English
This is the work-in-progress website of the book on Philosophical Practice in Organization by Paolo Cervari and Neri Pollastri.
You can find the presentation of the book on the other two pages in English.
We would be honored by your comments and contributes.
Paolo Cervari and Neri Pollastri
Dr Gerald Rochelle PhD Scrive:
Dear Paola
I am afraid my comments are mostly negative–sorry about that, but I am currently very sceptical of the use of Philosophical Counselling.
“Collective intelligence” I have grave doubts that ‘collective intelligence’ is any more than combining the thoughts of many and therefore producing many thoughts. The idea that ‘collective intelligence’ is real, or that it is, from some sort of distillation or process, a novel product not inherent in the initial thoughts of the many, seems to me unproven.
Further, that philosophy contributes to any such process any more than a clear-thinking group leader might do is to me unlikely. Having witnessed and taken part in groups in many environments and for many different purposes, I have seen nothing that tells me that philosophers bring anything specifically worthwhile to bear (indeed, often quite the contrary).
“Cases” The use of philosophy to sustain the neoliberal cause for profit is for me too similar to the Ancient sophists to be either appealing or convincing. The Sophists were debunked in their time and philosophy has since found many more paths to follow .
“Specific aspects of the methodology” Except for number ‘11′, which seems entirely out of place (a purely metaphysical aspiration), this list would form part of any list a good group leader might use in the problem solving arena. This aspect troubles me a great deal–what is it that Philosophy is bringing to bear here?
“3″ This is a useful list but it cannot be said that it is useful as a list in itself–it is too broad and captures too many aspects. Indeed, it is hard to find any pair of these which would fit together as useful in approaching a problem unless any one is attached to ’suspension of judgement’.
“4–The results” I accept the movement towards a change in behaviour from personal review of such ideas listed in 1-17. Again, though, the list seems too comprehensive, too sweeping. For example, ‘1′, ‘2′, ‘3′ are personally developmental, whereas the ‘pleasant experience’ of ‘5′ is part of a subject’s own attitude separate from something like ‘broadening viewpoints’. As this list goes on it gets more difficult to understand, for example, ‘collective intelligence’ is put in as though it is a proved concept, ‘deep sharing’ is not explained,, ‘greater coherency’ (13) is hard to understand as is ‘..one does, lives and feels’. If this project is to argue for philosophy making it possible to see things more clearly (in various senses), I think it is essential that it makes itself clear–this abstracted list at the moment, for me, does not achieve this.
The ‘behavioural terms’ is not a complete list, for example what about ‘actions’, ‘volitions’ etc.?
“4–Objectives” This again is a huge list which applies almost strictly to business and the cause of business. ‘19′, ‘20′, ‘21′ do have a fuller application, though, and ‘21′ probably doesn’t belong in a business list anyway.
“5″ There is little evidence that ‘Philosophical Counselling’ is sustainable as a useful form of counselling. It has a use in life-coaching and in helping individuals learn techniques, but its ability to bring about meaningful alteration in attitude I think needs proving. Just throwing in a few philosophers’ names or their thoughts does not make ‘counselling’ into something different a ‘philosophical counselling’. I also find it hard to reconcile the life changing values of philosophical counselling when its noted prime exemplar is Achenbach (someone who cannot even take the time to reply to correspondence), and others who seem to struggle with their own abilities to relate. I have never been to a Socratic Dialogue that I have found useful any more than a moot, communal thinking enterprise, a coming-together of some sort would not otherwise achieve. I think the most useful area here is the ‘Research Community’. I have seen evidence of this being most successful in difficult political and national conflict areas. There is something immediate about the application of the Research Community which makes philosophy suddenly ‘useful’ (although with children this seems less the case).
My own belief is that philosophy should be ‘free at the point of use’, probably not recognised as being philosophy by the ‘user’, and should have a distinct and well understood metaphysical basis. This removes philosophical counselling from the analyst’s couch, puts it in the real world and draws upon something that only philosophy can do.
Best wishes
Gerald