In a recent publication by the New Yorker (hyperlinked above), the topic of Philosophical Counselling received some mainstream attention. This is good news for the philosophical counselling movement, but in all honesty, the article lacks considerably. It focuses mainly on Lydia Amir's practice, and a bit on Lou Marinoff. While these are big names in the philosophical counselling scene, this is by far all that it has to offer. Especially regarding the very stock standard way in which they dealt with the field...
What lacked was the question I posted in my title:
This is a serious question I am sitting with as I am writing this piece, but also whilst writing a book chapter on Philosophy as a Way of Life. Many have touted the idea that philosophy can help with ethics, moral questions, and serious and deep thoughts that one might have, but this is only the tip of the iceberg regarding philosophy. Lou Marinoff in the snippet I hyperlinked above, and in most of his books, especially Plato, not Prozac!, he usually state that "this [the counselee's problem] is partly a clash of values.”
Philosophy is more than just about values, the clash of moral issues, or logic. And this is what most of these short and popular media pieces about philosophical counselling miss out on.
The question then is, what is philosophical counselling about, for me, if I do not agree with these people?
And this is where you can begin to open the can of worms, because philosophy is an incredibly vast field. Think about a standard-sized library. This is what the global philosophy discourse looks if not bigger. There are hundreds of thousands of philosophy papers (if not more) all containing potential seeds that might grow into a big tree of ideas...
So in short if I am pushed to give a concise understanding (and not a definition) of philosophical counselling, I would state that it is a mutual philosophising, in which the philosopher, along with the counselee (guest, client). Mutually, feeding from the momentum of the discussion, the two collaborators or discussion partners, discuss what comes to mind. In this way, there is no predefined way in which the conversation or dialogue can unfold. Instead, the plethora of ideas available to the two can be discussed, endlessly if needed.
We might then return to the idea of the consulting philosopher. In some sense, the notion of "counselling" might mean to consult, to ask another's opinion on a matter. The ancient philosophers of Greece, in some sense, was also doctors of the soul, of the mind. Socrates famously states that the unexamined life is not worth living, and Epicurus said that the word of the philosopher is vain if it does not cure mental afflictions.
But how does this translate into contemporary society? Does it really just mean that we aim to get the classical philosopher to talk to the general public, somehow relate their problems to what a famous philosopher said, and consult the client, the guest in that sense?
Some other philosophical counsellors hold a more open-ended notion of philosophising. Gerd Achenbach, for instance, did not want to predetermine where the conversation went, listening more to the guest and client and giving them fresh insights into their situation (or merely different perspectives on the same issue). Schlomit Schuster held a similar view in which she tried to place the guest's problem in a purely philosophical framework. And the Norwegian philosophical counsellor Anders Lindseth notes how he brings the guest to a situation in which the can only breath a sigh, or moan/groan a sigh, as there seems like no way forward (philosophical impasse, aporia, a road with no signs).
The difference between these philosophical counsellors and those discussed in popular media is that the latter can easily be classified. The latter, the Achenbach, Schuster, and Lindseth group cannot be classified. They are Socratic figures in contemporary times, they are strange figures, what one might call unclassifiable.
So, would you consult a philosopher? A modern Socratic figure? One that cannot help you tackle a problem in the normal sense of the word, but where they philosophise with you about a problem. One that declares a kind of Socratic ignorance of "I do not know, but let us figure it out, together, even though it might be an uncomfortable ride."
For the next couple of months, I will attempt to bring this question to the public, to the people around me. I will see if I can strike a conversation with people, to take them through the tenets of philosophical counselling, to counsel them with philosophy. This is not a form of therapy, nor is it medical assistance. This is a philosopher having a discussion with anyone who is interested. Maybe it can change their life, maybe it cannot.
So the question remains, would you consult a philosopher?
All of the musings and writings are my own, albeit inspired by my writing about this topic. The photographs are my own, taken with my Nikon D300.
P.S. I did not want to write another 1 000 word thing, so if you scrolled down to here, and you are interested in the topic, answer the question posed by the title: Would you consult a philosopher?