<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMed 2.7//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/in/PubMed.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
				<PublisherName>University of Tabriz</PublisherName>
				<JournalTitle>Journal of Philosophical Investigations</JournalTitle>
				<Issn>2251-7960</Issn>
				<Volume>10</Volume>
				<Issue>19</Issue>
				<PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
					<Year>2016</Year>
					<Month>10</Month>
					<Day>22</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>Assessment of Wittgenstein's Resolution to the Negative Facts</ArticleTitle>
<VernacularTitle>Assessment of Wittgenstein&#039;s Resolution to the Negative Facts</VernacularTitle>
			<FirstPage>45</FirstPage>
			<LastPage>74</LastPage>
			<ELocationID EIdType="pii">14914</ELocationID>
			
			
			<Language>FA</Language>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Mahdi</FirstName>
					<LastName>Asadi</LastName>
<Affiliation>Post Doctoral Researcher of Philosophy, Tarbiat Modares University</Affiliation>

</Author>
</AuthorList>
				<PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
			<History>
				<PubDate PubStatus="received">
					<Year>2015</Year>
					<Month>05</Month>
					<Day>26</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</History>
		<Abstract>the essay tries to evaluate Wittgenstein&#039;s resolution to the riddle of Russell&#039;s negative facts. That is, when we say, for example, &quot;Tehran is not the capital of Ireland&quot; is true, what kind of truth–maker should we consider for the negative proposition because of its truth? Surely, a negative truth–maker is so problematic and counter–intuitive. Therefore, Wittgenstein has tried to show how it can be returned to the positive truth–makers. Thus, the paper first analyzes Wittgenstein&#039;s general resolutions to the nonexistents. Then it focuses on his special resolution to the negative facts riddle, i.e. Tractatus 2.05: &quot;The totality of existent atomic facts also determines which atomic facts do not exist&quot;. Finally, after refuting some philosophers&#039; criticisms, it shows his resolution&#039;s positive points and possible lacks.</Abstract>
			<OtherAbstract Language="FA">the essay tries to evaluate Wittgenstein&#039;s resolution to the riddle of Russell&#039;s negative facts. That is, when we say, for example, &quot;Tehran is not the capital of Ireland&quot; is true, what kind of truth–maker should we consider for the negative proposition because of its truth? Surely, a negative truth–maker is so problematic and counter–intuitive. Therefore, Wittgenstein has tried to show how it can be returned to the positive truth–makers. Thus, the paper first analyzes Wittgenstein&#039;s general resolutions to the nonexistents. Then it focuses on his special resolution to the negative facts riddle, i.e. Tractatus 2.05: &quot;The totality of existent atomic facts also determines which atomic facts do not exist&quot;. Finally, after refuting some philosophers&#039; criticisms, it shows his resolution&#039;s positive points and possible lacks.</OtherAbstract>
		<ObjectList>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Wittgenstein</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">negative facts</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Totality</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">nonexistence</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Russell</Param>
			</Object>
		</ObjectList>
<ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_14914_bc74a8c5b90a93577ab02163836c1fa0.pdf</ArchiveCopySource>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>
