The Accesses to Oneself

  • Giampiero Arciero
  • Guido Bondolfi
  • Viridiana Mazzola


The failure of a way of conceiving and grasping man’s being starting from the question of what that being is exactly (the paradigm of production) calls for an ontology capable of thematizing the guiding idea of man that has shaped the development of psychology and psychotherapy. What is suggested, then, is the outlining of a new perspective on man’s being, which is to say, of an ontology—that is phenomenological in its method of inquiry—capable of conceptualizing the incompleteness of existence. Phenomenological ontology thus presents psychology and psychotherapy with a new positum, ipseity, and, hence a new method to study it, formal indication. The chapter explores the impact of this ontology in creating a paradigm shift in psychology and therapeutic practices.


Ipseity Formal indication Constructivist psychotherapy 


  1. Arciero G (2006) Sulle tracce di sé. Bollati Boringhieri, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrien, Sophie-Jan. 2009. Natorp et Heidegger: Une science originaire est-elle possible? In Jollivet, S., & Romano, C. Heidegger en dialogue (1912-1930). Rencontres, affinités, confrontations, Paris, Vrin.Google Scholar
  3. Bambach CR (1993) Phenomenological research as destruktion the early Heidegger’s reading of Dilthey. Philos Today 37(2):115–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gadamer HG (1975) Truth and method (1960). Crossroad, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Gethmann CF (1993) Dasein: Erkennen und Handeln: Heidegger im phänomenologischen Kontext, vol 3. Walter de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  6. Greisch J (2000) L’Arbre de vie et l’Arbre du savoir.: Le chemin phénoménologique de l’herméneutique heideggérienne (1919-1923). Cerf, ParisGoogle Scholar
  7. Guidano VF (1991) The self in process: toward a post-rationalist cognitive therapy. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Kelly G (2003) The psychology of personal constructs: volume two: clinical diagnosis and psychotherapy. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kisiel T (2008) On the genesis of Heidegger’s formally indicative hermeneutics of facticity. In: Raffoul F, Nelson ES (eds) Rethinking Facticity. State University of New York Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Natorp P (1912) Allgemeine Psychologie nach kritischer Methode, vol 1. JCB Mohr (P. Siebeck), TubingenGoogle Scholar
  11. Popper KR (1972) Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Quesne P (2004) Les recherches philosophiques du jeune Heidegger, vol 171. Springer Science & Business Media, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  13. Sheehan T (2014) Making sense of Heidegger: a paradigm shift. Rowman & Littlefield International, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Von Glasersfeld E (1995) Radical constructivism: a way of knowing and learning, Studies in mathematics education series, vol 6. Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis, BristolCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giampiero Arciero
    • 1
    • 2
  • Guido Bondolfi
    • 2
  • Viridiana Mazzola
    • 3
  1. 1.IPRARomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of PsychiatryUniversity Hospital of Geneva, Department of PsychiatryGenèveSwitzerland
  3. 3.Liaison Psychiatry, Department of PsychiatryUniversity Hospital of Geneva, Department of PsychiatryGenèveSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations