Page History

...

For this reason, even a critical reflection on witness that would eventuate in invalidating its claims would be a service to it itself as well as, presumably, to others faced with having to make a decision about its validity. In this critical respect, witness differs logically from other kinds of speech acts involving other kinds of validity claims. Thus, for example, an expressive speech act articulating my wants or desires expresses or implies a validity claim of sincerity. To this extent, critical reflection on this claim might have something to do with validating it, although the real validation of this kind of claim has to be found in the consistency of my subsequent behavior as the person making it. But, while reflection, or, at any rate, rationalization, might directly serve an expression of my wants, there's no basis for talking about its providing any indirect service. Either reflection, or rationalization, directly serves my expression of wants or it does not serve them at all. In the case of a constative speech act, however, there is also a claim to truth; and reflection can be of indirect service to this kind of a speech act by critically validating, or invalidating, this claim. And the same is true, mutatis mutandis of a regulative speech act.

...