Analytic philosophical dialogue
Analytic philosophical dialogue does not deal with pathologies, but with the resistance that the real opposes to the ideal. What that is actually removed is not a painful memory, like in psychoanalysis, but the reality itself, in its own actuality. The outcome is the tendency toward an existence tied to conceptualizations, disconnected from the concrete real living. The main force driving this way of living is the effort that concrete-life requires to reduce the friction of the real to the ideal. The outcome is sloth, speaking in a literary manner, or akrasia (from ancient Greek), that is the incapability of doing what one knows that has to be done.
To experience something, it is the same as to correlate the matter of phenomena with the form of concepts in a constantly updating striving of our ideal beliefs with the real data.
This effort of correlation between ideal and real, leads to an authentic existence, compared to an inauthentic living where the ideal structures of consciousness are not at all affected or modified.
If psychotherapy arises from the intuition of an originary conflict, ‘the sacrifice of the individual’s instinct-satisfaction for the sake of the common good’, philosophical analytic dialogue takes into account another conflict, namely the sacrifice of the individual’s real experience for the sake of conceptual life. When we say ‘experience’ we mean a deep reflection upon the real data which affect the ideal structures of consciousness. Quoting O.Wilde, “Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.”
Conceptual existence protects from reality, it is nourished by abstractions and it leads to abstract conclusions. This kind of existence leaves apathetic and with no energy for it lacks the richness of the real experience.