Intuitively, I'd say negation is generally predicated of the 'same' thing, as in 'negative charge' and 'positive charge', or 'positive spin' and 'negative spin', while two things which are opposite are so with respect to some third term, as in 'green and red are opposites on the color wheel'. There is, in other words, a closer 'fit' of identity between negatives (think of the inverting colors on a black and white picture, where black is substituted for white and vice versa, but the 'picture' remains the same), than there are between 'opposites' (sweet and sour, say). Perhaps one can speak of a quantitative and qualitative difference in kind (corresponding to negation and opposition respectively).

But one is free, as usual, to use terms as one sees fit.

What you call "opposite" often is called "contrary". Contrariety and contradiction are two sorts of opposition. Look up Aristotle's Square of Opposition. (Also on the SEP)

Trying to envisage the opposite of an orange......

Nice question. To me they're different. To take your example, I would say that anything non-orange negates an orange to the extent that it's not an orange; empty space, for example, does that pretty well; Or, consider the universe removed of all oranges as the absolute negation of oranges. But in order to find the opposite of an orange you would have to identify particular characteristics and figure out their antitheses. That pulls you more towards essences. Say you decide that part of what characterizes oranges are that they are round, you're left with the problem of identifying the opposite of round, which sounds like it should be something rather than nothing i.e. a shape. But which one??

EDIT: (Sorry, I read that as "an orange" not "orange". I blame Wayfarer and scribbling while at work).

Opposite suggests location, across from, as across from orange on the color wheel is a shade of blue. Negative suggests a valuation as in a denial versus an affirmation.

ntuitively, I'd say negation is generally predicated of the 'same' thing, as in 'negative charge' and 'positive charge', or 'positive spin' and 'negative spin', while two things which are opposite are so with respect to some third term, as in 'green and red are opposites on the color wheel'. — StreetlightX

I'd agree pretty much. Negation speaks to opposites that are reflexive or easily reversible because they are of the same scale. So spin or charge are symmetries that can be broken in two directions. And just as easily unbroken by another reversal. Or equivalently, you can imagine creating a hole via a taking away, that can then function as the negation - as in the electron hole of Dirac's sea.

But then the other sense of opposite is an asymmetry - where the relationship is inverse, reciprocal, dichotomistic. A breaking of a symmetry across scale. So this is where you get the metaphysically general opposites, like discrete vs continuous or chance vs necessity, where the two poles are as unalike as it is possible to be. There is a thirdness involved - in that the two poles are mutually exclusive, but also jointly exhaustive. That is, together they negate all other possibility, so taking the negating to a whole other universal level.

So opposition suggests a dyadic relation. But simple or particular states of opposition are so easily reversed that the stable or substantial thing seems to be the third thing of the symmetry they break. And then metaphysical oppositions seem irreducible and undeniable because they also speak to the third thing of the symmetry they break, but now in terms of excluding it as an unstable ground of possibility.

Negation can mean (at least) two different things. The first applies to a logical sentence and means putting a 'not' in front of it. The second applies to a numeric quantity and means multiplying it by -1.

'Opposite' can be used to mean either. But I think it is less precise than 'negative'. For instance, say we are seated in a circular stadium. You could be opposite me but be in the front row whereas I am in the back row. So your position is opposite mine, but it is not the negative (antipode) of mine. That would only be the case if you too were in the back row.

In the case of orange, the colour negative of a particular shade of orange would have precise values of Cyan, Yellow and Magenta. But we could then multiply those values by any non-unit positive scalar to give a colour that is still 'opposite' but darker or lighter than the exact negative. It would be an opposite but not a negative.

That nuance seems to apply only to the numeric meaning of negation. For the logical meaning I think opposite and negation mean the same thing.

Cool! Thanks guys!

A thing and its negative (not thing) divides the world neatly into two mutually exclusive parts. E.g. apple and non-apple. The apposite philosophical term is contradictory.

A thing and its opposite are mutually exclusive but it needn't be that together they divide the world into exactly two parts. E.g. hot and cold but there's lukewarm. I think the philosophical term for opposite is contrary.

Opposition and negation: are they the same thing? — Mongrel

I tend not to use them interchangeably in contexts requiring technical precision.

I use opposite to indicate reversals or mirror-imaging
(e.g. "_/" "\_", "yin-yang").

I use negation to indicate subtraction, self-reflexive limit or erasure / zero-out (e.g. "~X", "minus Y", "Z plus ~Z").

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I suppose we can deepen our understanding of the matter by asking two questions:

1. What is the negation of opposite?

2. What is the opposite of negation?

If you ask me, the negation of opposite is same (à la synonym vs. antonym) and the opposite of negation is affirmation (à la yes vs. no). I'm not quite sure though. Help!

1. What is the negation of opposite?

2. What is the opposite of negation? — Agent Smith

1. Identical.
2. Negation of negation.

1. Identical.
2. Negation of negation. — 180 Proof

I'll get back to you later. I'm :confused:

What is the negation of opposite?

2. What is the opposite of negation?
— Agent Smith
1. Identical.
2. Negation of negation. — 180 Proof

Do you suppose you could help me out here. I'm trying to bring some precision to these concepts and the only discipline I know that's known for that is math.

Take numbers. Say $\infty$ (infinite)

1. The negation of infinite is finite.

2. The opposite of infinite ($+ \infty$) is $- \infty$.

How do I map this onto how the words "opposite" and "negation" are used in discourse, formal and informal, outside math that is?

As I wrote above ...

I tend not to use them interchangeably in contexts requiring technical precision — 180 Proof

For me, outside of math, logic and philosophical arguments, both "oppose" & "negate" are used to exclude statements (or their referents).

positive is opposite of negative AND negative is opposite of positive, therefore it applies to both.
negative only applies to one side, which is the opposite of positive, but conversely does not apply.

In other words, opposition does not imply negativity, while negative does.

How do I map this onto how the words "opposite" and "negation" are used in discourse, formal and informal, outside math that is? — Agent Smith

An opposite number can be obtained by inverting it. You oppose the change, to let the situation stay the same. Multiplication by 2 can be opposed by multiplication by 1/2.
Negation on the other hand, means you don't want to change at all. When someone adds 7, you negate this by substracting 7.

So,

Opposition: multiplication by the inverse
Negation: adding the negative

The first opposes the change, after it has taken place, while the latter negates the change before it has even started, making it impossible to oppose at all. Tyrans are negators in the first place, while opposers in the second. The oppressed though hold opposition up higher then negation. They regard opposition as the most important, while negating the tyran.

Opposite is closed i.e. it specifically identifies another thing e.g. the opposite of hot is cold. Opposites are knowledge-apt i.e. I can construct knowledge with opposites.

Negation is open i.e. it doesn't stipulate another thing e.g. the negation of hot is not hot. Negation is not knowledge-apt e.g. x isn't hot, it isn't an apple, it isn't green, it isn't... doesn't seem to imply that we know anything (vide apophasis).

Opposite is closed i.e. it specifically identifies another thing e.g. the opposite of hot is cold. Opposites are knowledge-apt i.e. I can construct knowledge with opposites. — Agent Smith

Nice observation. Negating heat is denying it, not relating it to cold. Opposing heat needs cold. To oppose the coldness (make it smaller) heat has to be introduced. To negate cold is to deny the feeling.

Is opposing active and negating passive? Does negating let the negated persist, while opposing tries to eliminate what's opposed?

Perhaps for some more clarity, consider these verbs: to oppose (block, counter) and to negate (eliminate) – i.e. how to affect X, not merely a dispositional (or intentional) stance towards X.

Etymology isn't the be all and end all, but you might consider the types of relations between ideas that come from the words. "Opposite" is positional/in contrast - to have one is not to deny the other, merely to compare them or set against one another. "Negate" is about denial - there is something going on in the mind of an agent, e.g. a belief, a claim, a design/plan.

Isn't the answer always going to be tied to the example used? If the left side of the room negated the opposite side of the room, then there would be no room.

The opposite of +2 is -2.

The negation of +2 is x > +2 OR x < + 2

Salient points.

1. There's only one opposite or opposites come in pairs. A negation of something, however, may be a multiplicity.

2. Opposites, MAD (mutually assured destruction). Negations, not necessarily that MAD.

3. Opposites, mutually exclusive only. Negations mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive.

4.
.
.
.