Detlef Staude argues that, even if in the past the claim of "no method" had the purpose to differentiate philosophical practice from psychotherapy, the diverse understandings and ways presently existing within philosophical practice de facto refer to different methods.

Together with a colleague of mine (Federica Beneventi), I recently submitted for a research project a questionnaire to several philosophical practitioners; the questionnaire, which touched several issues concerning their theoretical and practical orientations, included in particular the question: "Which is your method in your work of philosophical practice/counselling?".

Although different practitioners may follow different methods, all of them, as a matter of fact, do employ some type of technique in their practice. Among those who use some sort of dialogue, Staude uses a meta-dialogue aiming at widening people's perspective in order to help them to find an orientation in their life; Michael Noah Weiss, who works mainly with groups, uses the Socratic Dialogue, and also of the so-called Trilogos method in leading Philo Cafés and guided imageries. On the other hand, also on account of his medical background, Peter Harteloh calls his method "clinical", by which he means: reworking a question into a philosophical question, identifying a philosophical content/diagnosis, reworking the philosophical content in order to come to a conclusion and find a metaphor suiting the life of the counselee. Manos Perrakis underscores the necessity of various methods and techniques in philosophical practice, provided that the different possible approaches may be adapted to the needs of the counselee.

One can hence conclude that within nowadays' philosophical practice there is a broad spectrum of methods of working, yet, the necessity to establish a solid methodological basis in dealing with the problems raised by the counselees is generally acknowledged.