The analytical setting today. Epistemological and pragmatic validity of the teleological model

Abstract

Analytical intervention is not complete unless it is, as Adler writes, the point of convergence between the past, the present, and the future. Literature on the subject, often out of fear of being unscientific, especially in a young science such as psychology, has focused more on the theoretical conception of analytical intervention than on its practice and pragmatism. Instead, analysts who present themselves as methodologically trained, autonomous, and creative detach themselves from fiction and clearly understand the futility of an unproductive and artificial analytical setting. The teleological model, and in particular IP, which proposes the uniqueness of the individual and the subjective nature of the phenomena to be investigated, highlights the human, subjective nature of research and analysis. in this way, we can refer to the psychological and social sciences as formulated by man and not as external elements or neurochemical effects that man must only understand and explain. Adler offered his followers an analytical tool that proposes a setting that is less sterile, less reassuring for the analyst himself, but more livable