Mental Painkillers and Reasons for Pain
Hagit Benbaji2018, Manuscrito
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
What does bodily pain have in common with mental pain? According to "evaluativism," both are representations of something bad. This paper puts forward three claims. First, that evaluativism vis-à-vis bodily pain is false for it renders it irrational to take painkillers. Second, that evaluativism vis-à-vis mental pain is true. Third, that this difference between bodily and mental pain stems from the fact that only the latter is normative, that is, based on reasons. The normative difference between bodily and mental pain implies that mental pains are not bad, while bodily pains are not representations. Pain is unique among perceptual experiences. It is not merely something which cannot be experienced without being exist, but something which cannot exist without being Mental painkillers and reasons for pain 2 Manuscrito-Rev. Int. Fil. Campinas, 2018. wished not to exist. The negative affect of pain, its painfulness, makes it bad, that is, gives us a reason to seek painkillers to get rid of it. Kripke once imagined yellow killer objects that kill whoever looks at them, but this thoughtexperiment by no means implies that a yellow-experience can be intrinsically bad. The yellow-experience has a very bad consequence, namely, death; but it is not bad itself. While the idea of a relief from yellow-experiences, yellow-experiencekiller, as it were, hardly makes sense, life without painkillers is hard to imagine. Recently it has been suggested that pain is painful in virtue of its being evaluative, or more precisely, "a perception of evil" (Korsgaard 1996: 155). Evaluativism is considered to be the best version of representationalism visà-vis bodily pain, the theory that it is in virtue of representing a bodily disturbance that pain has its phenomenal character. Evaluativism requires that pain not only represent a bodily disturbance, but represent it as bad. 1 The evaluative component is required because unlike ordinary perceptual experiences, say visual or tactile experiences, pain necessarily moves us to act against it, e.g., by taking medicines or painkillers. Ironically, evaluativism has been criticized for making the perfectly rational act of taking painkillers seem as irrational as shooting the messenger (Korsgaard Hall 1989, Bain 2013, Jacobson 2013). The messenger objection argues that evaluativism cannot explain what it is that renders a representation of a bad bodily disorder bad in itself, thereby making it rational to take painkillers. The very idea of a bad representation, a representation that constitutes a reason to seek its elimination, is suspect.
Related papers
Evaluativist Accounts of Pain's Unpleasantness
In Jennifer Corns (ed.) Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Pain, 2017
Evaluativism is best thought of as a way of enriching a perceptual view of pain to account for pain’s unpleasantness or painfulness. Once it was common for philosophers to contrast pains with perceptual experiences (McGinn 1982; Rorty 1980). It was thought that perceptual experiences were intentional (or content-bearing, or about something), whereas pains were representationally blank. But today many of us reject this contrast. For us, your having a pain in your toe is a matter not of your sensing “pain-ly” or encountering a sense-datum, but of your having an interoceptive experience representing (accurately or inaccurately) that your toe is in a particular experience-independent condition, such as undergoing a certain “disturbance” or being damaged or in danger (Armstrong 1962; Tye 1995). But even if such representational content makes an experience a pain, a further ingredient seems required to make the pain unpleasant. According to evaluativism, the further ingredient is the experience’s possession of evaluative content: its representing the bodily condition as bad for the subject. In this chapter, I elaborate evaluativism, locate it among alternatives, and explain its attractions and challenges.
On Pain, Its Stratification, and Its Alleged Indefinability
Gestalt Theory, 2017
This paper develops a phenomenological approach of pain, which highlights the main presuppositions that underlie pain research undertaken both in the natural and in the socio-historical sciences. My argument is composed of four steps: 1) only if pain is a stratified experience can it become a legitimate theme in both natural and socio-historical sciences; 2) the phenomenological method is supremely well suited to disclose the different strata of pain experience; 3) the phenomenological account here offered identifies three fundamental levels that make up the texture of pain experience: pain can be conceived as a pre-reflective experience, or as an object of affective reflection, or as an object of cognitive reflection; 4) such a stratified account clarifies how pain can be a subject matter in the natural and socio-historical sciences. Arguably, the natural and socio-historical sciences address pain at different levels of its manifestation. While the natural sciences address pain as an object of cognitive reflection, socio-historical sciences first and foremost deal with pain as a pre-reflective experience and as an object of affective reflection.
The Imperative View of Pain
Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2011
Pain, crucially, is unpleasant and motivational. It can be awful; and it drives us to action, e.g. to take our weight off a sprained ankle. But what is the relationship between pain and those two features? And in virtue of what does pain have them? Addressing these questions, Colin Klein and Richard J. Hall have recently developed the idea that pains are, at least partly, experiential commands—to stop placing your weight on your ankle, for example. In this paper, I reject their accounts. Against Klein, I use dissociation cases to argue that possession of ‘imperative content’ cannot wholly constitute pain. Against them both, I further claim that possession of such content cannot even constitute pain’s unpleasant, motivational aspect. For, even if it were possible to specify the relevant imperative content—which is far from clear—the idea of a command cannot bear the explanatory weight Klein and Hall place on it.
Tracking Representationalism and the Painfulness of Pain (Philosophical Issues, 2011)
Representationalism is the thesis that the phenomenal character of an experience supervenes on its representational content. Tracking representationalism is the conjunction of representationalism with a “tracking” or causal-covariation account of the content of experience. Several philosophers have maintained that the experience of pain poses a serious challenge to tracking representationalism. In particular, tracking representationalism is thought to be unable to account for the negative affective quality or “painfulness” of pain. In this paper we defend tracking representationalism against this challenge. We argue that pain has both descriptive and evaluative content and that pain has its negative affective quality in virtue of its (negative) evaluative content. We then show how a tracking theory of experiential content can accommodate this view of the content of pain. We conclude by noting some advantages of our account over a rival representationalist account, which explains the negative affective quality of pain in terms of imperative content rather than evaluative content.
Bad by Nature: An Axiological Theory of Pain
This chapter defends an axiological theory of pain according to which pains are bodily episodes that are bad in some way. Section 1 introduces two standard assumptions about pain that the axiological theory constitutively rejects: (i) that pains are essentially tied to consciousness and (ii) that pains are not essentially tied to badness. Section 2 presents the axiological theory by contrast to these and provides a preliminary defense of it. Section 3 introduces the paradox of pain and argues that since the axiological theory takes the location of pain at face value, it needs to grapple with the privacy, self-intimacy and incorrigibility of pain. Sections 4, 5 and 6 explain how the axiological theory may deal with each of these.
Painfulness, Suffering, and Consciousness (penultimate draft)
The Philosophy of Suffering, eds. D. Bain, M. Brady and J. Corns, 2019
The popular view on which unpleasant pain consists of two dissociable components, and on which there may be pains that wholly lack affect, is the product of a theoretical deference to consciousness. The same is true of the thesis that suffering is exclusively a conscious phenomenon. Pain researchers defer to consciousness, but in my view they do not properly heed its message regarding pain, painfulness, and suffering. I will argue that consciousness actually gives us a double-edged message about these phenomena. Introspection reveals pain and painfulness to be essentially kinds of qualia, or qualitative character, (§1)—a thesis I defend from the ‘heterogeneity problem’ (§2). But introspection also prompts a conception of pain and painfulness on which these are capable in principle of unconscious existence (§3, §5). This implies, in turn, that suffering may well occur unconsciously (§§4-5), something I argue for in part by criticising rival models of suffering (§4). Taking consciousness seriously as an epistemic source for the natures of pain, painfulness, and suffering, thus has the surprising result that consciousness is removed from the metaphysics of pain, painfulness, and suffering.
On Pain and the Privation Theory of Evil
European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 2012
The paper argues that pain is not a good counter-example to the privation theory of evil. Objectors to the privation thesis see pain as too real to be accounted for in privative terms. However, the properties for which pain is intuitively thought of as real, i.e. its localised nature, intensity, and quality (prickly, throbbing, etc.) are features of the senso-somatic aspect of pain. This is a problem for the objectors because, as findings of modern science clearly demonstrate, the senso-somatic aspect of pain is neurologically and clinically separate from the emotional-psychological aspect of suffering. The intuition that what seems so real in pain is also the source of pain’s negative value thus falls apart. As far as the affective aspect of pain, i.e. ‘painfulness’ is concerned, it cannot refute the privation thesis either. For even if this is indeed the source of pain’s badness, the affective aspect is best accounted for in privative terms of loss and negation. The same holds for...
Review of Geniusas' The Phenomenology of Pain
Phenomenological Reviews: https://reviews.ophen.org, 2020
Published in Phenomenological Reviews, 2020-07-12. In his recently published study The Phenomenology of Pain Saulius Geniusas sets himself the task of developing precisely that-a phenomenology of pain-on the basis of Edmund Husserl's philosophy. According to Geniusas, in Husserl's work (including the posthumously published manuscripts) we find all the resources needed to develop such a phenomenology. Husserl took the first steps himself in developing a phenomenology of pain and by following in his footsteps, proceeding by way of the phenomenological method and concepts he developed, we can achieve this important goal. Why is it important to develop a phenomenology of pain? Apart from the general impetus of exploring all phenomena relevant to human life, we may in this case also point towards the mission of helping those who suffer from severe and chronic forms of bodily pain. Pain is from the experiential point of view generally something bad to have, even though it may guide our actions and call for changes of life style that are in some cases beneficial for us in the long run. The definition that Geniusas develops in his book and defends in comparison with other suggestions and conceptions of what pain consists in is the following: "Pain is an aversive bodily feeling with a distinct experiential quality, which can be given only in original firsthand experience, either as a feeling-sensation or as an emotion".
7 the Problem of Pain
2005
When my wife was pregnant, our birthing coach asked the class " What is pain? " I thought I might finally get to display some of my philosophical training, but alas, the correct answer was: " Pain is whatever she says it is. " The coach's " sufferercentric " definition echoes the one offered by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP)— " Pain is always subjective " —as well as the definition of pain offered by the philosopher Saul Kripke in his argument against identity theory— " Pain. .. is picked out by the property of being pain itself, by its immediate phenomenological quality " (1972/1980, p. 152). These subjective conceptions of pain pose problems for the scientific study of pain, as Price and Aydede point out in the introduction of their chapter. If the essence of pain is its phenomenological quality, then it seems the only way to study it directly is through introspection and subjects' verbal reports...
Philosophy of Pain
1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology, 2025
Most of us have experienced some, probably many, forms of bodily pain. Unless you were born with congenital insensitivity to pain, you’ve likely experienced at least toothaches, headaches, or backaches. Pain experiences differ in intensity, quality, and duration. A toothache might be sharp and intense but fleeting, while a backache might be dull and aching yet more enduring. Despite these differences, there seems to be a common thread that unites toothaches, backaches, and so on—something that makes them all pains. This raises interesting philosophical questions: is pain physical or mental? What is the role of the pain system? And, is pain always unpleasant? These questions are the focus of this essay.
The Philosophy of Pain - Introduction
Forthcoming in The Philosophy of Pain, edited by D. Bain, M. Brady, and J. Corns. London: Routledge
Over recent decades, pain has received increasing attention as – with ever greater sophistication and rigour – theorists have tried to answer the deep and difficult questions it poses. What is pain’s nature? What is its point? In what sense is it bad? The papers collected in this volume are a contribution to that effort ...
Pain and Representation (Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Pain, forthcoming)
Chapter in the Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Pain, ed. Jennifer Corns (forthcoming)
The Judgment-View of Pain
2004
In this paper a concept of pain is introduced that regards pain as a formal entity that can be realized in various material ways, similarly to the concept of justice. Pain utterances have rather the character of evaluative judgments and not of propositional descriptions. They aren't therefore true or false, but adequate or inadequate, correct or wrong, according to the circumstances and the context, in which they are made. Because pain is constituted by the interplay of individual and public attitudes also inside a given cultural context we are always capable of extending our concept of pain by integrating other cultural attitudes towards pain and also capable of giving arguments that shall convince the members of an other culture to accept our ideas about pain.
The Phenomenology of Pain
Series in Continental Thought (Ohio University Press), 2020
The Phenomenology of Pain is the first book-length investigation of its topic to appear in English. Groundbreaking, systematic, and illuminating, it opens a dialogue between phenomenology and such disciplines as cognitive science and cultural anthropology to argue that science alone cannot clarify the nature of pain experience without incorporating a phenomenological approach. Building on this premise, it develops a novel conception of pain grounded in phenomenological principles: pain is an aversive bodily feeling with a distinct experiential quality, which can only be given in original first-hand experience, either as a feeling-sensation or as an emotion. The book crystallizes the fundamental methodological principles that underlie phenomenological research. On the basis of those principles, it offers a phenomenological clarification of the fundamental structures of pain experience and contests the common conflation of phenomenology with introspectionism. It analyzes numerous pain dissociation syndromes, brings into focus the de-personalizing and re-personalizing nature of chronic pain experience, and demonstrates what role somatization and psychologization play in pain experience. In the process, it advances Husserlian phenomenology in a direction that is not explicitly worked out in Husserl’s own writings.
Can Evaluativism about Unpleasant Pains meet the Normative Condition?
Inquiry , 2019
This paper assesses whether Evaluativism, as a view about the nature of unpleasant pains, can meet a specific normative condition. The normative condition says whatever candidate state is offered as an analysis of unpleasant pain should be intrinsically phenomenally bad for its subject to be in. I first articulate a method reflecting this condition, called the normative contrast method, and then frame Evaluativism in detail. The view is then tested through this method. I show that Evaluativism can explain why cases of evaluative thought, with the same contents as unpleasant pains, are not intrinsically phenomenally bad for their subjects to be in by appeal to intentional modes. However, I argue the appeal to perceptuality, which is central to this response is problematic, and therefore it remains unclear whether Evaluativism, as standardly articulated, can meet the normative condition on unpleasant pains.
On Pain, Its stratification, and Its Alleged Indefinability / Über den Schmerz, seine Schichtung und seine vermeintliche Undefinierbarkeit
Gestalt Theory, 2017
Summary This paper develops a phenomenological approach to the concept of pain, which highlights the main presuppositions that underlie pain research undertaken both in the natural and in the sociohistorical sciences. My argument is composed of four steps: (1) only if pain is a stratified experience can it become a legitimate theme in both natural and sociohistorical sciences; (2) the phenomenological method is supremely well suited to disclose the different strata of pain experience; (3) the phenomenological account offered here identifies three fundamental levels that make up the texture of pain experience: pain can be conceived as a prereflective experience, as an object of affective reflection, or as an object of cognitive reflection; and (4) such a stratified account clarifies how pain can be a subject matter in the natural and sociohistorical sciences. Arguably, the natural and sociohistorical sciences address pain at different levels of its manifestation. While the natural sc...
The Unpleasantness of Pain
The Unpleasantness of Pain, 2018
In this thesis I provide an account of the unpleasantness of pain. In doing this, I shed light on the nature of pain and unpleasantness. I propose to understand the unpleasantness of pain based on the determinable determinate distinction. Unpleasantness is a determinable phenomenal property of mental states that entails badness. I propose that an unpleasant pain experience has two phenomenal properties: i) the phenomenal property of being a pain, and ii) a phenomenal determinate property (u1, u2, u3, etc.) of the unpleasantness determinable. According to this theory unpleasant pains feel bad, and this explains why we are motivated and justified in avoiding them. This explains, for example, why we are motivated and justified to take painkillers. This theory allows us to account for the heterogeneity of unpleasantness, i.e., we can explain how different unpleasant experiences feel unpleasant even if they feel so different. The thesis is organised into seven chapters and divided by three main themes: i) what the unpleasantness of pain consists in, ii) how we can account for the great phenomenal diversity among experiences of unpleasantness, and iii) which cases suggest that there could be pains that are not unpleasant. Broadly, the first two chapters deal with the first theme, where I analyse two reductive accounts of unpleasantness: the content theories and the desire theories. I deal with the second theme in the third and fourth chapter, where I analyse different theories that try to account for the phenomenal property of unpleasantness. In the fifth and sixth chapter, I focus on the third theme, where I consider different cases that suggest the existence of pains that are not unpleasant. In the final chapter, I offer a conclusion of the three main themes by providing my own view on the unpleasantness of pain.
Pain, Perception, and the Appearance-Reality Distinction
Philosophical Analysis, 2017
I argue that pain sensations are perceptual states, namely states that represent (actual or potential) damage. I defend this position against the objection that pains, unlike standard perceptual states, do not allow for an appearance-reality distinction by arguing that in the case of pain as well as in standard perceptual experiences, cognitive penetration or malfunctions of the underlying sensory systems can lead to a dissociation between the sensation on the one hand, and what is represented on the other hand. Moreover, I refute the objection that the allegedly weak correlation between pain and bodily damage forces intentionalist accounts of pain to postulate so many malfunctions (misrepresentations respectively) that such accounts become implausible. I also rebut Murat Aydede's objection that our linguistic practice supposedly shows that there is a conceptual difference between standard perceptual experiences and pain sensations by challenging Aydede's premise that we always withdraw standard perceptual reports in case of counterevidence, while we never do that with pain reports. At the end, I propose an explanation as to why we do not express perceptual reports of (potential) bodily damage in objectivist, but in mental terms.
Pain in Psychology, Biology and Medicine: Some Implications for Pain Eliminativism
Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 2020
An analysis of arguments for pain eliminativism reveals two significant points of divergence between assumptions underlying biomedical research on pain and assumptions typically endorsed by eliminativist accounts. The first concerns the status of the term 'pain,' which is a description of a phenomenon, rather than an explanatory construct. The second concerns reductive explanation: pain is explained causally, in terms of mechanisms or factors that produce or determine it, rather than by identifying it with a physical structure, process or mechanism. These discrepancies undermine several arguments for pain eliminativism.
Feeling and Experiencing Pain. A Comparison Between Different Conceptual Models
Humana.Mente: Journal of Philosophical Studies, 2018
In this paper the complex phenomenon of pain is discussed and analysed along different theoretical paths: cognitivism, hermeneutics, phenomenology. The neuro-cognitive approach is exemplified through Paul and Patricia Churchland's writings; then H.-G. Gadamer's hermeneutical approach is evaluated. While apparently opposite, they share a common assumption, namely that the body is basically to be conceived of as not really different from the Cartesian Res extensa. Some problems thus arise: in particular, the aspect of reflexivity implied in any experience of pain is overlooked. Accordingly, an adequate approach to feeling pain must take the phenomenological path. This means to discuss Husserl's but also Scheler's and Heidegger's contributions, in order to bring to the fore the complexity of the phenomenon of pain, which shows a particular and paradoxical structure: exposing the subject feeling pain to its own internal exteriority.
Related topics
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.