Letter to the Editor

Dear Dr Birksted-Breen,

Lear (2019) invites readers to test his opinions in open debate and conversation (1105). In that spirit, I provide the comments below, organized in two sections based on Lear’s distinction between: (1) everyday life organized by Socratic dialogue, and (2) the psychoanalytic respite organized by the fundamental rule.

Everyday life and Socratic dialogue

For Lear, everyday life is organized by Socratic speech according to which we feel answerable to others. This is a problematic conception in several ways.

First, Lear says we feel an obligation to answer why questions: for example, why we have the beliefs that we do – and why we have the desires we do. I understand that we are sometimes expected to answer such questions. Applying for a job you might be asked why you want the position. A résumé says, “Seeking to leverage strong leadership skills and expertise to increase profitability.” But after the hermeneutics of suspicion (Ricoeur, 1970, 32–36), I think we pay lip service to these statements. In why questions, both the asker and answerer know this is at one remove.

Consider statements such as: “It’s not about the money”, “I’m not a competitive person” or “I didn’t intend to hurt your feelings.” Or at the first day, you go around the room, everyone saying why they are taking the class (what they hope to get out of it). I think people understand the authenticity quotient is low. In fact, one mental-health counselling approach considers it a problem if someone sincerely believes their answers why. Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) explains to clients that these narratives they tell themselves – about what kind of person they are – are nonsensical:

From an early age, children are … are harassed into answering “why” questions. … In fact, children have little to say at first … “Why” questions are often met honestly with the answer “Just because.” … Eventually, however, children learn to tell coherent stories to explain their behavior that are acce