En el presente artículo pretendo mostrar a través de un análisis de mi propiotrabajo práctico, que aproximaciones en el trabajo de la consultoría filosófica tan distintas como las de Ran Lahav, Oscar Brenifier y Ora Gruengard no son en realidad tan incompatibles como ellos mismos consideran que son. Para ello comentaré extractos de una sesión de consultoría filosófica mía filmada hace un tiempo atrás, indicando las coincidencias con estos filósofos, que motivaron o inspiraron algunos de los pasos que llevé (...) a cabo en esta sesión. Asimismo trataré de absolver algunas de las posibles objeciones alas comparaciones propuestas. Mi propósito entonces es mostrar en base aun ejemplo práctico, cómo las reflexiones y discusiones sobre los diferentes aspectos de la consultoría filosófica de filósofos prácticos de diferentes aproximaciones, pueden servir para enriquecer la práctica filosófica y abrir nuevas perspectivas para su desarrollo, en vez de usarse para excluirse mutuamente. In this paper I mean to show, through an analysis of my own practical work that approaches of philosophical counseling as different as those of Ran Lahav, Oscar Brenifier and Ora Gruengard are not really that incompatible as they themselves consider them to be. To show this I am going to comment a videotaped session of philosophical counseling that I made to a counselee some time ago and I will show the coincidences with these philosophers, who motivated or inspired some of the steps I took. I also will try to respond to some of the possible objections to the comparisons that I am proposing. My purpose is to show through a practical example, how the reflections and discussions of different aspects of philosophical counseling of philosophical counselors with different approaches can help to enrich philosophical practice and open up new perspectives for its development, instead of excluding each other. (shrink)

The suggestion of something akin to a ‘relativist solution to the Mind-Body problem’ has recently been held by some scientists and philosophers; either explicitly (Galadí, 2023; Lahav & Neemeh, 2022; Ludwig, 2015) or in more implicit terms (Solms, 2018; Velmans, 2002, 2008). In this paper I provide an argument in favor of a relativist approach to the Mind-Body problem, more specifically, an argument for ‘1st/3rd person relativism’, the claim that ‘The truth value of some sentences or propositions is relative (...) to 1st and 3rd person perspectives’. The argument for 1st/3rd person relativism is close to a forma proof. It is shown that, just by assuming the 1st/3rd person distinction itself and using first order logic and set theory, ‘1st/3rd person relativism’ follows as a theorem. Some consequences of ‘1st/3rd person relativism’ to the Mind-Body Problem are evaluated. It is shown that ‘1st/3rd person relativism’ predicts the existence of an (apparent) Explanatory Gap; explains why the Explanatory Gap is just apparent (and the origins of such illusion); dissolves the Hard-Problem; provides a possible solution the problem of Mental Causation; explains why Mental Causation looks like a problem in the first place and accurately predicts the actual empirically found correlation and covariation between conscious experiences and brain states. This explanatory power of ‘1st/3rd person relativism’ is particularly impressive since it was not designed as a possible solution to the Mind-Body problem in the first place. (shrink)

Abstract The paper reconstructs the reception of Descartes's work by the Scottish Enlighteners, from Colin MacLaurin to Dugald Stewart. The Scots' image of Descartes was a byproduct of a scientific controversy; philosophical arguments were brought into the picture more as asides than as a primary focus of interest. As soon as the Cartesian physics withered away as a real alternative to Newtonian physics, only the philosophical arguments were left, with no memory of the context out of which they originated, and (...) the focus of the discussion shifts from physics to the philosophy of mind and the theory of knowledge. (shrink)

Abstract The paper reconstructs the reception of Descartes's work by the Scottish Enlighteners, from Colin MacLaurin to Dugald Stewart. The Scots' image of Descartes was a byproduct of a scientific controversy; philosophical arguments were brought into the picture more as asides than as a primary focus of interest. As soon as the Cartesian physics withered away as a real alternative to Newtonian physics, only the philosophical arguments were left, with no memory of the context out of which they originated, and (...) the focus of the discussion shifts from physics to the philosophy of mind and the theory of knowledge. (shrink)

Abstract The paper reconstructs the reception of Descartes's work by the Scottish Enlighteners, from Colin MacLaurin to Dugald Stewart. The Scots' image of Descartes was a byproduct of a scientific controversy; philosophical arguments were brought into the picture more as asides than as a primary focus of interest. As soon as the Cartesian physics withered away as a real alternative to Newtonian physics, only the philosophical arguments were left, with no memory of the context out of which they originated, and (...) the focus of the discussion shifts from physics to the philosophy of mind and the theory of knowledge. (shrink)

The paper reconstructs the reception of Descartes's work by the Scottish Enlighteners, from Colin MacLaurin to Dugald Stewart. The Scots' image of Descartes was a byproduct of a scientific controversy; philosophical arguments were brought into the picture more as asides than as a primary focus of interest. As soon as the Cartesian physics withered away as a real alternative to Newtonian physics, only the philosophical arguments were left, with no memory of the context out of which they originated, and the (...) focus of the discussion shifts from physics to the philosophy of mind and the theory of knowledge. (shrink)