Introduction

In the face of modern complexities, philosophical practice has seen a resurgence, reconnecting people with philosophical thinking to navigate existential and practical challenges. This revival, inspired by the work of figures like Gerd Böttcher Achenbach in the 1980s and popularized by Lou Marinoff with his book Plato, Not Prozac in the late 1990s, reflects a tradition of practical philosophy dating back to ancient times (Achenbach, 1984, 1997; Marinoff, 1999). Lou Marinoff (2002, 2003, 2004) underlines the timeless nature of philosophical practice, which is egalitarian and adaptable across different contexts. Despite the retreat of contemporary philosophy into academic abstraction (Toulmin, 1988), the movement initiated by Achenbach’s first Center of Philosophical Practice in 1981 and Marinoff’s critique of mental health’s medicalization demonstrates the enduring relevance of philosophy as a means to address life’s complexities and mental well-being beyond pharmaceutical solutions (Ding et al. 2019, 2022, 2023).

The exploration of philosophical practice extends beyond the realm of abstract theory and into the very fabric of daily existence. Among the various modalities of engaging with philosophy, thought analysis stands out as a distinctive approach deeply rooted in the grand tradition of philosophy yet strikingly relevant to contemporary life, forming part of the broader field of philosophical practice. Under the guidance of Tianqun Pan, the Laboratory of Thought Analysis at Nanjing University executed numerous thought analysis experiments, culminating in significant theoretical and empirical advancements. Tianqun Pan (2012, 2013a) was the first to officially introduce foundational concepts and frameworks for thought analysis. Since then, he has expanded upon these ideas by exploring the application and philosophy of thought analysis (Pan, 2013c), the methodologies employed in thought analysis (Pan, 2013d, 2016), underlying theoretical assumptions in thought analysis (Pan, 2014, 2020), and the evolution of the theory (Pan, 2017, 2021).

Thought analysis is not an unfounded innovation but is deeply embedded in the tradition of philosophical examination, tracing back to the Socratic method of critical questioning and the Stoic practice of reflective self-examination (Hadot, 1995). Historically, philosophy has served as a means to question and refine one’s beliefs and actions, a tradition that thought analysis revitalizes. Despite skepticism from some academic circles, which often relegate the role of philosophy to theoretical endeavors, thought analysis reasserts the pragmatic roots of philosophy. It posits that philosophical tools can indeed foster personal well-being by providing individuals with the means to critically analyze and align their beliefs with their lived experiences, thereby achieving intellectual and emotional harmony (Pan, 2013d, 2016).

In this paper, we try to address the following research questions: (1) What are the theoretical underpinnings of thought analysis, and how do they inform its practice? (2) How does thought analysis differ from and overlap with therapeutic interventions? (3) In what ways can thought analysis contribute to personal well-being and social harmony? The paper aims to dispel the misconception that philosophy is esoteric or inaccessible by demonstrating its practical applications, advocating instead for democratization of philosophy as a tool for everyone to lead a “good” life—a life where knowledge and action are harmoniously integrated. Furthermore, this paper strives to confirm the transformative power of thought analysis within philosophical practice and to underscore its enduring value in fostering reflective, reasoned, and ethical living.

Navigating the cognitive landscape: philosophical practice and the quest for coherence

While the essence of philosophical practice is a philosophical life, i.e. integration of philosophical notions in common actions, the core activity of philosophical practice involves guiding individuals through an exploration of their perceptions of reality, which may involve reevaluating their belief systems and worldviews. Philosophical practitioners approach visitor issues as crises of meaning, arising from conflicting worldviews, unexamined beliefs, or the practical fallout of unmet expectations—essentially, a flawed interpretative framework that guides their understanding and response to existential challenges. Addressing these crises involves a comprehensive evaluation and potential recalibration of the visitor’s belief network. Practitioners use the examination of worldviews as a diagnostic tool, scrutinizing and identifying inconsistencies within the visitor’s belief system to guide them toward resolution (Lahav, 1995; Ruschmann, 1998).

Philosophical practitioners frequently confront cognitive dissonance: the mental perplexity that occurs when beliefs, intentions, or behaviors are in conflict. Individuals naturally strive for cognitive harmony, and dissonance reveals underlying conflicts. As Festinger (1957, p. 3) theorized, the drive for cognitive consistency is fundamental, akin to the need for sustenance in the hungry. The gaps in philosophical practice typically involve a conflict between thoughts and actions. For instance, an individual may intellectually assent to the value of honesty yet find themselves engaging in deceit. This gap between thought and action is where cognitive dissonance manifests in the realm of philosophical practice.

It is important to note that cognitive inconsistency does not inherently cause confusion or distress; it is the recognition of such dissonance that leads to discomfort. This phenomenon underpins the adage that ignorance can be bliss, suggesting that not being aware of conflicts can spare an individual from turmoil. Philosophical practice, therefore, involves bringing these inconsistencies to light and aiding visitors in reconciling them to achieve cognitive harmony (Ding, 2013b, 2016).

The cognitive limits of belief retention

Cognitive dissonance manifests in various facets of life, including conflicts within beliefs or between beliefs and behaviors. It can involve multiple elements, such as a series of beliefs or a combination of beliefs, intentions, and actions (Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones, 2007). The conflict between beliefs, in particular, can cause significant intellectual discomfort. While individuals may hold inconsistent beliefs, they do not consciously hold contradictory beliefs. Outright contradictions—such as accepting that “snow is both white and not white” or “4 is greater than 3 and not greater than 3”—are uncommon and subtler inconsistencies are prevalent, as Williams (1981) highlights in his discussion of the nuances between inconsistency and contradiction.

Williams (1981) clarifies that inconsistency implies a contradiction, but the concepts diverge when multiple beliefs are involved. While all contradictory beliefs are inherently inconsistent, not all inconsistencies reach the level of contradiction. In daily life, it is common for individuals to maintain a network of beliefs that, when combined, are inconsistent, though they may not realize it due to a lack of holistic examination. For instance, a person might maintain a range of beliefs S1–Sn, and their conjunction could be inconsistent when considered collectively. Thus, individuals may unknowingly harbor inconsistent or even contradictory beliefs, since contradictions are readily apparent when individual premises are isolated but may go unnoticed without a comprehensive review.

Individuals do not typically hold self-contradictory beliefs consciously. It is a basic assumption that no one willingly believes in what they acknowledge to be false. As Williams (1981) elucidates, a person can understand and believe propositions S and not S separately, but cannot believe in their conjunction if they are aware of its inherent falsehood. This is because belief in the conjunction of S and not S would imply an understanding of its truth value, which contradicts the premise that individuals do not accept what they know is incorrect. Williams (1981) then suggests that the cognitive limitations of individuals prevent them from holding all their beliefs in mind simultaneously, similar to a shopper who cannot recall the entire shopping list without consulting it.

The presence of contradictory or inconsistent beliefs within a person’s belief network is often revealed when they fail to accept the logical inferences of these beliefs, possibly due to a lack of realization or awareness of the contradictions. This is not exclusive to the layperson but also occurs among the intellectually adept. David Lewis’ self-observation exemplifies this: he believed Nassau St. ran east–west, a nearby railway ran north–south, and thought them parallel—a clear inconsistency once he scrutinized these beliefs together (Lewis, 1982). Recognizing this, Lewis understood he could not maintain these beliefs concurrently and faced the challenge of reconciling his belief system to restore coherence.

To differentiate between logical and psychological contradictions, we must understand that while the former is an absolute negation, the latter represents a conflict within the individual’s cognitive and emotional landscape. Thought analysis navigates this distinction by employing logical tools to address psychological incoherence, thereby fostering a synthesis of both spheres. Furthermore, while logical contradictions are indeed analytical a priori in nature, they can be reflected in real-life situations where individuals’ actions do not align with their stated beliefs. The paper will explore examples where philosophical analysis can reveal and address these conflicts in practical contexts.

Understanding contradictory beliefs: cognitive dissonance and the complexity of human cognition

The critique that individuals do not consciously hold contradictory beliefs simplifies the complex nature of self-awareness and belief systems. Highlighted by a reviewer, this perspective requires further examination to fully capture the intricacies of human cognition. It is more accurate to state that while individuals strive for consistency in their beliefs, they often harbor contradictory beliefs due to factors such as cognitive biases, incomplete information, or evolving contexts. Psychological mechanisms like cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization facilitate the coexistence of these contradictory beliefs within a person’s thought process (Festinger, 1957; Nisbett and Ross, 1980).

Leon Festinger (1957) defined the concept of cognitive dissonance as the discomfort experienced when an individual holds conflicting beliefs, ideas, or values, or encounters new information that challenges their existing beliefs. For instance, someone who values environmental conservation might feel dissonance while driving a fuel-inefficient vehicle. This discomfort typically prompts a change in one of the conflicting elements to alleviate the inconsistency (Harmon-Jones and Mills, 2019; Morvan and O’Connor, 2017). Conversely, compartmentalization allows individuals to isolate conflicting attitudes in separate cognitive spaces, thus avoiding direct conflict and maintaining overall mental harmony. This process helps maintain cognitive equilibrium by psychologically segregating conflicting beliefs into distinct “compartments” (Nisbett and Ross, 1980; Showers, 1992; Showers and Kling, 1996).

On a subconscious level, individuals often hold contradictory beliefs without immediate awareness. When these contradictions become conscious, they trigger cognitive dissonance. This recognition activates various psychological defense mechanisms and cognitive biases designed to restore belief coherence. Defense mechanisms such as denial and suppression help individuals ignore facts or beliefs that might cause anxiety or discomfort (Baumeister et al. 1998; Cramer, 2003; Perry and Henry, 2004). Cognitive biases like confirmation bias encourage individuals to favor information that supports their existing beliefs, thereby shielding them from the discomfort of contradictory information (Klayman, 1995; Nickerson, 1998; Oswald and Grosjean, 2004). Belief bias can lead to the irrational acceptance of conclusions that align with pre-existing beliefs, regardless of the arguments’ logical validity (Evans and Curtis-Holmes, 2005; Klauer et al. 2000; Newstead et al. 1992).

Dual-process theories further explain how individuals can maintain contradictory beliefs without constant psychological conflict (Chaiken and Trope, 1999; De Neys and Glumicic, 2008; Evans and Stanovich, 2013). These theories propose that human cognition operates on two levels: a rapid, automatic, intuitive system (System 1) and a slower, more deliberate, logical system (System 2). System 1 processes social and emotional inputs that might not be logically consistent without triggering dissonance, operating below the threshold of conscious awareness. System 2, when engaged, critically examines these beliefs for consistency and coherence, potentially leading to cognitive dissonance if contradictions are recognized (Kahneman, 2011).

Understanding these dynamics enhances our understanding of the cognitive landscape navigated by thought analysis, illustrating the complex interplay between various cognitive processes that allow individuals to manage and sometimes reconcile contradictory beliefs. This insight shows how the mind navigates a complex cognitive landscape, often balancing coherence and contradiction to maintain psychological equilibrium.

Beliefs versus behaviors: dissonance in action

Cognitive dissonance is not limited to conflicting beliefs but is frequently observed when individuals’ actions diverge from their beliefs. Festinger’s seminal work posits that someone who holds the belief “a university education is essential for life success” is expected to advocate for his or her children’s education (Festinger, 1957, pp. 1–2). Similarly, a child fearing punishment for cheating is likely to either avoid cheating or hide it effectively. Despite the apparent pursuit of congruence between belief and behavior, real-life examples abound where individuals act in opposition to their beliefs, such as smokers who understand the health risks yet continue to smoke, or criminals aware of the potential consequences who persist in their illegal acts (Festinger, 1957, p. 2).

Notably, the example of smokers who understand the health risks yet continue to smoke illustrates cognitive dissonance not because they are unaware of the consequences, but because they may prioritize immediate pleasure over long-term health, which presents a philosophical tension between hedonistic and prudential values. Therefore, cognitive dissonance in philosophical practice may arise when an individual’s “choice” stands in opposition to their philosophical convictions. For example, a person may choose to light a cigarette despite their belief in leading a healthy lifestyle, thus facing a philosophical conflict that requires analysis and resolution.

Intentions also significantly influence cognitive dissonance. Brunero (2005) describes the dissonance that arises when an individual harbors intention a, acknowledges that a implies b, yet does not hold intention b. This condition echoes Aristotle’s concept of “akrasia” or “weakness of will,” as discussed in the Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle, 1869, pp. 209–245). Rational decision-making often succumbs to impulsive desires, leading to actions that contradict one’s intentions. For instance, a desire to excel in the IELTS may be undermined by the aversion to the monotony of vocabulary study, leading to procrastination. Similarly, aspirations to fitness can be thwarted by the allure of leisure activities. Such cognitive dissonance can provoke mental turmoil, regret, and guilt, which are particularly pronounced in cases of chronic procrastination (Wallace, 2001). Researchers facing the pressure of imminent deadlines are familiar with the acute anxiety from this dissonance, spurring a strong desire to resolve the internal conflict.

Revisiting the theory of thought analysis

Thought analysis is a Socratic dialog that engages in cognitive dissonance analysis to unearth and refine the explicit or implicit beliefs of the interlocutor. The goal is to dispel confusion and resolve misunderstandings (Pan, 2012, 2013a). Complementing this, Jianjun Zhang of Nanjing University formulated the “Thirty Two (Chinese) Characters Guideline,” encapsulating the methodological essence of thought analysis as: “clarify concepts, distinguish levels; sort out contradictions, inquire about possibilities; reveal presuppositions, analyze consensus; reason logically, and seek evidence rigorously 澄清概念, 分辨層次; 清理矛盾, 追問可能; 揭示預設, 辨析共識; 合理推導, 嚴格求證” (Zhang and Zeng, 2010).

The process of “clarifying concepts” and “distinguishing levels” is instrumental in resolving the perplexities that afflict individuals, thus serving the goal of ‘disambiguation’. For example, this approach is particularly beneficial in addressing the so-called ‘Empty Heart Disease’ prevalent among contemporary Chinese college students—a term that encapsulates feelings of loneliness, meaninglessness, and lack of purpose (Ding et al. 2019). This condition, often misconstrued as a psychological or mental issue, is more accurately a form of existential quandary common in youth development. To counteract ‘Empty Heart Disease’, it is insufficient to rely solely on external preaching or indoctrination. Instead, empowering and motivating students to introspect about their life’s purpose and self-identity is crucial for them to reconstruct and refine their values and sense of meaning. This case underscores the efficacy of thought analysis in discerning the appropriate intervention for various existential challenges.

Philosophical counselors, such as those trained by the Laboratory of Thought Analysis at Nanjing University, apply this framework to guide individuals through their philosophical struggles (Ding, 2016). Theoretically, this systematic approach should alleviate the disarray stemming from cognitive dissonances within the visitor’s belief system. However, in practice, we have encountered various challenges that highlight a disparity between theory and application. These experiences prompt a critical reevaluation of thought analysis theory and methods, with the objective of enhancing their problem-solving potency.

Enhancing decision-making and problem-solving: the crucial role of logical reasoning in diverse contexts

Recent empirical studies have reinforced the importance of logical reasoning in effective decision-making and problem-solving across various contexts (Evans et al. 1993; Newell, 1980; Pezzuti et al. 2014). Specifically, Dumas and Schmidt (2015) demonstrated how analogical and relational reasoning skills predict success with the TRIZ method—a structured problem-solving approach. They found that TRIZ training significantly enhanced the novelty of solutions to engineering problems, particularly for those with strong relational reasoning skills.

Additionally, Starr et al. (2023) linked relational thinking to executive functions, suggesting its unique contribution to academic skills like math fluency and fraction magnitude comparison. This finding has led researchers to consider relational thinking as an executive function in itself, supporting cognition and goal-directed behavior.

Furthermore, Qi et al. (2024) explored how analogical reasoning mediates the relationship between working memory, inhibitory control, and children’s mathematical abilities. Their research highlighted the critical role of analogical reasoning in enhancing children’s mathematical skills, suggesting it as a potential area for educational interventions.

In another study, Träff et al. (2019) investigated how logical reasoning, spatial processing, and working memory in children aged 9–10 predict their physics achievement at ages 12–13. The results showed that these cognitive skills significantly contributed to their physics skills, highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of physics that heavily relies on robust cognitive functions.

Stanovich et al. (2016) introduced the Comprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking (CART), akin to an IQ test but focused on rational thinking. This tool assesses components such as probabilistic and scientific reasoning, the avoidance of miserly information processing, and essential knowledge structures. Studies of the CART have shown that higher logical reasoning abilities correlate with greater career success and higher personal satisfaction.

These findings collectively emphasize the broad benefits of enhancing logical reasoning abilities. Improving this skill can lead to better decision-making in personal and professional settings, substantially enhancing overall effectiveness and well-being. This underscores the necessity of fostering logical reasoning not only within academic or philosophical contexts but also as a vital skill in everyday life.

Questioning the innateness of logical reasoning abilities

The assumption of thought analysis that humans are inherently equipped with logical reasoning capabilities is debatable (Cesana-Arlotti et al. 2018; Cummins, 1996). This notion is challenged when considering individuals with reasoning impairments or young children who appear to lack sophisticated logical inference skills. It begs the question: Is logical reasoning an innate ability as Plato’s theory of “Forms” or “Ideas” suggests (Cross, 1954; Dancy, 2004; Helmig, 2012), or is it something that needs training? Furthermore, the scope of what constitutes logical reasoning, including the potential inclusion of non-classical logic, is not clearly defined and warrants further exploration (Béziau, 2001).

Evaluating logical reasoning abilities and their relationship to education and psychology

Logical reasoning is often believed to be a product of language acquisition (Braine, 2013; Falmagne, 2013). Through learning the use of logical connectors, such as “and,” “or,” “if…then,” and “not,” people subsequently grasp the underlying logical principles. Absent this learning process, the corresponding cognitive abilities may not develop (Overton, 2013).

Empirical challenges to the innate logical reasoning hypothesis were presented by the Wason selection task (Cosmides, 1989; Fiddick et al. 2000; Wason, 1966, 1968) and Marcus and Rips’ (1979) study on conditional syllogism and conditional evaluation, where subjects often embraced fallacious reasoning patterns. Despite these findings, some researchers argue that the recognition of valid deductive patterns by untrained subjects suggests an inherent logical faculty. Cai (2006) postulates that this hints at a genetic and psychological foundation for logical reasoning, likening it to the innate nature of language. This debate illustrates the complexity of determining whether logical reasoning is an intrinsic human attribute, necessitating a closer examination of the interplay between cognition, language, and education.

It is clear from empirical research that untrained individuals exhibit limitations and errors in logical reasoning. The proficiency in applying the “if…then…” construct may simply reflect an understanding of language patterns acquired during initial language education rather than an innate logical ability. This suggests that logical reasoning is a skill that can be honed through education, given that the human brain has the requisite structures for such reasoning. The occurrence of logical errors does not necessarily implicate psychological factors as the primary influence.

Furthermore, logical laws extend beyond human thought and are universally applicable, underscoring their foundational role in correct reasoning (Béziau, 2015). It is imperative to conform to logical laws to think correctly, much like adhering to physical laws is essential for accurate understanding of the physical world (Hofstadter, 1953; Ruby, 1986; Such, 2003; Swartz, 1985). While we may not always engage with physical laws, logical laws are incessantly relevant.

Logical laws are foundational across various disciplines, playing a crucial role in structured reasoning in fields such as mathematics, science, ethics, and law. For example, the principle of non-contradiction asserts that contradictory statements cannot both be true, which is vital in legal reasoning to evaluate witness credibility. Walton (2002) demonstrates how inconsistencies in testimonies can impact legal outcomes by affecting the trustworthiness of evidence.

In ethical reasoning, the principle of non-contradiction ensures consistency in moral judgments, helping resolve dilemmas by aligning decisions with a coherent ethical framework. Gowans (1987) explores how this principle aids in maintaining integrity and consistency in moral reasoning, particularly in complex situations with conflicting ethical values.

In the realms of mathematics and science, logical laws underpin theory development and data interpretation, ensuring internal consistency crucial for validity. Priest (2006) discusses the essential role of these laws in advancing scientific knowledge.

In computer science, these laws are essential for programming and algorithm design, ensuring consistent and predictable system operations. Knuth (1997) details how logical reasoning enhances algorithm accuracy and efficiency. Boolean logic, a manifestation of classical logical principles, is crucial in programming, influencing control flow and decision-making within software applications (Brown, 2003; Hjørland, 2015). Logical laws also play a significant role in database and software architecture design, as Date (2004) points out, helping maintain data integrity and system consistency through logical constraints and relational models.

These examples illustrate the broad applicability and importance of logical reasoning across diverse fields, highlighting its role in enhancing clarity, consistency, and credibility in professional and academic practices. By understanding and applying these principles, professionals and scholars can significantly improve their analytical capabilities, leading to more informed and effective decision-making.

While laws are ontological and inviolable, norms are epistemological and govern language and thought (Benabou and Tirole, 2011; Eisner et al. 2021; Lane et al. 2023). Since “logical laws are the descriptive laws of truth, rather than laws about how we ought to reason” (Russell, 2020), violating a logical norm does not negate the underlying logical law. For example, the law of non-contradiction is a universal logical principle that remains intact despite any contravention of the norm that we should adhere to. This distinction emphasizes the importance of education in logical norms to foster correct thinking and reasoning.

The role of training in developing logical reasoning abilities

The innate potential for logic, if present, would suggest that the task of a thought analyst is to nurture this latent capability, similar to the midwife’s role Socrates described (George, 2015; Mintz, 2007; Shah, 2008). What distinguishes humans from animals is not mere rationality, since animals like dolphins, chimpanzees, and even rats exhibit causal and inferential reasoning (Vauclair, 1996; Völter and Call, 2017). Instead, the defining human quality is the capacity to reflect on and enhance the efficacy of our logical reasoning—applying logic reflexively and methodologically (Cheng, 2012; Evans, 2002).

Logical training is instrumental in fortifying logical intuition, extending beyond thought analysis to disciplines such as mathematics and debate. Nonetheless, it appears some animals also possess a basic ability to evaluate and refine their reasoning strategies, aiding their survival and adaptation (De Waal, 2016; Rumbaugh and Washburn, 2008). In light of this, it is our position that thought analysis should not assume an inherent human proficiency in logical reasoning. Rather, the focus should be on fostering adherence to logical norms and augmenting logical intuition through dedicated training. An individual with sharpened logical intuition is well-equipped to excel in thought analysis, whether they are analysts or visitors.

Trust and ethics in the thought analysis process

The necessity of trust in thought analysis, as advocated by Pan (2013a), raises questions about its specific nature and boundaries. Trust could pertain to the analyst’s logical acumen or ethical conduct, both of which have different implications. While an analyst’s logical capability might be quantifiable, blind trust overlooks the potential ethical dilemmas inherent in thought analysis. Analysts could subtly influence visitors by leveraging their cognitive biases and vulnerabilities, even without setting explicit premises, leading to decisions that may not be in the visitors’ best interests.

The trust between analysts and visitors should be conditional and vigilant to avoid malicious manipulation. In our view, the analyst-visitor relationship should be characterized by equality and mutual respect (Ding, 2016, 2019). The goal is not persuasion but guidance, aiding visitors in recognizing and reconciling cognitive dissonances to clarify their thoughts. Analysts should refrain from imposing beliefs on visitors, although we may find it challenging to avoid making determinations during analysis sessions.

Moving forward, while some determinations by analysts are inevitable, these should remain open to discussion. If a visitor disagrees with an analyst’s assertion, the analyst is obliged to provide justifications. Should these justifications fail to satisfy the visitor, the assertion in question ought to be set aside. Absolute objectivity in thought analysis is an elusive goal, as even the renowned Socrates occasionally led his interlocutors toward certain answers (Nelson, 1949). This historical example serves as a cautionary reminder for analysts to consciously delineate their inferences to prevent personal biases from inadvertently swaying the visitor’s decisions. While ideals often clash with reality, analysts must strive to untangle visitors’ dissonance with integrity, without imposing their expectations.

Trust in analysts should be judicious and earned, recognizing the visitor’s active role and autonomy in the process. The credibility of an analyst is not a given but a subject of scrutiny. Initial skepticism from the visitor is reasonable and can be progressively transformed into trust through ongoing, transparent dialog and interaction. To ensure that this trust is well-placed and not blind, it is crucial to implement an evaluative framework to assess the professional competency and ethical standards of thought analysts. Such a system will safeguard the integrity of the thought analysis process, thereby improving the quality and effectiveness of the therapeutic outcome.

Understanding value neutrality in thought analysis

Value neutrality in thought analysis is a controversial principle—can one truly remain neutral when evaluating beliefs and values? As with the challenges faced in science and technology, neutrality may inadvertently favor the prevailing perspective, thus questioning the purity of neutrality itself. Through various thought experiments, philosophers have exposed the fragility of such claims (Ackerman, 1983; Dwyer, 1982; Mongin, 2006; Zecha, 1992).

Value neutrality does not suggest an absence of values in analysis, nor does it prevent engagement with value-laden issues (Gonzalez, 2013; Loewenberg, 1976; Miller, 2021; Unger, 2011). Our experience at the Laboratory of Thought Analysis at Nanjing University confirmed that value discussions, such as the worth of a divorced woman, are indispensable. These complex value-laden discussions of profound philosophical inquiries that visitors may bring to the session are “indispensable” in the sense that they cannot be avoided when they are central to the visitor’s existential questioning or life circumstances.

For instance, Pan (2013d) offers an insightful reconstruction of how a female visitor could overcome suicidal thoughts through thought analysis. The therapist began by identifying the visitor’s primary psychological challenges, particularly her feelings of worthlessness linked to her husband’s infidelity. Through incisive questioning, the therapist challenged her existing beliefs about self-worth and happiness. For example, questions such as whether she truly felt happiness with her husband and why she felt worthless without him helped expose her cognitive biases towards emotional dependency.

Despite an unhappy relationship, the visitor believed she could not live without her husband. The therapist’s questions gradually led her to recognize that her feelings of worthlessness were not inherently tied to her marital status, as she had not always felt “worthless” prior to her marriage. This realization initiated a process of self-perception rebuilding, where she reassessed her values and life goals, fostering a healthier self-perception.

With the therapist’s logical guidance and thoughtful probing, the visitor decided to divorce and start anew. After several therapy sessions, her suicidal thoughts subsided, and she gained confidence in her ability to lead a healthier, more independent life. This transformation underscores the power of thought analysis, facilitated by dialog and logical reasoning, to address deep psychological conflicts and treat non-physiological psychological pain, highlighting the critical role of logic and cognitive reconstruction in thought analysis.

Throughout the therapeutic process, logical tools like the law of non-contradiction were utilized to help the visitor identify inconsistencies in her thoughts. Addressing these contradictions led to a pivotal re-evaluation of her beliefs about self-worth. The positive outcome of this philosophical counseling session—marked by a significant reduction in suicidal thoughts and an enhanced sense of personal agency—illustrates how thought analysis can effectively integrate philosophical insights with personal emotional challenges. This approach provides a structured framework for visitors to develop more coherent and supportive belief systems, demonstrating the therapeutic potential of philosophical practice in mental health contexts.

Meanwhile, the principle of value neutrality is about guiding visitors to articulate and scrutinize their values without the analyst’s personal values dictating the process. Visitors are encouraged to seek cognitive consistency, which may lead to a transformation of values—not through coercion but through self-realization. The aim is to help visitors reconstruct a more coherent and rational belief system, drawing parallels to scientific inquiry, akin to Quine’s web of belief or Lakatos’ scientific research programs (Ding, 2013b, 2016).

Philosophical analysis offers a wider purview than logical analysis alone, which some might avoid due to the stigma of having “flawed” logic or thoughts. Conversely, philosophical counseling lacks such stigma and can even be seen as trendy for its reputation of depth. While logical analysis is a vital part of philosophical analysis, it is also prized for its clarity, objectivity, and traceability (Ding, 2013a). Moreover, modal logic, including epistemic and deontic logic, is emerging as a valuable tool in cognitive therapy (Pan, 2013b; Pan and Zhao, 2011).

The immediate objective of thought analysis is to dispel confusion, but its profound goal is self-understanding and enabling a more meaningful existence, reflecting the broader aims of philosophical practice (Pan, 2013a). This practice is inherently problem-focused and dedicated to addressing the practical and existential quandaries that arise in everyday life. Crucially, it equips visitors with logical analytical skills and nurtures a critical mindset (Pan, 2012). Analysts guide visitors to discover their core beliefs by scrutinizing existing ones, ultimately empowering them with informed choices and helping them refine their value systems.

The human condition is often marked by a desire to reconcile conflicting aspirations, metaphorically described as a battle between internal angels advocating for societal norms and demons tempted with selfish urges. Thought analysis does not seek to eradicate these complex aspects of human nature but to illuminate the roots of confusion and offer a clear framework for decision-making. It is not the role of the analyst to prescribe decisions but to enable visitors to make choices consistent with their values through Socratic dialog, thereby accepting and owning their decisions (Ding, 2016). Besides, in the realm of life’s choices, there are seldom definitive answers. Thought analysis does not promise to provide these but facilitates a process where choices are made with clarity and personal integrity, ensuring that individuals retain sovereignty over their actions.

The relationship between analysis and therapy

Pan (2013a) has proposed thought analysis as a “problem-solving dialog technique” aimed at issue resolution through thought clarification. “Issue resolution” and “thought clarification” are intrinsically linked but represent different phases of the philosophical practice. Thought clarification is the process through which an individual gains insight into the nature and structure of their own thinking, identifying and understanding the underlying assumptions and beliefs, uncovering inconsistencies and contradictions that may impede rational decision-making and lead to cognitive dissonance, whether these conflicts are internal or external. Issue resolution, on the other hand, refers to the subsequent stage where this newfound clarity is utilized to reconcile conflicts and address the practical implications of these insights in one’s life.

Despite the differences in approach, their end goal is similar: to resolve confusion. Clarity in thinking, however, does not automatically equate to emotional relief. Cognitive dissonance is just one of many potential sources of mental distress. Thus, while thought analysis can alleviate discomfort arising from confusion, it is not a panacea for all life’s challenges, nor does it guarantee happiness. The notion of philosophical counseling as “Prozac” (Marinoff, 1999) or “Happiness Pills” (Raabe, 2013) may be overpromising. It is unrealistic to anticipate the immediate resolution of complex issues through brief counseling, and such expectations can lead to undue disappointment and an undervaluation of philosophical counseling’s contributions.

There is a misconception that philosophical counseling, including thought analysis, is characterized by brief sessions. This oversimplification fails to capture the diversity and complexity inherent in counseling practices. In reality, the length of philosophical counseling sessions varies widely, influenced by factors such as the client’s needs, their philosophical background, the complexity of the issues being addressed, the goals of the counseling, and the specific philosophical approach utilized (Amir, 2004; Knapp and Tjeltveit, 2005; Sivil, 2009; Tuedio, 2003). Philosophical counselors carefully tailor their approach following an initial assessment of these elements, ensuring that both the duration and depth of counseling are suitably matched to each client’s unique circumstances.

For some, a few sessions may suffice to explore specific questions or dilemmas, where targeted discussions can yield immediate insights (Bae et al. 2019; Fitz-Gibbon and Russell, 2009; Mehuron, 2009). Others, grappling with complex philosophical crises or deep existential concerns, may require a prolonged engagement, potentially spanning months or years. This extended duration allows for a gradual development of philosophical understanding and significant personal growth (Brune and Gronke, 2010; Levi, 2010, 2011; Matchett, 2019; Spivak, 2004). Such flexibility in counseling approaches reflects the adaptability of philosophical counseling to meet diverse client needs effectively.

Logical analysis serves a crucial role in addressing problems, especially when individuals are unconscious of their logical inconsistencies and thus benefit from a thought analyst’s guidance. The principle “If I should do A, then I do A” is often contradicted in real life by actions that deviate from one’s knowledge of what should be done. This gap between knowledge and action presents a significant obstacle to the effectiveness of thought analysis (Hou et al. 2024; Pan and Yang, 2020). It raises the question of whether “analysis” can indeed translate into “therapy,” as discrepancies between understanding and behavior persist.

Pan (2013a) mentions the tragic suicide of renowned physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, attributing it to a “cognitive choice dilemma” caused by the advent of new physics, which challenged his long-held beliefs. While Boltzmann experienced significant intellectual turmoil as an advocate for “atomism” against “energetics,” it is critical to recognize that not all contemporaries who faced similar shifts in thoughts resorted to the same tragic outcome. This underscores the fact that individuals respond differently to comparable belief conflicts.

It is also worth contemplating whether a thinker of Boltzmann’s caliber would benefit from a thought analyst’s intervention. Given his sharp intellect, he likely had a profound understanding of his own convictions. This case illustrates that decisions, particularly extreme ones, are not solely governed by logical reasoning. Moreover, the factors leading to Boltzmann’s death are complex and cannot be simplistically attributed to scientific paradigm shifts, but also his ill health and depression.

The assertion that extreme decisions are not solely dictated by logical reasoning highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of thought analysis. While logical reasoning forms a crucial part of thought analysis, it is essential to recognize that human decision-making, particularly under extreme circumstances, often involves a complex blend of emotions, instincts, and contextual factors that extend beyond pure logic. Research by Damasio (1996) and Kahneman (2011) illustrates that emotions significantly influence decision-making processes, particularly in high-stress situations where instinctive responses may override logical deliberation.

Thought analysis, therefore, adopts a holistic approach that integrates emotional intelligence and context-specific factors with logical reasoning. For example, in personal crises or ethical dilemmas, a thought analyst might encourage individuals to engage in logical scrutiny while also considering their emotional reactions and moral values. This integrated approach ensures that decisions are comprehensive and reflect the full spectrum of human experience (Goleman, 1995; Schwartz and Sharpe, 2010).

Consider a scenario where an individual is confronted with a decision regarding a risky medical treatment. Thought analysis would guide the person to logically assess the risks and benefits of the treatment, while also taking into account their fears, hopes, and the potential impact on their family life. Such a holistic perspective can lead to more informed and balanced decisions, exemplifying how thought analysis effectively addresses the complexities of real-life situations (Elwyn et al. 2012; Epstein and Street, 2007).

While thought analysis can have therapeutic effects, it is not inherently therapeutic without intentional practice. Thought analysis and therapeutic practices are distinct, and one does not necessarily lead to the other without careful consideration and appropriate methodology. Therefore, the transition from thought analysis to therapeutic intervention is not inherent; it requires deliberate application and should not be assumed to occur naturally. Tianqun Pan suggests that “action” could serve as a bridge between analysis and therapy, based on the unity of knowledge and action (Pan and Yang, 2020). In cases where thought analysis alone falls short in dispelling mental confusion, integrating actions to reinforce the analysis may prove more effective therapeutically. While not all individuals require action to complement thought analysis, for many, active engagement serves as the most potent means of testing and refining their belief systems. The relationship between the analyst and the visitor can also serve as a bridge between analysis and therapy by focusing on logical reasoning and self-reflection rather than emotional healing (Pan, 2013d, 2016, 2021). The role of the analyst is not to heal but to provide the visitor with the tools to resolve philosophical distress through an enhanced understanding of their cognitive processes.

Comparative analysis with Logic-based Therapy

While thought analysis shares some methodological similarities with established philosophical therapies, the exploration of thought analysis within philosophical practice offers a distinct perspective on cognitive dissonance and personal growth, contrasting with Elliot D. Cohen’s logic-based therapy (LBT). A detailed comparative analysis can reveal subtle differences in their core principles, methodologies, and outcomes.

Logic-based therapy (LBT), an evolution of rational-emotive behavior therapy (REBT), addresses emotional and behavioral issues by identifying and refuting logical fallacies. Cohen (2005) explains that LBT is based on the assumption that emotional disturbances often arise from incorrect logical deductions based on flawed premises. The therapy is structured around identifying these “Cardinal Fallacies” and correcting them through philosophical reasoning and rational analysis, aiming to improve emotional well-being by promoting rational thought patterns.

In contrast, while thought analysis also emphasizes logical errors, it focuses more on a deep, introspective examination of thoughts, beliefs, and assumptions. This approach, less structured and more exploratory, fosters a dialogical and non-hierarchical interaction between the philosopher and the participant, where the philosopher acts as a facilitator rather than a diagnostician (Pan, 2014, 2021).

Methodologically, LBT follows a structured six-step process that includes pinpointing emotional reasoning, identifying fallacies, refuting these fallacies, and applying philosophical principles to cultivate guiding virtues (Cohen, 2013, 2016). It views emotions as responses to cognitive assessments and asserts that emotional reasoning can lead to behavioral patterns based on these assessments (Cohen, 2005). Conversely, thought analysis employs a more flexible, reflective approach that encourages participants to articulate and critically examine their beliefs (Pan, 2013d, 2020). It often does not prescribe specific remedies but instead promotes a broad exploration of philosophical ideas to facilitate personal insight and transformation (Pan and Yang, 2020).

The goals of these therapies also differ. LBT aims for immediate relief from psychological distress by correcting logical fallacies, thereby enhancing reasoning capabilities and reducing emotional disturbances (Cohen, 2015; Cohen et al. 2024; Du Plessis, 2019; Newhart, 2020). Thought analysis, however, seeks to foster long-term personal growth and self-understanding through continuous, reflective analysis and dialog (Pan, 2013a, 2013c). In this sense, both LBT and thought analysis focus on developing a deeper philosophical understanding of life experiences and choices, directly or indirectly contributing to well-being.

Additionally, the roles of the philosopher or counselor in each approach highlight further differences. In LBT, the counselor takes a more authoritative role, diagnosing errors and prescribing remedies in a didactic manner (Cohen, 2019). In thought analysis, the philosopher’s role resembles that of a Socratic facilitator, guiding individuals through self-exploration without imposing predetermined solutions, emphasizing a collaborative exploration of philosophical insights (Pan, 2014, 2021).

In summary, while both LBT and thought analysis employ logical and philosophical principles to tackle life’s complexities, their approaches are fundamentally different. LBT’s structured method of rectifying logical fallacies contrasts with the open-ended, explorative nature of thought analysis, which prioritizes self-directed insight and philosophical exploration. This distinction not only positions thought analysis uniquely within the landscape of philosophical practice intersecting with therapeutic approaches but also underscores its potential to foster profound personal understanding and growth.

Comparative analysis with Logotherapy

Exploring thought analysis alongside Viktor Frankl’s Logotherapy provides a unique perspective on how philosophical insights can foster personal growth and help individuals navigate life’s challenges. Both approaches are rooted in philosophy but differ markedly in their methodologies, intents, and philosophical foundations, highlighting their distinctive roles in therapeutic settings.

Logotherapy is a form of existential psychotherapy that emphasizes the human quest for meaning, particularly in the face of adversity and suffering (Devoe, 2012; Frankl, 1986). Frankl (2014) argues that the primary human drive is to find meaningful goals, suggesting that even suffering holds the potential for discovering purpose. Central to Logotherapy is its optimistic view of the human condition, where therapy helps individuals identify and embrace life-affirming meanings, thus motivating them to endure hardships and improve mental health (Schulenberg et al. 2008). Techniques such as dereflection, which diverts attention from distressing thoughts, and paradoxical intention, which encourages confronting fears directly, are integral to this approach (Frankl, 1960, 1975).

In contrast, thought analysis focuses on clarifying and understanding an individual’s thoughts, beliefs, and assumptions through non-directive dialog (Pan, 2012, 2013a). This method emphasizes the principle of value neutrality, where the philosopher or counselor facilitates rather than directs, maintaining a neutral stance that avoids steering individuals toward any predefined existential meanings or values (Pan, 2013d, 2020). This strictly analytical approach involves a non-judgmental, open-ended dialog aimed at uncovering the complexities of one’s thought patterns.

The primary goal of Logotherapy is to enable individuals to live meaningfully, using personal meaning as a tool to alleviate existential distress (Frankl, 1958, 1966, 1967). Specific therapeutic techniques like paradoxical intention and dereflection are employed to help individuals reduce anxiety and enhancing life quality (Frankl, 1960, 1975). This contrasts with the open and exploratory dialog of thought analysis, which encourages individuals to probe deeply into their belief systems and thought patterns, enhancing self-awareness and clarity in cognitive processes without necessarily seeking external solutions or meanings (Pan, 2012, 2016).

The therapist’s role in Logotherapy is active and somewhat prescriptive, guiding clients toward discovering a sense of purpose that aligns with their personal values and experiences (Schulenberg, 2003; Shantall, 2020). In thought analysis, the philosopher or counselor facilitates a dialog that helps individuals articulate and scrutinize their thought processes without much push toward adopting specific existential stances (Pan, 2014, 2021). This role focuses more on fostering understanding than directing outcomes.

In summary, while both Logotherapy and thought analysis utilize philosophical principles to enhance personal growth, they fundamentally differ in their approaches, goals, and the roles of philosophers or counselors. Logotherapy actively seeks to imbue individuals’ lives with meaning as a therapeutic tool, using an existential framework to connect life experiences with personal meaning. Thought analysis, on the other hand, emphasizes enhancing personal insight through a rigorous examination of thought, free from existential presuppositions or moral directions. These differences not only highlight the unique position of thought analysis within philosophical practice but also underscore its capability to foster profound personal insights through meticulous thought examination.

Rethinking thought analysis within humanistic frameworks

Thought analysis is grounded in the humanistic tradition, which emphasizes the individual’s capacity for self-reflection and rational autonomy. This approach aligns with the humanistic values of personal growth and understanding, reinforcing the practice’s aim of facilitating individuals in navigating their philosophical inquiries. Therefore, thought analysis, as a humanistic endeavor, diverges markedly from conventional scientific experimentation, raising questions about its legitimacy and methodological soundness. Critics argue that the inherent variability of thought analysis sessions often precludes scientific replicability, a cornerstone for validating methodologies and theories within the scientific community (Camerer et al. 2018; Finkel et al. 2017).

We contend that thought analysis targets not the individuals per se, but the intricate tapestry of their thoughts, belief systems, and cognitive processes. Similar to how clinical trials in medicine and biology ethically engage human bodies to test interventions, thought analysis ventures into the mental landscapes of individuals. The aim is to navigate and refine these cognitive landscapes, thereby delivering humanistic care, rather than to transform people into mere experimental variables.

Reframing thought analysis as humanistic care

The concept of labeling the work of thought analysts as “humanistic care” rather than “therapy” avoids the implication that visitors are in some form of illness, and offers a more approachable and nurturing connotation. While etymologically “therapy” suggests a process aiming for wholeness, “care” reflects the non-clinical, supportive nature of thought analysis without implying a therapeutic outcome. Thought analysis provides a platform for intellectual exploration and self-awareness, and while it does not aim to remove all the cognitive dissonances, it equips individuals with the ability to critically engage with them. Even if thought analysis does not achieve therapeutic outcomes, it invariably creates a positive shift for visitors, as evidenced by the activities of the laboratory of thought analysis at Nanjing University (Pan, 2017). Visitors may not resolve their confusion within a session, but the process invariably stimulates beneficial changes in their belief systems, setting the stage for deeper reflection and potential future resolution.

It should be emphasized that the primary goal of thought analysis is achieving clarity of thought by eliminating cognitive dissonance, rather than focusing on care or therapy. While care (in the form of humanistic concern) may be present and therapy may be a beneficial by-product, they are not the central aims of thought analysis. Instead, achieving clear and coherent thought is the primary objective. In other words, while care can facilitate a supportive environment for dialog, the primary virtue in thought analysis is achieving clearness. This can sometimes involve confronting uncomfortable truths or cognitive dissonances, which may cause temporary discomfort but ultimately lead to intellectual and emotional harmony.

The assertion that thought analysis is not inherently therapeutic merits clarification to avoid misconceptions. While thought analysis does not aim to supplant traditional therapeutic methods or directly address clinical psychological disorders, it inherently possesses qualities that can lead to psychological relief and personal growth. This often occurs through the alleviation of cognitive dissonance, a significant byproduct of promoting clearer and more coherent thinking (Pan, 2012, 2013a). Festinger (1957) posits that reducing cognitive dissonance can substantially enhance emotional well-being by resolving internal conflicts that cause mental discomfort, a view supported by subsequent research (Hawkins, 1972; McGrath, 2017; Menasco and Hawkins, 1978).

While the primary aim of thought analysis is to enhance logical reasoning and clarity of thought, its secondary effects can also be therapeutic (Pan, 2016, 2020). Thought analysis seeks to foster a clearer understanding and rational decision-making by addressing philosophical and existential questions. This process often entails identifying and resolving cognitive inconsistencies, which can indirectly contribute to emotional and psychological well-being (Pan, 2013d, 2014, 2021). It is essential to distinguish these outcomes from those of traditional therapeutic interventions, which are explicitly designed to alleviate psychological distress or disorders (Axsom, 1989; Matcham et al. 2014; Virgili, 2015).

Consider a case where an individual engages in thought analysis to explore philosophical dilemmas around freedom and determinism. Although the primary intent was to gain philosophical insight, the individual experienced a reduction in anxiety about making life choices as a secondary effect. This example illustrates how thought analysis, while not therapeutic per se, can lead to psychological benefits through the enhancement of philosophical understanding.

The question remains, how does one impart “humanistic care” using logic, a tool often perceived as cold and value-neutral? Care in this context involves clarifying confusions, not making decisions on behalf of visitors, thereby empowering them to live with greater self-awareness and autonomy. Furthermore, individuals content with their lives may not actively seek thought analysis, but this does not render the practice superfluous. A thought analyst’s role includes uncovering latent cognitive conflicts that, while dormant, could later manifest as disruptive forces (Ding, 2017). Early identification and resolution of these hidden conflicts serve a preventative role, possibly averting future distress.

Visitors benefit from understanding their unconscious values, from which these cognitive conflicts often arise. The subtler these conflicts, the more they may be rooted in deep-seated biases, and their elucidation can lead to profound transformations in visitors’ thoughts and behaviors. Thus, thought analysis extends beyond immediate clarity, offering long-term insight and fostering personal growth (Ding, 2016).

Moreover, the humanistic care of thought analysis transcends individual counseling and can be effectively incorporated into group settings, such as the philosophical cafes conducted by the laboratory of thought analysis at Nanjing University. In a session centered on “obligation,” participants delved into probing inquiries about the essence, diversity, genesis, and interplay of obligations and rights (Ding, 2019).

When discussing the question of natural obligations, a participant contended that the absence of childbearing as a universal obligation stems from its potential to degrade some individuals’ quality of life, acknowledging that the fulfillment derived from parenthood is not a universal experience. This stance is juxtaposed with the collective imperative for reproduction, essential for the survival and progression of humanity. Another participant illuminated the paradox of reconciling individual agency with societal duties, recognizing that although such stark choices are seldom faced, the conflict is intrinsic. A third participant further argued that the instinct for procreation is fundamentally biological, making the choice to forego parenthood a minority position, similar to the rarity of individuals choosing suicide.

The participants collectively recognized these facets as integral aspects of “obligation,” although they did not necessarily agree on the specific implications or resolutions of these obligations. This diversity of perspectives highlights the complexity and multifaceted nature of the concept of obligation. This session also illustrates the utility of thought analysis in a communal context, showcasing how structured discourse can dissect and elucidate complex ethical issues. The methodical exploration of “obligation” through targeted sub-questions highlights the importance of critical examination of participants’ presuppositions, and it exposes the delicate equilibrium between personal freedoms and societal imperatives.

Thought analysis: beyond replicability toward humanistic practice

The expectation of replicating thought analysis sessions to measure consistency in outcomes might misconstrue the purpose of the exercise. Replicability in scientific terms does not necessitate identical conditions but rather a resemblance under controlled variables (Leichsenring et al. 2017; Nosek et al. 2022; Tackett et al. 2017). Thought analysis, dealing with the complexity of human cognition, can hardly subscribe to such rigidity.

The concept of identical conditions for replicability is elusive in the context of thought analysis. Given this, aligning with Tianqun Pan’s perspective, we advocate for the term “practice” over “experiment.” The focus of thought analysis should not only be on the visitor’s mental state per se but also on the effectiveness and consistency of the logical techniques employed across various cognitive conundrums. This approach suggests a modified standard for replicability, emphasizing the reliability of logical analysis rather than the mental states of individuals.

Thought analysis transcends the resolution of immediate cognitive puzzles. It is an exercise in self-awareness and a means to impart the tools of logical reasoning, such as the Socratic method (Nelson, 1949). Analysts not only resolve specific issues but also unearth related underlying problems that, when addressed, can harmonize the visitor’s thought world, belief network, and cognitive system. This holistic resolution fosters self-sufficiency in the visitor, mitigating reliance on the analyst and conserving cognitive and social resources (Ding, 2013b). The goal is a long-term equilibrium, achieved through empowering individuals to tackle life’s complexities with newly acquired analytical acumen (Ding, 2016; Pan, 2013a).

Reaffirming the philosophical essence of thought analysis: the role of philosophy in personal well-being

Thought analysis is sometimes misunderstood as superficial due to its focus on day-to-day issues, which critics claim lacks the profundity of traditional philosophy. Nevertheless, if we agree that philosophy’s essence is the quest for truth, wisdom, and virtue (Ding and Yu, 2022), thought analysis aligns with this objective by enabling self-understanding and intellectual support, reflecting true philosophical inquiry (Pan, 2012, 2013a).

The division between continental and analytic philosophy, often characterized by critiques of obscurity or excessive technicality, respectively (Buckle, 2004; Chase and Reynolds, 2014; Levy, 2003; Moran, 2014), has obscured philosophy’s full scope. This division overlooks the blending of both traditions within thought analysis, which, although starting with an individual’s immediate concerns, inevitably touches on deeper philosophical territories, encompassing ethics, theology, esthetics, and more. It demonstrates that philosophy, and by extension, thought analysis, is not confined to one tradition or the other but is a confluence of both (Moore and Chen, 2008).

Thought analysis stands firmly within the philosophical domain, providing not only practical approaches to contemporary issues but also offering a dynamic philosophical education (Ding, 2016, 2019). It defies the notion that it strays from serious philosophical endeavor and underscores its inherent philosophical nature, with significant practical implications.

Philosophical practitioners view philosophy as more than an academic discipline; it is a way of life aimed at uncovering truth and fostering wisdom (Ding and Yu, 2022). This approach aligns with the ancient Greek and Eastern traditions, which advocate for a “good” life, harmonizing knowledge and action (Ding et al. 2024). The mental anguish that often arises stems from the disconnect between knowing and doing, where individuals struggle to translate understanding into action, resulting in internal strife.

The methodical process of thought analysis echoes the Socratic dialog, focusing not on definitive answers but on stimulating personal reflection, challenging presuppositions, identifying logical fallacies, and enhancing critical thinking (Ding, 2016, 2017; Ma et al. 2021). It empowers individuals with lifelong skills in self-dialog and independent problem-solving, inspired by the proverb, “Give a fish, and you feed for a day. Teach to fish, and you feed for a lifetime.”

However, the journey of self-analysis is fraught with challenges, such as personal blind spots, the struggle for objectivity, and the unease that introspection can elicit. Herein lies the dual role of the thought analyst: to act as a reflective mirror for the individual, and to offer the intellectual and emotional scaffolding necessary to achieve autonomy. The thought analyst’s function is to facilitate this process, ensuring that individuals are not only supported but are also guided toward the development of their own philosophical and logical competencies for self-guided problem-solving.

Discussion

Our findings illuminate several previously unexplored aspects of thought analysis. We emphasized that thought analysts require rigorous training to navigate ethical dilemmas and uphold value neutrality effectively. The exemplary cases revealed that thought analysis has a consistent impact on individuals’ ability to reconcile knowledge with action, supporting its potential as a tool for personal development. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the transformative power of thought analysis and its practical value in fostering reflective and reasoned living.

Critics may argue that the non-therapeutic aim of thought analysis does not preclude the potential for psychological impact, raising ethical concerns about the unregulated practice of philosophy in personal well-being. For example, consider the hypothetical scenario where a visitor, after a session of thought analysis, experiences increased anxiety or depression due to the surfacing of previously unexamined beliefs. This underscores the necessity for thought analysts to be trained in handling such situations ethically and effectively. Furthermore, some may contend that the reproducibility of thought analysis results is overstated, citing the subjective nature of philosophical exploration. A counter to this is the structured approach and consistent framework used in thought analysis, which aims to mitigate subjectivity and yield reproducible outcomes. Each of these points calls for a nuanced understanding of thought analysis, recognizing its transformative potential while maintaining a critical stance toward its application.

In addition, as reminded by a reviewer of this paper, we need to clarify the use of “cognitive” in this paper and distinguish thought analysis as a philosophical practice rather than psychological. We acknowledge that existential crises often manifest through cognitive dissonance, where an individual’s philosophical worldview clashes with their experiences or actions. While the nature of an existential crisis may not be purely cognitive, its manifestation often involves cognitive processes, as individuals interpret and make sense of their philosophical dilemmas. Thus, the term “cognitive” in this context is used not in a psychological sense, but rather to describe the individual’s interpretative framework that guides their understanding and response to existential challenges.

As regards the question of when the philosophical counselor becomes/is an analyst, the term “analyst” has been deliberately chosen to reflect the specific role of the practitioner in thought analysis which is distinct from that of a “counselor”. The shift from “counselor” to “analyst” occurs when the practitioner engages primarily in the rigorous examination and interpretation of the visitor’s thoughts and beliefs rather than providing emotional support or advice. This distinction is crucial for the integrity of the practice, as the analyst guides the visitor through self-reflection and logical reasoning without the influence of emotional counsel.

It should also be noted that thought analysis extends beyond academic circles, offering profound benefits across various levels of education and intellectual backgrounds. This discipline utilizes techniques designed to be accessible and engaging, incorporating everyday language, relatable examples, and practical exercises that require no prior knowledge of philosophical concepts (Pan, 2014, 2021). Such inclusivity bridges the gap between abstract philosophical ideas and their practical applications, broadening the appeal of thought analysis (Heslep, 1997; Schön, 1983).

For example, thought analysts commonly employ analogies and metaphors to distill complex logical principles into understandable terms. They might reference everyday scenarios, such as the “Ship of Theseus”, to explore concepts of identity over time, or use simple puzzles like the “Liar Paradox” to introduce principles of truth and falsity. These strategies not only demystify philosophical ideas but also demonstrate their relevance to daily life, thus boosting engagement and comprehension (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; McAdams, 1993; Mercer, 2000).

Additionally, the training of thought analysts emphasizes both a deep understanding of philosophical and logical principles and the development of effective teaching strategies, particularly the Socratic method (Pan, 2013a, 2013d, 2020). This dual focus ensures that complex ideas are communicated clearly to a general audience, democratizing philosophical inquiry and highlighting its utility in addressing real-world problems.

All in all, thought analysis as a mode of philosophical practice addresses the coherence of philosophical notions that guide an individual’s life choices, distinct from the psychological domain. It is the philosophical substance of these notions that thought analysis seeks to recalibrate, not the psychological mechanisms behind them. On the other hand, philosophical practitioners, distinct from psychologists, confront forms of dissonance that are philosophical in nature. They explore the coherence, or lack thereof, between an individual’s philosophical beliefs and their lived experiences, without necessarily adopting a psychological framework for these explorations.

Conclusions

This paper has critically examined thought analysis as a transformative practice within philosophical inquiry, asserting that logical reasoning is not merely an innate human faculty but is significantly developed through education and deliberate practice. This perspective underscores the need for rigorous training and accountability for thought analysts, ensuring they possess both the logical acumen and ethical sensitivity required for effective practice. By operating under the principle of value neutrality, thought analysis respects the autonomy of individuals, facilitating their exploration of beliefs without the imposition of the analyst’s values. While distinct from traditional therapeutic interventions, thought analysis inherently incorporates humanistic care, offering a supportive framework that promotes the harmony between knowledge and action. Its practical value lies in fostering critical thinking, self-awareness, and ethical living, which collectively contribute to reducing confusion and distress in life, ultimately aiding personal and societal development.

In conclusion, thought analysis emerges as a significant and unique mode of intellectual inquiry and self-discovery, effectively bridging the gap between abstract philosophical theory and the demands of everyday life. By empowering individuals to critically examine and modify their cognitive frameworks, thought analysis promotes transformative personal evolution. This process leads to a greater alignment between individuals’ beliefs and actions, enhancing their overall well-being. As such, thought analysis contributes to the flourishing of humanistic care and social harmony, highlighting its relevance and potential impact in contemporary philosophical practice.