Quality Indicators for Philosophical Practice - Self-reflection as Sign for the Depth of a Dialogue -

( Peter Harteloh ),( Taro Mochizuki ) 한국철학상담치료학회 2020 철학 실천과 상담 Vol.10 No.-

Regularly, the question on the quality of philosophical practice is raised. Practicing philosophers, policy makers, scientists and last but not least clients wonder how to assess the quality of philosophical practice. Professionals want to value the format of different practices and clients want to know what to expect from visiting a philosophical practice. Understanding the quality of philosophical practice is important for determining its value and its role in society. Quality indicators can provide such information. A quality indicator is not a norm or criterion. A quality indicator is a sign or signal evoking reflection on the structure and process of the philosophical practice and the outcomes of the philosophizing that takes place there. As quality is an abstract phenomenon related to the way or how a philosophical practice is, the quality indicator should inform us on “the how”of a philosophical practice. With respect to the philosophizing in philosophical practice, reflexivity seems to be essential for recognizing it as philosophy. Just like the color of a litmus paper points at the presence or absence of an acid in a solution, the presence or absence of reflexivity informs us about the quality of the dialogue in philosophical practice. Reflexivity deepens such a dialogue every time it is applied. When applied consciously by the philosophical practitioner it can be called intentional depth. This intentional depth determines the quality of a philosophical practice.

Quality Indicators for Philosophical Practice

Peter Harteloh,Taro Mochizuki 한국철학상담치료학회 2020 철학 실천과 상담 Vol.10 No.-

Regularly, the question on the quality of philosophical practice is raised. Practicing philosophers, policy makers, scientists and last but not least clients wonder how to assess the quality of philosophical practice. Professionals want to value the format of different practices and clients want to know what to expect from visiting a philosophical practice. Understanding the quality of philosophical practice is important for determining its value and its role in society. Quality indicators can provide such information. A quality indicator is not a norm or criterion. A quality indicator is a sign or signal evoking reflection on the structure and process of the philosophical practice and the outcomes of the philosophizing that takes place there. As quality is an abstract phenomenon related to the way or how a philosophical practice is, the quality indicator should inform us on “the how”of a philosophical practice. With respect to the philosophizing in philosophical practice, reflexivity seems to be essential for recognizing it as philosophy. Just like the color of a litmus paper points at the presence or absence of an acid in a solution, the presence or absence of reflexivity informs us about the quality of the dialogue in philosophical practice. Reflexivity deepens such a dialogue every time it is applied. When applied consciously by the philosophical practitioner it can be called intentional depth. This intentional depth determines the quality of a philosophical practice

철학과 철학실천: 철학적 인간학적 관점에서 바라본 철학상담

박병준 ( Byoung Jun Park ) 한국해석학회 2012 해석학연구 Vol.30 No.-

The philosophical counseling that started with Achenbach is a movement to practise philosophy; and it has expanded its base rapidly despite its comparatively short history, thanks to the interest of many philosophers and other persons as well. Philosophical practice goes beyond simply emphasizing the practical aspect of philosophy as opposed to theoretical philosophy. It focuses on a specific area of philosophical counseling and treatment to heal human beings through philosophy. Its fundamental purpose is to provide counseling and treatment, but it has become an urgent task to prove the unique identity of philosophical practice as compared to existing treatments of psychoanalytic or psychological counseling. A philosophical debate over theory and practice is nothing new to us. However, the attitude of practising philosophy that is displayed by the philosophical practice of today demands fresh new questions on the essence of philosophy. On what is the self-justification of philosophical counseling based? Especially, on what grounds does philosophical counseling approach the treatment of human beings under the name of philosophy? These philosophical questions on the grounds and possibilities of philosophical counseling and treatment are core tasks that should precede methodological questions. This study examines the meaning and tasks of philosophical counseling as philosophical practice centering on the philosophical practice of Achenbach. It does so from a philosophical-anthropological point of view which explores the understanding of human beings. It raises questions to determine the position of philosophical counseling and to enunciate its essence and identity in the field of philosophy. It raises fundamental questions to establish the theoretical basis and sound practice of philosophical counseling.

The Philosophical Cafe in the Netherlands: A Place for Profound Speculations

( Peter Harteloh ) 한국철학상담치료학회 2019 철학 실천과 상담 Vol.9 No.-

In this paper, I will explore the current practice of philosophical cafés in The Netherlands and its philosophical foundations. In line with the tradition of philosophical practice, I will start with some examples out of my own experience. Next, I conducted a survey into the main activities, definitions and sources of philosophical cafés by studying internet websites in order to mirror my experience with the study object. I will try to reach an understanding of the philosophical café and come to some conclusions on its societal function and value. This approach leads to understanding the philosophical café as a philosophical practice focused on the concepts of change, free speculations, deepening of thoughts, enjoyment and life style. I could distinguish several forms of such a practice. First, philosophical cafés offer extracurricular academic activities such as lectures or courses adapted to the general public by philosophers often serving a commercial activity or goal. Second, philosophical cafés offer Socratic dialogues on societal relevant topics on a regular basis. Third, philosophical cafés offer a place for exercising a life style. Common to these different forms of practice is what I would call “profound speculations”.

연구논문 : 임상철학의 정체성 연구- “임상철학”의 규정에 대한 국내외 자료 연구

박대원 ( Dae Won Park ) 한국동서철학회 2014 동서철학연구 Vol.73 No.-

이 논문은 ‘임상철학(clinical philosophy)’의 정체성에 관한 연구이다. 철학의 실천적 활동들 가운데는, ‘철학실천(philosophical practice), 철학상담, 철학치료, 철학치유, 철학교육, 철학카페’ 등처럼 대체로 ‘철학~~’ 형태의 어법으로 표현되는 것이 있는가 하면, ‘임상철학’처럼 ‘~~철학’ 형태의 어법을 사용하는 것도 있다. 전자와 달리 후자의 어법을 사용하는 경우는 ‘임상철학’이 유일하다. 이처럼 표현에서 상이한 어법 차이를 보임에도 기존의 대다수 연구서들에서는 ‘임상철학’이 넓은 의미의 철학실천이나 철학상담의 다양한 세부 활동 영역들로 분류되고 있다. 필자는 전자와 후자의 어법 차이에 궁금증을 가지고 그 해결을 위해서 국내외의 연구서들을 살펴보았지만 대부분 제대로 해명해주지 못했다. 따라서 필자는 ‘임상철학’에 대한 기존의 개념적 규정들을 살펴볼 필요성이 있다고 생각하고 그에 따라 기존의 규정들을 비판적으로 검토해보려고 하였다. 그 결과 학자들마다 ‘임상철학’이라는 명칭을 아무런 규정도 하지 않은 채 막연히 사용하거나, 아니면 철학실천이나 철학상담의 세부 활동명칭으로서 아주 협의적으로 사용하고 있음을 확인할 수 있었다. 그러나 필자의 생각에, 임상철학은 철학의 실천적 활동들 중 하나를 지칭하는 활동명칭이 아니라, 실천철학의 몇몇 하위 분야들 가운데 하나인 실천철학적 분야명칭일 뿐이다. 조금 더 구체적으로 말하자면 임상철학은 상담·치료·교육·카페활동을 철학적으로 수행하는 철학상담·철학치료·철학교육·철학카페처럼 그 주된 활동을 지칭하기 위한 활동명칭이 아니라, 오히려 저런 활동명칭을 포함해서 임상적 활동들과 연관된 분야 전체(마음·고통·상담·치료·치유·예방·교육·카페활동 등)를 지칭하기 위한 실천철학의 하위 분야명칭이다. 가령, 철학을 큰 주제 중심으로 분류할 때 이론철학과 실천철학으로 나눌 수 있는데, 특히 기존 실천철학의 하위 분야는 윤리·도덕·법 철학, 사회·정치·경제 철학, 미·예술·문화 철학 등으로 나뉠 수 있다. 그런데 이와 별개로 그간 제대로 주목하지 않았던 임상(상담·치료·교육·카페활동)철학이라는 새로운 철학 분야가 지금에서야 제대로 주목되었다고 할 수 있다. 그럼에도 그간 이 분야에 대한 포괄적 규정과 명칭을 ‘철학실천’이나 넓은 의미의 ‘철학상담’으로 이해·사용하면서 오히려 이것의 하위 분야이거나 아니면 또 다른 별개의 세부 분야로서 ‘임상철학’이라는 분야가 존재하는 것처럼 오해하곤 하였다. 그러다 보니 학자들마다 ‘임상철학’이라는 명칭을 편의에 따라 아무런 규정 없이 막연히 사용하기도 하고, 좁게는 철학실천의 다양한 하위 활동들 가운데 하나의 세부 활동명칭으로 사용하기도 한 듯하다. 그러나 이처럼 무분별하게 이해하고 사용하는 관행을 지금에서라도 끊어낼 필요가 있다. 새롭게 이 분야를 접하게 될 많은 사람들도 필자처럼 기존의 저 혼란스런 개념 사용 때문에 당혹감을 느낄 수 있기 때문이다. 따라서 필자는 ‘임상철학’을 ‘철학실천’뿐만 아니라 ‘철학상담·철학치료·철학카페·철학교육’ 등의 활동명칭을 모두 포함하는 ‘실천철학의 하위 분야명칭’으로 사용할 것을 다시 한 번 제안해본다. This paper is the study on the identity of the ‘clinical philosophy’. Generally, in the practical activities of philosophy it is ‘philosophical practice, philosophical counseling, philosophical therapy, philosophical healing, philosophical education, philosophy cafe, etc’ which are represented by the name of form of ‘philosophy ~’. But ‘Clinical philosophy’ was used by the wording of the form of ‘~ philosophy’.Nevertheless, it might be considered to be similar with the rest activities of the family. I have examined national and international the data for ‘clinical philosophy’. The philosophers and practitioners have used indiscriminately the name. Some people are using it as a field name of practical philosophy, but the rest of the people are using it as a sub-title of the philosophical counseling or practice. I think that it is necessary to break such practices to be understanded and used indiscriminately. I’m thinking that clinical philosophy be able not to be called one of the practical activities, but should be called one among some sub-areas of a practical philosophy. Specifically, clinical philosophy is not one name of activities to practise philosophically ‘counseling, therapy, education, cafe activities’ like ‘philosophical counseling, philosophical therapy, philosophical education, philosophy cafe’, but is an field name to consider clinical and theoretical activities associated with those areas, including clinical thema(mind, suffering, counseling, therapy, education, cafe activities, etc).

인간다운 삶을 위한 철학적 대화로의 초대

노성숙(Nho Soung-suk) 가톨릭대학교(성심교정) 인간학연구소 2010 인간연구 Vol.0 No.19

최근 철학의 새로운 분야로 부상하고 있는 철학상담은 1981년 아헨바흐(Achenbach)에 의해 ‘철학실천’이라는 용어로 시작되었다. 철학상담은 상담자인 철학자로 하여금 학계라는 울타리를 벗어나 애초에 실제 삶의 맥락으로부터 시작되었던 ‘철학함’을 회복시키고자 노력한다. 본 논문은 ‘왜 오늘날 철학실천으로서의 철학상담이 필요한가’라는 질문에 천착한다. 우선적으로 오늘날 철학 안팎으로 ‘철학상담’이 새롭게 시작되는 배경을 폭넓게 알아본다. 그러고 나서 이러한 역사적 맥락으로부터 창안된 아헨바흐의 ‘철학실천’으로서의 철학상담에 대한 구상을 집중적으로 고찰한다. 그리하여 그가 왜 ‘철학실천’의 문을 열었는지, 철학상담에서 ‘철학함’과 ‘철학자’는 어떤 의미로 이해되는지, 나아가 그가 왜 ‘실천’이라는 용어를 강조해서 사용하려 하는지를 알아본다. 또한 이와 같이 시작된 ‘철학실천’이 여타의 상담들과 구체적으로 어떻게 다르게 전개되는지를 밝혀 본다. 앞으로 철학상담은 인간에 대한 깊은 통찰력과 지혜의 자양분을 바탕으로 일상적인 삶의 고민과 갈등, 실존적 위기 등에 처한 사람들에게 ‘인간다운 삶’, ‘잘 삶’을 위한 유익한 대화의 기회를 제공할 것으로 기대된다. Philosophical counseling, initially coined as “philosophical practice” by Achenbach in 1981, emerged recently as a new field of philosophy in its own right. It attempts, by recasting the philosopher as a counselor, to bring philosophy back from academia and recover the ancient notion of “doing philosophy”, in a real-life context. This paper focuses on the question of why philosophical counseling as philosophical practice is required in the contemporary world. First, it seeks to introduce the background for the beginning of philosophical counseling within and without the academic world of philosophy. Next, it investigates Achenbach’s conception of philosophical counseling as philosophical practice that appears in historical context, focusing on why he opened the door to “philosophical practice”. It also investigates the meaning of “philosophizing” and “philosopher” in his practice, as well as why he emphasizes the importance of “practice” instead of “counseling”. Furthermore, it pays attention to the difference between philosophical practice and other forms of counseling. There is reason to believe that philosophical counseling based on deep insight and human wisdom will give people in existential crisis or in problems of everyday life a useful opportunity to maintain dialogues that will improve their “well-being” and fulfill the realization of an authentic “human life” in the future.

우리의 철학과 철학실천

김석수(Kim, Suk-soo) 중앙대학교 중앙철학연구소 2015 철학탐구 Vol.40 No.-

이 글은 우리 철학의 빈곤과 위기의 극복을 칸트, 헤겔 및 오늘날 현대철학자들이 ‘철학’ 혹은 ‘철학실천’에 대해 주장한 내용과 연계하여 다루는 것을 목적으로 하고 있다. 한국 현대사를 살아온 우리의 철학자들은 국민국가와 시민국가의 과정을 거치면서 철학의 빈곤과 위기를 경험해야 했으며, 지금도 그런 과정 속에 놓여 있다. 이런 빈곤과 위기는 부당한 정치적-경제적 체계에서 비롯되기도 하지만, 이론과 실천, 사유와 현실을 매개하는 철학하기, 이른바 ‘학문으로서의 철학’과 ‘생활로서의 철학’을 종합하는 ‘철학실천’ 작업을 우리의 철학자들이 충실히 수행하지 못한 데서 연유하기도 한다. 그동안 철학실천가들이 자신들의 철학의 빈곤과 위기를 극복하기 위해 ‘철학실천’ 활동을 전개해왔듯이, 우리의 철학자들도 근자에 정치적-경제적 체계에 의해 식민화되는 생활인들의 아픔에 참여하는 ‘철학실천’ 활동, 그 중에서도 특히 철학상담 활동을 활성화하고 있다. 그러나 이 활동에서조차 우리의 ‘철학실천’은 이론과 실천을 매개하는 사례연구보다는 이론연구에 더 치중하는 경향을 보이고 있다. 뿐만 아니라 우리의 ‘철학실천’은 ‘치유’에 더 치중함으로써 상대적으로 철학의 본래적 활동인 ‘비판’ 활동을 제대로 수행하지 못하고, 또한 미래를 새롭게 모색하는 ‘창조’ 활동도 제대로 펼치지 못할 가능성을 안고 있다. 우리의 철학의 빈곤과 위기를 극복하기 위해서는, 우리는 이론과 실천, 사유와 현실, 치유와 비판을 제대로 매개해야 하며, 또한 이를 바탕으로 창조적 활동을 수행하는 철학하기, 즉 진정한 ‘철학실천’으로 나아가야 할 것이다. I will deal with the problem overcoming the poverty and crisis of our philosophy in conjunction with the “philosophy” and “philosophical practice” of Kant, Hegel, and contemporary philosophers. Our philosophers had to experience the poverty and crisis of the philosophy with passing through the process of the national state and the civic state, and are still experiencing it. On the one hand, this poverty and crisis stems from the unjust political and economical systems. But on the other hand, they stem from the thing which our philosophers have not performed the ‘philosophical practice’ which mediates and harmonizes theory and practice, thinking and reality. That is to say, such a poverty and crisis stems from what our philosophers did not synthesize the ‘philosophy as a life’ and the ‘philosophy as a science.’ Just as Today’s philosophical practicers have tried to do the ‘philosophical practice’ in order to overcome the poverty and crisis of their philosophy, our philosophers are also trying to do the ‘philosophical practice’ participating in the pains of our living world colonized by the (political-economical) system. However, our ‘philosophical practice’ activities are more concentrating on the theory studies rather than the case studies. In addition, the activities of our practical philosophers have also the possibility to weaken the critical activity of the philosophy because they tend to focus on the healing. Our practical philosophers can’t also go towards ‘creation’ activities that explore the future positively owing to this. We have to proceed towards the ‘philosophical practice’ which mediates theory and practice, thinking and reality, healing and criticism in order to overcome the poverty and crisis of our philosophy.

New Paradigms for Philosophical Practice

Ran Lahav 강원대학교 인문과학연구소 2017 Journal of Humanities Therapy Vol.8 No.1

The philosophical practice movement is based on the vision that philosophy can help make the life of the individual fuller, deeper, more meaningful. However, traditional philosophy in the West has typically been abstract and remote from everyday life, and the challenge for philosophical practitioners is how to bridge the gap between philosophical ideas or methods and the individual’s personal concerns. I argue that the main existing strategies for addressing this challenge have seen only partial success. New paradigms need to be developed, ones that would use philosophical reflection in more effective and meaningful ways. In recent years I have been exploring, with the help of colleagues, a new direction for philosophical practice, one which I now call “The gardener’s paradigm”. Instead of trying to apply (or even impose) philosophical ideas or methods onto the individual’s situation, the “philosophical gardener” uses philosophy to nourish the “plants” within us so that they would find their own wisdom. More concretely, philosophical reflection is used to enrich the individuals’ dormant sensitivities and awareness, not just their abstract thinking but their entire being. A concrete example of this new paradigm is the philosophical-contemplative companionship (or philosophical companionship for short), which I have been developing for the past three years. This is a group activity in which participants contemplate in togetherness on a philosophical text, resonating with each other from their inner depth. Rather than making statements, expressing opinions, or looking for solutions to problems, participants open themselves to a creative polyphonic symphony of philosophical ideas that address basic life-issues. The result is a powerful experience that touches and awakens deep, dormant sources of wisdom and understanding.

Philosophical Practice as Mind-opening Dialog Towards Freedom and Vivification

Detlef Staude 강원대학교 인문과학연구소 2015 Journal of Humanities Therapy Vol.6 No.2

The author argues that philosophical practice is neither therapy nor application of philosophy. Instead he refers on the Aristotelian distinction between praxis and poiesis and sees philosophical practice as a mind-opening dialog unable to intend particular results. Nevertheless philosophical practice owns a force near to therapeutic potentials: the effects which reflections, questions and ideas have on people and on everyday life on the one hand and its vivifying potential on the other. He illustrates this by the example of a successful long-term course on the history of philosophical ideas. The author shows the differences between a school lesson or a usual university course of today and a seminar which is held in the attitude of philosophical practice. Philosophical practice for him is an inspiring adventurous exercise which leads to vivification and inner freedom.

On the Content and form of a Philosophical Consultation

Peter Harteloh 강원대학교 인문과학연구소 2023 Journal of Humanities Therapy Vol.14 No.2

In a philosophical practice, the philosophizing has the form of a dialogue between the philosopher and a client or guest as Achenbach calls his interlocuter in the dialogue. This dialogue can differ in content and form, but it characterizes philosophical practice in general and philosophical consultation in particular. In this paper, I will examine a philosophical dialogue in detail by an example of a consultation out of my own philosophical practice. What characterizes such a dialogue? How are content and form related? What differentiates it from psychotherapy? These questions will guide the examination of the example. I will postulate “depth of intention” as a concept with which the philosophical consultation in relation to the dialogue can be understood and I will draw some conclusions on the content and form of the dialogue in a philosophical practice.