Hintikka I 150
Negation/Tractatus/Wittgenstein/Hintikka: the negation is the same picture - the sense of which is, however, reversed - (polarized) - so that the sentence negation is eliminated.
Negation/Frege/Russell/Hintikka: negations of the predicate eliminate them and instead add the sentence negation.
- - -
II 51
Negation/Wittgenstein: its meaning can only be expressed through rules of use.
II 51
Denial/negation/Wittgenstein: there must be an agreement: E.g. the red light is on its own not the instruction to stop. It must be explained with the help of language.
The meaning of "no" can only be expressed in rules that apply to its manner of use.
II 72
Negation/explanation/Russell: explained ~ p by saying that ~ p is true when p is false, and vice versa.
II 73
Negation/WittgensteinVsRussell: but that is no explanation of negation, because it could also apply to other than the negative sentences. (>
Truth table).
II 74
Negation/fact/Wittgenstein: what corresponds to the sentence "the door is not open" if it is open? But here a mistaken analogy comes into play, because it is nothing that corresponds to p. And that, what corresponds to ~ p , is not being the case of p.
II 75
Denial/negation/understanding/Wittgenstein: the understanding of "no" is like understanding a chess move. >
Chess.
II 113
Fact/negation/Wittgenstein: there are no positive or negative facts. "Positive" and "negative" refer to the form of the sentences and not to the facts. >
Facts.
II 114
A negative statement has not meaning in the same way as a positive statement; it cannot be described by positive terms and maintain its negative meaning. >
Thoughts/Frege.
II 221
Internal negation/Wittgenstein: the statement "this table is green" does not form part of the statement "this table is not green"? - ((s) claim, not sentence) - Wittgenstein: we rather draw a picture. >
Picture theory.
II 234
Generality/general things/general/negation/Wittgenstein: the grammars of the generality and the negation are ambiguous in incredible ways. >
Generality.
E.g. "This square is white" I could translate it as: "all the points of this square are white". Then we cannot say: "a point is not white" without introducing new conventions.
Negation/"all"/Wittgenstein: both have different grammars. One has raised the question whether the negation of sentences implies the same as a disjunction of sentences. In certain cases, it is actually so:
E.g. disjunction: "this is one of the primary colors, but not red", which means: "this is white or yellow or green or blue or black." However, there is no disjunction which corresponds to "Schmitz is not in this room". >
Disjunction.
Double Negation/Wittgenstein: is frequently used in the sense of a simple negation.
E.g. "I like it and I do not like it".
II 239
Who says we do not mean them in that sense, is saying that there are different types of double negation.
Some say: "the application will be different." But how can one speak of a system of signs, without talking of the application. >
Use, >
Signs.
E.g. I can lay my hands together so that they are covering each other. But one can ask: How would you like to explain "cover" with or without reference to something that is brought to cover?
II 276
Double negation/Wittgenstein: double negation equals affirmation: it is not a determination about our habits, because then it would be a statement of natural history and not even a true one. It may be that the double negation means the negation in a symbol system. >
Symbols.
II 282
Negation/disjunction/Repertoire/Wittgenstein: if one has a distinct repertoire one can equate negation "not-p" with a disjunction e.g. "q v r v s" - that does not work, with e.g. "not this red here". - Delimited repertoire: E.g. permutations.
Philosophy/Wittgenstein: the words "true" and "false" are two words, of which the philosophy was so far dependent.
The philosophy is always based on questions without sense. We can completely abolish true and false. Instead, "sentence" and "negation". ((s)>
referential quantification, >
semantic ascent).
II 288
Shadow/negation/world/reality/figure/Wittgenstein: we believe the sentences must correspond at least with something like a shadow. But nothing is thus obtained. After all, why in the world should there be a shadow of that reality? The confusing of the negation is in the thought, a symbol must correspond to something. >
World, >
Reality.
How can you know what is meant when no equivalent is there? Nevertheless, you must know what you mean. >
Meaning (Intending).
II 289
Negation/Wittgenstein: E.g. "here is not a chair" corresponds to that here is the place and somewhere in the world are chairs.
E.g. "I wish Schmitz may come" erroneous idea: that the sentence must consist of somehow jointed portions, like a box has a bottom and a lid.
II 290
Negation/understanding/Wittgenstein: if one has understood "~ p", one must also have understood "p". But if p is false, there is nothing that corresponds to it. What does it mean to understand a command, if you do not follow him? By forming an image one does not get closer to the execution. >
Understanding.
---
IV 79
Negation/denial/Tractatus/Wittgenstein: 5,513 one could say, two sentences are opposed to one another if they have nothing in common - and: every sentence has only one negative - ((s)>
completeness,>
maximum).
