Reply to Elinor Mason and Alastair Norcross

Utilitas 19 (3):398-406 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In comments originally presented at the ISUS conference at Dartmouth College in 2005, Elinor Mason and Alastair Norcross raised a number of objections to various things I said in Pleasure and the Good Life. One especially interesting objection concerns one of my central claims about the nature of pleasure. I distinguished between sensory pleasure and attitudinal pleasure. I said that a feeling counts as a sensory pleasure if the one who feels it takes intrinsic attitudinal pleasure in the fact that he is then feeling it. I also said that attitudinal pleasure is a propositional attitude that does not intrinsically involve any particular 'feelings'. On my view, a person can take attitudinal pleasure in things at a time even though he does not feel any pleasurable feelings at that time. In their comments, Mason and Norcross expressed doubts about my account of attitudinal pleasure. In my reply, I try to answer those doubts.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,394

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
104 (#204,110)

6 months
15 (#207,490)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

The feels good theory of pleasure.Aaron Smuts - 2011 - Philosophical Studies 155 (2):241-265.
How Not to Defend Response Moralism.Aaron Smuts - 2015 - Journal of Aesthetic Education 49 (4):19-38.
Clearing our Minds for Hedonic Phenomenalism.Lorenzo Buscicchi & Willem van der Deijl - forthcoming - Review of Philosophy and Psychology:1-16.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references