first is an internal act while the second is external. But such an internal conception of judgment, contrasted to the external dimension of assertion, is in our opinion too narrow a one to account for the social and normative aspects of judging and even asserting. We argue for a broader conception of judgment, with assertion as one of its parts and modeled on the process of legal judgment. In these terms, the idea of someone being responsible for the truth of his assertions would be specified.Consideramos as observações de Peirce sobre o juízo, enfocando as relações e distinções entre juízo, proposição, crença e asserção. A despeito da sutileza das distinções peirceanas, finalmente argumentamos em favor de uma concepção mais ampla de juízo. A principal razão para isso é a dificuldade de avaliar nossa responsabilidade ao julgar e emitir asserções, se juízo e asserção forem considerados num sentido estreito e separado. O argumento é o seguinte.Sendo um ato de assentimento, alega Peirce, juízo é diferente de asserção: simplesmente assentir não é asserir, pois o primeiro é um ato interno, ao passo que o segundo é um ato externo. Mas um tal conceito interno de juízo é, diferenciado da dimensão externa da asserção, em nossa opinião, deveras estreito para dar conta dos aspectos sociais e normativos de julgar e, até mesmo, de emitir asserções. Argumentamos em favor de uma concepção mais ampla de juízo, com a asserção como uma de suas partes, uma concepção modelada segundo o processo de juízo legal. Nesses termos, a idéia de alguém ser responsável pela verdade de suas asserções seria especificada.Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo2013-02-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/13555Cognitio: Revista de Filosofia; Vol. 7 No. 2 (2006); 317-336Cognitio: Revista de Filosofia; v. 7 n. 2 (2006); 317-3362316-52781518-7187reponame:Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)instacron:PUC_SPenghttps://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/13555/10073Copyright (c) 2013 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessTuzet, Giovanni2024-07-01T13:09:36Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/13555Revistahttps://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofiaPRIhttps://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/oairevcognitio@gmail.com2316-52781518-7187opendoar:2024-07-01T13:09:36Cognitio (São Paulo. Online) - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Responsible For Truth? Peirce on Judgment and Assertion
Responsável pela Verdade? Peirce sobre Juízo e Asserção
title Responsible For Truth? Peirce on Judgment and Assertion
spellingShingle Responsible For Truth? Peirce on Judgment and Assertion
Tuzet, Giovanni
Juízo
Asserção
Juízo legal
Responsabilidade
Verdade
Judgment
Assertion
Legal judgment
Responsibility
Truth
title_short Responsible For Truth? Peirce on Judgment and Assertion
title_full Responsible For Truth? Peirce on Judgment and Assertion
title_fullStr Responsible For Truth? Peirce on Judgment and Assertion
title_full_unstemmed Responsible For Truth? Peirce on Judgment and Assertion
title_sort Responsible For Truth? Peirce on Judgment and Assertion
author Tuzet, Giovanni
author_facet Tuzet, Giovanni
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Tuzet, Giovanni
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Juízo
Asserção
Juízo legal
Responsabilidade
Verdade
Judgment
Assertion
Legal judgment
Responsibility
Truth
topic Juízo
Asserção
Juízo legal
Responsabilidade
Verdade
Judgment
Assertion
Legal judgment
Responsibility
Truth
description We consider Peirce’s remarks on judgment focusing on the relations and distinctions between judgment, proposition, belief and assertion. Despite the subtlety of Peirce’s distinctions, we finally argue for a broad conception of judgment. The main reason for that is the difficulty of assessing our responsibility in judging and asserting if judgment and assertion are considered in a narrow and separate sense. The argument goes as follows. Being an act of assent, claims Peirce, judgment is in contrast to assertion: to simply assent is not to assert, for the first is an internal act while the second is external. But such an internal conception of judgment, contrasted to the external dimension of assertion, is in our opinion too narrow a one to account for the social and normative aspects of judging and even asserting. We argue for a broader conception of judgment, with assertion as one of its parts and modeled on the process of legal judgment. In these terms, the idea of someone being responsible for the truth of his assertions would be specified.
publishDate 2013
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2013-02-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/13555
url https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/13555
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/13555/10073
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2013 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2013 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Cognitio: Revista de Filosofia; Vol. 7 No. 2 (2006); 317-336
Cognitio: Revista de Filosofia; v. 7 n. 2 (2006); 317-336
2316-5278
1518-7187
reponame:Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)
instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
instacron:PUC_SP
instname_str Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
instacron_str PUC_SP
institution PUC_SP
reponame_str Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)
collection Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Cognitio (São Paulo. Online) - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv revcognitio@gmail.com
_version_ 1803387421248716800