Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLiu, Michelle
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-21T09:43:00Z
dc.date.available2021-07-21T09:43:00Z
dc.date.issued2021-07-05
dc.identifier.citationLiu , M 2021 , ' Pain, Paradox, and Polysemy ' , Analysis . https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anaa073
dc.identifier.issn0003-2638
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 22756039
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 33781682-956e-4138-82af-bb3a1f59b776
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0003-4427-1235/work/96782582
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85116326908
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/24867
dc.description© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Analysis Trust. All rights reserved. This is the accepted manuscript version of an article which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anaa073
dc.description.abstractThe paradox of pain refers to the idea that the folk concept of pain is paradoxical, treating pains as simultaneously mental states and bodily states (e.g. Hill 2005, 2017; Borg et al. 2020). By taking a close look at our pain terms, this paper argues that there is no paradox of pain. The air of paradox dissolves once we recognise that pain terms are polysemous and that there are two separate but related concepts of pain rather than one.en
dc.format.extent16
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofAnalysis
dc.titlePain, Paradox, and Polysemyen
dc.contributor.institutionPhilosophy
dc.contributor.institutionSchool of Humanities
dc.description.statusPeer reviewed
dc.date.embargoedUntil2022-07-05
dc.relation.schoolSchool of Humanities
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-07-05
rioxxterms.versionAM
rioxxterms.versionofrecordhttps://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anaa073
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record