more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
The idea that negation is, or can be, a cancellation device raises an interesting question. What does one do to wipe the slate clean after an improper assertion? Not-A is too strong; it reverses our stand on A rather than nullifying it.
Gist of Idea
Not-A is too strong to just erase an improper assertion, because it actually reverses A
Source
Stephen Yablo (Aboutness [2014], 09.8)
Book Ref
Yablo,Stephen: 'Aboutness' [Princeton 2014], p.162
A Reaction
[He is discussing a remark of Strawson 1952] It seems that 'not' has two meanings or uses: a weak use of 'nullifying' an assertion, and a strong use of 'reversing' an assertion. One could do both: 'that's not right; in fact, it's just the opposite'.
| 1554 | Contradiction is impossible, since only one side of the argument refers to the true facts [Prodicus, by Didymus the Blind] |
| 1705 | It doesn't have to be the case that in opposed views one is true and the other false [Aristotle] |
| 12368 | Negation takes something away from something [Aristotle] |
| 16491 | If we define 'this is not blue' as disbelief in 'this is blue', we eliminate 'not' as an ingredient of facts [Russell] |
| 12594 | If one proposition negates the other, which is the negative one? [Harman] |
| 12338 | We must either assert or deny any single predicate of any single subject [Badiou] |
| 19005 | Not-A is too strong to just erase an improper assertion, because it actually reverses A [Yablo] |
| 18906 | Negating a predicate term and denying its unnegated version are quite different [Engelbretsen] |
| 11214 | We learn 'not' along with affirmation, by learning to either affirm or deny a sentence [Rumfitt] |
| 18829 | The truth grounds for 'not A' are the possibilities incompatible with truth grounds for A [Rumfitt] |