IJSP Number 4, 2022

60 complications and problems – every solved one will invite others to constantly pop up – and, as a consequence, the whole mental horizon of the person is filled to the brim with the concrete problems that are to be solved (unfortunately, they are never dissolved and, by doing so, made to disappear once and for all). Only from a philosophical point of view can one envisage life itself, ask the fundamental questions, and come up with the really important issues we should (everyone should) deal with: the sense and meaning of life, the finitude of our life, respectively our passing (and not remaining) on this globe, the big issue of our freedom, internal and external, personal, professional, social, and what do we really want from life in order to have maximum of satisfaction and be happy. If we take into consideration another citation from the same author mentioned above, we will see in front of us a whole new, surprising, and totally unexpected perspective. Speaking of his utopian society named “Ecotopia”, Callenbach declares about doctors that they all receive psychiatric tra ining, “though psychology and psychiatry no longer constitute separate fields.” [1]. Such a viewpoint is not only remarkable but also very bold in our context of segregation between the two sister domains dealing with the human mind and soul. How could we conceive this extraordinary ecumenism between the arrogant and superior psychiatrists and the not so sure of themselves psychologists who, at least sometimes, seem to have integrated this two-level classification? Is it possible at least to think of a better and unbiased communication and subsequent understanding between psychiatrists – called ‘doctors’ – and psychologists – who just have to have a doctorate if they want to teach at a university? Why, after all, should not psychiatrists learn from psychologists that a ‘patient’ can be addressed as ‘client’, because he or she is the beneficiary of a service provided by a professional, and that all the medical and therapeutic encounter is whit a person – who incidentally has a name, maybe has feelings, and may have, if somebody would look more attentively, a soul as well. Why don’t they, all those who see only diagnosis and rarely patients around them, watch the wonderful Patch Adams film(with Robin Williams in the leading role), just to learn some very handy lessons about interhuman relationship, which, incidentally, can be therapeutic as well? Here is one citation from the film:“Our job is improving the quality of life, not just delaying death.” [3]. And, after all, “If we're going to fight a disease, let's fight one of the most terrible diseases of all, indifference” [ 3]. Unfortunately, as it seems, all that the medical professions tend to see, register, and treat is just the disease; the fact that this disease is brought to them by a patient, who incidentally is a human being, a person with a name and probably a personality, seems to be of no great relevance. In the same vein, every ‘would be’ client should be looked at as to a person, a fellow human being by every psychologist or psychotherapist; and the same goes for every psychologist or psychotherapist and his or her supervisor. Before we are doctors, psychologists, or supervisors we are human beings in flesh and blood, beings that have feelings, souls, thoughts, hopes, diseases, problems, and issues. The fact that the problems, or issues, or difficulties are the driving force behind our search for help, does not mean that our inherent humanness has disappeared or that it is concealed or swallowed up by our need for help. Our humanness is still there, and it is that substance of ours