Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Philosophy in China

ISSN 1673-3436

ISSN 1673-355X(Online)

CN 11-5743/B

Postal Subscription Code 80-983

Front. Philos. China    2016, Vol. 11 Issue (3) : 358-376    https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-005-016-0027-0
Orginal Article
Max Scheler’s Phenomenology of Pain
Saulius Geniusas()
Department of Philosophy, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
 Download: PDF(260 KB)  
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

This paper offers a systematic account of Scheler’s phenomenology of pain, addresses its place in the history of the phenomenology of pain and traces its significance for pain research. Against the popular view, which maintains that for Scheler pain is a feeling-state, this paper argues that Scheler conceives of pain as an irreducibly ambiguous phenomenon: as both a non-intentional feeling-state and an intentional feeling. This paper further shows how this ambiguity leads Scheler to qualify pain as a stratified phenomenon, composed of causal, sensory, emotive and cognitive dimensions. This paper demonstrates how such a stratified conception enables one to draw meaningful distinctions between pain and other emotive phenomena, such as suffering, illness, and despair. This paper concludes with some remarks concerning the significance of Scheler’s phenomenology of pain for pain research.

Keywords Schele      phenomenology      pain      feelings      emotions     
Issue Date: 19 September 2016
 Cite this article:   
Saulius Geniusas. Max Scheler’s Phenomenology of Pain[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 358-376.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-005-016-0027-0
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2016/V11/I3/358
[1] Dmytro Mykhailov. The Phenomenological Roots of Technological Intentionality: A Postphenomenological Perspective[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(4): 612-635.
[2] ZHANG Xianglong. The Marginality of Phenomenology[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 472-492.
[3] Saulius Geniusas. Husserlian Phenomenology and Derridean Deconstruction: Their Fundamental Methodological Commitments[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 451-471.
[4] Heath Williams. Analytic Phenomenology (or “What It Is Like”) vs. Husserlian Phenomenology[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 427-450.
[5] LI Jing. Day and Night Overlap: Jan Patočka’s Phenomenological Interpretation of the Front-Line Experience[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 409-426.
[6] Genki Uemura. Articulating Consciousness: Brentano and Husserl on Descriptive Analysis[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 352-379.
[7] Karyn Lai. Emotional Attachment and Its Limits: Mengzi, Gaozi and the Guodian Discussions[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(1): 132-151.
[8] Emilia Angelova. Hegel after Nancy: Sensibility, Singularity, and the Problem of the x[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(4): 535-553.
[9] Hans-Georg Moeller. Necessity and Memory in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit: A Reconstruction[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(4): 505-517.
[10] Giulio Tononi, Owen Flanagan. Philosophy and Science Dialogue: Consciousness[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 332-348.
[11] JIANG Wei. Is Pain Representation?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 648-665.
[12] Hye Young Kim. A Phenomenological Approach to the Korean “We”: A Study in Social Intentionality[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 612-632.
[13] Halla Kim. Existential Dimensions of Korean Neo-Confucianism: The Status of Emotions in the Four-Seven Debate[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 591-611.
[14] Patricia Huntington. Place as Refuge: Exploring the Poetical Legacy of Matsuo Bashō[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 572-590.
[15] Tara Kennedy. The Ethics of Treating Animals as Resources: A Post-Heideggerian Approach[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 463-482.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed