I know this is not my normal fare but I thought I would share this dialogue I wrote between Socrates and a psychotherapist.
Socrates:
I see you have found time to come to the Agora today!
Psychotherapist:
Yes, one of my patients cancelled today and I thought I’d get some fresh
air—perhaps hear you engaged in one of your amusing debates with one of the
youth of our dear city.
S: I
assure you I am not trying to amuse anyone. I am, however, aware that some find my cross-examinations amusing. Perhaps since it is early and no one else is
around I could ask you to help me understand what it means to be a
psychotherapist.
P:
Socrates, don’t take me for one of your youths—you know perfectly well what I
do.
S: I assure
you I do not. I know people come to you
because they suffer in some way that a regular physician cannot cure. I know you engage in some kind of talking
cure, but I do not, I assure you, know what a psychotherapist is or does.
P: It
is quite simple—you almost said it yourself. While a physician heals the body, a psychotherapist heals the soul.
S: Do
you mean that somehow through talk you heal your patient’s soul.
P: Yes,
precisely.
S: How
does this cure work?
P: Let's imagine a patient. I'll call him Robert. I'll talk with Robert until we develop a relationship, until he feels safe to divulge his inner
most thoughts and feelings. We work
together through dialogue so that he can come to a self-understanding so that
he can take responsibility for his own being and feel free to choose the life
he wants—ultimately, to be happy.
S: This
is fascinating. Perhaps there is
something I can learn from you after all. But you’re not going to get away that easily.
P: Very
well, I expected no less from the great Socrates.
S: I
assure you I possess no greatness. So,
you say you heal the soul.
P: Yes.
S: And,
of course, you would never bring harm.
P: Yes,
of course, never.
S: Now,
you claim understanding is necessary for healing.
P: Yes.
S: Who
must gain understand? You or Robert, the patient?
P: Both
of us, I suppose. It is a cooperative
process—we work through dialogue as I said before. I try to understand the Robert's way of understanding and this helps him understand himself.
S: That
sounds rather complex. I am not sure I
understand what you just said, but I will proceed with my questions
nonetheless.
P:
Proceed.
S: How
do you understand Robert?
P: Well
I must ask him questions.
S: But
how do you ask him questions?
P: Now
the tables have turned and I do not understand you.
S: How
do you know what to ask?
P: There's a lot of guesswork. I listen,
I try to find some lead, some opening; I am open to him; I use my intuition; I
pick up hints. For example, if a patient
tells me his heart hurts, he has gone to the doctor and no physical ailment has
been found, I ask him to tell me more about his pain: when it hurts; how it hurts; where it hurts; are
there times when it doesn’t hurt.
S: Why?
P: I
assume Robert's pain is a kind of metaphor—that his figurative heart hurts because
of some “heart-breaking” situation. I
want to know what that situation is.
S: Are
you always right? Are your questions
always on the mark?
P: No,
of course not. It is hit or miss. But the better I get to know the patient, the
better my intuition gets.
S: So
understanding, in a sense, begets greater understanding.
P: Yes,
precisely.
S: But
here lies the problem.
P: Now
I am confused. Just when I think we have
arrived you claim the journey has just begun.
S: What
is more helpful to Robert: more or less understanding?
P: Why
more, of course.
S: So
any lesser understanding, any pre-understanding, any pre-judgment could in fact
be harmful.
P: I
don’t follow.
S:
Anything less than the greatest cure must contain some amount of harm. The very process of your talking cure is harmful
even if it is so less and less.
P: Now
I’m really mixed up.
S: Do
you ever fully understand your patient?
P: No,
that is impossible. The patient is
infinitely more than I can know.
S: So
you must, by definition always harm your patient.
P: I
would prefer to look at it as incrementally bringing the patient closer and
closer to health.
S: But
this healing—in its fullest and most radical sense—is and can never actually be
accomplished.
P: No,
I suppose not.
Comments
S. What you say reminds me of an idea
P. Which one?
S Of an imprisoning cave. Would you say that the person who does not understand is akin to a person in a cave? One who thinks he sees light when in reality he sees shadows on a wall?
S. Has a Dr of the leg healed when he helps the lame man walk?
P. Surely
S. And the man who has indigestion. Has the Dr healed him when he can eat once mor?
P. Yes.
S. So the sick man is a form of prisoner imprisoned by his disease. The Dr who heals the sick man frees him from his imprisoning disease?
P. Of course
S. The foot Dr frees his patient from imprisoning lameness the stomach Dr frees his patient from indigestion?
P. Yes, that is exactly what the Dr is a liberator.
S. And what of the eye Dr does he liberate his patient from blindness?
P. Like all liberating Dr's he does liberate from blindness.
S. You sir are akin to the eye Dr. As the Eye Dr heals the eye of the body from blindness to light of the body, you heal the eye of the soul from blindness to its illuminating light.
P. But what is this illuminating light to the eye of the soul?
S. As I said, it is akin to a cave.