Comments
Chris Skowronski: My general comment on our yesterday seminar is the following. I have learned many things that refer to stoic pragmatism, yet from various perspectives, previously not so much known to me in their complexity. For example, –institutional healthcare workers suffering from burnout as potential adressees of (self-) therapeutic ideas covered by stoic pragmatism (Frank); burnout problem, esp within educational institutions, to be focussed within stoic pragmatism framework in accordance with results of specific empirical research (Eric); the reality assessment of the social needs by philosophy and its adequate (and brave) reaction to these needes (Lydia); concerns about the specificity of self-traning be it by CBT model or by other models, esp in such challenges as meaningful life, something that established religions like Christianity offered in the past and may not offer so much today due to wide secularization, at least in the West (David), systemic coaching and its methods (e.g., the worst case scenario, circles of influence) in relation to stoic pragmatism and its methods (Maja), nursing and midwifery – sort of reference to Socratic maieutic method as the way for philosophers, stoic pragmatist or not, to understand (self-) therapy approach, esp in the context of secondary education — (Juan Diego); ‘taming’ individual’s potential in the challenges of or by capitalist society and its economic interests and job market with a variety of options and livestyles, and the need of adequate schooling/education in the classic Greek sense of these terms (Ricardo – probably my short answer could be Socractic self-knowlege yet adopted into contemporary contexts, yet I agree that it may become just verbal in many cases); anti self-ignorance (self-knowledge), anti-egotist attitude and excessive preocupation with ourselves — as the answers to the question: what /who we want to cure – somewhow a reference to Santayana (Katarzyna — Lydia added anti-confusion and adequate teaching/education to this); linking philosophy with psychiatry by practice (John), and I want to know more about all those. Very profitable were remarks (Lydia) about possible contradiction of classic stoic and pragmatic approaches and I will be getting back to this in later seminars (I dedicate much space to this in my 2023 book, indicating the importance of Neo/Modern Stoicism here rather than classic Stoicism as such); linking pragmatist meliorism with stoic interpretation of failures – all in the spirit of Lachs’s stoic pragmatism (Eric). Also revelational to me was a discussion on psychiatrists as ‘doctors of the souls’ or not (Lydia vs Fernando) and complementary methods and approaches from different professions (philosophy, coaching, psychology, education, medicine, pharmacy, etc.) that may and even should overlap (Maja, Fernando, Eric). My special thanks to Frank and Eric, who were John Lachs’s students (Eric is also author of texts on stoic pragmatism) to provide comments their in the ‘spirit’ of John’s teaching. Also, great thanks to Lydia, John, and Juan Diego for specifying their own projects and publications, of which I’d like to learn more as well.
Chris Skowronski: My first specific comment is on Eric Weber’s question on my motivation to propose the topic of this seminar. Eric referred to the pragmatist (Wm James) idea that actions need a purpose to be realized and it is in relation to this purpose that we can effectively talk about progress in the realization of actions. Apart from my answer (La filosofia terapeutica project with La Torre de Virrey people of which Juan Diego spoke more), I should have been clearer and now answer in a more clear way: it is the betterment of the quality of life of the individual that is the purpose; so that the individual could realize the potential, skills, and opportunities for enjoying the good life, perhaps against all odds, in the long run. I think, this is the main reason why we discuss stoic pragmatist approach towards things like (self-) therapy.
Maja Niestroj: Thank you for a very inspiring meeting! First of all, thank you for asking whether philosophizing can be considered a form of (self-)therapy and in what sense we can talk about therapeutic philosophy. The question itself was posed somewhat independently of an attempt to answer it in relation to a specific philosophical direction (although still, to some extent, not very established) – Stoic Pragmatism, with which I sympathize. Spontaneously, referring to my own professional experience, but treating this only as an example, and not as an attempt at an empirical answer to this question in the spirit of qualitative analysis, I would say that in my work as a coach in the German social support system, I sometimes work on a philosophical level (I am a philosopher by education). However, this only happens when the client asks a philosophical question, often characterized by a high degree of abstraction, about the meaning of life, about the path to fulfillment in life, often about their own attitude towards so-called dramatic events (illness, death or injury of themselves or a loved one). These moments carry an existential charge, referring to the observations of William James, who emphasized how such questions arise in “borderline situations”, i.e. in breakthrough moments that force us to confront the meaning of life. Philosophizing usually starts with reading, a stimulus for independent thinking, and then reflection. In the spirit of systemic adult education (Rolf Arnold), all tools that trigger reflection will be educational. However, the path of philosophical reflection is only one option; others will be turning to religious thinking or consciously working with emotions, e.g. through contact with art. As a coach, I am only a companion to my clients. I do not choose methods for my clients, but by supporting the process of providing support to the client, it may happen that thanks to my own philosophical training, I am more willing to use philosophical methods of reflection that can bring some comfort – especially if philosophizing is not foreign to the client. One could venture the hypothesis that the more trained a person is in using philosophy, the more helpful a tool it is – not necessarily in the sense of academic philosophizing, but also philosophizing for one’s own use understood as reflection on the art of living. In this context, I really liked the comment of Katarzyna Kremplewska, who noted that one could talk about a more or less intentional therapeutic effect of philosophizing post factum. In addition, in the discussion about whether it is possible to talk about philosophical therapy, I very much agree with Lydia Amir’s argument that why should philosophers step into other people’s shoes (including conceptual ones – in this case, the shoes of therapists), when philosophers have their own questions, their own philosophical sandals. The question of the meaning of life would be such a question. My greatest concern after listening to the presentation alone was of a similar nature – the aforementioned philosophical methods, such as the methods of Stoic pragmatism: living in the present moment, negative visualization, or circles of concern, have their recognized equivalents among coaching methods. Psychology historically emancipated itself from philosophical thinking, only to later fight for its independence as a profession and for social recognition. Coaching follows a similar path, as in many countries it is still associated with stage performance rather than support. In Germany, it is classified somewhat differently as part of state social work. In academia, I have only noticed coaching in scientific analyses in leading publishing houses in the last 20 years. So, from a historical perspective, it seems only natural that therapeutic and coaching methods have philosophical roots, even though they also have their own mature methodologies in the context of diagnostics, counseling, care, and intervention. But do we now want to apply a philosophical template to these methods again, which have already partially emancipated themselves? Wouldn’t that be like moving in circles? Eric Weber rather called it a mutual support of both areas, which is of course also a possible description. I really like Lydia Amir’s suggestion that philosophical thinking can be a separate field, but one that supports many other professions – including therapists, coaches, doctors, etc. When I deal with another person experiencing an existential crisis, I don’t have the right tools, because in many situations, no tools will be good enough. However, I can then notice that some of the questions that this person is asking themselves have already been asked by others, which can lead to the belief that this is exactly what connects people – for hundreds of years. Many thanks to David Seiple, whose comment reminded me that it can be both beautiful and frustrating to look at issues from different perspectives, but that we also have our own preconceived points of view and rhetorical habits. It was a very thought-provoking comment.
Leave a Reply