You always remember the primary time a physician offers up: once they inform you that they don’t know what to do—they haven’t any additional assessments to run, no therapies to supply—and that you just’re by yourself. It occurred to me on the age of 27, and it occurs to many others with persistent ache.
I don’t keep in mind what movie I’d gone to see, however I do know I used to be at The Oaks Theater, an previous arts cinema on the outskirts of Pittsburgh, when ache stabbed me within the aspect. This was adopted by an pressing must urinate; after bolting to the toilet, I felt higher, however a band of pressure ran via my groin. Because the hours glided by, the ache resolved right into a must pee once more, which woke me up at 1 or 2 a.m. I went to the toilet—however, as if I used to be in some dangerous dream, urinating made no distinction. The band of sensation remained, insusceptible to suggestions from my physique. I spent an evening of hallucinatory sleeplessness sprawled on the toilet flooring, peeing every so often in a useless try to snooze the somatic alarm.
My primary-care physician guessed that I had a urinary-tract an infection. However the take a look at got here again detrimental—as did extra elaborate assessments, together with a cystoscopy by which an apparently teenage urologist inserted an old style cystoscope via my urethra in agonizing increments, like a telescopic radio antenna. It actually felt like one thing was mistaken, however the physician discovered no seen lesion or an infection.
What adopted had been years of fruitless consultations, the final of which produced a label, persistent pelvic ache—which implies what it feels like and explains little or no—and a discouraging prognosis. The situation is just not nicely understood, and there’s no dependable remedy. I dwell with the hum of ache as background noise, flare-ups decimating sleep every so often.
That ache is dangerous for chances are you’ll appear too apparent to warrant scrutiny. However as a thinker, I discover myself asking why it’s so dangerous—particularly in a case like mine, the place the ache I really feel from daily is just not debilitating. To my reduction, I’m able to operate fairly nicely; sleep deprivation is the worst of it. What extra is there to say concerning the hurt of being in ache?
Virginia Woolf could have invented the commonplace that language struggles to speak ache. “English, which may categorical the ideas of Hamlet and the tragedy of Lear,” she wrote, “has no phrases for the shiver and the headache.” Woolf’s maxim was developed by the literary and cultural critic Elaine Scarry in The Body in Pain, a guide that has grow to be a basic. “Bodily ache—not like some other state of consciousness—has no referential content material,” she wrote. “It isn’t of or for something. It’s exactly as a result of it takes no object that it, greater than some other phenomenon, resists objectification in language.”
However as somebody who has lived with ache for 19 years, I feel Woolf and Scarry are mistaken. Bodily ache has “referential content material”: It represents part of the physique as being broken or imperiled even when, as in my case, it isn’t actually. Ache may be misleading. And we now have many phrases for it: Pulsing, burning, and contracting are all good phrases for mine.
That ache represents the physique in misery, bringing it into focus, helps us higher perceive why it’s dangerous. Ache disrupts what the thinker and doctor Drew Leder calls the “transparency” of the wholesome physique. We don’t usually attend to the physique itself; as an alternative, we work together with the world “via” it, as if it had been a clear medium. Being in ache blurs the corporeal glass. That’s why ache isn’t just dangerous in itself: It impedes one’s entry to something good.
This accounts for considered one of ache’s illusions. Generally, I feel I need nothing greater than to be ache free—however as quickly as ache is gone, the physique recedes into the background, unappreciated. The enjoyment of being freed from ache is sort of a image that vanishes if you strive to have a look at it, like turning on the lights to see the darkish.
Philosophy illuminates one other aspect of ache—in a manner that has sensible upshots. This has to do with understanding persistent ache as greater than only a sequence of atomized sensations. The temporality of ache transforms its character.
Though I’m not at all times in notable ache, I’m by no means conscious of ache’s onset or reduction. By the point I notice it has vanished from the radar of consideration, it has been quiet for some time. When the ache is unignorable, it looks like it’s been there ceaselessly and can by no means go away. I can’t venture right into a future freed from ache: I’ll by no means be bodily comfy. Leder, who additionally suffers from persistent ache, traces its results on reminiscence and anticipation: “With persistent struggling a painless previous is all however forgotten. Whereas understanding intellectually that we had been as soon as not in ache we now have misplaced the bodily reminiscence of how this felt. Equally, a painless future could also be unimaginable.”
We are able to draw two classes from this. The primary is that we now have to concentrate on the current, not on what’s coming sooner or later: If you happen to can deal with ache as a sequence of self-contained episodes, you may diminish its energy. I attempt to dwell by what I name the “Kimmy Schmidt rule,” after the sitcom heroine who endured 15 years in an underground bunker with the mantra “You possibly can stand something for 10 seconds.” My models of time are longer, however I do my imperfect greatest to not venture past them. You possibly can have an excellent day whereas experiencing pelvic ache. And life is simply in the future after one other.
The second lesson is that there’s much less to what philosophers name “the separateness of individuals” than would possibly seem. Ethical philosophers have argued that concern for others doesn’t merely combination their harms. If it’s a must to select between agony for one particular person or gentle complications for a lot of others, it’s best to select the complications, irrespective of the quantity. The reduction of minor ache for a lot of can not offset the agony of 1, as a result of the pains afflict distinct and separate individuals. They don’t add up.
Do trade-offs like this make sense inside a single life? Philosophers typically say they do, however I’ve come to consider that’s mistaken. If what I used to be experiencing was only a sequence of atomized pains, with out results on reminiscence or anticipation, I don’t suppose it could make sense to commerce them for short-lived agony—a three-hour surgical procedure carried out with out anesthetic, say—any greater than it could make sense to commerce 1,000,000 gentle complications for the agony of 1 particular person. If I’d select to endure that surgical procedure, it could be due to the temporal results of persistent ache, the shadow it casts over previous and future.
So much has been fabricated from ache’s unshareability, the way it divides us from each other. In truth, ache is not any extra shareable over time. My mother-in-law as soon as requested, rhetorically, “Why can one man not piss for an additional man?” However you may’t piss on your previous or future self both. And as we bridge the gulf between now and then to sympathize with ourselves at different occasions, we sympathize, too, with the struggling of others. Self-compassion is just not the identical as compassion for different individuals, however they aren’t as totally different as they appear. There’s solace in solidarity, in sharing the expertise of persistent ache, in compassion’s energy to breach the boundaries that separate us from different individuals, and ourselves.
This text has been excerpted from Kieran Setiya’s new guide, Life Is Hard: How Philosophy Can Help Us Find Our Way.
If you purchase a guide utilizing a hyperlink on this web page, we obtain a fee. Thanks for supporting The Atlantic.
