User blog:Koinotely/ON THE MEANINGS OF THE LOGICAL CONSTANTS AND THE JUSTIFICATIONS OF THE LOGICAL LAWS

"There is absolutely no question of a judgement being evident in itself, independently of us and our cognitive activity. That would be just as absurd as to speak of a judgement as being known, not by somebody, you or me, but in itself. To be evident is to be evident to somebody, as inevitably as to be known is to be known by somebody. That is what Brouwer meant by saying, in Consciousness, Philosophy, and Mathematics, that there are no nonexperienced truths, a basic intuitionistic tenet. This has been puzzling, because it has been understood as referring to the truth of a proposition, and clearly there are true propositions whose truth has not been experienced, that is, propositions which can be shown to be true in the future, although they have not been proved to be true now. But what Brouwer means here is not that. He does not speak about propositions and truth: he speaks about judgements and evidence, although he uses the term truth instead of the term evidence. And what he says is then perfectly right: there is no evident judgement whose evidence has not been experienced, and experience it is what you do when you understand, comprehend, grasp, or see it. There is no evidence outside our actual or possible experience of it. The notion of evidence is by its very nature subject related, relative to the knowing subject, that is, in Kantian terminology."

http://docenti.lett.unisi.it/files/4/1/1/6/martinlof4.pdf

Per Martin Löf: How did 'judgement' come to be a term of logic ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGUzgcLXNuk

The Proof-explanation of Logical Constants Is Logically Neutral

https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_RIP_230_0401--the-proof-explanation-of-logical.htm

What is Intuitionism?

https://speakerdeck.com/paperswelove/joseph-abrahamson-on-on-the-meanings-of-the-logical-constants-and-the-justifications-of-the-logical-laws?slide=78