Interdisciplinary Research in Counseling, Ethics and Philosophy - IRCEP

Between Methodological Structure and Open Dialogue: Mapping Procedural Rigor, Clinical Boundaries, and Associated Risks in Contemporary Philosophical Counseling

Ioana Nicolescu — Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0300

The article examines the methodological landscape and clinical boundaries of contemporary philosophical counselling. As the field consolidates its position alongside established therapeutic professions, it navigates a central tension between unscripted, open-ended dialogical frameworks and structured, procedural models. This study provides a comparative analysis of international institutional perspectives and the contributions of the practitioners. Furthermore, the paper investigates how these divergent methods inform clinical boundaries, addressing the intersection between philosophical inquiry, non-pathologizing practices, and psychiatric classifications. Given that methodological flexibility and a lack of universal standards introduce inherent risks, such as relativism or procedural rigidity, these challenges must not be minimized. The pluralism and fluid clinical boundaries of philosophical counselling do not represent a weakness; rather, they mirror the fragmented reality of contemporary practices and demonstrate the discipline’s capacity to offer viable alternatives and adapt to practical realities of human life.

Possibility of Aporia as Experience in LLM Interaction

Daniel Mioc — Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0300

This study examines the possibility of aporia within human-LLM interactions, proposing the concept of "non-dialogic aporia" to describe an ontological and relational impasse where a user projects reciprocity onto a syntactic system lacking semantic understanding. Grounded in classical philosophy, the analysis integrates John Searle’s distinction between syntax and semantics, Martin Buber’s relational framework, Martin Heidegger’s critique of technology as a standing-reserve (Bestand), Jacques Derrida’s theory of the trace and difference, Luciano Floridi's concept of the "Inforg" and David J. Gunkel's machine ethics. Using the withdrawal of the GPT-4o model as a case study, the essay demonstrates that while LLMs remain non-conscious computational resources, human users can experience profound mourning and ethical interpellation. Ultimately, non-dialogic aporia highlights not the personhood of the algorithm, but the tendency of the hybrid human subject to confront its own reflection and externalized mental habitat within the infosphere.

Thinking With, Not Through, AI: Philosophical Counseling and Ethical Self-Authorship in Teacher Education

Rotem Waitzman, Sivan Sarid-Goldfisher — Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0300

Generative artificial intelligence is increasingly used to interpret professional situations, formulate arguments, and consider responses to ethical dilemmas. Although these systems can broaden reflection, their persuasive outputs may encourage moral outsourcing, defined as transferring substantive elements of ethical interpretation, justification, or judgment to an external system without adequate examination, endorsement, or responsibility. This conceptual article asks how generative AI can be integrated into philosophical counseling and ethical reflection in teacher education without undermining ethical self-authorship. Drawing on philosophical counseling, moral development, relational autonomy, professional ethics, and AI literacy, it develops the Ethical Self-Authorship Cycle. The model comprises five iterative stages: articulating the dilemma, pluralizing perspectives, interrogating assumptions, testing reasons and consequences, and reclaiming moral authorship. Its contribution is threefold. First, it distributes deliberative functions between the human participant and AI by specifying what the system may contribute and what it cannot establish at each stage. Second, it requires the process to conclude with a human-formulated justification rather than an AI-generated recommendation. Third, it treats ethical self-authorship as a developing capacity requiring pedagogical scaffolding and ethically and digitally prepared teacher educators. An illustrative case demonstrates the model’s application to a dilemma involving student use of AI in assessment. The article argues that AI may generate material for ethical inquiry, but it cannot represent affected people, determine which values should prevail, or assume professional responsibility. Moral authorship and answerability must remain human.

Interdisciplinary links between philosophical counseling and bioethics

Vasile Hategan — Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0300

The article explores the interdisciplinary connections between philosophical counseling and bioethics, highlighting how these emerging fields collaborate to resolve moral dilemmas in the medical sector. The author emphasizes that applied ethics specialists and philosophical counselors do not compete but rather form interdisciplinary teams alongside medical professionals to facilitate patient-centered decision-making. Furthermore, the paper proposes expanding the scope of bioethics from mere medical ethics to a global ecological ethics aimed at protecting the planetary biosystem. By employing tools derived from philosophical practice, these new professions contribute to humanizing medical care and preventing hospital-related litigation. Finally, the article presents the perspectives of both Romanian and international authors regarding the professional status of the ethics counselor and the need for regulated postgraduate training in this field.

The Philosophical Counselor in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: From Practice to Profession, from Profession to Algorithm

Aurelia Daniela Stanciulescu — Thu, 15 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0300

The paper addresses the ethical integration of artificial intelligence into philosophical counseling in Romania. We begin with the criteria used by Julia Clare and Richard Sivil to distinguish between practice and profession, and with the roadmap for recognizing the new profession of philosophical counseling in Romania, outlined in 2019 by Vasile Hațegan. Much of this process has already been accomplished; what remains is the cognitive dimension, which has yet to catch up with either online or algorithmically assisted practice. In the second part of the article, we draw upon Hațegan’s comparisons between philosophical counseling and psychotherapy, coaching, spiritual counseling, and mediation to identify five distinguishing criteria: counselor neutrality, the relational nature of the process, non-dependency, the non-therapeutic nature of the practice, and client autonomy. We treat these criteria as an ethical test for conversational AI agents. The APPAgpt platform proves particularly useful in this endeavor; through it, the American Philosophical Practitioners Association invites the public to converse with bots simulating dialogues with great thinkers, while simultaneously emphasizing the importance of the human counselor. The test yields nuanced results. When used by the counselor as a tool, artificial intelligence can operate within the boundaries of the practice; however, when placed in the counselor's role facing the client, it exceeds those limits. The article concludes with proposals for future occupational standards and the philosophical counselor's code of ethics: the inclusion of a competency unit dedicated to digitally mediated practice, as well as a decision-making procedure inspired by Henk van Luijk’s model.