Philosophical Papers 36 (2):171-205 (2007)
|Abstract||Perceptualists say that having a pain in a body part consists in perceiving the part as instantiating some property. I argue that perceptualism makes better sense of the connections between pain location and the experiences undergone by people in pain than three alternative accounts that dispense with perception. Turning to fellow perceptualists, I also reject ways in which David Armstrong and Michael Tye understand and motivate perceptualism, and I propose an alternative interpretation, one that vitiates a pair of objections—due to John Hyman—concerning the meaning of ‘Amy has a pain in her foot’ and the idea of bodily sensitivity. Perceptualism, I conclude, remains our best account of the location of pains.|
|Keywords||pain location of pain tye hyman armstrong|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
L. C. Holborow (1966). Taylor on Pain Location. Philosophical Quarterly 16 (April):151-158.
David Bain (2011). The Imperative View of Pain. Journal of Consciousness Studies 18 (9-10):164-85.
Daniel M. Taylor (1966). The Location of Pain: A Reply to Mr Holborow. Philosophical Quarterly 16 (October):359-360.
David Bain (2009). McDowell and the Presentation of Pains. Philosophical Topics 37 (1):1-24.
Daniel M. Taylor (1965). The Location of Pain. Philosophical Quarterly 15 (January):53-62.
Michael Tye (2002). On the Location of a Pain. Analysis 62 (2):150-153.
Paul Noordhof (2002). More in Pain. Analysis 62 (2):153-154.
Paul Noordhof (2005). In a State of Pain. In Murat Aydede (ed.), Pain: New Essays on its Nature and the Methodology of its Study. Cambridge Ma: Bradford Book/Mit Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads53 ( #23,114 of 722,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,384 of 722,813 )
How can I increase my downloads?