Philosophy of Pain

Much of my navel contemplating and mind-hikes begin at the humble feet of any internet users best friend Wikipedia. "Pain," according to the vacuum of which Wikipedia is informed is, "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage.^[1] It is the feeling common to such experiences as stubbing a toe, burning a finger, putting iodine on a cut, and bumping the "funny bone"." Yes, this refers to physical pain, but I'll make it our starting point all the same and be wary of falling into the trap of endless exploration of the types of pain humans can be subjected to.

My reason for consulting the definition is grounded in an intrigue over the consistent neglect of pain in the discussion of major topics. The philosophy of pain is nothing I have formally come across (although i don't doubt exists somewhere as a much discussed subject) and yet has increasingly proved an obvious oversight. Let us first consider morality shall we? The relationship between pain and traditional religion seems a lot more complex than the modern interpretations of morality, namely secularism, humanism and atheism. The Old Testament is full of examples of disciples suffering great physical pain in the name of God and at his service, with the aim of pleasing him, a consequence of which is securing a place with him in the after-life, which referring to a majority conception, is pain-free.In such moral traditions pain is always seen as an inevitable part of human life and experience, unpleasant but unavoidable so why not use it to prove your faith and why not use the promise of the end of pain to ensure commitment to God and the living of a 'good' life.

In modern traditions this meaning has been lost. Arguably understandable so as the idea of an after-life has been lost and the belief in our earthly lives as being the be all and end all of existence has taken over and the experience of pain has become synonymous with evil and wrong. To be harmed by someone is measured as a moral crime and the greater the pain caused the more severe the objection. Why? Many modern thinkers judge mass religion to be "childish" in there assumptions and yet our modern ideas seem more shallow in their perception of pain=bad / happiness=good. Can we really rely on our physical (and emotional) experiences of the world as guidance for a moral system? Logically it meets a measure of good sense: why not create a moral system which helps people feel good and labels feeling bad as the result of a moral wrong. And yet to me this seems to fall short and satisfies only the subjective nature of human experience. Many of us, to some extent enjoy the experience of pain - many artists need it to fuel their creativity, others use it as an excuse to fail to fulfil certain goals and expectations they have held for themselves which they have little tru motivation of desire to fulfil. I am definitely guilty of enjoy a good ol' wallow in self-pity fueled by the pain of feeling inadequate, it allows me to waste away my life instead of having to get up every morning and aim for the stars and risk failure.

The functions of pain always seem to be limited to showing an individual that something is not working properly and is not as it should be. But what of the other functions? Communication for example? Without devastation and causing of pain on a mass scale society would not have been driven forward in the ways it has been. Conflict is evolutionary. If we all sought above all to avoid experiencing pain and submitting others to it we may well have been frozen in a more primitive way of living, which arguably would greatly limit our experiences of those emotions in contrast to pain -joy for instance. And what of the creative capacity for pain? I've already mentioned those individuals who seem to need pain to create, think Sylvia Plath, Virginia Woolfe etc. Then there's the aesthetic beauty in violence as Amartya Sen discussed in "The Beauty of Violence." Whenever an artist (particularly those of the visual arts) creates in homage to or out of a deep interest in violence, controversy surrounds it. This outs me in mind of Guillermo Vargas and his chained stray dog presented in exhibition in Nicaragua. Compliance with inevitable suffering seems unacceptable in many peoples eyes.

21/8/10