The Cognitive Operation of Judgment By Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., M.B.A., Phd. (C)Copyright and (P)Patent by Anthony J.

Fejfar and Neothomism PC (PA) and The American People and the People of God as a Perpetual Public Domain Copyright and Patent. Chapter One The Cognitive Operation of Judgment The notion of Judgment is found in the work of the Ancient Philosopher, Aristotle, in the work of Medeival Philosopher, Thomas Aquainas, and in the Postmodern philosophy of Bernard Lonergan. The modern philosophers seem to ignore or even disparage the idea of judgment. In his book, “The Critique of Pure Judgment,” Emmanuel Kant purported to trash the idea of judgment, but only really succeeded in making a critique of aesthetic judgment, which itself was flawed. Now, when we consider the notion of judgment in the context of the cognitional process structure of: Experience, Understanding, Judgment and Reflection (Lonergan), we find that Lonergan defined the cognitive operation of judgment as: A conditioned, whose conditions are fulfilled in consciounsess. In fact, Lonergan’s definition is incomplete at best and flawed at the worst. Judgment is an analogical logic function which is sometimes referred to as an intuitive judgment. Thus, in order to make a probable judgment of fact the person must make an

analogical judgment that one’s understanding of the data of experience is closely or substantially analogous to the data of experience, as such. Therefore, I can judge as a probable judgment of fact that my understanding of my backyard tree is closely or substantially analogous to my experience of my backyard tree.

Now, we still must deal with the issue of an adequate definition of “judgment”. defined using the following Logical Syllogism: A is to B as C is to D.

Judgment is

So, with respect to the tree example given above, the following is true: My Experience of the Tree is to my Analytic Understanding of the Tree as My Analytic Understanding of the Tree is to my Analogical Understanding of the Tree. OR My Analogical Understanding of the Tree is to my Analytic Understanding of the Tree, as My Analytic Understanding of the Tree is to my Experience of the Tree. Thus, we can see that “judgment” is defined as analogical understanding, and is not analytic understanding. Analogical understanding attempts to see if two concepts are alike, in say 5 aspects, but not identicle. Analytic understanding attempts to see if two concepts are the same or different. Therefore, analogical understanding attempts to see if the kitchen chair and the dining room chair are alike, which analytic understanding attempts to see if the kitchen chair and the dining room chair are the same or different, identicle or not identicle. Thus, we can see that

analogical understanding and analytic understanding are not the same cognitive operation, and that analogical understanding or analogical judgment can be, and is, sufficiently defined as to have a reasonable meaning linguistically, cognitively, philosophically, and otherwise.