After reading numerous articles on the socrtico origin of coaching, I have thought about refuting such argumentation. Inlcuso is a company of RRHH and Coaching that is denominated like the Greek philosopher (1). Scrates was not coach, was a philosopher. Perhaps and coaching is a philosophy, but he is not philosophical. The socrtico method arises in the dialogues from its student Plato, as fundamental personage of that work, whose margins the history of the philosophy has been written that is also the history of the western thought. Pealver indicates, that ” accurately; the dialectic standard which finds enseando” (2).
Of all it is known, that the method of Scrates is the maieutic one. That one that by means of questions to the interlocutor, is slowly extracting the wisdom or the sapiencia of the questioned one. Classically it has been interpreted as if an own process of a matron one was. The mother of Scrates thinks that she was midwife of childbirths in Athens. In this sense one says that socrtico process consists more of remove-of, than in put-in (3). And of there, that many coachings affirm that like Scrates, coach can put or never impose the sapiencia, but it must cause that it leaves in the light of coachee (questioned). As if coach made wake up to us of the forgetfulness of the heideggeriano being.
The same Steiner, interpreted that Scrates did not teach anything. But the certain thing is, that Scrates died poisoned with cicuta, by its coacheados or taught fellow citizens. It wants to finish equal, the Coach? coach cannot affirm like ” that one that only knows that nada” does not know;. Coach cannot be limited to listen to oracles of Delphi, nor to pitonisas Greek. Coach cannot exert like a midwife. Scrates was condemned by Athens, for that reason he was ” tbano” of Athens.
Concepts like their trajectory, their convictions, the values morals, their preferences, their personal sensitivity, their likings of all the life, would not count anything in the personal history of the humanity. Since we have stood out in the text, all the concepts studied in the modules have been reviewed, from the ambiguity of the concept culture that loses the idea of territoriality in favor of the idea of social multiproperty than more geographic, adheriendo itself more to the culture-civilization concept. We also happen through the debate of Universalimos where the cumulative individual happens to be a whole and the particular thing happens to enrich the Universal thing. The concept cultural diversity fruit of the interrelation, contrasts and of the contact between diverse cultures, where the relativismo is explained by interests of being able or the critic to the etnocentrismo and its hierarchies based on the inequalities and/or the tried acculturation that not always obtain like in Maalouf and that we must continue fighting by its coexistence. Also there are outstanding the funcionalista sense of the actions social taking relevance according to the context and the moment. As a result of the final pretension of the text: not to lift the beliefs over truth of the coherence, we have not happened more than of finishing nails through the psychological categories and/or collective personality, where attitudes, behaviors and proper values of the societies are associated that we delimited ourselves territorially. We have visited the idea of another one as it threatens and like idealisation, leaders and foreigners. And mainly we have handled to the interculturalidad terms, criticizing the homogenization like dominant and indiferenciador criterion of the individuals (loss of the identity) with respect to the globalising moment that surrounds to us.
We have not spoken of pluralism, that is rather good and desirable a summation of cultures, but that it entails stratification and coexistence against the interaction idea that a new society with the use of characters, properties or particularitities based on the relevance of the context would generate partly. Either the text speech of multiculturalismo associated to the vindications of national and ethical minorities within a be-nation, del that the Spanish territory is a mosaic to study. And we have used the fundamentalisms, like beliefs, nationalisms, religions, to explain that there are to be discarded, although they are used to justify the genocides and the etnocidios. Accepting like term conciliator a culture sense that secures a consensus in the values, the norms, and that is subject to the changes to balance the relations of being able when these are altered.
Lamentably, for Rondas Farmers wilfulness and freedom for its conversion in Committees of Self-defense were denatured with the DS N 002-93-DE/CCFFAA, when establishing its adjustment forced or obligatory to the mentioned organizational form of self-defense promoted by the security forces, without having sustenance in legal norm some of greater hierarchy. From the historical and normative-functional point of view, Rondas Farmers is different from the Committees of Self-defense in which, first, they arise for the combat of the delinquency, the internal maintenance of order and the resolution of communal conflicts, is independent and permanent and, second, they are originated to face the subversive groups like part of the counter-insurgent state strategy, with the character of transitory and dependent of the Armed Forces. f) The rounds farmers and indigenous the special jurisdiction As it has been indicated previously, the Constitution of 1993, in its article 149, under constitutional configuration of the Peruvian State like a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic nation, when regulating the roll of Rondas Farmers, was affiliated with the spirit of the regulation of the rondero institute contemplated in the General Law of Communities Farmers of 1987 and to a certain extent it picked up the Native reference to Rondas of the Regulation of Organization and Functions of the Committees of Self-defense of 1992, since it recognized its character of organs of support (aid) of the communal authorities native farmers and in the exercise of its jurisdictional functions, within its territorial scope, according to its customary right and with the limit of not violating the fundamental rights of the people. Nevertheless, of the constitutional text it does not appear an express mention to Rondas Farmers organized outside the scope of the Native Communities and the Communities Farmers, who, according to the first Law of Rounds Farmers of 1986, they are in force in which is pertinent by the legislation of the communities farmers without for that reason they become such communities and have like essential functions the defense of their earth, the care of their cattle and other goods, as well as the cooperation with the authorities in the elimination of any crime.