Search Results
In this paper, it is argued that ‘pain’ is an ambiguous term, given that a term's meaning is determined by its usage. I show that the official definition of the International Association for the Study of Pain does not meet the necessary conditions of definitions in general. Pathological and nonpathological cases provide evidence that there is no common feature shared in all cases falling under ‘pain’. With the ambiguity of ‘pain’ established, I sketch the consequences for a scientific inquiry into pain, and for ethical theories working with pain as a relevant concept.
Can we find necessary and sufficient conditions for a mental state to be a pain state? That is, does pain have a nature? Or is the term ‘pain’ ambiguous? I argue here that our expression ‘pain’ lacks necessary use conditions if one considers a range of contexts. As use conditions constrain the reference class, I argue that ‘pain’ does not refer to a natural category, but binds together a bunch of loosely resembling phenomena. This leads to problems for scientific and clinical discourse. To solve these, a method of explication is suggested, based on a discursive combination between analysis of first-person reports and theories of natural science. Lastly, I consider the ethical implications of this ambiguity that lead to a reformulation of the goal of pain science: not alleviation of all pains ought to be our goal, but only manipulation of conscious and negative emotionally-charged pains.