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.
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.