 Both parts of Papineau’s theory have been criticized. Against his account of desire content, critics have raised two main types of objections. First, they have proposed straightforward counterexamples to the account: cases where a desire has p as a satisfaction condition, but where it seems that the desire cannot possibly have the function of bringing it about that p (Enç 1994; Loewer 1997, 116–117). These counterexamples include entirely novel desires, like John’s desire to bury his broken iPhone 12 under a Magnolia tree, which lack a selectional history and thus, prima facie, a function. They also include desires directed at actions that have never been fitness-enhancing or rewarding, like the desire to commit suicide, and desires that cannot contribute to their own satisfaction, like the desire for sunny weather or the desire to change the past.