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

So, a person who's in pain but alone, isn't in pain? When a tree falls and there's no one around, does it make a noise? :joke:

I never quite understood the distinction between one and many. Isn't a group made up of individuals. How can society be happy when individuals aren't? Also, elections, each vote counts; am I to give my input and expect no output? Life, no fair!

So, a person who's in pain but alone, isn't in pain? — Agent Smith

I'd say that 'pain' tends to (try to) point at some secret inside of a person. So it's real-for-them.

I'd say that 'real' points (endlessly and terribly vaguely, and only in some contexts) at stuff that's there for all of us. You might 'think' you see a raccoon getting into the trashcan. If it's 'really' there, I should be able to see it too. Hard indeed to make sense of 'real' that doesn't involve more than one person.

Life, no fair! — Agent Smith

:up:

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?

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

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?

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

Remember , for Gendlin and Heidegger, the o my past that we have access to comes to us already changed by what it occurs into, that than sitting there occupying a slot we call a ‘source domain’ or a ‘past’.

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

Like I mentioned elsewhere, to another poster, we're all humans i.e. 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.

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.

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

I feel you, but we have no data to support/falsify such a conclusion.

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 don't deny that it's as impractical as lots of other varieties of metaphysical handwringing. To me what makes it interesting is its connection to the problem of meaning and to epistemology. Some philosophers have postulated 'clear and distinct ideas' as foundational, while others have proposed 'sense-data.' Then they try to construct the everyday world from such 'bricks.' Hence the concern that one is living in a simulation, that others are p-zombies, that my red isn't your red....

Relating this to the OP, are we to believe that all of our current supposedly literal concepts are pre-installed in the brain ? That we merely have to attach names to them? Maybe with the help of metaphor?

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

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:


Metaphor in philosophy :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor_in_philosophy