Article Critiques on Counseling Theory

The conduct and process of psychoanalysis are sometimes defined by selfobject transferences that ‘mirror’ the true mind and feeling of the person concerned. In the first example, it is revealed that patients sometimes express ‘cross-sectional snapshot’ when they crave for recognition or admiration, as an effect of not feeling proud with their accomplishments. This ‘opening move’ would progress towards a convergence and then would progress resolutely, while the psychoanalyst deals with the pathognomonic selfobject transference that is reflected in the analytic atmosphere, to come up with the development of ‘trust’ and a ‘feeling of safety’.

Analytic relationship needs contribution from each of the individuals, which is why, in the process, accepting, understanding and explaining past experiences are detrimental for a successful psychoanalysis. Understanding the fantasies, needs and demands leads to empathy. In the second example, it was described how patients’ responsiveness stems from accepting ‘their’ reality (Ornstein, 1998, par. 22) as well as accepting ‘their’ meanings and functions of reality (Ornstein, 1998, par. 24). The process of empathy is the best way to conduct clinical psychoanalysis.

Centrality of the concept of the selfobject transferences was emphasized by means of defining the nature of the process, by focusing on the experiences of the patients, and by coming up with some general statements made out of the details. FINDINGS: Empathy and selfobject transferences are the basis of self psychology. This is reasonably true, since psychological treatment can only be successful with both ends (or individuals) meeting at a common point.

The essence of the soul rests on ‘self-motion’, while its reversal rests on passivity (Riker, 2003, par. 13). As disintegrating forces would lead to passivity, then ethical breaks the repression made by passivity, so that there is self-motion and life in the soul. As reason and virtues control desires and emotions, then it leads to growth, development and actualization. However, in the modern concept of the soul’s life, “[l]ife is that which must disrupt itself in order to live” (Raiker, 2003, par. 18).

It must be a free spirit that lives with the will-to-power soul of a child, which exceedingly values life itself… the willingness to live, as life is the motion of the soul. This defines chaos as the proper breeding of a soul’s life, meaning that the most alive soul in the modern era is the ‘alienated individual’ that experiences struggle and isolation. There are different versions on how a soul may be able to achieve its life to the fullest, some of which are under self-motion, passivity and chaos. Findings come from the classical and modern conceptions of the soul’s life, as well as some ecological resolutions.

Classical theories are very much opposite to the modern theories of today. What deeply nourishes the life of the soul now appears to be under the event of chaos and disruption. But as this means developing a self or ‘I’ that is capable of living in reality without repression or submission, the soul should choose its own way of living, which may be a multitude of various ways and paths. I agree that diversity should be valued by all means. This implies that there is no single way in which a soul may live to the fullest. It depends on state of reality.