Psychology and Counseling

To a Psychologist is where you go if you want to find out what is wrong with you. To a Counselor is where you go if you want to know what’s right.

This ‘rightness’ is what people are missing from their lives. We have been given a bill of goods as soon as they become conscious in the world, and this bill weighs on us even as society send us the massage that it is ‘Natural and human’, that nothing is really wrong and “just get over it”. Psychology is the modern apology for the anxiety which lay at the heart of its systems of repression, an attempt to correct what is systemically incorrect, but by putting the blame effectively upon the individual.

Counseling, on the other hand, is toward the emancipatory, the “freeing” and not just the identity which is supposed to be free. Counseling says that an assumption of wrongness is itself an incorrect manner of assessing the mental health of the person. Hence, counseling is more an act of enlightening the person to their modern subjectivity but without the need to instruct them to its proper language. For, the proper language is found already in the individual through its own innate intelligence and existence. Counseling is about empowerment.


Existentialism: Confronting Alienation and the Abyss

Existentialism is a misunderstood philosophy. It tends to be the “philosophy” of teenage nihilists, rebellious individualists, and other alienated …

Existentialism: Confronting Alienation and the Abyss

—- And, I would say that the anxiety of mid 20th century Existentialism Indeed takes anxiety as a common condition of human existence, As though it is A basic condition of every human being at all times and forever. And indeed this appears the case, if you think about the global mental health crisis; we have not stepped Dion existential anxiety or angst in anyway whatsoever, in fact, it is taken hold all the more thoroughly and intensely.

I think Kierkegaard is really saying that such anxiety, while fundamental and originary to human existence, does not constitute authentic existence, as some authors would term the change in Orientation upon what it is to be human .The Christian context I think is incidental, yet significant to the difference that I am attempting to shed light upon. Agan the point of Kierkegaard is that Christianity has nothing to do with what one believes, yet as I think I put it more properly given the last century’s persistent misinterpreted Perpetuated discourse of an existentialism which can be traced back to Kierkegaard: it is faith which is informing one to what one already believes, that is, as if they have a choice.

Faith Standing on its Head

From the basis of the ‘ethical’ or ‘Atemporal’ fallacy, it is possible to understand Kierkegaard’s work from a true perspective. This new perspective is contra-Sartrean Existentialsm, or perhaps, parallel.

The problem with mid 20th century existentialism and it’s retroactivation upon Kierkegaard’s ethical universe, Is that through mid-20th century existentialism (indeed, what we automatically consider when even the term “existentialism” is mentioned) what is absurd is understood as an impassable boundary. Sartrean Existentialism is based on an understanding of Kierkegaard, ironically, in a manner that is not true to Kierkegaard’s point when one takes all of K’s works as a single statement of purpose.

This is to say that Satrean retroactivation and then the various philosophies of phenomenal existence which appear subsequently, All tend to reify an absolute limit that is marked by what is  absurd. What is human from that point is assumed as a common philosophical category (or critical category) under and thus within, constituent of, the sign of the absurd. The repercussions of this misinderstanding of absurdity does mark the end of philosophy as we find that philosophy as an assumed common effort, has ended.

When we say “ended”, what we are really saying is that we have defined a parameter of a thing that up till that point was assumed as ubiquitous, extending into infinity, and or otherwise without knowable limits.

Such is philosophy a “process”, but not a thing, not an object of the universe. It is a Discipline, or a method, but never a “particular method”, or a type. Philosophy Is understood automatically to be indicating some particular thing, but this thing is excluded from being identified. Philosophy is linked or somehow “sutured” onto what is human freedom and a conglomeration of category which includes thought, reason, idea, agency, etc., —  all the components of a priori subjects — as if those represent an unboundable situation.

However, it is this assumption of an “unboundable” situation under which the very concept of freedom becomes merely a theological dogma. Which is to say, by the very fact that we must call it “unbounded”, we have found a parameter of its ontological foundation.

It is within this theological dogma that we can we begin to re-orient Kierkegaard’s points as to what constitutes the ethical as the universal. Faith becomes that by which the universe is upheld as another name for what is reality and able to be true. The method by which veracity is upheld universally is excluded from it being identified to a particular method axiomatically to that way of knowing. 

The mid 20th century discussions about “irrationality” and existentialism was merely a way to avoid the actual situation of absurdity. “Irrationality” is the particularly modern mode of theological apology, A way to “prove” the existence of rationality (“God”) through the apodictical opposite, what is not true (not-God): it is irrational.

(I feel like I’m using the wrong word there, “Apodictic”; somebody please correct me if you know what it is.)

And this is to say that The argument that is never spoken out loud because it is assumed omnipresent and ubiquitous, is that what is rational is true by the fact that we can talk about what is irrational rationally. And this is to prove self evidently that what is absurd is the limit of reality.

Yet when we begin to understand what I am calling the “atemporal fallacy”  or the “ethical fallacy” points to a specific way of knowing, a specific way of understanding what discourse is “meaning”, then something different arises. No longer is there a uniform plane of knowledge which discourse elucidates, represents or communicates components of. Rather than the equivocal understanding of rationality which argues towards a multiplicity of ways that language and meaning can be used and applied, outside of which only absurdity and nonsense arises; to the contrary opposite and parallel, discourse, Language and meaning become bifurcated along two vectors only. The idea of rationality as a singular and universally directed component of thinking, is bifurcated, such that two vectors of rationality arise which do not communicate to each other; rather, one includes the other, and one excludes the possibility of the other. 

…And this is where Laruellean Nonphilosophy gains it’s ontological footing.


“It is the province of knowledge to speak, and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen”*…

Some psychologists are increasingly confident that they can now measure– and nurture– wisdom, superseding the “speculations” of philosophy and …

“It is the province of knowledge to speak, and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen”*…

—– The link to the Aeon aritcle referenced in the lrecious post is in that linked post.

The ‘Atemporal Fallacy’ of Morality; ethics

Consider an example. You are the best man or woman at your brother’s wedding, and it is your task to bring the wedding rings. The wedding takes place in a nearby city and your only chance to get there on time is to board the next train. You arrive at the train station. As you go to buy the ticket, you realise that your wallet and cellphone are missing. There’s no time to talk to the police, and other people at the station refuse your requests to use their phone or lend you money to call your brother. Desperate, you sit down on a bench in the main hall. You notice that the well-off person sitting next to you takes a phone call, stands up and walks around the corner to talk in private. Left on the bench is the person’s expensive jacket. You notice a ticket for your train half-sticking out of the jacket pocket. You could easily take this ticket without anybody noticing. This person looks like they could buy a replacement without any problem, as the train is half-empty. What should you do?

—– from Aeon magazine.

I’ve always had problems with morality and ethics problems that are described in this way.

Every time someone is talking about ethics and philosophy, they string out an issue with many facets similarly to how the above scenario is laid.

I could never quite put my finger one what was it that stuck me so odd and incorrect about ethics problems. But I think I know now.

It is Becuase of what I am calling the “Atemporal Fallacy”. It is that the way the problem is strung out linearly, as pieces to ponder separately, do not equate to the original ethical issue. There is a real temporal issue that is being ignored for the sake of the intellectualization. In short, to lay out a dynamic of the presenting problem in a linear manner is a misrepresentation of the problem, and then to think about various issues in that linear fashion and come to a conclusion does not then reassemble to properly answer the dilemma of the original situation.

One could say, then, that the philosophical domain of ethics, at least put forth through these kind of thought experiments, is already a non sequitur in actual circumstance.