Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T15:44:00.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reply to Elinor Mason and Alastair Norcross

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2007

FRED FELDMAN*
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts at Amherstffeldman@philos.umass.edu

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.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Philosophical Quarterly (January 2006).