Gert Achenbach’s dictum, “Philosophical Practice does not have a method”, has its friends and its enemies. I am a friend.
It is my thesis, that, since Husserl’s and Wittgenstein’s phenomenological and linguistic interventions in Modern philosophy, professional philosophers cannot use any jargon, expert knowledge, or method whatsoever.
By ‘method’ I understand a fixed way to realize a pre-conceived effect. By example, to manufacture a car, you can do it with robots, or manually. Or to reach the top of a mountain, sometimes you can go by ski lift, or climb up the mountain.
The main method of philosophy aims to conceptualize the world so that we are able to grasp it. And we have quite a lot techniques to do so and follow different schools and paths in doing so. I think it is a misunderstanding of philosophy and philosophical practice that it does not follow methods. Philosophical practice is not a treatment, it does not presuppose a network of possible pathologies of a client which the practitioner could cure.
Many of those who write about methods in philosophical practice refer to the ancient Greek 'methodos'. As the contraction of meta and ´odos indicates, it would just mean that we follow a specific road. We cannot deny that, metaphorically speaking, we follow a road in philosophy practice. So, that's not the issue.
The problem of the "methods in philosophical practice", raised by Leon De Haas is certainly a crucial issue. De Haas, in agreement with Achenbach, states that philosophical practice should not have a method, by which he understands a way to reach a pre-conceived goal; conversely, in the guest's quest of sense in her/his life, the method should be invented while making one's way.
I think that for the still young philosophical counselling it is important not only to define its nature and bring into focus its purposes, but also to clarify its methods and sharpen its tools. Considering some past traditions which have inspired and may inspire the modern philosophical practitioners, one can see how crucial was the discourse on and the praxis of a suitable method.
Philosophical counselors have methods such as questioning background assumptions, examining concepts, clarifying the counselee's thoughts, trying to see familiar situations in a new light, opening up novel ways to understand the counselee's wishes and fears, interpreting dreams, eliciting and fostering the counselee's character strengths, encouraging the counselee in her decisions, urging the counselee to look at things from a detached, objective perspective, and so on. Here 'method' means a way...
Some philosophical practitioners are against methods. This might seem strange. After all, many important philosophers had methods: Aristotle's syllogistic method, Husserl's phenomenological method, the method of conceptual analysis. Epicurus had methods to assess needs, and the Stoics had methods to for philosophical contemplation. So what's wrong with philosophical practitioners using methods?