At the beginning of the twenty-first century we are, in the West, deeply caught up in the free market project, a consumer economy born at the beginning of the nineteen eighties, which depends on its own consumption to feed its own growth. It is a system which, utilizing the greed of the individual as consumer, encourages profit for an elite from capital held and retained by this elite. Although there are differing economies in the world (e.g. China, Korea, India, the Arab states), they all compete for position in the global free-market economy and do not threaten its persistence. This western neoliberalism maintains a vice-like grip on the societies upon which it preys, and no misuse or disproportionate profit is sufficient to dilute the enthusiasm of the consumer to consume (Harvey, 2005). It is hard to stand against this, but not so hard that it is impossible. No one is under orders to take part.

If philosophical companionship stands apart from much of what we call ‘professional’, then money loses its ‘professional’ importance. It may be that the companion will pay the practical philosopher but, in N-U Philosophical Counselling, this should never be assumed to be part of the transaction. Charging may, for example, only take place if it is thought likely that the philosophical companionship process will not happen unless a charge is levied. In the free-market economy, we have to accept the consumer environment and the impact it has on people’s thinking; if it’s free then it’s suspicious, or worthless, or the giver raises suspicion in the receiver’s mind. Initial charging may be the only route into establishing a relationship, but this can be nominal or token and always open to review. On the other hand, charging may never be part of the relationship. It is simply not possible to buy love, or wisdom, or freedom to change. We can buy a victory within the justice system, or power within the political system, or riches in the economic system, but nothing of individual becoming is available for purchase. Philosophical companionship is not part of the free-trade exchange: ‘you give me money, I give you time’. The professional makes a living from his calling, the practical philosopher is unlikely either to make, or wish to make a living from practical philosophy. The practical philosopher will need to look at the opportunities found in personal economy, thrift and prudence.

The need to make a living is, as well, highly over-rated — there is ‘a living’ and there is ‘a living’. It would be foolish to suggest that professional philosophers are all in philosophy for the living. If that were true, then none would want to rise in the ranks, to get more power within their particular structure, to establish reputations, and so on.

Philosophy makes much of its ability to analyse in abstract and remote terms, and this can indeed be a central element in the project of N-U Philosophical Counselling as it focuses on the meaning/freedom to choose/action/how should I act? sequence. But it is unlikely that anyone convinced by market economy thinking will bring much light to bear on the human condition or offer much to philosophical companionship in a true sense. Lost in the neoliberal project, the professional philosopher is unlikely to tender anything of much help to another as companion. Students may gain from their expertise, other philosophers may be stimulated by their thoughts, but the professional philosopher will seldom lend much weight to the individual’s path to freedom. Anarchists working within neoliberal democracies have little credibility as examples of anarchy, just as hangmen are not convincing as humanitarians saving others from having to commit the act of killing.

Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford University Press.