Arguments Against Logical Behaviorism

In Brains and Behaviors, Hilary Putnam argues against logical behaviorism by stating that that the word ‘pain’ is vague and that it is more of a reaction than a behavior. Putnam argues that there must be a general understanding of the concept of pain. In this paper, I will affirm the arguments presented by Putnam since there is no true definition of pain. To support this argument, I will first provide more details that help support Putnam’s idea that pain is not a term, but instead it is reaction that is a result of an event. I will also argue that someone may be able to control the expression of pain. Putnam’s argument can be best explained with his conclusions on the relationship between the body and the feeling of pain. First, Putnam askes the question of what is ‘pain.’ believes that pain is a response instead of a definition. Putnam believes that it is too difficult to merely describe a sensation under one word. He then goes to claim that a disease such as polio does not have one particular concept that will describe the whole
Under the idea of logical behaviorism, we could not tell that someone is in pain because they do not show the behaviors of someone in pain. Using the “super-Spartans” from the text, we can see how Putnam was accurate and how the logical behaviorism is not. Super-Spartans can feel pain; however, they do not show it. We know that they are in pain; however, they choose to not show the behavior. Even with sports an athlete can simply hide their pain at times so they are still able to participate in the event. This simply contradicts logical behaviorism because people do not show pain everyone time someone may be experiencing the sensation. I can also argue with the common saying that looks can be deceiving. Someone may look like they are completely fine; however, in reality they are experiences