Philosophical Therapy: Care of the Soul, Preparation for Death
This post is not at all to suggest that the usage of philosophy is a replacement for modern psychiatry and psychotherapy. Rather, I argue that philosophy is an aid to these fields. The French philosopher and scholar Pierre Hadot is one of my hero's. He argues that philosophy is to be a practical exercise, a spiritual exercise. He writes in Philosophy as a Way of Life "Ancient philosophy proposed to mankind an art of living. By contrast, modern philosophy appears above all as the construction of a technical jargon reserved for specialists." This is not to say that modern philosophy does not hold the maxim that man should live well; The Kierkegaard's and Nietzsche's of the world most certainly wanted man to live well. What I think Hadot means is that while modern philosophy does help us understand the world around us, it has become accustomed for people that have a degree in the subject. Philosophy should be used by the common man, too. Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Stoicism should be practical systems used for the analysis of the state of ones soul; The same can be said of the eastern philosophies of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism.
Ancient philosophy was designed for the sake of living a truly eudaimonic life. The modern philosophies that have risen since the Enlightenment need to shift towards this paradigm of therapeía, that is to say, "healing." Not every existentialist or phenomenologist is an academic that hides in an ivory tower and there are several ideas found in the phenomenological-existential tradition that are hard to understand without a knowledge of Greek thought. Heidegger, for example, referred to Heraclitus and Plato often. Kierkegaard wrote his dissertation on Socrates, being a model of wisdom for him. What I would like to eventually do, akin to Jordan Petersons 12 Rules for Life and Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, is create a list of key ideas from various philosophies that promote a real eudaimonic way of living. The idea would require a lot of thought, pulling nuggets of wisdom from several sources from both antiquity and modernity: Plato, Aristotle, the Cynics, the Stoics, Plotinus and the Neoplatonists, Confucius and the Neoconfucians, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Mencius, Aquinas, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Kant, Locke, Scheler, amongst others.
Regardless of our religious and political beliefs, all people want to live well. The happy life is a life lived in accordance with virtue.
Ancient philosophy was designed for the sake of living a truly eudaimonic life. The modern philosophies that have risen since the Enlightenment need to shift towards this paradigm of therapeía, that is to say, "healing." Not every existentialist or phenomenologist is an academic that hides in an ivory tower and there are several ideas found in the phenomenological-existential tradition that are hard to understand without a knowledge of Greek thought. Heidegger, for example, referred to Heraclitus and Plato often. Kierkegaard wrote his dissertation on Socrates, being a model of wisdom for him. What I would like to eventually do, akin to Jordan Petersons 12 Rules for Life and Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, is create a list of key ideas from various philosophies that promote a real eudaimonic way of living. The idea would require a lot of thought, pulling nuggets of wisdom from several sources from both antiquity and modernity: Plato, Aristotle, the Cynics, the Stoics, Plotinus and the Neoplatonists, Confucius and the Neoconfucians, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Mencius, Aquinas, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Kant, Locke, Scheler, amongst others.
Regardless of our religious and political beliefs, all people want to live well. The happy life is a life lived in accordance with virtue.
Comments (59)
He wrote a paper on Thoreau: "There are nowadays Professors of Philosophy, but not Philosophers". The title is taken from a quote by Thoreau on philosophy as a way of life.
Hadot is credited with introducing Wittgenstein to France. The affinity can be seen in passages such as the following from Philosophical Investigations:
Quoting Dermot Griffin
We might contemplate the question: who or which amongst these individuals and schools share the convictions of contemporary naturalism? Perhaps the stoics - hence the resurgent interest in stoicism - and Nietzsche. But, according to Lloyd Gerson's most recent book, Platonism vs Naturalism: The Possibility of Philosophy, there are fundamental incompatibilities between philosophy (qua 'footnotes to Plato') and naturalism (qua 'natural science'). Accordingly the judgement of what 'living well' comprises might be subject to divergent criteria amongst these various sources.
Footnote: Who were the 'therapeutae'?
We can't have this if our world worships massive material wealth -- the surplus economy where only those in position to hold the surpluses flourish.
In another thread I quoted Hadot to try to balance a one-sided understanding (link). An important thing to remember is that for Hadot praxis is no more universal than theory. Each philosophical school of antiquity recommended different practices, which were suited to the different forms of theory or discourse. Different theories of eudaimonia resulted in different practices. Mixing the different practices haphazardly is therefore a very unnatural thing to do, at least prima facie.
What one would apparently be doing would be sifting the body of practices through a particular sieve in order to produce a particular effect. It may be that one wants to show certain commonalities between the practices, or one wants to show how certain practices of antiquity are similar to some of our own received wisdom, etc. That's well and good, yet the notion that in antiquity there were lots of different theories but one set of underlying practices is quite false. The different practices were as contentious as the different theories. Introducing the notion of praxis does not bring with it the effect of agreement between different schools, nor does it necessarily introduce a common ground. In fact it can have much the opposite effect, revealing schools which were much more drastically different than our modern day schools of philosophy. In the modern day the different schools do, by and large, share the same praxis. This was not always so.
I have been thinking about something similar in last weeks. You specified your idea with the adjective "real". That's the problem. As Quixodian wrote, "the judgement of what 'living well' comprises might be subject to divergent criteria". In different philosophies there are different and even conflicting ideas about what "real" eudaimonia should be. But we can turn this problem into a resource: we can suppose that, as a consequence, a good eudaimonia should start by examining which criterions we should use to define it correctly. I think that, in this work, we will realize that it is essentially a problem of subjectivity, relativism: the concept of "real" eudaimonia is relative to different perspectives, different philosophies. Again, we can try to turn this into a resource: let's state that a "good" (which is less strong than "real") eudaimonia should be based on an endless dialogue between what is commonly perceived as subjectivity and what is commonly perceived as objectivity. In this context, we can look for the key words and concepts that have been used in philosophies and, particularly, we want to understand why they are "key" concepts, "key" ideas: what makes them "key", that is, central, sensible, crucial. I think that a good criterion is the criterion of connections: a point is a "key" point if it is rich in connections with other points. This is, again, quite subjective: objectively, every point is able to have infinite connections; but, subjectively, we as humans may be interested in certain specific kinds of connections. For example, a word that we perceive quite rich in connections, and, as such, is a "key" word, is, for sure, "being". Heidegger made its meaning much less theoretical and abstract by putting it in the context of human existence, time, death. Another key word is, for sure, life.
At this point we can realize that we are at risk of getting lost in the web of key words and connections. To avoid this, we need some subjective choice, to take specific stands, to privilege certain perspectives, while keeping a continuative dialogue with perspectives that are different from our ones.
I think that this work is worth it. In a sense I can say that I have already been working for many years on it, under the umbrella term of "spirituality".
In line with that argument - My (personal) answer to the question of what philosophies purpose - Philosophy is an exercise for learning to be aware of how my mind works. It's about self-awareness. For me, that's the definition of a spiritual practice.
I like to think of Stoicism, Platonism, and Aristotelianism not as there own systems that are distinct from one another that promote their own politically correct ways of doing philosophy. Rather I see them as distinct branches of a truly Socratic tradition of philosophy, all seeing Socrates as the model of the sage and focusing upon the cultivation of good ethical character. Therefore, in my opinion, Stoic, Platonic, and Aristotelian philosophy are all expressions of a Socratic therapy. I like to think that modern philosophy needs to return to the Socratic mindset regardless if it is Anglophone analytical thought (ordinary language philosophy, logical atomism, logical positivism, American pragmatism) or French and German continental thought (phenomenology, existentialism, French Nietzscheanism, absolute idealism). There are good ideas in both camps but the emphasis needs to shift towards a kind of eudaimonism.
I'll have to hunt this paper down; I didn't know Thoreau played a role in influencing him. And I sometimes forget that Hadot was a big popularizer of Wittgenstein in France.
A trying task to be sure. I think one can be spiritual without being involved in an organized religion. However, I do think that there is a benefit to organized religion as the promoter of comradery between people.
Speaking of the concept of mind, I don't know if you have an interest in the philosophy of mind, but David Chalmers book The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory is a fascinating read about the nature of what exactly consciousness is. Nothing to do with ethics, I just highly recommend this book.
If I recall correctly, Jules Evans is a big advocate of Stoicism. And the Therapeutae were a prime example of the fusion between the Judaic and Hellenic/Greco-Roman traditions.
here
Update I was not able to find a free PDF
I would consider putting Foucault upon your list because of his writings, Concern of the Self, emphasizing the notion of health as requiring a personal regime verified by a person. It is implicit in many philosophical frameworks. But Foucault shows the importance of it as means of separating bad evidence from the possible good. Something many other thinkers take for granted.
And I'm a lover of Hadot's take on ancient philosophy. He's definitely worked his thoughts into my own.
The one name unlisted that I'd highlight is Epicurus. I've posted this quote before, but I'll do it again because I love Epicurus.
[quote=Letter to Menoeceus]
Let no one be slow to seek wisdom when he is young nor weary in the search of it when he has grown old. For no age is too early or too late for the health of the soul. And to say that the season for studying philosophy has not yet come, or that it is past and gone, is like saying that the season for happiness is not yet or that it is now no more. Therefore, both old and young alike ought to seek wisdom, the former in order that, as age comes over him, he may be young in good things because of the grace of what has been, and the latter in order that, while he is young, he may at the same time be old, because he has no fear of the things which are to come. So we must exercise ourselves in the things which bring happiness, since, if that be present, we have everything, and, if that be absent, all our actions are directed towards attaining it.[/quote]
Which is really just a way to say -- yup. I love the study of philosophy in its relationship to the problems of life.
Just for yourself or others? Don't you think the world is already awash with well-meaning or messianic others providing us with gratuitous advice on how to live?
Quoting T Clark
Interesting. For me philosophy is a study of what others believe and why. What this does seem to be good for is letting you know that whatever your presuppositions, values and beliefs might be, there are likely to be good reasons not to hold them. I don't know what spiritual practice is, except perhaps things done to promote emotional wellbeing.
Quoting Moliere
Not trying to be provocative, but none of that means anything to me. Reads likes some motherhood statements. What exactly is the connection between philosophy proper and its relationship to the 'problem's' of life? Can you provide examples? I understand that philosophy might be a source of some aphorisms or concepts which can be collected and blended into a kind of belief system casserole, but is that philosophy at work or just a kind of shopping for ideas that resonate?
Please, by all means, be provocative. I don't mind. You're not wrong: Epicurus' philosophy comes across as aphoristic and motherly, especially in my emphasis of the letters (Cicero and Lucretius formulate more coherent arguments). The task for his interpreters is to turn it into something more than that, which I believe it is.
With regards to Epicurus' philosophy I think one problem of life is the fear of death -- how to deal with that? Then there are also fears of supernatural beings, that we need to touch the roof three times before saying "Happy Holidays!" or else the Banshee will eat your first born. I think the human mind has a tendency to find patterns that are unreal that cause fear or anxiety. Addressing one's fears and anxieties is much of what Epicurus means by the practice of philosophy and the search for wisdom.
Then there's the desire for things, and the desire to avoid things which, because we are human, can become compounded by the very words we use to understand those desires -- I don't just want such and such I must have such and such. Or if I am to lose tomorrow I cannot live with myself, and am miserable now because of that misery!
However the fear I have is that it's not philosophy at work, but instead is just a shopping for ideas that resonate. One of the questions I still ask is about what philosophy proper looks like outside of the academy, and I do not have an answer.
Cool. I guess I am anxious not to be or sound disrespectful or needlessly antagonistic when I post.
Quoting Moliere
Ok, yes I can see some of this in Epicurus. From my modest exposure, I've certainly found Epicureanism more congenial than Stoicism.
Quoting Moliere
A good point. Philosophy is a word used with various meanings. One of the hallmarks of our time is the oversaturation of ideas and possibilities, lifestyles and worldviews available to us, whether it be as a social media influencer and shill in spandex, or a bushy-bearded Thomist contemplative pondering infinities. I often wonder how people choose what they will settle on.
In this libidinal economy?
Totally understandable.
Quoting Tom Storm
Glad to hear it :) -- though I'll give stoicism to the truly stoic, I think it's lessons are over-emphasized for how it interacts with most humans.
Quoting Tom Storm
Right! So can one be a philosopher outside of academia, or are they just another YouTube personality, guru, or self-styled life coach?
For my part I'll say I'm not even a guru, because I'm still uncertain about so much and all I can bring you is uncertainty. Not reasons to do, but reasons to not do. A totally useless philosophy. Or so I hope. :D
Beginnings of wisdom? I feel similarly. It's funny - in life I do not reflect much or agonize over decisions. I don't tend to have any burning questions about 'meaning' per say. I'm not really in the market for a guru or philosophical approach to help with anything. I find I am not generally dissatisfied and it seems to me that dissatisfaction is a major springboard into speculative thinking. In my case, I see a separation between philosophy and life. Although I am well aware that every person is an agglomeration of suppositions and values that are derived from philosophy, culture and socialization. Is unpacking this and reassembling our belief systems even possible or useful?
Do you think of that as some kind of exemption others do not?
I tend to agree with you, although I acknowledge this is not a good fit for many others. It seems to me that questions that you or I may find merely interesting are critical and central to crises of faith in some others.
I've toyed with involvements in spiritual organizations, but I have never been a committed believer in any of that. I came to it, because I hoped, via meditation or other exercises for the kind of transformations, only more sustained, that I had experienced via painting, drawing, writing, reading, playing and listening to music, hiking and camping in the wilderness, lovemaking and of course psychedelics and entheogens, but I was ultimately disappointed.
I've come to see personal transformation and altered states as being quite independent of philosophical thought, so I don't really think it matters so much what you think, metaphysically speaking, but I do think it matters, from an ethical perspective, what you do, because that both conditions and reflects your state of mind. Is my state of mind contracted and closed off to life or open and expansive, that is what really matters, it seems to me. The rest is just window dressing.
I am not irritated. I was considering my own personal reasons.
I will keep my wondering to myself, as requested.
Quoting Janus
Sounds like you put in a lot of field work. That's good. I spent much of the 1980's and early 1990's with Theosophists and various groups in my city - mediation, New Age, Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti, Buddhist, Gnostic.. I was often struck by other's passion and certainty. I wanted to see if there as more to life than what I felt and saw around me but was never to transcend my own reality.
Apologies if I was rude. I thought you were wondering 'what my problem was' and found this a curious reaction.
Do you have a way to relate philosophy to living and what makes you so interested in the subject?
This may be sloppy reasoning, but I tend to think that things like a belief in god and an interest in philosophy are dispositional or akin to sexual attraction - you can't help what you're into.
Something like this was pretty much my motivation for involvement with a Gurdjieff group, but the "more" I was looking for, I've come to realize is right there in what I feel and see around me, not in some transcendent realm. It's just a matter of making a shift whenever possible.
I think we all want more than just glimpses, but I've come to think that is a vain, and ultimately, ironically, egoically driven form of greed.
I think we are all peculiarly situated to have problems. And the tools we have to deal with them are also odd. So, I tend to be amazed we can function at all.
I see your point. But I think the idea of well-meaning or messianic others is exactly what I think the problem is. There needs to be a rational inquiry into what constitutes a good life, a life that knows how to navigate suffering and find meaning rather than the fads that we find in the self help community. This is, of course, irrespective of religion, if any at all; I personally see theism as an aid to living well but I dont blame people who dont believe in a Supreme Being. This task would be for my own interest, not necessarily for the interest of others but Im sure some would take an interest in these ideas.
That makes all the differnce.
Quoting Dermot Griffin
The problem for me is it is not readily apparent how one determines one from the other - except in the most obvious and egregious of examples.
Quoting Dermot Griffin
I get this. I guess theism can bring you to Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Donald Trump, so it's not always clear what theism implies. Most theists think they have the right reasons.
Quoting Dermot Griffin
You make it sound easy.. :razz:
I agree. For me, that recognition is a function of my intellectual self-awareness.
Quoting Tom Storm
I gave my definition - activities that promote self-awareness.
I think that is the source of the transcendental realm. It's why so much of my philosophy is based on introspection, for which I have been criticized.
You call it projection, I call it empathy. I think it's the source of our ability to care for each other.
No I meant I dont know what it means. Your definition doesnt resonate with me so much.
Quoting T Clark
I was referring to something different. A lack of empathy. Specifically those who arrogantly assume that their truth, their experience has to be everyone elses. They tend to project their beliefs onto others. Maybe my wording was ambiguous. Its a pet hate of mine - I see the world like this, therefore you must too.
Philosophy helps me recognize how my mind works. How I know what I know. Why I believe what I believe. Why I care about what I care about. Why I'm interested in what I'm interested in. And on a good day, why I do the things I do or don't do the things I don't do. I call that intellectual self-awareness.
For me, spirituality means self-awareness - emotional, intellectual, physical, perceptual, social. Spiritual practice is an activity that makes me more self-aware.
It is for me, but I definitely attribute that to my being raised with all these questions like they had certain answers and always finding the answers unsatisfactory, but the questions remained. Then eventually I came across this whole subject called philosophy that seemed to delight in that very exercise! At the very least in the spirit of finding the limits of reason.
But if someone is happy with their life? One of the things I like about Epicurean philosophy is that while there was a master, the life of the philosopher is not thought to be special -- but just one of the roles people play within a community. Some people tend the garden, some people learn the words, some people teach the words, but it's an interdependent community and the philosopher is not made special by the practice.
And if philosophy's purpose is to bring people to happiness, then there's no need for the happy person to learn philosophy. But life has a way of bringing pain, and we have a way of making ourselves miserable, so the philosopher offers possible salves for the injured if they come to want them.
Ive read enough of Epicureanism to acknowledge the connections between it and the Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic schools. The only difference is that Epicureanism remains agnostic about a first cause (i.e. God) while the other three schools affirm this (completely through reason, of course). Ive also been thinking about the differences between religious Buddhism versus what I term philosophical Buddhism (to be distinguished from the various schools of Buddhist philosophy like Zen, Madhyamika, and Yogachara), that is, the historical conception of Buddhism prior to it being formed as a religion. I think there are several ideas in Buddhism that parallel ideas in Stoicism and Epicureanism as well as phenomenology and existentialism. Buddhism seen in its historical form can definitely benefit people (not to say it shouldnt be followed as a religion; I was not raised a Buddhist so I know very little of its practice as a religion).
And this is what several of us think the overall point of philosophy is, solving real world issues and helping us deal with our own problems. I dont like it when people try to canonize one philosophy or philosopher as the end all, say all theory of everything. I advocate a form of eclecticism but have enough background knowledge in Greek philosophy and, through my graduate program, Thomism, to stick more towards the western tradition. Anything eastern (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indian) is primarily through my own reading. I think that it is interesting to think about what St. Thomas Aquinas would talk about with contemporaries of his in the East, for example, the Neoconfucians. Similarly, I think it is just as important to think about what Socrates would talk about with Buddha. Theres needs to be a conversation between West and East.
I advocate for using what works. That keeps things open for taking what I find useful from all sorts of sources. Almost all of my philosophy background is from personal reading. When you get to bottom, I'm with Emerson:
Quoting Emerson - Self Reliance
Where in psychiatry or psychotherapy appear the subjects of "caring for soul" and "preparation for death"?
Where did you get all this from? :gasp:
I find this interesting and I read similar sentiments to this fairly often. But I personally would never associate philosophy with a search for contentment. I can see it as a search for 'truth' or 'wisdom' or an attempt to discover what someone can reasonably say about reality, but i don't associate these with resolving unhappiness or bringing fulfilment. What I sometimes hear in these discussions is a description of a project to cannibalise various bits and pieces of philosophy (generally that which appeal to one's values) and then create some kind of syncretistic self help tool that resembles psychology for the most part.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Lots of psychiatrists and psychotherapists specialise in these subjects (famously Victor Frakl, Irvin D Yalom, Carl Jung, Eugine Gendlin) These subjects are the bread and butter of therapeutic work - it's not all chemical treatment and evil practitioners, no matter what the movies and TV shows say.
Hrm!
I don't see them as unrelated, obviously.
What else would wisdom be other than the kind of knowledge that leads one to make better decisions?
I'd be surprised to find philosophy resembles psychology, actually.
But cannibalization and syncretism for the purposes of self-help: sure! I see that. I do it!
I don't see it as a bad thing, though. I see it as the fledgling beginnings of a philosophy. The syncretic form is great for working things out for yourself, which I certainly believe that's where I started, but then I think it starts to become apparent that the syncretism doesn't really work at certain cracks, and that the only reason these concepts are being brought together is the common thinker who thought them and thought they were cool or seemed to work or what have you.
Basically I see it as part of a philosophical journey that one can choose to take, if they want to or not. Eventually I think it possible to start reading texts and letting them breathe on their own and seeing why other people thought differently from you. I think that's when philosophy proper really begins, at least of the non-academic sort, and certainly of the more casual sort too. But still there's that drive for consistency and the pleasure of seeing the ideas at work, and also of making it about something more than just yourself -- not just your own self-help tool, but something which appeals to others.
And what's up with this "appealing"? What are the aesthetics of ideas, if any? Or is it mere attachment and accident?
Making better decisions may not make you happier. It might be quite disruptive. Being wise might mean knowing just how tenuous our hold on life is, just how fragile goodness is... Wisdom might bring with it insights into the human condition that lead to a more pessimistic worldview. Schopenhauer was wiser than me - and unhappier.
Quoting Moliere
No, that's too strong. I said this about the particular search for transformative wisdom I described. If you look at many popular books on self-help which borrow from philosophy and 'wisdom traditions' you'll often find the authors are psychotherapists or psychologists. Cognitive behavioral therapy borrows from Stoicism. Narrative Therapy draws from postmodern and social constructionist ideas to help clients reframe their life stories, supporting them to take charge of their identities and experiences. Existential psychology assists people to explore meaning, purpose, freedom. Gestalt psychology utilizes the work of phenomenology.
Quoting Moliere
Not sure exactly what you are asking here but it's my belief that people are generally drawn to ideas they already agree with. In other words, we don't readily move outside of our wheelhouse - but what we might do is enlarge our repertoire. I also think we can find ideas 'attractive' in an aesthetic sense.
The rejoinder would be -- if your decisions didn't make you happier, then were they really wise or is that a strike against the philosophy?
But I think this is part of what makes philosophy particularly interesting to me -- that it doesn't close off the study of people who would answer "Yes" to the above question. Whereas the syncretic approach would provide a more solid answer, in the way the self-help books do: people were looking for an answer, after all, so they decided to sell them one.
But philosophy would leave the question open.
Quoting Tom Storm
Got it.
You know, as an advocate for philosophy, I'm tempted to say "see, it has a use!"
But I feel you're expressing a kind of skepticism to the approach. Am I misreading you?
For my part I'm fine with any discipline using philosophy, even syncretically, though it might not reach to the levels of proper philosophy -- not every useful use of philosophy need be philosophy proper. Sometimes it's just a useful place to begin, and put to rest when you realize the concepts are clear.
Quoting Tom Storm
A bit loosy goosey on my part in an attempt to show that after you come to realize that you're the one that's attracted to this or that idea, and realize the ideas don't really line up, then you start asking questions like that -- and that's when you're at least starting on the path to philosophy proper, because you're no longer just asking about yourself, but also others. (philosophy proper is a social practice)
I don't think this is the rejoinder. There's an assumption implicit here that wisdom and truth bring happiness. I don't agree. Note, I am not saying that wisdom brings unhappiness. I would also say in parentheses that wisdom does not necessarily provide answers or solutions. It's often about developing more probative questions. No one gets out of here alive... Wisdom might involve us living with discomfort rather than with reassuring myths.
Quoting Moliere
I'm not sure we can make that distinction. While I agree that there may be good and bad philosophy, who is to say what is in scope and what is not? Some people think Heidegger is an empty charlatan who plays with neologisms, some think he is the greatest philosophical thinker of the 20th century.
Quoting Moliere
I'm not sure how many people ever arrive at an insight like this.
Quoting Moliere
I think we live in the cult of personal change and transformation - from social media influencers to Marie Kondo minimalism and the rush to embrace Stoicism. This decade it's Jordan B Peterson, 30 years ago it was Louise Hay. Naturally some people are more sophisticated and read better books, but the idea that we are unhappy, unworthy, not good enough seems to haunt many people's lives.
I agree that's my assumption.
Do you have a belief with respect to what does bring happiness?
Quoting Tom Storm
Not in a final way, I agree there -- but also in making the distinction I'm exploring the notion itself. I often wonder about philosophy proper vs. a pop philosophy (non-pejorative) vs. a pop philosophy (pejorative).
In making the argument for or against Heidegger we get to see what the values of philosophy are that people hold, though. Making the judgment is a part of the practice. We recognize that the judgment could be faulty, but it's a place to start.
Quoting Tom Storm
Me either.
But I think that people can come to see it.
Quoting Tom Storm
That's insightful!
Any idea why?
Quoting Moliere
I don't think we can go and find happiness. I think it happens as a by-product of other thing, when you are not looking, or if you are not too jammed full of expectations and shopping lists of must haves. I also think it is possible to be 'happy' and be a bad person.
Quoting Moliere
Agree - this is an important point. All critical judgements in the end are in relation to held values.
Quoting Moliere
Not really. Some clues for me are that marketing and advertising (totalizing approaches which dominate and lubricate our times) are predicated on making people feel deficient. We are groomed to find solutions to problems which frequently don't exist. This sits neatly upon religocultural views which in the West often construct our identity as sinners and unworthy and in need of transformative redemption. We are socialized towards guilt and self-loathing and a search for deliverance, notions which are cradled in a dynamic tension with advertising's driving narrative that 'you' deserve success and prosperity. Etc...
Interesting. From what I know, psychology does not believe in soul or spirit or anything that is non-physical. It only believes in brain. Certainly, there may be exceptions, as in any other field. Even Carl Jung --the only name that is familiar to me in your list-- believes that the soul is a manifestation of the body. He also uses the term as somthing given, known by everyone. As besides all psychologists do.
Psychologists talking about death? Of course. They deal with it all the time. It is the primary fear for every patient. But preparing a patient for death? Well, I can't even imagine how a session with the patient would look or sound like. Of course, everyting is possible. But "bread and butter"? You must have a lot of experience on the subect to say that.
Can you share with us some of this experience by giving some examples or references, esp. about "preparing a patient for death", from the persons included in your list?
Psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists - are different disciplines, with many varieties of each. Amongst the psychotherapists I've known were also rabbis, priests and minsters of religion, so atheism is not compulsory. Many are interested in spirituality and hold non-specific theistic beliefs. Many consider Jung to have been a mystic and an idealist - his archetypes - analogous with Platonic forms. Bernardo Kastrup writes about this in Decoding Jung's Metaphysics: The Archetypal Semantics of an Experiential Universe. The infamous Jordan B Peterson seems to be some kind of Christian existentialist.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Quoting Alkis Piskas
There are lots of bad therapists out there, just as there are many bad plumbers and philosophers. Here's one of the better ones, a small taste of the matter with Irvin Yalom talking about the issue of death and how some therapists avoid it and how it might be talked about.
All this is quite interesting. Although I don't think the OP is talking about these exreme cases ...
Anyway, it's always good to know. Thanks for the refs! :up:
Same. :)
I love this stuff. Might be a reason why I stick around here.
Quoting Tom Storm
I agree happiness is not a thing one can find. That's part of its elusiveness for the unhappy.
My strategy is your latter -- don't be too jammed full of expectations or shopping lists of must haves. Also, don't even try to be happy. But when you're in pain that's a lot harder to do than say.
And I agree that one can be happy and bad, of course. So there's something to be said for happiness not being the ethical end-all-be-all.
I believe, at least, that happiness curbs some cruelty, and people are more generous when they aren't frustrated. But I recognize there's another side of desire that works differently -- that one can be cruel and happy, and even more satisfied by cruelty than simple desire.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yup :). It's inescapable, I think. There's always some value-theoretic commitment to any judgment.
Quoting Tom Storm
That's interesting -- and then, upon trying the cure we find it unsatisfactory, so we think "time to try another one" and so the loop continues.
I think I just got stuck on philosophy, basically. I found more satisfying answers, and more importantly questions and methods, there. But also I've never really hidden the fact that my motivations come from a religious background. I have no problem with saying that philosophy operates on a plain in-between the everyday and the spiritual. Bertrand Russell made a similar comment about philosophy that it's somewhere between religion and science.
I think the shopping experience is part of what a free society looks like -- when you have options you try them out. But yeah I'm not too keen on guilt as a motivator. I think it's overused because we want people to be predictable.
I started to watch the video and will continue later. That's quite impressive from a psychiatrist. I mean I could expect it from a psychoanalyst ...
BTW, I wonder whom is he showing the finger to in the video ...
Yes, that fits well.
Sounds about right.
Quoting Moliere
Yes, I think most things boil down to personal preferences and then, often, we select some reasoning as post hoc justifications. I never pursued philosophy, but I did read a little comparative religion and explored a range of spiritual schools 30 years ago. But I've simply found the notion of gods incoherent. The arguments against theism are just garnish. I have come to the conclusion that I simply lack sensus divinitatis - which is probably a Protestant notion more than a Catholic one.
The philosophy of God, in the big picture of all philosophy, is part of what I like about philosophy -- not irrelevant, but also not the most important thing: just another topic to consider and move on from if it doesn't speak to you. There are certainly theist philosophers, and even the god of the philosophers, but I don't feel a connection to any of that. What I feel a connection to is other people, to their way of life, how they find meaning in it all, and how we can possibly all find ourselves living a meaningful life. It seems important to so many people that I have a hard time simply rejecting the practices.
But that sensus divinitatis stuff? Complete nonsense. At least to me. Surely an experience of the divine isn't a sense -- if it were then there would be about as much agreement on the divine as there is on where the table is at, which we can certainly see is not the case.
I think the arguments for/against the existence of God are falling into a linguistic trap that's easy to fall into -- the notion that names must have this or that predicate, when in fact(at least by my reckoning) there is no such thing as God, and the locution comes to have predicates we admire because we admire God. Things like power, knowledge, and goodness.