Philosophical Counseling and Its Impasse

Attempts in self knowledge and what it reveals.

I. Introduction: The Promise and Its Blind Spot

In December 2023, Nick Romeo published a lengthy article in The New Yorker entitled "When Philosophers Become Therapists," devoted to the growing movement of philosophical counseling. The article portrayed Lydia Amir, a French Israeli philosopher teaching at Tufts University, who receives clients for sessions in which personal problems become occasions for exploring Spinoza, Nietzsche, or Schopenhauer. The case of "David," an Israeli man in his thirties tormented by questions of monogamy, money, and the desire for children, was developed at length. Frustrated by psychotherapies he judged too adjusted to his existing worldview, David sought to examine whether his values themselves might be mistaken. Philosophy, he believed, could offer what psychology refused him: a radical questioning of his existential presuppositions (Romeo, 2023).

The appeal of philosophical counseling is real. It promises an escape from the excessive medicalization of existence, a recovery of the existential dimension of what the movement calls "problems of living." As Romeo (2023) noted, "living involves many doubts, anxieties, and confusions, and not every perplexity is a pathology." For any human quandary, there is likely a philosopher who has wrestled with it over the past few millennia. Their insights may not confer the sorts of benefits that randomized clinical trials can study, but they are potentially profound.

Yet the movement rests on a presupposition that deserves scrutiny: that the subject is capable of accessing, examining, and modifying his beliefs through rational dialogue alone. This presupposition, inherited from a certain reading of Descartes and the Enlightenment, imagines the human being as a transparent consciousness capable of surveying its own contents and reorganizing them through the exercise of reason. It is precisely this image of the subject that the twentieth century, through psychoanalysis, sociology, and social psychology, has systematically dismantled.

II. What Philosophical Counseling Gets Right

Before proceeding to criticism, it is worth acknowledging what philosophical counseling grasps correctly. The critique of excessive pathologization is legitimate. Contemporary psychiatry and psychology have indeed tended to transform every form of existential malaise into a disorder requiring treatment. The proliferation of diagnostic categories in successive editions of the DSM, the medicalization of grief, shyness, and childhood exuberance, the reduction of suffering to neurochemical imbalance: all of this has provoked justified resistance.

Philosophical counseling responds to this situation by insisting that not every difficulty is a pathology. Some forms of suffering are intrinsic to the human condition. Questions about the meaning of life, the nature of freedom, the possibility of authentic existence, the confrontation with mortality: these are not symptoms to be eliminated but dimensions of human experience to be thought through. The capacity to elevate personal problems to the level of philosophical questions can offer distance, perspective, and connection to universal human concerns.

This dimension of philosophical counseling rejoins what psychoanalysis, particularly in its existential versions, has always recognized. The subject is a being of speech, traversed by questions that exceed him. Death, desire, law, love: these are not objects of psychopathology but of ontology. The philosophical counselor who helps a client think through the question of freedom or the meaning of finitude is not doing anything foreign to the psychoanalytic tradition. The problem lies elsewhere.

III. The Transferential Impasse and the Narcissistic Risk

It is Lydia Amir herself who formulates most clearly the limits of her approach. As she told Romeo (2023): "It's about thinking. It's not developing skills of listening and being empathic, which philosophers are not especially trained to do. It's personal tutoring in philosophy." Gary Borjesson (2024), a psychotherapist and philosopher who commented on the New Yorker article, observed: "I agree with her, as long as we add that thinking alone is almost never sufficient to relieve suffering and promote flourishing."

This admission is crucial. It reveals that philosophical counseling assumes it can operate at the level of conscious thought without attending to what occurs beneath that level. The philosophical counselor is not trained to recognize that he occupies a place in the client's psychic economy. That place is charged with expectations, repetitions, idealization, or hostility that have nothing to do with his actual person. Freud called this phenomenon transference, and he discovered that it constitutes at the same time an obstacle to treatment and its essential material.

The case of David illustrates the problem. Romeo (2023) reports that during his first sessions with Amir, David "kind of tested her," steering the discussion toward abstract ideas from Spinoza to evaluate her competence. This detail is significant. The intellectual testing is not mere curiosity; it is a way of remaining in a register where David can control, evaluate, and shine. Rather than exposing himself to what he does not master, to his unconscious desire and his repetitions, he stays on familiar ground. The philosophical dialogue risks becoming a play of mirrors: the client's narcissism, wanting to be recognized as a thinker, meets the counselor's narcissism, enjoying the position of the one who knows.

Borjesson (2024) recounts a parallel case from his own practice. A patient had sought him out specifically because of his doctorate in philosophy, hoping Borjesson would "see through the bullshit to what's really going on." This patient, it emerged, had a hypercritical father who habitually corrected and chastised him. Without clinical training, Borjesson might have taken this request at face value and played the role of intellectual critic, thereby reproducing exactly the traumatic dynamic the patient needed to work through. Understanding the transferential dimension allowed him to avoid this trap.

The philosophical counselor, presenting himself as a tutor rather than a therapist, occludes this transferential dimension. He is not trained to recognize that the client's intellectual engagement may itself be a defense, a way of avoiding the encounter with unconscious conflict. What psychoanalysis calls intellectualization is precisely the use of abstract thought to protect oneself from threatening affects. Discussing Nietzsche on freedom may be intellectually stimulating, but it may also serve to keep at bay the anxiety, the guilt, or the desire that David's question about monogamy conceals.

Freud (1917/1963) showed that the ego functions as an agency of misrecognition. It is what allows the subject not to know what he knows. The narcissistic reinforcement offered by philosophical counseling, the gratifying image of oneself as a "thinking being" capable of "questioning one's values," risks consolidating this function of misrecognition under the guise of self-knowledge. The subject leaves the session not having confronted his division but having found new intellectual resources to maintain his defenses.

IV. Autonomy as Condition: The Anthropological Context

The question is not simply clinical; it is historical and anthropological. To understand what is at stake in philosophical counseling, we must situate it within a broader transformation in the regime of individuality that has occurred over the past century.

Pierre-Henri Castel (2012), in La fin des coupables, proposes a distinction that illuminates this transformation. He contrasts "autonomy as aspiration" with "autonomy as condition." In the former regime, dominant from the early twentieth century through the 1950s, autonomy was an ideal to be conquered. Becoming autonomous required inner work: the slow interiorization of constraint, the elaboration of guilt, the assumption of responsibility for one's acts. Psychoanalysis, with its promise to help the subject discover who he is through laborious self-examination, corresponded perfectly to this regime.

In the regime of autonomy as condition, which has become dominant since the 1960s, the logic is reversed. Autonomy is no longer an ideal to be achieved but a presupposition. Every individual is supposed to be already autonomous; any shortfall appears as dysfunction, deficit, or parasite to be eradicated. As Castel (2012) puts it, contemporary therapies promise to restore a self invaded by intruders, whereas psychoanalysis promised to bring into being, through laborious work, a self that was not there until it had been erected.

Alain Ehrenberg (1998) traces the consequences of this shift for psychic suffering. The paradigmatic pathology changes from neurosis to depression. Neurosis was a guilty conflict between desire and prohibition; depression is exhausted insufficiency, the inability to be equal to oneself. As Ehrenberg memorably formulates it: if our grandparents suffered from the weight of prohibitions, we suffer from the weight of possibilities. The contemporary individual, liberated from traditional morality, must fabricate himself and tend toward the superhuman. But instead of possessing the strength of masters, he is fragile, lacking in being, weary of his own sovereignty.

This analysis converges with what Bourdieu (1986) called the "biographical illusion": the notion that a life can be narrated as a coherent trajectory, with a beginning, development, and end, following a logical and chronological order. This illusion, Bourdieu argued, imposes artificial unity on what is in fact a trajectory shaped by positions in social space and distributions of capital that the subject does not see. The very request to "tell the story of one's life," central to philosophical counseling as to narrative therapies, may reinforce rather than dissolve this illusion.

More fundamentally, Bourdieu's concept of misrecognition (méconnaissance) points to a structural opacity at the heart of the subject. What individuals experience as free choice, authentic preference, or personal decision is shaped by what Bourdieu (1980) called the habitus: systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures. These dispositions, incorporated into the body as a "second nature," generate practices and representations below the threshold of conscious deliberation. Agents "learn to desire what conditions make possible for them, and not to aspire to what is inaccessible" (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 54). The most improbable practices are excluded as unthinkable by a kind of immediate submission to order.

This misrecognition is not accidental but constitutive. As Bourdieu (1977) emphasized, what actors do objectively does not coincide with what they think they are doing subjectively, and this misrecognition is necessary because it is one of the foundations of their practice. Philosophical counseling, by taking the client's self-understanding at face value and subjecting it to rational examination, operates entirely within the horizon of this misrecognition. It can clarify beliefs but cannot reach the incorporated dispositions that generate those beliefs.

Goffman's (1959) dramaturgical analysis adds another dimension to this picture. All social interaction is performance shaped by context, audience, and expectation. The self is not an inner essence that precedes performance but "a dramatic effect arising diffusely from a scene that is presented" (p. 253). Individuals manage the impressions they produce on others, navigating between front stage, the public scene of the social role, and back stage, where the actor relaxes his performance. But the back stage is not where the "true self" resides; it is simply another context of performance with different audience expectations.

Cain and Garner (2014), in an important article in the Canadian Journal of Sociology, have demonstrated a deep parallel between Goffman's interaction order and psychoanalytic concepts of the self. Both frameworks reveal a divided subject, split between front stage and back stage, between conscious presentation and what operates beneath. Freud himself characterized neurotic symptoms as a type of performance. What Goffman calls face-work resonates with the psychoanalytic concept of defensive operations maintaining coherent self-presentation. The convergence suggests that the self's opacity to itself is not merely a psychoanalytic hypothesis but a finding confirmed across multiple traditions of inquiry.

These perspectives, those of Castel, Ehrenberg, Bourdieu, and Goffman, point to the same conclusion. The autonomous, transparent, self-knowing subject that philosophical counseling presupposes is a construction, not a given. And more troublingly, this construction is precisely what our contemporary regime of autonomy as condition produces and demands. Philosophical counseling, in asking the exhausted subject to think harder and clarify his values, risks redoubling the injunction that produces the suffering. It prescribes the poison as cure.

V. The Dialectical Condition: What Kind of Other?

Yet the ancient injunction "know thyself" is not without value. The Delphic maxim has inspired philosophical practice from Socrates to the Stoics to Montaigne. The question is not whether self-knowledge is worth pursuing but under what conditions it can be dialectically fruitful rather than narcissistically reinforcing.

The difference lies in the position of the interlocutor.

A counselor who has not undergone sustained work on himself responds to his client without knowing from where he responds. The counter-transference, that set of reactions the practitioner experiences in response to the client, remains blind spot rather than instrument.

The practitioner who has traversed his own analysis is not cured, not wiser, not free of conflict. He continues to bring his own history, his own blind spots, his own narcissistic investments into every clinical encounter. The difference is that he has learned to notice. Having experienced how his own ego deceives him, how his own resistances operate, how his own repetitions insist, he has acquired not mastery but a certain vigilance. He knows that what he feels in session, the irritation, the boredom, the excessive interest, the urge to rescue, may tell him something about the client, about himself, or about the knot that binds them. He can sometimes catch himself before acting out what should be analyzed.

This is the meaning of the requirement, in psychoanalytic training, that the practitioner undergo his own analysis. The requirement exists not to transmit theoretical knowledge, which can be learned from books, but to ensure that the future analyst has experienced subjectively what it means to encounter one's own unconscious. He has felt the resistance that prevents insight. He has discovered that his most cherished self-images concealed something else. He has learned that the truth of the subject is not in what he consciously says but in what insists unbeknownst to him.

The question that the philosophical counseling movement may not have seriously addressed is: what formation prepares someone to occupy this position? The American Philosophical Practitioners Association offers a three-day certification program open to those with graduate degrees in philosophy; no background in therapy is required (Borjesson, 2024). Three days of training cannot produce what years of personal analysis are designed to accomplish. The program teaches ethical codes and how to screen out clients with significant mental health challenges, but it cannot transmit the experience of having been, oneself, the subject who does not know what he knows.

Borjesson (2024) puts the point clearly: "Psychotherapy aims to help patients discover who they are, not tutor them in who Nietzsche or Sartre thinks they are, or should be. In this respect, we therapists are not tutors but the ones being tutored by our patients." The analyst learns from the analysand. The analysand's speech, in its stumbling and its surprises, teaches the analyst something about the unconscious that no philosophical text can teach. This reversal of the pedagogical relation is essential to the dialectical process. It cannot occur when the counselor positions himself as the one who dispenses wisdom.

The path back toward psychoanalysis, for those who have taken the philosophical counseling detour, may pass through this recognition: that self-knowledge requires an other, and that not just any other will do. The other must have paid the price of his own encounter with the unconscious. Only then can "know thyself" become genuinely dialectical, a process in which both parties are transformed, rather than a mutual reinforcement of defenses.

VI. Conclusion

Judging by the explosion of podcasts devoted to meaning, purpose, and the art of living, we can infer there is a critical need for wisdom that contemporary culture fails to meet. Shows like Chris Williamson's "Modern Wisdom," which attracts millions of listeners each week, testify to a hunger for discourse that speaks to existence itself rather than merely managing symptoms. People seek perspectives that inspire, challenge, and elevate. They want to think about how to live, not just how to cope. The success of these programs reveals something that the therapeutic industries have perhaps obscured: the old questions have not gone away. Philosophical counseling responds to this hunger, and its diagnosis is correct. The movement emerges precisely where medicalization overreaches, where the language of disorders and dysfunctions fails to capture what is at stake in a human life.

Philosophy has always nourished psychoanalytic thinking. Freud drew on his lectures with Brentano, Nietzsche's analysis of the unconscious roots of morality, and Greek tragedy's staging of fate and desire. Later analysts have engaged with phenomenology, hermeneutics, and social theory. But in these cases philosophy served to deepen the practitioner's understanding of what divides the subject. It was never directly dispensed to patients as a remedy. Philosophy of science also has a major contribution to bring to psychoanalysis.

But the client can not receive concepts instead of undergoing an experience. Maybe he learns what Nietzsche thought about freedom instead of discovering what his own question about freedom conceals.

The irony is that the movement sometimes invokes the ancient care of the self. But Foucault (1984) showed that the ancient care of the self, the epimeleia heautou of the Stoics and Epicureans, implied transformation through practice. It involved daily exercises, the examination of conscience, meditation on death, the discipline of desire. It was not the dispensation of wisdom by an expert to a passive recipient. These traditions understood that wisdom cannot simply be transmitted from one who has it to one who lacks it. It must be won through practice, through the transformation of the self, through what Hadot (1995) called "spiritual exercises."

Integrated by a practitioner who has traversed the analytic experience, philosophy can enrich the understanding of what divides the subject and what might allow him to assume that division. This would be neither the application of philosophy to patients nor the abandonment of philosophy for technique. It would be philosophy returned to its proper place: not as a substitute for the analytic experience but as a companion to it.

References

Borjesson, G. (2024, January 15). Philosophical counseling vs. therapy. How We Help. Substack. https://garyborjesson.substack.com/p/philosophical-counseling-vs-therapy

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1972)

Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le sens pratique. Éditions de Minuit.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). L'illusion biographique. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 62(1), 69-72.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford University Press.

Cain, C., & Garner, S. (2014). Theorizing the deep parallel between Goffman and Freud: Goffman's interaction order as a social-structural underpinning of psychoanalytic concepts of the self. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 39(3), 337-362.

Castel, P.-H. (2012). La fin des coupables, suivi de Le cas Paramord: Obsessions et contrainte intérieure de la psychanalyse aux neurosciences. Éditions d'Ithaque.

Ehrenberg, A. (1998). La fatigue d'être soi: Dépression et société. Odile Jacob.

Foucault, M. (1984). Le souci de soi. Gallimard.

Freud, S. (1963). Introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vols. 15-16). Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1917)

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Anchor Books.

Hadot, P. (1995). Philosophy as a way of life: Spiritual exercises from Socrates to Foucault (M. Chase, Trans.). Blackwell.

Romeo, N. (2023, December 23). When philosophers become therapists. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/when-philosophers-become-therapists