ABSTRACT
Carl Rogers insists that our approach to therapy is based on our personal philosophy.
He made no claim to be a philosopher; and it is not conventional, even in person-centred circles, to refer to him as such. It probably didn’t occur to him. Gaining and maintaining credibility in the American psychological establishment during the 1940s–1970s was a sufficient challenge, without also asking to be accepted as a philosopher. Nonetheless, here the authors argue that taking Rogers seriously means taking him seriously as a philosopher or, at least, a clinical philosopher, in the sense that his reflections on the nature of the universe, of science, and of the good life, what it means to be human, the ethics of helping, the essence of human relationships: all are the stuff of philosophy—and, therefore, that Rogers should get credit for his contribution to the way we think about such ‘stuff’, matter, and the things of life.
