What is a negative existential? On paper, it is defined as a description which seems to explain that of something that could not be possible when considering truth-value, regardless of the fact that we as humans discuss things that do not “exist” to the eye on a regular basis. Although it seems as though making statements such as these would come off as straight-forward and simple, existence is a philosophical outrage amongst many scholars that currently study the sort. We speak of many non-existent people, places, and things, yet seem to do so without disarray. But, what is not considered is the language of which we speak it, and that the idea that we are discussing something that seemingly is true by describing it with adjectives, yet we are using true descriptions to describe something that entirely does not exist to begin with. A common example of this is Santa Claus. A pot-bellied, white bearded man that has an extremely descriptive background story known amongst many. We as a culture have nurtured this alleged man into the “hero of christmas”, who brings toys and presents to even the poorest of children. Yet, we forget the original idea that he derived from. He does not exist. In more generic terms, a negative existential can simply be described as “X does not exist.” What Russell fails to acknowledge is the fact that, in order to conclude that something does not exist, you have to first accept the existence of the idea. In point, an example of “X does not exist,” must be true, because the idea immediately becomes true once discussed. So the problem lies in, how can something that is non-existent have characteristics which make it capable of description? If X does not exist, how can someone speak of X that it does not exist? All in confusion, one could say that X at this point would simply be an idea, but that idea, represents something that indeed is real,