This short note introduces the growing movement of philosophical counseling, what it offers, and why (despite some confusion on the point) it's different in kind from psychotherapy.
Gary, I keep returning to this note while making my way through my MA program in clinical mental health training. I'd like to push one pressure point. Though he certainly talks more than a therapist should, I cannot help but continue to judge that Plato's Socrates gives a therapeutic model. Socrates is a midwife. If your schema is inconsistent and you do not see this, if a value is fuzzy and potentially harmful and you do not see this, Socrates uncovers and shows it to you. Socrates does not tell you what to think; rather, he makes apparent to you what is dispositional ("automatic") for you and helps you test it. I rather doubt most clients in need of healing would benefit from seeing Socrates himself (at least Plato's). While he exercises irony and certainly gives support, the challenging is much more prominent. Nonetheless, what Socrates maybe does do—and this is a real benefit of philosophy—is to help you recognize your deepest organizing principles and to get conceptual clarity about what they are. I always recoil when I see what CBT does referred to as "Socratic questioning." As it tends to get practiced, CBT does nothing of the sort (and it must fall short: CBT is not a way of life; Socrates is a eudaemonist). The question I keep coming back to: once rapport and trust are established, what if CBT or other orientations did? Socrates does not tell you what Socrates thinks about you. Socrates tells you what you think about you and then helps you test it. And maybe this is helpful for some clients with some problems. I cannot imagine philosophy does not contribute greatly in helping a client work through axiological distress (e.g., what does it mean really to flourish [universal] and what would this look like for you [particular]). But then I have not yet started practicum. I'm going to find out soon enough!
I'll end an already too long, bloated reply. A major difference between philosophy and therapy is that philosophy is about the universal and therapy is about the particular. Philosophy does not aim at and perhaps cannot get at the individual in her particularity (I think there is a lesson in the Phaedo about the limits of philosophical consolation for the individual, but that's a long story). But getting to our naked, vulnerable affective particularity is precisely what therapy must do.
I agree with everything you say here. (Though I didn't understand this: "The question I keep coming back to: once rapport and trust are established, what if CBT or other orientations did?" Did what?) That said, there are a couple points I would emphasize. First, that in the case of psychodynamic therapy, listening not just for the logos but for feelings/soma is crucial, and that it's very easy to be distracted from these by the logos. In fact, in intelligent educated clients, the logos is often an intellectual defense against more primitive felt experience. In these cases, therapists can easily collude with clients in being over-focused on problems, principles, and changing scripts (ala CBT) at the expense of addressing core issues. Second, while I believe that human beings do desire to understand, most clients aren't philosophically minded. If their therapist has the discipline of Socrates, they may be able to maieutically support their client in discovering the axiological roots of their distress, as you say. But what happens more often is that the therapist more or less overtly starts educating and leading the client. There's a place for this, but MUCH less of a place than most therapists and therapies think. (Winnicott playfully says he offers interpretations just so that the patient knows he's listening and fallible!) I'll be super curious to hear how your own experience of this evolves as you begin practica. My experience is that one of the hard but worthwhile tasks of being a good therapist is NOT offering too much by way of insights, interpretations, and so forth--tempting as it is when you can see (so much more easily than the client) some of the roots of their suffering.
["The question I keep coming back to: once rapport and trust are established, what if CBT or other orientations did?]
I do not think genuine Socratic questioning would be possible until after real trust and rapport had already been established. Without immense trust, this kind of probing questioning cannot work.
Regarding your second point, I am in complete agreement. If there is going to be Socratic questioning, it would have to be done with immense skill and patience and neutrality that does not lead "edu-lead" the client. But I would think that for clients with deep axiological confusion, philosophy could help lead clients through it for themselves. But, as you say, this will only happen with the right kind of client.
This leads me to a follow up question: might philosophically oriented therapy work well for therapists seeking therapy in some cases? I wonder.
I, too, am super curious to see how things go! (Prepracticum right now, practicum in the summer.) Thanks for this generous response, Gary.
Another thought provoking post. I’d read the New Yorker article previously. It had caught my attention as I consider myself someone who is practicing Stoicism and very interested in philosophy. But I came away a bit unsure what to think of the described philosophical counseling movement that was described. Your essay helped me connect the dots and better appreciate the strengths and weaknesses. And I was frankly a bit relieved when you described your own psychotherapy practices. My favorite part was the text at the end about listening. So lovely. As a former educator, maybe I too was a “help professional”. It often felt that way for sure. And I learned to advise new educators regarding their students, “Listen first. Don’t judge. Don’t react. Don’t get defensive. Don’t start forming a response in your head. Just listen, and maybe ask some questions. Listen to understand.”
Beautifully put. I wholeheartedly agree that being an educator involves more listening than many educators tend to think! Glad the reflection was useful.
I experience chronic but subclinical stress from the unresolvedness of my philosophy of life. It seems there are more countervailing truths to juggle and constantly re-prioritize than I have fingers or attention buckets. Time matters, but the long future mustn’t outweigh the present, yadda yadda etc. why get out of bed. I don’t suppose either a trained therapist or official philosopher can help though. Maybe I’m wrong about the former, I should give one a try. Cheers and keep up the great work and writing.
First, thanks for reading and for your continued support of these notes, Brian!
As for your predicament, it's so hard to know what you don't know! It could be an unresolved philosophy of life, or the philosophy could--as I've found in my own case--sometimes be hiding an underlying and more personal dissatisfaction. Curiosity's always a great starting point, and you're richly endowed w that!
Good stuff. Back at SJC and for a while in med school I was interested in the idea of philosophical counselling, but once I started residency and doing therapy I realized how totally different they are. My sense is that philosophical counselling might be helpful for some people, but its results will be pretty modest at best, and for many it will amount to a kind of life-coaching (which is OK if it's genuinely helpful). I understand the urge to move away from more medicalized styles of treatment, though.
When were you at SJC? (I was there as a tutor from 1990-2012.) It sounds like we came to similar conclusions. I think you're right that it's better thought of as a species of life-coaching, and I appreciate your observation that it's yet another attempt to find alternatives to medicalized models of treatment. Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
That explains why your name had been tickling , my brain since I came across it. I'd heard of a "Mr. Greenwald" but couldn't put a face to the name. Glad to be acquainted finally!
Gary, I keep returning to this note while making my way through my MA program in clinical mental health training. I'd like to push one pressure point. Though he certainly talks more than a therapist should, I cannot help but continue to judge that Plato's Socrates gives a therapeutic model. Socrates is a midwife. If your schema is inconsistent and you do not see this, if a value is fuzzy and potentially harmful and you do not see this, Socrates uncovers and shows it to you. Socrates does not tell you what to think; rather, he makes apparent to you what is dispositional ("automatic") for you and helps you test it. I rather doubt most clients in need of healing would benefit from seeing Socrates himself (at least Plato's). While he exercises irony and certainly gives support, the challenging is much more prominent. Nonetheless, what Socrates maybe does do—and this is a real benefit of philosophy—is to help you recognize your deepest organizing principles and to get conceptual clarity about what they are. I always recoil when I see what CBT does referred to as "Socratic questioning." As it tends to get practiced, CBT does nothing of the sort (and it must fall short: CBT is not a way of life; Socrates is a eudaemonist). The question I keep coming back to: once rapport and trust are established, what if CBT or other orientations did? Socrates does not tell you what Socrates thinks about you. Socrates tells you what you think about you and then helps you test it. And maybe this is helpful for some clients with some problems. I cannot imagine philosophy does not contribute greatly in helping a client work through axiological distress (e.g., what does it mean really to flourish [universal] and what would this look like for you [particular]). But then I have not yet started practicum. I'm going to find out soon enough!
I'll end an already too long, bloated reply. A major difference between philosophy and therapy is that philosophy is about the universal and therapy is about the particular. Philosophy does not aim at and perhaps cannot get at the individual in her particularity (I think there is a lesson in the Phaedo about the limits of philosophical consolation for the individual, but that's a long story). But getting to our naked, vulnerable affective particularity is precisely what therapy must do.
I agree with everything you say here. (Though I didn't understand this: "The question I keep coming back to: once rapport and trust are established, what if CBT or other orientations did?" Did what?) That said, there are a couple points I would emphasize. First, that in the case of psychodynamic therapy, listening not just for the logos but for feelings/soma is crucial, and that it's very easy to be distracted from these by the logos. In fact, in intelligent educated clients, the logos is often an intellectual defense against more primitive felt experience. In these cases, therapists can easily collude with clients in being over-focused on problems, principles, and changing scripts (ala CBT) at the expense of addressing core issues. Second, while I believe that human beings do desire to understand, most clients aren't philosophically minded. If their therapist has the discipline of Socrates, they may be able to maieutically support their client in discovering the axiological roots of their distress, as you say. But what happens more often is that the therapist more or less overtly starts educating and leading the client. There's a place for this, but MUCH less of a place than most therapists and therapies think. (Winnicott playfully says he offers interpretations just so that the patient knows he's listening and fallible!) I'll be super curious to hear how your own experience of this evolves as you begin practica. My experience is that one of the hard but worthwhile tasks of being a good therapist is NOT offering too much by way of insights, interpretations, and so forth--tempting as it is when you can see (so much more easily than the client) some of the roots of their suffering.
["The question I keep coming back to: once rapport and trust are established, what if CBT or other orientations did?]
I do not think genuine Socratic questioning would be possible until after real trust and rapport had already been established. Without immense trust, this kind of probing questioning cannot work.
Regarding your second point, I am in complete agreement. If there is going to be Socratic questioning, it would have to be done with immense skill and patience and neutrality that does not lead "edu-lead" the client. But I would think that for clients with deep axiological confusion, philosophy could help lead clients through it for themselves. But, as you say, this will only happen with the right kind of client.
This leads me to a follow up question: might philosophically oriented therapy work well for therapists seeking therapy in some cases? I wonder.
I, too, am super curious to see how things go! (Prepracticum right now, practicum in the summer.) Thanks for this generous response, Gary.
Another thought provoking post. I’d read the New Yorker article previously. It had caught my attention as I consider myself someone who is practicing Stoicism and very interested in philosophy. But I came away a bit unsure what to think of the described philosophical counseling movement that was described. Your essay helped me connect the dots and better appreciate the strengths and weaknesses. And I was frankly a bit relieved when you described your own psychotherapy practices. My favorite part was the text at the end about listening. So lovely. As a former educator, maybe I too was a “help professional”. It often felt that way for sure. And I learned to advise new educators regarding their students, “Listen first. Don’t judge. Don’t react. Don’t get defensive. Don’t start forming a response in your head. Just listen, and maybe ask some questions. Listen to understand.”
Beautifully put. I wholeheartedly agree that being an educator involves more listening than many educators tend to think! Glad the reflection was useful.
I experience chronic but subclinical stress from the unresolvedness of my philosophy of life. It seems there are more countervailing truths to juggle and constantly re-prioritize than I have fingers or attention buckets. Time matters, but the long future mustn’t outweigh the present, yadda yadda etc. why get out of bed. I don’t suppose either a trained therapist or official philosopher can help though. Maybe I’m wrong about the former, I should give one a try. Cheers and keep up the great work and writing.
First, thanks for reading and for your continued support of these notes, Brian!
As for your predicament, it's so hard to know what you don't know! It could be an unresolved philosophy of life, or the philosophy could--as I've found in my own case--sometimes be hiding an underlying and more personal dissatisfaction. Curiosity's always a great starting point, and you're richly endowed w that!
Good stuff. Back at SJC and for a while in med school I was interested in the idea of philosophical counselling, but once I started residency and doing therapy I realized how totally different they are. My sense is that philosophical counselling might be helpful for some people, but its results will be pretty modest at best, and for many it will amount to a kind of life-coaching (which is OK if it's genuinely helpful). I understand the urge to move away from more medicalized styles of treatment, though.
When were you at SJC? (I was there as a tutor from 1990-2012.) It sounds like we came to similar conclusions. I think you're right that it's better thought of as a species of life-coaching, and I appreciate your observation that it's yet another attempt to find alternatives to medicalized models of treatment. Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
I graduated 2011. I think we just happened not to cross paths although all my classmates raved about having class with you!
That explains why your name had been tickling , my brain since I came across it. I'd heard of a "Mr. Greenwald" but couldn't put a face to the name. Glad to be acquainted finally!