I'm thinking we tend to aim a word like 'real' socially. If something caused lots of people pain at the same time, it'd be called real. But if you suffer alone, not so much ? — jas0n
I'd say that 'pain' tends to (try to) point at some secret inside of a person. So it's real-for-them.So, a person who's in pain but alone, isn't in pain? — Agent Smith
So there can be no consensus on pain? What about analgesics like aspirin, paracetamol, etc.. They seem to have a good track record; why else do they sell? — Agent Smith
Spoken words are the symbols of mental experience and written words are the symbols of spoken words. Just as all men have not the same writing, so all men have not the same speech sounds, but the mental experiences, which these directly symbolize, are the same for all, as also are those things of which our experiences are the images.
Sounds to me like a longwinded description of a target domain ('the one situation') and a source domain ('a use-family, a great many situations.') Roughly the source is...the past. — jas0n
What if the meaning of 'pain' is everything 'around' the otherwise ineffable painfeeling? The 'pain itself' is the hole in a donut. The dough is buying aspirin, saying the word 'pain,' etc.
The mess goes back at least to Aristotle:
Spoken words are the symbols of mental experience and written words are the symbols of spoken words. Just as all men have not the same writing, so all men have not the same speech sounds, but the mental experiences, which these directly symbolize, are the same for all, as also are those things of which our experiences are the images.
How can Aristotle know this ? Did he mindmeld with all his buddies when they complained of toothache? Or is this some kind of mostly unquestioned folk psychology that evolved as a convenience? — jas0n
we share a biology that would, in my humble opinion, mean that my experiences (inner ones included) are going to be very similar if not identical to another's. So, my pain will feel exactly like your pain or someone else's. — Agent Smith
It's good to be skeptical, but as 180 Proof reminds me, there's gotta be a good reason to be doubtful like that and we have none. — Agent Smith
I think that's a primary distinction between pragmatic Science and theoretical Philosophy. Science tries to describe material reality in terms of physical attributes, while philosophy characterizes the invisible immaterial aspects of reality in terms of analogies, comparing mental concepts to material objects. Unfortunately, there is no objective validity in those symbolic figures of speech, because they are essentially subjective, and often culturally biased. However, a metaphor is just as valid as a pencil sketch of the defendant in a trial : to illustrate appearances from a limited perspective : not to prove innocence or guilt. :smile:Is it valid to use metaphors to illustrate certain attributes of an object, even though the objects being compared are not actually identical (although they are said to be)? — _db
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.