Reflecting on Philosophy for elders workshops

After three months, my first Philosophy for elders workshops program is over.

     Six workshops held in village of Bijelo Brdo, in Croatia, started in February with a simple idea that anyone and anywhere can do philosophy. Though I had my doubts about the whole project as we started, everything turned out even better than I expected. Now is the time to shortly reflect on everything we've been trough.

     The program itself consisted of six very simple workshops, dealing mainly with methods of socratic dialogue, argumentation, conceptualisation, questioning and debate. Participants took it very well, even though they constantly emphasized that they were not educated enough for that kind of practice. Sometimes i had a hard time explaining to them that backgroud in academic philosophy isn't needed for people to think for themselves, nor did i use any technical terms in order to explain a situation or a problem with which we dealt. For every topic i choose to mention some everyday examples which they could have experienced in their lives and i mentioned only Plato of all famous philosopher, just in order to illustrate a point, for which, again, nobody needed any academic backgroud in philosophy. We kept it simple untill the end and i'm sure that's what they enjoyed the most - dealing with some serious issues, based only on their own thoughts and views.

     We started with 15 participants at the beginning and ended up with 7 regular people by the end. There were some participants who couldn't find the time, or got sick, or just didn't like it so they stopped comming, but the ones who stayed were really pleased every time we meet and eager to know everything about our next meeting, in order to prepare better.

    Facilitating the workshops wasn't easy, because, as in every group of people, there were some who couldn't stop talking, no matter what the topic was, and there were those quiet ones, who speak only when asked something. The group was really friendly and they have known each other for quite some time, so there was quite a bit of laughs, but when it comes to work they have shown a great success in serious philosophizing on various topics. The methods which we used weren't hard for them, they accepted them really fast and played along with every task which i gave them.

     At the end, participants told me that from now on they won't consider philosophy to be an useless term, but rather usefull thinking skill for better expression of thoughts with meaning. Honestly, i didn't and i couldn't expect these workshops to be a lifechanging event for the participants, but i am really glad i had a chance to work and share bits of wisdom with them. I can say that we achieved my initial goals, with these workshops i wanted to prove that philosophy can be usefull and that anyone can do philosophy. Other than that, i got alot more - i had a chance to do what i love the most and with amazing people who, at the end, benefit more than i did.

Zoran Kojcic

Dealing with Death

   On February 24th my father died. This was the main reason i didn't write any posts for this long. Ever since his death, i've been trying to write something meaningful, but i just couldn't. Right after the funeral, i meant to write a post in his honour, but now it seems to me that i needed just a bit more time to reflect on everything that happened. 

   On February 25th 1999, my grandmother, on my mother's side, died. She and my father were very close during their lives. They both died in same hospital, on same floor, they were buried on same date, next to each other. A lot of people could find that interesting, at the very least, but i still can't grasp should i even cosider to give it some kind of meaning.

   Even before my grandmother died, i had some sort of panic attacks when confronted with thinking about my own death. They started when i was nine or ten years old. I was able to overcome those feelings or thoughts when i first read Plato's Phaedo, when i was 17. So i went back to rereading Phaedo after my father's funeral. No one can read it without admiring Socrates and his bravery when it comes to dying. What Plato basically writes is that there can be just two possible outcomes after a person dies: a) either your soulless body sleeps for eternity, and therefore gets a well deserved rest, or b) your soul, which is immortal, goes on to experience the eternal life and enjoys or suffers there, depending on what kind of life you lived. Which ever be the case, Plato says, death isn't something we should be affraid of, but a rather joyful moment and place where we should find our peace.

   Since i found out that my father had cancer, i tried to imagine what would his death look like, where will it happen, what will i be doing at the time, how will i take it, and so on. I thought about it every day for the past two years. I also thought of telling him how i felt about him. I wanted to tell him how proud i am of everything he's done for me, of everything he achieved, and mostly how i had the greatest luck to have a father who was a truly honest and hard working man, who did everything for his children's sake. I wanted to tell him so much more than these few cliches. But i couldn't. I couldn't because it would mean that i'm saying goodbye, and i wasn't ready for that. I sure the hell know that i'm not ready even now!

   Although i was worried for my sister and my mother, because i didn't know how they will take it, i was very calm at the funeral. We all went together to visit him to hospital, a day before his death. I've watched just enough drama movies and TV shows to know better when it comes to hospital visits - i knew that i couldn't miss it. The doctors told us on saturday that it isn't likely for him to live untill monday. As i couldn't say it, i had to do goodbye. We saw him at the worst. I couldn't hold my tears. He died on sunday morning, and i will never know for sure wether or not he was even aware of our visit. As i stood at the funeral, watching my father's lifeless body, i was calm. I repeated Plato's words in my head like a mantra - relief comes after the pain, relief comes after the pain!

   Few weeks before my father died, i read a post by Tim Lott, on facing death, with similar situation i was in (link). I wish i could throw some wise quotes i learned from my father, but i can't. My father wasn't a philosopher, he was a farmer. He was an educated man, with a graduate degree in agriculture, and an expert in his field, but he was happiest when he worked with his hands, on his land. I guess that some people are remembered by what they said, and some by what they did. According to Plato, only those who lived an examined life deserve to experience the place of Ideas. I actually don't believe in anything anymore. I know one thing, tho - i am proud of myself for trying to teach myself how to be a better philosopher and i am proud of my father for teaching me how to be a better man. I am not sure wether or not i will be able to follow this path for the rest of my life, but i know that i will try - not because i owe it to him, but because I want to!

   On the morning of Socrates' death, the prison guard unlocked his chains. Socrates turned to his students and told them how strange is this thing we call pleasant, because it always follows  what we call painful. Both of them seem to play a little game, where they always come one after the other, but never at the same time. So, whatever may be the case, whether my father just sleeps an eternal sleep, or his souls wanders in some sort of heaven, i am sure that he found his peace.

Goodbye, dad!

Zoran

Philosophy for elders, first time

As promised in my previous post (link) today i'm gonna write about first workshop in my Philosophy for elders program.

Our first meeting, and i believe this was first time that Philosophy for elders was held in Croatia, took place just few hours ago, in small village of Bijelo Brdo, Croatia. Workshop participants were retired senior citizens from different professions and backgrounds: policeman, graphic designer, teacher, truck driver, farmer and so on. They all were very cooperative and interested in our topic.

For our first meeting i chose a workshop based on Peter Harteloh's method of group philosophical consultations. Basic idea for this workshop is to develop questioning skills, as very important skill for any form of philosophical inquiry. This is where participants learn how to form meaningful and direct questions, actively listen to each other and develop a further sense for questioning the questions. Workshop begins with reading a zen riddle (koan), after which participants have to ask only one question about the story. P. Harteloh calls it The Ultimate Question, because he compared it with a question first asked by philosopher after his client in philosophical consultations has explained their problem. This first question is crucial. It shows how carefully you listened the story and what seems to be the problem you are dealing with within the story, what bothers you most. The thing is that only one participant can ask their question out loud, only if they think that they came up with the best question within the group. After that, everything comes down to facilitating the group. They have the task of questioning the (ultimate) question, asked by this one participant who dared to think their question was the best.

Of course, there are many other things within this workshop, but i would rather just shortly reflect on participants and their reactions to concept of philosophizing. At first, as i sat in that room at 5:10 pm with only three people who showed up on time, i had my doubts about the whole thing and i actually thought that it wouldn't work, but 10 minutes later, the room was full and i found myself explaining to people much, much older than me what philosophy is. As the workshop went on, i felt more secure and i got a feeling that they really liked this opportunity to discuss philosophically. The questions they asked were really good and made a lot of sense, and almost all of them were very active and opened. Even this one man, who forgot his hearing aid, talked loudly all the time so he can hear himself and who didn't maybe hear anything the rest of the group was saying (we had a good laugh, though), even he wrote down a mini Bible and was smiling at the end with a promise that he won't forget the aid next time. The rest of the group also gave a good feedback and expressed their interest in rest of the workshops, eager to hear what is next workshop going to be about and when is the next time we will meet. I think that they felt good with my role of facilitator, giving them little space, once in a while, for discussion, but we all agreed that they have problems with listening to each other without interruptions, which is something we surely will work on in future. Still, I also couldn't be happier with the group and with their engagement, and after one man stated that philosophical approach truly helps to exercise his mind, on which everyone else agreed, i am more and more certain that this program will prove that philosophy can be useful and that it can be done by anyone who is only willing to. 

Zoran Kojcic

Practicing Philosophy with elders

   My efforts have borne fruit. Since i first engaged in philosophical practice, i wanted to do it all the way and in every possible way. This week im starting to facilitate Philosophy for elders workshops program of my own, and i hope this will be a good way to start with practical promotion of philosophical practice in Croatia.

The program is actually quite simple and it consists of six workshops, mostly based on Oscar Brenifier's approach to methods of socratic dialogue, problem solving, argumentation and conceptualisation. Basic goals of these workshops are to do something useful for community and to promote philosophical practice as philosophy for everyone.

   Few years ago Petit Philosophy association (of which i am a member) started promoting and doing philosophy for children in Croatia. Today, we want to expand to all forms of philosophical practice and philosophy for elders is just a part of that. Public image of philosophy and philosophers isn't good in Croatia and we want to change it by doing something useful for community. In my opinion, key issues here are that philosophy can be useful and that anyone can do philosophy.

   As i grew up and developed great interest in philosophy to a point that i want to study it on university level, i've been told, by my friends, parents, teachers, that philosophy is useless, that it's not even a real job and that i especially can't make a living out of it. Everyone around me seemed to be very pragmatic, but somehow i still wanted to follow the owl of Minerva and here i am, eight years after i first announced to my parents that i want to be poor lover of wisdom for the rest of my life, now trying to share some of the things i learned along the way and show how this strange, ridiculed poppycock we so pretentiously called philosophy can be of any use in everyday life.

   Across the street from my parents house, there actually lived a colleague of mine, philosopher, who moved out a few years before i even started to think about studying philosophy. He could have been a good support to my efforts, but all i was left with were farmers, like my father. I couldn't get any support there, because farmers in these parts of country were called philosophers only to mock one another when they talked too much gibberish. But, now i am trying to merge these two irreconcilable concepts - farmers and philosophy. Since philosophy for elders workshops will be held in two villages, almost all retired elders here were or even still are farmers. And as for me, this isn't the slightest problem - every single man or women during their lives at some point does a philosophical questioning, at least in their own head. The problem is that they either don't know that they are philosophizing or they can't get a good or reasonable answers for themselves.

   So, i hope to promote philosophical practice in a way to show people how philosophy can be useful for their everyday problems and that philosophy is something everyone can do. I hope that workshops will be firstly educational for participants and also interesting, challenging and fun to do. Surely, i will report on this blog after every session on how it went and what were the participant's reactions and comments. I hope we will be able to meet once every two weeks for next two or three months and i hope both groups, in two villages, will be satisfied with what they learn during our meetings. Unfortunately, i had no experience with education for elders before, so i am also hoping that after this program i will be able to compile specific philosophy workshop just for them if there is need, which means that i also hope to learn something and use it in future. At the end, i am really looking forward to this program and i hope that all elderly wisdom lovers will find some meaning within it.

Zoran Kojcic

Teaching without textbooks

Last year i started blogging on different platform and one of my first posts was about teaching ethics without textbooks. Back then i just got started with this approach and i was developing the idea, so now i get the chance to share what i've learned from this experience so far.
To begin, i would like you to read this post on a link provided here.

Same as i felt back in October 2012, i feel now. It really is way better to approach Ethics in such manner that students engage in discussions, rather than just read or reinterpret what others said. Philosophical practice approach proved to be very useful here. Within it, the method of socratic dialogue shows best results. Lately, i've started to use philosophical cafe practice in classroom. The main idea here is to let my students choose for themselves which topic they want to discuss. Sure, they seem to have some difficulties in keeping the discussion going untill the end of the class, but this is where i come in. As soon as i notice they are having some trouble, i jump in with a question or statement, and the discussion goes on. This might occur few times during the class, it depends on students or on topic of discussion, but it is the point where you see how interesting this role change really is. Students are no longer just students, they are teachers as well. And teacher becomes mere facilitator, directing - not the knowledge students have, but the topic on which they should discuss. 

Socratic dialogue is very useful when you have specific topic in mind. Surely, as a teacher you should have annual plan and program of what you would teach in given subject. Similar to that, you should prepare for all your classes and do the research on topic you want to teach. If the topic is general and already known to your students, then you can begin with specific questions which will problematize it. If the topic is new to your students, then a short introduction is enough for them to grasp the possible views and to form an opinion. From that point on, directed questioning is all that matters. As you set your goals, questions should be directed in that way. Sometimes, i don't even tell a single statements during entire class, all i do is ask questions and students get to do the answering. While doing so, they should always be reminded to use arguments and if possible, also concepts. This type of discussion becomes extremely important for grading them.

Also, flipped classroom is new and interesting approach one can use with ease. With a little help of technology, we can do wonders nowadays. I prefer to use videos as sort of homework assignments. I usually pick videos on Youtube, or make my own videos (using iPad apps and posting them online), send the links to my students with additional tasks/questions to answer. This approach can be used both individually or in group and it works well, because they already watch videos everyday for fun, so it doesn't hurt to watch some for homework for change. I usually pick short videos, which they can understand, mostly animated short films which deal with a topic related to our subject. When i make videos, i make sure they get the most important facts in combination with examples, photos and directed motion, pointing out the most important connections. 

I've been asked a lot of times, by my colleagues, how do you grade your students then? One thing is interesting with this kind of approach - it's that there isn't a single student who will tell you during oral exam "I don't know". When they use textbooks, most teachers expect their students to repeat what's already written there. Based on correctness of repeated material, students are evaluated (in Croatia, numerically, where 1 is the worst and 5 is the best grade). I find that there are many other ways in which i can grade students. It gets difficult when i have students who don't function well with this approach, because they are used to 'textbook - repeat' system for so many years. And they tell me 'Please, just tell me what to write down, i will write it down and repeat it for you on exam'. So, how to deal with those who were taught WHAT to think, instead of HOW to think? They just need time and you have to work with them gradually. Short, individual assignments are best way to grade them as often as possible. Yes, they will still have trouble with oral exams, because they aren't used to express their own opinion, but they will do the assignments as you tell them to and maybe a bit worse grade in oral exam won't look so bad with the rest good grades for all other achievements. With time, they will get the courage and liberty to express what they think, just like the rest of the class. And as for the rest, the ones who were doing well since the beginning, it's really easy to grade them, because they respond with reasoning, arguments and sense. When repeating the textbook material on exams, students are nervous that they will get something wrong and fail the exam because of that. But after my first oral exam, where they weren't quite sure what to expect, i didn't see a single nervous student standing in front of me when it comes to exams or any other grading related situation. I asked them once, how come that they aren't nervous, and one of my best students answered - Because i trust my reasoning.

Zoran Kojcic

Tweetosophy

'What's this rather queer looking contraption?', we might ask ourselves. Twitter and philosophy? No way!

Yes way! said the whole tweetosophers community, and there's quite bunch of us. I've noticed there are some people who follow just over one thousand philosophers on Twitter. And with each new day i follow or get followed by more and more philosophers, engage with them in discussions, comments or questioning every possible philosophical field or problem. 

Of course, by discussion i mean exchange of ideas formed within a tweet, which is quite different than what some philosophers are used to. Discussing philosophical issues has mostly been done in wide form of essays where each point of view could be dissected and presented as complicated or difficult to express. Philosophers would approach every problem with variety of arguments, examples, thought experiments and the like, just as we are used to read philosophical books usually written in more than two hundred pages. But what if someone asked you to express your arguments in 140 characters? How could philosophers deal with that? Quite recently @ATBollands  and i argued on solipsism and he stated that "Twitter is so useful (if a little frustrating) for philosophical debate. It forces you to be concise in the arguments you give" on which i replied that "Maybe every philosophical debate should be as concise in argumentation as a tweet". And i really meant that! What @ATBollands brilliantly stated means that Twitter forces you to think how can you state your arguments in best possible way in order to fit them in only 140 characters. This means that Twitter forces you to think - and not just when engaged in philosophical, but also in any other discussion. 

I wrote about this in one of my previous posts - Philosopher of Post PC era - where i stated that Twitter can be understood as sequel of Short Message Service, or text messages, used on mobile phones, where we had the same restriction in messages we wanted to send to others. But what does this restriction achieve? Why force someone into this limited form of communication? I think it was Einstein who said 'If you can't explain it simply, then you don't understand it at all'. Twitter makes it simple and it makes you wonder about the essence of communication, for it is really just an exchange of messages. Also, one of basic linguistic theories argues in favour of linguistic economy, which roughly states that we should spend less energy in production of better communication. Transleted into tweetosophy, this means that philosopher, or any other, should practice the ways of communicating simpler statements with same or even better results in interlocutor's understanding. By mastering this communication skill we will never again feel incomplete in argumentation. In fact, our argumentation skills can only become better, because we learn how to construct simple and crystal clear arguments. Unless, of course, you want to be more like Hegel...eventually ending up not understanding yourself what you wanted to say. As much as we may admire Hegel's incredible work, there aren't many philosophers who can understand him entirely. But, one might also ask, is this the purpose of philosophy, not to be understood, or the be understood by only a few who have enough time and energy to waste on continuous reading of one man's worldviews and imaginations? I really wouldn't call that love for wisdom. I prefer to be understood by others and then also agreed with or refuted by their reasoning on same matter, but from a different perspective. I want to...

- ...benefit from philosophy!

- But you can't benefit from philosophy. It has a purpose in itself.

- What? What the fuck does that even mean?

- Well, it can be understood as...

- No, i asked what does it mean?

- Well, according to Plato...

- Im not interested in Plato. I want to hear what you have to say!

- Well, i base my opinion on previous...

- I'm not interested in hearing the history of ideas! I don't have time for that! I want to live! Tell me what it means!

- What it means?

- Uggggghhh!!!

So, other than above stated, there is one more reason for you to become a tweetosopher. Simply put, Twitter is where all the philosophical action is. Facebook is more of a place for friends, family and silly Youtube cat videos. LinkedIn is a place for your professional connections and where you pretend to be serious, academic and stuffy. Which leaves you with Twitter as place where you can relax, meet new people from around the world and philosophize in any way you like. So, if you have your Home - Facebook, you have your Work - LinkedIn, then you have your Going Out - Twitter! Twitter is the new Agora for philosophers! Only this time nobody will make us drink poison...i hope!

Zoran Kojcic

Philosopher on Mars

Since last night i am intrigued by Mars One Mission. "Mars One is a not-for-profit organisation that will take humanity to Mars in 2023, to establish the foundation of a permanent settlement from which we will prosper, learn and grow", says their website. I started exploring what is it all about, and as i found out that there will be internet connection up there, i actually thought of applying to be among first astronauts to set foot on Mars, but later i figured that i probably couldn't give up smoking nor would i pass the medical exams.

Anyway, this mission got me thinking about lots of things. First of all, what would philosopher do on Mars? Seems to me that exactly philosophers are needed for this mission, as you can see astronauts qualification on this link. This could easily be the first reality show where the winners wouldn't be just beautiful, good looking possible pop stars, singers, actors or the like, but where you would vote for someone who has a deeper sense of meaning, mental and emotional maturity and who has really needed skills for survival in such harsh conditions. As i understood it, Mars One astronauts will be chosen based on the audience votes, so i am really interested to see in which way people will choose the next history textbooks heroes.

Heroes? Yeah, probably, since non of them is going to return to Earth...ever! Mars One Mission is a one way ticket to Red Planet. Out of it comes something philosophically interesting. Stated on this link, Mars One asks the question: Is this ethical? Is it ethical to send people on Mars, never to return? They do state some kind of arguments in order to justify their mission, but all of it seems to me like going to army - we will provide you with all the necessary equipment, training, we will pay you good money and provide your family, but it's up to you whether you live or die. Now, going to war surely is moral - if we take morals as human customs, and whether we like it or not, whether it is good or bad, war is a custom thing for humans - but going to war certainly isn't ethical. Going to Mars can also be interpreted as moral, since traveling is something we do everyday, it is human custom to explore new environments. So, is it ethical - depends on presumptions what is good and what can be bad about it, and which of it prevails. If one presumption is - We, as organisation, will provide you with everything you need in order to live a good life on Mars. - and the other presumption could be - You could die due to technology failure. - then we need to wigh on it. But, since Mars One already decided that it is ethical, everything is up to people who will apply for this mission.

The question here isn't whether it's going to happen or not, the question is when is it going to happen - or even better, when it happens, then what? Try to imagine that you are the first person to set foot on Mars. The whole world is watching you. Everyone is excited. And what are you going to say to them? You can't simply copy Neil, that's not cool. You also can't say that it's rather windy, or that the view is awesome. This is the next big world history textbook event, every living person will know your name and your first sentence as you take your first steps on Mars. In that moment nobody will think of their nation, politics or religion, everyone will experience it as human kind achievement. The question is, how strong will your message to human kind be, since you have the possibility to address the whole world and even influence them in a way.

Furthermore, this mission also rises the question of conditio humana, or the human condition change. Will the human condition really change after we populate the Mars? What will happen with our views of the world, once we are present on two different planets? How can we define the world then? Will our views on religion and philosophy change? Or will we simply go on as if nothing happened? And what if we really see a philosopher crew member up on Mars? Hannah Arendt wrote something about this, she said that most radical change in conditio humana would be human emigration to other planet, where human labour, production, action and thinking wouldn't make any sense. She was also wondering what becomes of humans when they create artificial conditions of living, such as Mars One will make in near future. And indeed, i  also can't wait to find out soon.

"Everyone's life comes to an end eventually", the magnificent truth stated on Mars One webpage regarding the question What if one of the Mars inhabitants passes away? Mars astronauts should be ready for this and well aware that Mars is their final destination. But what happens if Mars One itself comes to an end? Eventually, people will stop watching their live coverage of Mars settlement, because some next big thing will arrive on our screens, and the idea of spending sunday family afternoon watching people on Mars eating or sleeping will become less and less interesting. The Mars Big Brother fades away and the question remains - are we going to witness the most expensive failure in our history or the beginning of the most impressive civilisation so far?

Zoran Kojcic

Stories VS Dialogues

One of the most important skills needed for philosophical counselling is active listening. Out of this comes understanding the interlocutor's problem, and the competence to help them solve it.

When thinking of storytelling, first thing that comes to my mind would be Lyotard and his narratives theory. Well, maybe not so much a theory as a description of metanarratives, grand narratives and local narratives.  To put it in an example, global economic crisis would be a grand narrative, media coverage of GEC would be a metanarrative (stories about the story), and local narratives would be individual stories of local folks. Lyotard argued that these three were the cases from which people tend to get knowledge. In opposition to that, he suggested that people should turn to scientific knowledge, because it provides more certainty, it deals with arguments and evidence. Whichever may be the case here, one thing is certain - people love to tell stories!

I can agree with Lyotard, stories shouldn't be the only source of our knowledge, but storytelling, in any form, is a big part of our lives - you can see it in movies, literature, music, politics, economy and in everyday encounters with your family, friends, colleagues...not to mention school teachers. It seems to me that everyone loves to tell stories. Even now, since i became a teacher, i noticed that my students like to exemplify everything with a story. Also, in my short experience in philosophical counselling it seems to me that people are more comfortable with telling a story about any problems they have. Last week i went to literature teachers county meeting, and endured what was supposed to be a school project presentation and what turned into very bad story which, if it was written, would be a terrible record of uncoherent events. I listened to that lady very carefully, as she was giving this supposed presentation, and i couldn't believe the sentences comming out of her mouth. Some might prescribe it to stage fright, but i think we should question ourselves about the way we tell stories in general. I am not talking here about the rhetorical performance, because rhetorics has an aim to persuade us to someone's goals, i am talking about our lack of coherence when it comes to thinking process behind stories we tell.

This is most obivous when engaging in philosophical counselling with clients. People tend to get caught in their own story, they jump from one point to another, they link without any sense so when they finish their story you don't know what they said, they don't really know what they said - and you are both stuck. So this is where platonic battle between mythos and logos comes into play. Mythos is the story, the unreliable source of supposed knowledge of which we can never be sure. Logos, on the other hand, represents the reason, and in this case, the dialectic search for truth, which is found in dialogue. Both for story and for dialogue, at least two people are needed. The difference is that when telling a story, only one person is active, the teller, while the listener is passive. When engaging in dialogue, both parties are active in two processes, speaking and listening, and this requires a great amount of thinking. As counsellor, you have to actively listen to your counselee, process his/her answer and ask a question accordingly. As counselee, you have to listen to the question and then reply to your best knowledge. In this manner there is no wandering around the problem, there are no impediments in your way toward truth. Question/answer logic is very simple and it helps you follow the straigh line toward a solution. This is also reason why philosophical counselling can be very intense. If you, as counselee, are let to tell your story, your mind can easily avoid the key points in your problem. This is something we do unconsciously whenever we tell our problems or some other personal things. We avoid the most important issues. But when engaged in a dialogue, you are 'forced' to answer the question without beating around the bush. In short and instant question/answer process every time you try to avoid the straight answer, will be easily noticed. This is the best way to get to truth about yourself and your problem. This is also where your thinking process works most intensely, because you are torn between the avoidance and the truth. And the thing about truth is, well, as history has shown us many times, it's always scary.  It is easier to avoid the problem or even the solution, but question remains, how long can one endure with it?

Zoran Kojcic

Counselling

As my tweet may have led you here, this is a short blog post about philosophical counselling/consultations, in order to instruct you how does it work, if you are interested to do it with me.

There are different ways in which philosophical counseling/consultations could be done. I use Oscar Brenifier's method which is quite similar to socratic dialogue. If you studied philosophy and if you read Plato, then you are familiar with this socratic method. If not, counselling/consultations begin with you forming one personal problem as a question - for instance: Why do i have trouble with sleeping, How can I overcome my fear of this or that, Why am i affraid of getting old, Why do i smoke...it can be ANYTHING, any problem you have which you want to deal with. Problems can also be generalized, like Why do people lie/kill - counselling/consultations aim to solve a problem you are dealing with, problem which bothers you for some reason and you are not quite able to solve it on your own. After you state your question (problem), it is time for you to answer the questions untill the end of the session. You should do it in simple sentences, stating arguments or concepts, also with yes/no answers - this is not psychiatrist's sofa where you would lie down, tell your life story while they nod their head, blame your parents and prescribe you drugs. Counselling/consultations are process where you must think and reason with yourself and draw conclusions which will lead you to solve your problem.

Other than your willingness to participate, this venture requires you to have Skype or Facebook account (we can do it in written or spoken form, whichever you prefer) and an hour of your time.

Also, in order to avoid confusion, the term philosophical counselling is widely spread and more often used for this kind of philosophical practice. However, using Oscar Brenifier's method, philosopher doesn't give you counsel or advice what you should or shouldn't do, so Brenifier prefers the term consultations. Likewise, i won't give you any counsel on what to do and what not to do, i will lead you to your own conclusions and let you deceide for yourself.

At the end, if you are wondering how do philosophical consultations work, you can watch this video

If you are interested to do consultations, please contact me on my social network profiles, Facebook or Twitter

Philosopher of post PC era

Or, on people who like to live in present

As some of you may have seen in my previous posts, i tend to write a lot about mixing philosophy and technology, especially the one of newest, post PC era. Using tablets and smartphones has become part of our daily lives and i tend to use them in order to contribute to my work. As i work as teacher, i also like to integrate this new technology in my classes - since my/our students use it anyway during the class, whether we like it or not. Human beings have always managed to do things using technology as tools to survive or communicate, so why would we now reject contemporary tools when we could use them in our advantage?

Sure, i can congratulate to all of our predecessors who lived without the use of such delicate technology, but every one of them used tools available in their own time, so even Plato used tablets to write down his thoughts and dialogues. Even though tablets nowadays are made of different materials, they have the same purpose - they are mainly used so that people can communicate with each other. I don't see any harm in that.

I happen to know some of our colleague philosophers who still didn't get used to PC's, let alone post PC devices, but i really don't see any firm reason for such approach to more available and easier means to achieve some of your goals. Still, i am glad to see many of my colleagues around the world sharing their thoughts, ideas and methods on social networks, and they are really opened to cooperation. Such state of affairs brings hope in future of our calling and shows that, for now atleast, part of us is ready to cope with present world and think of near future in a mature and responsible way.

Those people who still struggle with (post) PC technology, or they refuse to be active in any of social networks, remind me a lot of Woody Allen's main character in Midnight in Paris. Funny thing is that if those people would have watched the movie, they would clearly see how the character is trapped with his desires to live in the past. From this perspective it looks really funny, but i doubt that they would see how they are doing the same thing - their main desires are aimed toward a thing they can not have, and yet they refuse to be involved in a world around them. Today, every philosopher lives in a post PC era, theres only ones who can recognize it and use it, and those who, for whatever reason, ignore it. I am only sorry that i have never heard a solid argument for ignoring it.

Now, to be honest, i dont really like blogs. I almost never read them, because they are mostly boring piles of texts and personal opinions. The only reason i started writing this blog is to share some of personal experiences in my practice and also to try to engage more people in philosophical practice. Sure, i got some positive comments on my social networks, but i dont really think it's working - one of the reasons can be that my writing isn't that good and i can't get people interested, and the other can be that people are also a bit sick of blogs. And i get that. This is where post PC comes - it was more interesting for me to make a fun review of philosophical apps for Android and iOS devices than to read some blogs and texts about same old same old, Kant, Plato, Wittgenstein, whatever of that sort. When i reviewed those apps, i felt i did philosophy, and yet it wasn't hard, boring, disappointing. Same goes with teaching - when i used smatrphones in classroom i made my students DO something, create something on their own. Sure, they could have written a poem using pencil and notebook, but, as i wrote in introduction to this post, it doesn't hurt to live in present sometimes. 

Maybe some of you still have ideological prejudices toward consumerism and material possessions, but i can asure you that your health costs money, that your loved ones cost money, and so on, so buying one other tool which helps you stay informed in fast changing world around you can't hurt. Im not saying that you need to be permanetly attached to your mobile device no matter what, i just want to share my experience and also try to reason with myself why i use it and what does it mean to be a philosopher in post PC era, what could be the benefits of it. As a perfect example, take Twitter. It couldn't be simpler! Twitter is such an useful tool for philosophical thought development. Why? Because, if you can't describe your current endeavors in one simple coherent sentence, you don't even need to bother. This is the heritage of mobile text messages. This approach makes you think! When i was a college freshman, i did a research paper on language used in mobile text messaging and i found out from other resources that in Croatia, where i live, people actually started using archaic past tense in text messages, because of its simpler, shorter form! This past tense is taught in schools, but it is never used in everyday conversations nor in any modern literature - and yet, people had think of a way to say what they want in shorter and simpler terms, because of text message language economy. Wouldn't you call that thinking? Don't you do similar thing when writing on Twitter? I know i do. I do because i know people aren't always interested in hearing my life story or my entire worldviews - i write about it here, and i can distinguish those two spheres of communication. This form, blog, is unlimited and i can go on for ages, but on Twitter i have to think what im going to write in order to be understood as simply and as better possible. 

This is also a place where philosophical practice comes into play. What i lately tend to practice with teaching and with philosophy, i mostly find on post PC devices. Simplicity, conceptualisation, focus, critical thinking, dialogue, all other sorts of things, including different apps, ebooks (oh, the advantage of having every book you could possibly need at the swipe of your fingers!), online tools, everything can be used with mobile devices and integrated in your classroom or everyday philosophical practice. Once you get in, it isn't hard to keep up and use it as it best suits you. There are numerous ways in which you can be creative and make something positive out of it. At the end, people make tools in order to improve their lives. Do you use your vacuum cleaner? Oh, you do? Not a broom? Well...