Philosophy as Therapy – Introduction

B.Contestabile admin@socrethics.com First version 2008 Last version 2012

Table of Contents

Basics
Comparison with Psychotherapy
Forms of Therapy
Objectivity

References

1. Basics

What is philosophy as therapy?

The term therapy implies that there exists some kind of suffering to work therapeutically with [Lunsford].

The shortest definition of philosophy as therapy therefore is

philosophy as a means to liberate from suffering.

Since there are different kinds of suffering, the usefulness of a philosophy depends on the physical and psychological constitution, the biography and the environment of an individual. The term philosophy as therapy embraces all philosophies (or philosophical methods) that

▪ are (were) practiced as therapy or

▪ can be interpreted as therapy.

1. In the context of philosophy as therapy the term therapy does not refer to mental illness. It addresses the suffering involved in daily life like accidents, defeats, natural catastrophes, crimes, (economical) wars, illnesses, aging and death.

2. A contemporary therapy is also concerned with the loss of religious and secular scenarios of redemption and the corresponding loss of meaning [Van Hooft, 22]

Synonyms

Wider meaning, including self-therapies (by means of media or own creativity)

▪ Philosophy as therapy

▪ Philosophical therapy

▪ Therapeutic understanding of philosophy

Narrower meaning, restricted to guided therapies:

▪ Philosophical counseling

▪ Philosophical consultancy

Origin

Philosophy as therapy is an ancient idea [Hampe].

▪ In ancient times doing philosophy was a way of life; i.e. it was not restricted to an intellectual discipline [Van Hooft, 10].

▪ The term therapy is usually applied to an individual or a group. Attempts to reduce suffering on the cultural level are associated with the terms political philosophy and cultural critic. But in ancient times the boundaries between philosophy, psychotherapy, politics and religion were fluent and therapies were imbedded in worldviews and social ideals (e.g. Stoicism).

In Socrates’ day, almost all Greek thinkers assumed or argued that the polis, the community, was the correct and only environment for human moral flourishing – that a good polis created goodness in its citizens (…). As a moral philosopher, then, Socrates was also a political philosopher [Waterfield, 29].

Disclaimer

▪ There is no claim that knowledge in general has a therapeutic effect. The search for knowledge has to be guided by the desire to avoid (or reduce) suffering in order to be therapeutically effective.

▪ There is no claim that philosophy in general aims at some form of therapy. Philosophy as therapy is just one of many branches of philosophy.

▪ There is also no claim that the application of reason is the only way to improve life satisfaction, in particular no claim that reason has to be applied to every aspect of life. As Zen-Buddhists, Wittgenstein and Feyerabend demonstrated, philosophers may even find arguments to quit reasoning [Schmidt, 5].

2. Comparison with Psychotherapy

Psychotherapy

▪ Psychotherapy treats mental illnesses like hysteria, narcissism, bulimia, compulsive disorder, anxiety disorder (claustrophobia, agoraphobia etc.) and major depressive disorder. Philosophical therapy is designed for the worries of sane people [Van Hooft, 12].

▪ Psychotherapy objectifies the client, forms a theory about the client and interprets the client’s statements in terms of that theory [Van Hooft, 20]. Philosophical therapy strives to avoid theory-specific terms (like introjection) and concepts (like Oedipus complex).

▪ Psychotherapy concentrates on making people fit for survival and procreation. According to Freud a person is sane if he/she is able to love and able to work. The retreat from life is diagnosed as a sign of depression. In a philosophical therapy the retreat from life – if it comes out of a profound argument – is not associated with mental illness.

Philosophical therapy

Philosophical therapy resumes the holistic and interdisciplinary view that was characteristic for the ancient world. Psychotherapy is a specialized field within the social sciences. The separation of the disciplines began with the development of individualistic therapies (see Freud’s Philosophy of Life). Arguments for the holistic view are amongst others:

▪ It might be more efficient to improve living conditions than to occupy therapists with the result of miserable conditions.

▪ Freedom of opinion is not a gift; it has to be (politically) defended. Philosophical knowledge cannot be passed on without freedom of opinion.

▪ Philosophical therapy is not only concerned with the self (self-control and self-realization), but also opens the mind for an enhanced perception of the self [Van Hooft, 28]. As far as a client learns to transcend the self, philosophical therapy helps to cope with transience and death.

Commonalities

▪ The delineation between philosophical therapy, talking therapy and psychoanalysis is vague insofar, as Maieutics and hermeneutics are philosophical methods [Van Hooft, 23].

▪ Psychotherapy as well as philosophical therapy connect academic knowledge with the practice of daily life

A historical approach to philosophy as therapy helps to understand the relation between philosophy, psychotherapy and religion [Hampe]

3. Forms of Therapy

A therapy is characterized by a goal or a method [Lunsford]. We start with a rough classification of goals:

The Socratic life

Contemporary philosophical therapy aims at a Socratic life, i.e. a life in which there is honest self-appraisal and rational inquiry into goals; in short, an examined life [Van Hooft, 20]. The Socratic examination may lead to the solution of pending problems [Van Hooft, 24] or to the insight that a more profound therapy is indicated. The following classification of goals refers to the latter case.

Spontaneity and control

Two kinds of suffering and corresponding kinds of therapies can be distinguished:

▪ Suffering caused by passions. The goal of the therapy is self-control. Examples: Philosophers of Hellenism [Van Hooft, 6,8,10]

▪ Suffering caused by the suppression of passions. The goal of the therapy is self-realization. Example: Nietzsche [Van Hooft, 7]

Therapies of desire (passion) tend to be normative; therapies for emotional liberation tend to be individualistic. Both strategies have a certain survival value:

▪ The suppression of passions prevents from conflicts and violence

▪ The acting out of ones feelings prevents from becoming depressive.

Survival and non-existence

Philosophy doesn’t necessarily have to function as a tool for (genetic) survival. The discovery that suffering can be reduced by questioning the wheel of (genetic) reincarnation is at the source of Buddhism. This leads to a different classification of philosophy as therapy:

▪ Greek tradition: Develop a strategy for survival. Cope with suffering

▪ Buddhist tradition: Liberate from (genetic) reincarnation. Cope with non-existence.

Most contemporary interpretations of the term philosophy as therapy are committed to the Greek concept.

Methods

Methods depend on the goal to be pursued:

Philosopher	Goal	Method	Related psychotherapy
Socrates	Socratic life	Maieutics	Talk therapy
Achenbach	Socratic life	see [Van Hooft, 24-28]	Talk therapy
Epictetus	Self-control	see Enchiridon	Rational emotive therapy
Spinoza	Self-control	analytic, deductive thinking see Ethica	Rational emotive therapy
Nietzsche	Self-realization	creative, antithetic thinking	Existential therapy
Wittgenstein	Self-realization	Hermeneutics	Psychoanalysis
Cavell	Self-realization	Moral perfectionism	Psychoanalysis
Buddha	Non-existence (of the ego)	Eightfold Path, Insight meditation	none

4. Objectivity

Whatever form it takes, some kind of a larger world-view is a spiritual need that we all have and which both Plato and Aristotle thought grounded a fully happy life [Van Hooft, 28].

To transcend the individualistic perspective and look for objectivity is only appropriate in the last stage of a therapy, but it is what makes a practice distinctively philosophical [Van Hooft, 28].

The therapeutic good

In Aristotle's works, eudaimonia was used as a term for the highest human good, and so it is the aim of practical philosophy, including ethics and political philosophy, to consider (and also experience) what it really is, and how it can be achieved (Eudaimonia, Wikipedia)

▪ The definition of the “highest human good” is a controversial matter, but obviously the liberation from suffering fulfills a requirement of the summum bonum: it is not a means to an end, but an end in itself.

▪ To extend the perception of the self so that it embraces the suffering of all sentient beings is the most plausible form of objectivity in the context of therapy. We will use the term “therapeutic good” for this extended (not individualistic) form of liberation.

The therapeutic good is an ancient concept and is usually associated with Buddhism. The first and second of the Noble Truths can be understood as a diagnosis, the third and fourth as the therapy. The idea to extend the individual liberation to all sentient beings originated in the Mahajana school. It is not obvious, however, that there is a unique or best way to liberation, at least not in a changing environment. Each form of therapy (chapter 3) is a reaction to the environment and relates to a different kind of suffering.

The Socrethics papers explore how the ancient idea of the therapeutic good is reflected in contemporary ethics.

In the tradition of Socrates, the papers start with questions:

Consequentialism

Greek skepticism started the debate concerning the justification of suffering, known as theodicy. In a contemporary philosophical debate suffering cannot be charged to a divine creator any more, but (indirectly) to all individuals who procreate. On the other hand, turning against life might be a hopeless undertaking and result in an additional kind of suffering. The situation is characterized by a moral dilemma. What is a reasonable answer to the fact that traumatic forms of suffering exist and persist?

▪ Is it compassion and alienation in the tradition of Theravada-Buddhism?

▪ Is it the non-violent promotion of ethical knowledge in the tradition of Mahajana-Buddhism?

▪ Is it political and humanitarian action in the occidental tradition?

▪ Is it technological progress?

Biological and cultural evolution

The basis of every therapy is the understanding of suffering. The prime goal is therefore a theory of the origination and dispersion of suffering: An analytical approach is confronted with unpleasant theses. One of them is that the degree of suffering increases with evolution and seems not to be limited. The degree of happiness increases as well, but suffering cannot be compensated by happiness across individuals.

▪ Does the cultural fight against suffering with its increasing complexity and its prolongation of lifetime lead to higher degrees of suffering (in analogy to the biological level)? The answer to this question requires analyzing the ambivalence of technological progress.

▪ Can the distribution of suffering be influenced in a long-term perspective? Will an extremely suffering minority pay the price for the progress of the majority (in analogy to the biological level)?

▪ The control of cultural evolution presupposes the existence of a free will. To what extent are human values and decisions controlled by the unconscious?

The Socrethics papers on biological and cultural evolution relate to above questions.

Social philosophy

The ideal of objectivity, when applied to practical problems, leads to conflicts [Nagel, 173]

Objectivity is the central problem of ethics. Not just in theory, but in life. The problem is to decide in what way, if at all, the ideal of objectivity can be applied to practical questions [Nagel, 138].

Consequentialism is in conflict with individual rights:

▪ How can the pursuit of the therapeutic good be reconciled with a theory of the Rawls-type?

▪ What are the ethical priorities?

A special case of the conflict between consequentialism and individual rights concerns population ethics:

▪ Does the minimization of suffering lead to a hostile philosophy?

▪ How many people should there be?

The Socrethics papers on social philosophy relate to above questions.

Philosophy of life

Traumatic forms of suffering destroy most of the non-religious attempts to construct meaning in life. A possible therapeutic approach (in the tradition of Buddhism and Enlightenment) consists in exploring the deeper causes of suffering. Making the misfortunes and blows of daily life the object of introspective and scientific investigation allows getting on distance to negative emotions. Most of the philosophers mentioned in chapter 3 exemplified through their own lives that not only the search for therapeutic knowledge, but also its proliferation and application contribute to life satisfaction.

The complete accordance between subjective values and the therapeutic good is a special case of self-transcendence. In the general case there is a multitude of diverging values that contribute to life satisfaction.

How could the main point of human life be the elimination of evil? (…) The same could be said of the idea that helping others is the only thing that really gives meaning to life. If no one’s life has any meaning in itself, how can it acquire meaning through devotion to the meaningless lives of others? [Nagel, 217]

A reasonable philosophy of life has to acknowledge and reconcile diverging values:

We should certainly try to harmonize our lives to some extent with how we think the world should be. But there is no necessity to abandon all values that do not correspond to anything desirable from an impersonal standpoint, even though this may be possible as a personal choice – a choice of self-transcendence [Nagel, 173].

The Socrethics papers on the philosophy of life relate to above topics.

References

Hampe Michael, Therapeutic Understanding of Philosophy, ETH, Switzerland
Lunsford Gina Marie (2005), Socrates and Wittgenstein: Philosophy as Therapy, Florida State University
Nagel Thomas (1986), The View from Nowhere, Oxford University Press
Schmidt Alfred (2001), Sind Philosophen verrückt?
Van Hooft Stan, Philosophy as Therapy, Deakin University, Melbourne
Waterfield Robin (2009), The Historical Socrates, History Today, January