If you took a conclusion as your belief, and the premise as your justification for that belief, then your premise must also need justification, since your current conclusion is dependent upon them. However, if you took your premise and placed them as the conclusion in a new syllogism, then you would need new premise to justify that conclusion as well. However, your new premise would also need to be justified. Ad infinitum. The conclusion drawn form this is that you are never justified in believing anything, and that you must first assume something to conclude anything. My question would be two-fold: 1) Is there any way to escape the apparent conclusion drawn from this? 2) If not, what should we assume to be true, in order to conclude anything else? I personally don't like the idea of assuming anything, but if we are to assume something, what criteria should be built for the assumption?
why does the justification need justification? If your justification is appropriately covered than no justification is needed. It's circular logic. Either that or I don't understand your point.