The human sunset

Nice conjectures 

you have finished by now

To warm my heart

To doze off my thinking 

To recharge my desire 

And without any reasons 

The original road 

I retrace 

With the same cross 

On my shoulders 

Thirty times 

Heavier

I wander 

Among people

As a castaway 

A survivor

And embarrassed 

I lower my eyes 

Frightened 

As to greet 

The empty 

Void

In the void

Of an absent hope

Turned off

I close my eyes

And I fall 

Slowly

Asleep

 

Abandoned candle 

In the darkness 

Of a forgotten 

And buried church

Through its abyss

Of sadness:

Deep 

Mirror

Of each 

Naked life

A game without purpose

 I finally understood what I want from life: nothing. I finally understood what my goal is: none. It's all here, exactly as it is everywhere. It's all right now, exactly as it always is. Each goal is an illusion. Any solution is a deception. Every problem is a lie. Pain comes from a misunderstanding. There is nothing to achieve, nothing to pursue, nothing to hope for, nothing to lose, nothing to gain. "I" is a fiction. But what is this "I"? "I" is the psychological, cultural, linguistic, metaphysical illusion for which we believe in the existence of an essence, of something that is granite and indestructible but at the same time invisible and elusive inside us. "I" is the prejudice of all prejudices; the most rooted, the most resistant and the most difficult to destroy belief that humanity has ever produced and of which humanity itself in an expression; "I" is the most dangerous religion; the most revered disease; the misunderstanding of all misunderstandings; "I" is the most fragile basis on which humans have built the system of knowledge; the biggest mistake; the true original sin committed by humanity and with which every human being is born and which every man reproduces. "I" is the origin of evil and the infinite guilt that every human existence must atone for. It is the ways of the "Ego", not those of the Lord, that are infinite; the ways of this sadomasochistic form of narcissistic egocentrism seem to be really inexhaustible. What are the bodybuilder, the intellectual, the model, the columnist, the entrepreneur, the professor, the latin lover, the swimmer, the reader, the writer, the philosopher, the actor, the depressed, the monk, the pope, the singer, the father, the son, the grandfather, the uncle, the boxer, the rebel, the conformist, the politician, the voter, the thinker, the truck driver, even the missionary, the altruist, the benefactor, the prophet, the heretic, the king, the slave, the warrior, the beggar, the thief, the polite, the helper, the manipulator, the savage, the civilized, the popularizer, the humble, the vain, the hidden, the pursuer, the fugitive, the professional, the amateur if not different masks worn by the same "I"? But at this point someone might still ask the following questions: "But if the ways of "I" are infinite, does that mean there are alternative ways? Is there a way out of this prison?" The answers to these very difficult questions are very simple, too simple, so visible to appear almost invisible: there is no alternative way if there is no will to go somewhere and there is no prison from which to escape if there is no nothing to escape from; when there is no will, in short, there is no difference between inside and outside, nothing to worry about, no direction to follow. After all, these questions, like every question, are nothing more than clever attempts at affirming the "I" itself. An "I" that always tries and once again and once more to affirm itself, to spread, to feed itself and to celebrate itself. Here's what Nietzsche meant when he said: "Wherever I go, a dog named Ego follows me". After all, the question itself meant as a morpho-linguistic, psycho-philological, philosophical-cultural and emotional-rational structure, is nothing other than the gash made by the "I" in reality, in an attempt to open an extension. And after all, even every single word represents nothing but a crack, a sort of scratch on the world's canvas, a ray of light in the midst of darkness, as Apostle John claims, in his own words, at the beginning of prologue of his own gospel: "In the beginning was the Logos, the Logos was with God and the Logos was God. He was in the beginning with God: everything was made through him, and without him nothing was made of everything that exists. In him was life and life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness did not accept it". And if we look closely, what is the "I" itself if not the mask of the will? A will that the darkness itself has never accepted? In short, who am I myself if not a specific expression of this unwanted will that is configured as the unwanted principle of existence itself? Here is what Schopenhauer meant by arguing that the world is fundamentally what each man sees through his will, the absolute principle of reality. And these same words and this same thought within this same screen are an expression of this will! This means that if I still write, if I still think, it is because I still want something, because I am still a victim of this inexhaustible engine that pushes me to do something more. Perhaps I just have to realize that accepting and denying are two sides of the same illusion. Perhaps I just have to understand that only when total acceptance and total denial coincide does the illusion vanish and nothing remains, if not a moment that coincides with eternity, which is nothing more than what we human beings call "death". I've always had everything in front of my eyes but I've never seen it because I was always worried about wanting something. It was always the will that didn't allow me to see the absurd sense contained in the obvious banality and bad habit of expecting something, since it's all here, exactly as it is everywhere, and since it's all right now, exactly as it always is. And here for the first time in my life I see clearly what life is: a game without purpose; a circumscribed dance; a single breath.

Hunger and Heaven: the Christian Italian culture

 Italy is made up largely, today as in the past, of people interested above all in survival and reputation. It is not by chance that a large part of the world's fame in this country is linked to food and fashion. In psycho-sociological terms these two preeminent interests can be interpreted as the social affirmation of two collective defense strategies aimed at stemming the anxiety caused by two fundamental fears: death and judgment. Naturally these two fears are present in every human being and, therefore, in every culture but in Italy, because of historical, cultural, political, religious and economic reasons, the fear of death and the fear of judgment have assumed a clear preeminence over what has happened elsewhere. Distrust of others, envy, irrepressible greed, perennial dissatisfaction, jealousy for one's own things, attachment to material goods, the widespread hypocrisy for which values that are punctually betrayed by actions in the private sphere, the tendency to publicly pose oneself as champion of the collective good, as altruist and savior of one's neighbor but living in the private sphere according to principles of selfishness, careerism, opportunism, disloyalty, dishonesty and cunning: this contradictory behaviour can be interpreted as the effect of a huge and latent fear of starving combined with the ancestral desire for salvation, perfection and absolute fueled by Christianity itself. In short, We Italians are so afraid of starvation that we are never satisfied with what we have because "you never know what can happen" and, at the same time, we pretend as much as possible to be "decent" or even "noble" people in front of the eyes of others just like in front of the eyes of God who observes us from heaven. And the more cowardly, miserable, selfish, self-centred, narcissistic we are, the more we need to demonstrate in public that we are just the opposite.  We use others to deceive ourselves, to feel more beautiful, younger, purer, better people than we really are. We use other people, by convincing them that we are good people, to feel less foolish, miserable, corrupt, wrong, bad and less "evil" than we really are. We use appearances as a way to relieve our Biblical ancestral guilt. We use reputation as a way to feel less sinful. We are Christians who feel guilty a priori and who, while seeking heavenly salvation, dig their own grave in hell. Basically we are not able to forgive ourselves and that's exactly why we continue to sin.

Stepping out of Plato's Cave

Conversations between human beings in uniform on a football field: each one defends his role, his perspective, his interests. The question is: when is this not the case? In other words: when is a conversation more than that? Philosophical consultation proposes to raise the level of communicative interaction between subjects to a more meaningful one. Philosophical consultation takes into consideration one's own perspective as a determined perspective in order to test it, to evaluate it, to consider its daily, concrete and existential implications. Get out of one's own perspective and observe its boundaries, its contradictions and its limits in order to broaden it. Going out of our cave to unmask the shadows, illusions and lies that characterize our relationship with reality. In philosophical consultation, through the philosopher's questions, the subject becomes the object of his own thinking: it could be considered a way to know oneself through a dialogue. From this point of view thinking and dialogue represent a larger, higher and in some way also a more objective dimension than the subjective one in which we are all more or less constantly trapped.

Dialogue as a bridge among humans being

Dialogue leads to inner discoveries: we learn while recognizing something within ourselves; we learn while bringing something to light; we learn while something that was inside us comes to the surface and becomes something external to us; we learn while we reason with someone else who challenges our thinking system; we learn while we become strangers to ourselves and begin to observe ourselves from outside. Dialogue is precisely the practice that fosters this sort of self-knowledge. Dialogue is the mirror that does not reflect the illusory image of what we would like to be, but that shows us how we really are "here" and "now". Dialogue allows us to transform our thinking into critical thinking. In short, through dialogue we have the chance not only to know ourselves better, but even to open ourselves to the other and, at the same time, to open ourselves, through the other, to a higher dimension: the dimension of ideas and reasons. In fact dialogue is not an individual, private and self-closing act, but on the contrary it represents a dimension that opens us to confront with others and with reality. In short, dialogue is a bridge that connects humans to each other. Human beings who otherwise would limit themselves to imposing their own vision of the world instead of enriching their own through that of the other. Human beings who otherwise would remain unreachable islands even for the most daring, capable and experienced explorers. 

 

A blank sheet of paper and a pen

Men spend their lives 

fleeing from themselves 

for fear of being alone

in front of a blank sheet of paper

with a pen in hand

and no thoughts in mind

The escape of "timeless people"

Many of us don't have time, space and energy to dedicate to ourselves, to our daily discoveries, to our concrete happenings and existential stumbling blocks that we dodge with punctual, rigorous and unthinking dexterity. Overwhelmed by the weight of this burdensome lack, our walking becomes an escape and our living turns into a compensation. And then, in such relationship with the world and with ourselves, our happiness can only be reduced to the sterile and illusory opening offered by that frenetic expectation and that inauthentic action that represent the existential extremes between which the consummate pendulum of our inner life dances unknowingly, more and more dejected and dull: a life increasingly emptied, imprisoned and annihilated. But is it really a problem of time, or space, or energy? And what about choice then? What about courage? And will? What about priorities? And strength? And truth? In short: are we really unable to live otherwise or, deep down, do we breathe a sigh of relief at the idea of not having time, space or energy to try to follow an alternative path? What if it was us the first ruthless accomplices of this bloody crime that is consumed invisibly and silently, every single day, within ourselves and, consequently, in every single gesture of ours?

   

 

REAL COURAGE

 That one who stops resisting is more courageous than that one who continues

TEACHER OR PHILOSOPHER?

Are you one of those who think in search of a foothold?                                                Or are you rather one of those who love to indulge in thinking as a game for its own sake?

Do you need certainties on which to build your fortress?

Or do you rather prefer to navigate the waves of uncertainty by enjoying the unexpected and the unpredictable?

Do you need to plan a route before setting off as well as know right away which destination to reach?

Or are you rather used to discovering your destination while walking along unknown and always different paths?

Do you want to have everything under control to prevent any possible danger?

Or do you rather love to take the risk of shipwreck associated with actual exploration?

Does the idea of being able to lose yourself paralyze you or turn you on?

In short: are you more a teacher or rather a philosopher?

MIRRORS AND ILLUSIONS

Mirrors never lie. We human beings lie through the mirror by constructing illusory images on our faces, for example through make-up, or by deforming the reflected image through our own perception. In other words if human beings are unable to modify reality by transforming it into the image they desire, modify their own perceptions. And if on the one hand I am not sure that the sleep of reason produces monsters, on the other I am convinced that the fear of reality produces illusions.

THE SENSE OF PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS

Apollo, as is well known, was not only the God of all arts, but also the God of the Sun who, through his own all-seeing, could illuminate everything. This is why in ancient times, when you wanted to know something more about any matter, you could go to the temple built in his honor in Delphi. So did, among others, a certain Chilo and it was he, according to what Porphyry tells us, to obtain what would become the most famous response ever issued by an oracle: "Know yourself". Three words which, not surprisingly, were inscribed on the same facade of the temple and which, in addition to wanting to mark the same boundary line between the sacred and the profane space, also seemed to want to convey to all those who had decided to cross that threshold, a message like this: "If you really want to enter this pure and uncontaminated space, having access to that illumination and that intuitive knowledge that the God of the Sun himself symbolizes, do it with the intention of becoming aware of what you are and don't expect anything more since there is nothing more precious! Otherwise, move away from this temple and never again dare to violate this sacred space!». Three words that, therefore, contain much more than a good-natured warning or an interesting exhortation from which to draw inspiration. 

Socrates, who for many is the true father of philosophy, was perhaps the first to truly understand this maxim to the extent that he placed it at the center of his constant exercise of thought. According to the Athenian philosopher, in fact, only if we recognize ourselves for what we really are, first of all taking note of our ignorance and consequently of all our other limitations, can we be reconciled with ourselves and reach a higher level of knowledge. It is no coincidence, among other things, that almost all scholars agree in recognizing that, through this sentence, Apollo wanted to order men to "Recognize their own limitations and finitude". In other words, in short, the God of the Sun himself was telling us this: “Stop distorting your own image through your cowardly lies and accept yourselves for who you are, which is nothing but fallible, imperfect and mortal beings!". We human beings, on the other hand, regardless of this divine prescription, continue to do everything to commit the same error as Prometheus who disobeyed the divine will by giving men fire. Precisely because of this presumptuous act of rebellion, Prometheus is first captured, then chained to a cliff and finally thrown into a bottomless ravine. And this seems to be the fate reserved for all those who, under the illusion of being able to submit everything to their own will, try in vain to rebel against the mortal condition in which they find themselves confined by the will of a higher order. Here’s the question: what does all this talk have to do with Philosophische Praxis? Here’s the answer: everything. In fact what is the deepest and most authentic sense of the need that lies behind every attempt, however unconscious and clumsy, to enter into dialogue with a philosophical consultant, if not precisely that of knowing oneself better by accepting the most possible for who he is?! The present paper aims to dissect precisely this profound link that exists between the Philosophische Praxis and self-knowledge. For expository needs, the discourse will be articulated and will develop starting from nine questions, which will be followed by two criticisms: the first will be addressed, in general, to philosophical consultants, while the second will be addressed, specifically, to myself. The latter criticism, among other things, will focus on the philosophical laboratory that I conducted at the municipal library of Cavallino Treporti (Venice) at the invitation of my colleague and friend Davide Ubizzo. 1) What does it mean to know ourselves? Knowing ourselves means recognizing, unmasking and destroying the illusions that each of us tends to form above all with respect to ourselves. 2) What kind of relationship exists between self- knowledge and another's view of the world? Self-knowledge is configured as an indispensable condition for becoming aware, not only of one's own vision of the world, but also of that of others. The distortions that we operate on our own image, in fact, necessarily affect everything we take into consideration, producing inevitable misunderstandings and errors of evaluation that do not even allow us to understand the other's system of thought. 3) Why do we need illusions? We need illusions because we cannot accept ourselves for who we are. 4) What must be done to unmask one's illusions? To unmask one's illusions it is necessary, first of all, to reconcile with oneself, which essentially means accepting that image we see reflected in the mirror for what it simply turns out to be, without the need to embellish it in an attempt to hide, both from us same as to others, all our innumerable imperfections. 5) What do we usually try to do? And why do we do it? Failing to tolerate our own makeup-free face, we constantly try to deceive ourselves either by lowering our gaze, or by wearing a mask and convincing ourselves that this is, in fact, our real face. Not unlike what the prisoners inside the cave of which Plato tells us in his famous myth did, we spend our lives staring at false and elusive shadows that are nothing more than the reflection of our own illusions. This is how that veil of Maya is born that stands between us and reality! A veil that we ourselves weave day after day and that continues to separate us from the so-called "truth" which in its etymological meaning means just unveiling. We feel ashamed for ourselves not unlike how Adam and Eve were ashamed of their nakedness after disobeying God. And here we feel the irresistible urge to cover our own face with that mask we wear in front of our own mirror. All to avoid taking note of our own limitations! All in order not to accept our transient and miserable mortal condition! That is why we have become illusionists as much more skilled as cowards! This is why we ended up living as expert fugitives trying to escape their own gaze! This is the reason why we are constantly tossed from side to side, tugged by desires that push us to chase unattainable mirages and, at the same time, suffocated by fear for ghosts that we ourselves have invented! And that's how, as we embellish our existence with increasingly striking simulacra, we inexorably sink into an invisible prison within which we feel more and more alone, lost and miserable. 6) What is the role of the philosophical consultant? To help anyone see what they don't want to see of themselves; to show the other the blind spot of one's gaze by exhorting him to think what from his perspective, as unacceptable, is unthinkable: this is the task of every philosophical consultant. 7) What is meant by dialogue within the Philosophische Praxis’ field? The dialogue that the philosophical consultant uses as a tool to help the consultant know a little more about his own thinking system is not an exchange of opinions. However, it is not always easy to recognize the difference between the two. Here, then, are the characteristics that transform a generic exchange of words into the dialogue that occurs in the Philosophische Praxis: A. Understanding and clarifying the interlocutor's worldview. B. To detection and to explicit of the assumptions contained in that vision. C. Questioning of those same assumptions. 8) What is the maximum result that a philosophical consultant can aspire to? Through some questions usually asked only after having explained the assumptions and points of inconsistency contained in the speech, the philosophical consultant could be able to encourage the consultant to temporarily jump out of his own thinking system. When this happens, the consultant gains the concrete possibility of permanently redefining, even if only partially, his own vision of the world. This is the maximum result that a philosophical consultant can aspire to. 9) What can induce the philosophical consultant to compromise the good development of the philosophical consultation? Among the various factors that can inhibit the proper conduct of the counseling certainly include the fears and desires of the philosophical counselor. Among the most common fears there are, in particular, that of disappointing others' expectations and that of not being able to understand the other. Among the most frequent desires, however, are that of affirming one's own vision of the world and that of avoiding any form of disagreement with one's interlocutor. Another risk factor presents within the dialogic process is represented by the desire to want to achieve some results, such as that of obtaining a paradigm shift within the consultant's thinking system. In this case, in fact, the obsession with the destination becomes the main reason for the failure of the trip itself. Much better not to expect anything.                                                       A critique Many philosophical consultants seem to be convinced that the meaning of the Philosophische Praxis is to create the conditions for encouraging an exchange of intelligent thoughts on a certain issue. Others believe that a large part of the consultant's task coincides with the ability to stimulate a debate with interesting, original and possibly self-made ideas. There are some who even confuse a philosophical workshop with a mini master's lesson followed by a democratic debate in which each participant is free to say more or less anything they want, as long as they do not disrespect anyone. As if that weren't enough, there are even those who mistake individual philosophical advice for a sort of existential private lesson through which to encourage the consultant to adopt their own ideas about the world. Too bad that none of this really has to do with the meaning of the Philosophische Praxis! It is as funny as it is grotesque to observe how many people unable to dialogue there are among those who, at least on paper, should be experts in dialogue. Many of them, going through their initiatives, seem more interested in exploiting their role as facilitators to obtain an invisible pulpit from which to bestow their witty sentences to the world. Facilitators, of course, but of their own narcissism! A narcissism that they pamper and satisfy through their proud and high-sounding monologues that cleverly pass off as necessary premises for discussion. More than philosophers, therefore, pompous opinion leaders full of pride and self-satisfaction. More than philosophical consultants, therefore, arrogant intellectuals who pose as professional thinkers in search of their audience. In reality they are simply insecure, fragile, frightened and suffering people who, through their intellectual staging, try to collect the maximum social recognition possible in an attempt to prolong their tiring coexistence with their own lies. In short, we are talking about people who do not accept themselves for who they are and who, through the Philosophische Praxis, try to distort even more that self-image with respect to which they are unable to stand comparison. Consultant philosophers who, in the vast majority of cases, would be the first to need to take advantage of philosophical advice as consultants but who are too scared and proud even to admit it. And this is, among other things, the essence of the bizarre paradox in which Phronesis, an Italian professional Association of Philosophical Consultation, finds itself; an association made up of individuals who, instead of addressing their various unresolved issues through dialogue, proclaim themselves consultants, trying to get others to do what they themselves are not able to do at all.                                                A self-criticism I believe that the philosophical workshop that I held on January 16, 2020 in Cavallino Treporti (Venice), is to be considered a failure because I was unable to get anyone to dialogue. The worldview of the participants, in fact, remained largely unfounded and the assumptions on which their affirmations were based, generally, were not even made explicit. It was at most an interesting exchange of views. And the fact that the workshop was appreciated by most of the participants seems to me further proof of its own failure. In fact people, especially in Italy, usually feel a certain satisfaction when they are able to let off steam by freely saying whatever they want. Several times it happened to me to find myself in front of people who, at the end of one of my workshops, even though they did not have a dialogue with anyone during the entire course of the evening, came to thank me, addressing me very positive opinions, enriched by generous compliments, only because they felt listened to, taken into consideration and valued in what they said. And it was above all my own fear of disappointing these expectations of others that I know very well, the cause for which I was not able to work more rigorously. The truth is, to become a philosophical consultant I still have to deal with several unresolved issues within me. And this is exactly what I have been doing, in an increasingly assiduous and constant way, for some time now: an incessant work through which I am beginning to glimpse that image reflected in the mirror that I too, like everyone, have always tempted to warp.

IL SENSO DELLA PHILOSOPHISCHE PRAXIS

Apollo, come è noto, non era solamente il Dio di tutte le arti, ma anche il Dio del Sole che, attraverso la propria onniveggenza, tutto poteva illuminare. Ecco perché nell’antichità, quando si desiderava conoscere qualcosa di più attorno ad una qualsiasi questione, ci si poteva recare al tempio edificato in suo onore a Delfi. Così fece, tra gli altri, un certo Chilone e fu proprio lui, stando a quanto ci dice Porfirio, ad ottenere quello che sarebbe diventato il più celebre responso mai emesso da un oracolo: «Conosci te stesso». Tre parole che, non a caso, furono iscritte sulla stessa facciata del tempio e che, oltre a voler marcare la stessa linea di confine sussistente tra lo spazio sacro e quello profano, sembravano anche voler trasmettere, a tutti coloro che avessero deciso di varcare quella soglia, un messaggio di questo tipo: «Se volete davvero entrare in questo spazio puro ed incontaminato, avendo accesso a quell’illuminazione e a quella conoscenza intuitiva che il Dio del Sole stesso simboleggia, fatelo con l’intenzione di prendere coscienza di ciò che siete e non aspettatevi nulla di più dal momento che non esiste niente di più prezioso! In caso contrario allontanatevi da questo tempio e non azzardatevi mai più a violare questo spazio sacro!». Tre parole che, dunque, contengono molto più di una bonaria avvertenza o di una interessante esortazione da cui trarre ispirazione. Socrate, che per molti è il vero padre della filosofia, fu forse il primo a comprendere veramente questa massima tanto da metterla al centro del proprio costante esercizio di pensiero. Secondo il filosofo ateniese, infatti, solo se ci riconosciamo per quello che siamo veramente, prendendo atto innanzi tutto della nostra ignoranza e conseguentemente di tutti gli altri nostri limiti, possiamo riconciliarci con noi stessi e raggiungere un più alto livello di conoscenza. Non è un caso, tra l’altro, che quasi tutti gli studiosi siano d’accordo nel riconoscere che, attraverso questa sentenza, Apollo volesse intimare agli uomini proprio di «Riconoscere la propria limitatezza e finitezza». In altre parole, insomma, il Dio del Sole in persona ci stava dicendo questo: «Smettetela di deformare la vostra stessa immagine attraverso le vostre vigliacche menzogne e accettatevi per quello che siete, ovvero nient’altro che degli esseri fallibili, imperfetti e mortali!». Noi esseri umani, invece, incuranti di questa prescrizione divina, continuiamo a fare di tutto per commettere lo stesso errore di Prometeo che ha disobbedito al volere divino donando agli uomini il fuoco. Proprio a causa di questo suo presuntuoso atto di ribellione, Prometeo viene prima catturato, poi incatenato ad una rupe ed infine scagliato in un burrone senza fondo. E questa sembra essere la sorte riservata anche a tutti coloro che, illudendosi di poter sottomettere ogni cosa alla propria stessa volontà, tentano vanamente di ribellarsi alla condizione mortale in cui si trovano ad essere confinati per volere di un ordine superiore. Domanda: cosa c’entra tutto questo discorso con la Philosophische Praxis? Risposta: tutto. Qual è, infatti, il senso più profondo e più autentico della necessità che si cela dietro ad ogni tentativo, per quanto inconsapevole e maldestro, di entrare in dialogo con un consulente filosofico, se non precisamente quello di conoscere meglio sé stessi, accettandosi il più possibile per quello che si è?! Il presente scritto si propone di sviscerare proprio questo profondo legame sussistente tra la Philosophische Praxis e la conoscenza di sé. Per esigenze di ordine espositivo il discorso sarà articolato e si svilupperà prendendo le mosse da nove domande, alle quali seguiranno due critiche: la prima sarà rivolta, in generale, ai consulenti filosofici, mentre la seconda sarà rivolta, nello specifico, a me stesso. Quest’ultima critica, tra l’altro, si concentrerà sul laboratorio filosofico che ho condotto alla biblioteca comunale di Cavallino Treporti (Venezia) su invito del collega e amico Davide Ubizzo.

1)   Cosa significa conoscere noi stessi?

Conoscere noi stessi significa riconoscere, smascherare e distruggere le illusioni che ognuno di noi tende a formare innanzi tutto rispetto a sé stesso.

2)   Che relazione sussiste tra la conoscenza di sé e l’altrui visione del mondo?

La conoscenza di sé si configura come una condizione indispensabile per prendere coscienza, non solo della propria visione del mondo, ma anche di quella altrui. Le distorsioni che operiamo sulla nostra stessa immagine, infatti, si ripercuotono necessariamente su tutto ciò che prendiamo in considerazione, producendo inevitabili fraintendimenti ed errori di valutazione che non ci permettono nemmeno di comprendere l’altrui sistema di pensiero.

3)   Perché abbiamo bisogno delle illusioni?

Abbiamo bisogno delle illusioni perché non riusciamo ad accettarci per quello che siamo.

4)   Cosa bisogna fare per smascherare le proprie illusioni?

Per smascherare le proprie illusioni è necessario, prima di ogni altra cosa, riconciliarsi con sé stessi, che in sostanza significa accettare quella immagine che vediamo riflessa nello specchio per quello che semplicemente risulta essere, senza bisogno di abbellirla nel tentativo di nascondere, sia a noi stessi che agli altri, tutte le nostre innumerevoli imperfezioni.

5)   Cosa tentiamo di fare solitamente? E perché lo facciamo?

Non riuscendo a tollerare il nostro stesso viso privo di trucco, tentiamo di ingannarci costantemente o abbassando lo sguardo, oppure indossando una maschera e convincendoci che sia proprio quello, in realtà, il nostro vero volto. Non diversamente da quanto facevano i prigionieri dentro la caverna di cui ci parla Platone nel suo celebre mito, passiamo la vita a fissare delle ombre mendaci e sfuggenti che non sono altro che il riflesso delle nostre stesse illusioni. Ecco come nasce quel velo di Maya che si frappone tra noi e la realtà! Un velo che noi stessi tessiamo giorno dopo giorno e che continua a separarci dalla cosiddetta «verità» che nel suo significato etimologico significa proprio disvelamento. Proviamo vergogna per noi stessi non diversamente da come Adamo ed Eva si vergognarono della propria nudità dopo aver disobbedito a Dio. Ed ecco che sentiamo l’irresistibile urgenza di coprire il nostro stesso volto con quella maschera che indossiamo di fronte al nostro stesso specchio. Tutto per non prendere atto dei nostri stessi limiti! Tutto per non accettare la nostra transeunte e misera condizione mortale! Ecco perché siamo diventati degli illusionisti tanto più abili quanto vigliacchi! Ecco il motivo per cui siamo finiti col vivere come esperti latitanti che cercano di sottrarsi al proprio stesso sguardo! Ecco la ragione per la quale siamo incessantemente sballottati da una parte all'altra, strattonati da desideri che ci spingono a rincorrere irraggiungibili miraggi e, nel contempo, soffocati dalla paura per fantasmi che noi stessi abbiamo inventato! Ed è così che, mentre abbelliamo la nostra esistenza con simulacri sempre più appariscenti, sprofondiamo inesorabilmente dentro un’invisibile prigione all’interno della quale ci sentiamo sempre più soli, perduti e miseri.

6)   Qual è il compito del consulente filosofico?

Aiutare chiunque a vedere di sé quello che non vuole vedere; mostrare all'altro il punto cieco del proprio sguardo esortandolo a pensare ciò che dalla sua prospettiva, in quanto inaccettabile, risulta impensabile: questo è il compito di ogni consulente filosofico.

7)   Cosa si intende per dialogo nell’ambito della Philosophische Praxis?

Il dialogo che il consulente filosofico utilizza come strumento per aiutare il consultante a conoscere un po’ di più il proprio sistema di pensiero non è uno scambio di opinioni. Non sempre, però, è facile riconoscere la differenza tra le due cose. Ecco, dunque, le caratteristiche che trasformano un generico scambio di parole nel dialogo che avviene nella Philosophische Praxis:

A.    Comprensione ed esplicitazione della visione del mondo dell’interlocutore.

B.    Rilevazione ed esplicitazione dei presupposti contenuti in quella visione.

C.    Messa in discussione di quegli stessi presupposti.

8)     Qual è il massimo risultato a cui può aspirare un consulente filosofico?

Attraverso alcune domande poste di solito solo dopo aver esplicitato i presupposti e i punti di incoerenza contenuti nel discorso, il consulente potrebbe riuscire a spronare il consultante a sbalzare temporaneamente fuori dal proprio sistema di pensiero. Quando ciò avviene il consultante si guadagna la concreta possibilità di ridefinire in modo permanente, anche se magari soltanto parziale, la propria visione del mondo. È questo il massimo risultato a cui può aspirare un consulente filosofico.

9)   Cosa può indurre il consulente filosofico a compromettere

il buon svolgimento della consulenza?

Tra i diversi fattori che possono inibire il buon svolgimento della consulenza rientrano sicuramente le paure e i desideri stessi del consulente filosofico. Tra le paure più ricorrenti ci sono, in particolare, quella di deludere le altrui aspettative e quella di non riuscire a capire l’altro. Tra i desideri più frequenti, invece, ci sono quello di affermare la propria visione del mondo e quello di evitare ogni forma di dissidio con il proprio interlocutore. Un altro fattore di rischio presente all’interno del processo dialogico è rappresentato dal desiderio di voler raggiungere un qualche risultato, come per esempio quello di ottenere un cambio di paradigma all’interno del sistema di pensiero del consultante. In questo caso, infatti, l’ossessione della meta diventa il motivo principale del fallimento del viaggio stesso. Molto meglio non aspettarsi nulla.

Una critica

Molti consulenti filosofici sembrano convinti che il senso della Philosophische Praxis sia quello di creare le condizioni per favorire uno scambio di pensieri intelligenti a proposito di una certa questione. Altri credono che buona parte del compito del consulente coincida con la capacità di stimolare un dibattito con idee interessanti, originali e possibilmente di propria fattura. Ci sono alcuni che confondono perfino un laboratorio filosofico con una mini lezione magistrale seguita da un dibattito democratico all’interno del quale ogni partecipante è libero di dire più o meno tutto quello che vuole, purché non manchi di rispetto a nessuno. Come se non bastasse c’è addirittura chi scambia la consulenza filosofica individuale per una sorta di lezione privata esistenziale attraverso cui esortare il consultante ad adottare le proprie idee sul mondo. Peccato che nulla di tutto ciò abbia davvero a che fare con il senso della Philosophische Praxis! È tanto divertente quanto grottesco osservare quante persone incapaci di dialogare ci siano tra coloro che, almeno sulla carta, dovrebbero essere gli esperti del dialogo. Molti di loro, attraversano le loro iniziative, sembrano più che altro interessati a sfruttare il loro ruolo di facilitatori per ricavarsi un invisibile pulpito dal quale elargire al mondo le loro argute sentenze. Facilitatori, certo, ma del loro stesso narcisismo! Un narcisismo che coccolano e soddisfano attraverso i loro orgogliosi e altisonanti monologhi che spacciano astutamente per premesse necessarie al confronto. Più che filosofi, dunque, tronfi opinionisti carichi di superbia e di autocompiacimento. Più che consulenti, quindi, arroganti intellettuali che si atteggiano a fuoriclasse del pensiero in cerca del proprio pubblico. In realtà si tratta semplicemente di persone insicure, fragili, impaurite e sofferenti che, attraverso queste loro messe in scena intellettuali, tentano di racimolare il massimo riconoscimento sociale possibile nel tentativo di prolungare la loro faticosa convivenza con le proprie menzogne. Stiamo parlando, insomma, di persone che non si accettano per quello che sono e che attraverso la Philosophische Praxis tentano di distorcere ancora di più quell’immagine di sé rispetto alla quale non sono in grado di reggere il confronto. Filosofi consulenti che, nella stragrande maggioranza dei casi, sarebbero i primi ad aver bisogno di usufruire della consulenza filosofica in qualità di consultanti ma che sono troppo spaventati e orgogliosi anche soltanto per poterlo ammettere. Ed è proprio questa, tra l’altro, l’essenza del bizzarro paradosso nel quale versa la nostra stessa associazione; un’associazione formata da individui che, invece di affrontare le proprie svariate questioni irrisolte attraverso il dialogo, si proclamano consulenti, tentando di far fare agli altri ciò che essi stessi, per primi, non sono per nulla in grado di fare.

Un’autocritica

Ritengo che il laboratorio filosofico che ho tenuto lo scorso 16 gennaio 2020 a Cavallino Treporti, sia da ritenersi un fallimento perché non sono riuscito a far dialogare nessuno. La visione del mondo dei partecipanti, infatti, è rimasta in gran parte insondata e i presupposti su cui poggiavano le loro affermazioni, generalmente, non sono stati nemmeno esplicitati. Si è trattato tutt’al più di un interessante scambio di opinioni. E il fatto che il laboratorio sia stato apprezzato dalla maggior parte dei partecipanti mi sembra un’ulteriore prova del suo stesso fallimento. Le persone, infatti, sono solite provare una certa soddisfazione quando riescono a sfogarsi dicendo liberamente tutto quello che vogliono. Più volte mi è successo di trovarmi di fronte a persone che, al termine di un mio laboratorio, pur non avendo realizzato un dialogo con nessuno durante tutto il corso della serata, sono venute a ringraziarmi, rivolgendomi giudizi molto positivi, arricchiti da generosi complimenti, solo perché si erano sentite ascoltate, prese in considerazione e valorizzate in ciò che avevano detto. Ed è stata soprattutto la mia stessa paura di deludere queste altrui aspettative che conosco molto bene, la causa per cui non sono riuscito a lavorare in modo più rigoroso. La verità è che per diventare un consulente filosofico devo ancora fare i conti con diverse questioni irrisolte dentro di me. Ed è esattamente quello che sto facendo, in modo sempre più assiduo e costante, da un po’ di tempo a questa parte: un lavoro incessante attraverso il quale sto cominciando ad intravedere quell’immagine riflessa nello specchio che anche io, come tutti, ho sempre tentato di deformare.