Hostname: page-component-669899f699-rg895 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T12:41:48.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Russell, Negative Facts, and Ontology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

L. Nathan Oaklander  and
Silvano Miracchi
L. Nathan Oaklander
Affiliation:
University of Michigan—Flint
Silvano Miracchi
Affiliation:
Beverly Hills, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Russell's introduction of negative facts to account for the truth of “negative” sentences or beliefs rests on his collaboration with Wittgenstein in such efforts as the characterization of formal necessity, the theory of logical atomism, and the use of the Ideal Language. In examining their views we arrive at two conclusions. First, that the issue of negative facts is distinct from questions of meaning or intentionality; what a sentence or belief means or is about rather than what makes it true or false. Second, that the ontological use of the Ideal Language is incompatible with the requirements of its employment in the logical study of inferences. On this basis we conclude that despite elaborations by recent proponents, the doctrine of negative facts lacks adequate support, and perhaps more importantly, it is proper ontological method to free the Ideal Language from the exigencies of a symbolism constructed for logical investigation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , September 1980 , pp. 434 - 455
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 by Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

We wish to thank L. Addis, P. Butchvarov, T. Foster, R. Grossmann, and the anonymous referee for Philosophy of Science for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

Allaire, E. B. (1974), “Bergmann's Ontologies,” in The Ontological Turn (Gram and Klemke, eds.). Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 38–64.Google Scholar
Allaire, E. B. (1975), “Truth,” Metaphilosophy 6: 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allaire, E. B. (1978), “Relations: Recreational Remarks,” Philosophical Studies 34: 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, G. (1964a), “Generality and Existence,” in Logic and Reality. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 64–84.Google Scholar
Bergmann, G. (1964b), “Ontological Alternatives,” in Logic and Reality. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 124–157.Google Scholar
Bergmann, G. (1967), Realism. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Brownstein, D. (1973), “Negative Exemplification,” American Philosophical Quarterly 10: 43–50.Google Scholar
Butchvarov, P. (1970), The Concept of Knowledge. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Butchvarov, P. (1974), “The Limits of Ontological Analysis,” in The Ontological Turn (Gram and Klemke, eds.). Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 3–37.Google Scholar
Butchvarov, P. (1979), Being Qua Being. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Demos, R. (1917), “A Discussion of a Certain Type of Negative Proposition,” Mind 24: 188–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, G. (1966), “Negation,” Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege (Geach and Black, eds.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 117–135.Google Scholar
Grossmann, R. (1965), The Structure of Mind. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Grossmann, R. (1969), “Non-existent Objects: Recent Work on Brentano and Meinong,” American Philosophical Quarterly 1: 17–32.Google Scholar
Grossmann, R. (1974), “Meinong's Doctrine of the Aussersein of the Pure Object,” NOÛS 8: 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, R. (1975), “Definite Descriptions,” Philosophical Studies 27: 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, R. (1976), “The Factuality of Facts,” Grazer Philosophical Studien 2: 85–103.Google Scholar
Hochberg, H. (1969), “Negation and Generality,” NOÛS 3: 325–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochberg, H. (1979), Thought, Fact and Reference. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
McTaggart, J. M. E. (1921), The Nature of Existence. vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1966), Some Main Problems of Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin (4th Impression).Google Scholar
Nammour, J. (1973), “Resemblances and Universale,” Mind 82: 516–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaklander, L. N. (1975), “Resemblances and Universale: A Reply to J. Nammour,” Mind 84: 436–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaklander, L. N. (1977), “Particulars, Positional Qualities, and Individuation,” Philosophy of Science 44: 478–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. (1960), Our Knowledge of the External World. New York: Mentor Book. (2nd Edition).Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1964a), “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism,” in Logic and Knowledge (Marsh, ed.). London: George Allen & Unwin, 177–281.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1964b), “On Propositions: What They Are And How They Mean,” in Logic and Knowledge: 284–320 (2nd Impression).Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1956), The Problems of Philosophy. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1963), Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (Pears and McGuiness trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (2nd Impression).Google Scholar