Original Article
Methodological Innovations
1–14
 The Author(s) 2025
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20597991251352420
journals.sagepub.com/home/mio
The philosophical health compass:
A new and comprehensive assessment
tool for researching existential
dimensions of wellbeing
Luis de Miranda1,2 , Charlotta Ingvolstad Malmgren3, Jonathan Eric Carroll4,
Caroline S Gould5, Rodney King6, Christian Funke7, and Sena Arslan8
Abstract
This paper introduces the Philosophical Health Compass (PHC), a quantitative assessment tool designed to complement qua-
litative research methods in investigating philosophical aspects of human wellbeing. The PHC evaluates six dimensions of phi-
losophical health identified through previous research: bodily sense, sense of self, sense of belonging, sense of the possible,
sense of purpose, and philosophical sense. While qualitative approaches in philosophical health excel at capturing rich individ-
ual narratives, their limitations in standardization and scalability constrain systematic research across populations. The PHC
addresses this methodological gap by translating comprehensive philosophical concepts into measurable variables, enabling
researchers to conduct comparative analyses, and integrate philosophical dimensions into an established wellbeing frame-
work. This instrument is grounded in the SMILE_PH interview methodology introduced in 2023 by Luis de Miranda in the
present journal, which has indicated through extensive field application that philosophical and existential health can be sys-
tematically explored through these six interrelated dimensions. We present the compass, its theoretical foundations, metho-
dology, and potential research applications. By offering a standardized approach to evaluating philosophical wellbeing, the
PHC creates new possibilities for interdisciplinary research while acknowledging that this questionnaire is not meant to
replace the depth of the qualitative SMILE_PH dialogue, but rather to facilitate it.
Keywords
Philosophical health, assessment tool, wellbeing, phenomenology, sense-making, SMILE_PH methodology
1Institute for Advanced Studies, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
2Center for Wellbeing, Welfare and Happiness, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden
3Center for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
4Philosophical Practitioner & Existential Psychotherapist in Private Practice in Kentucky, Owensboro, KY, USA
5SMILE_PH Certified Philosophical Practitioner, Center for Future Mind, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA
6 SMILE_PH Certified Independent Researcher and Philosophical Coach, Isle of Man, UK
7SMILE_PH Certified Philosophical Practitioner, Independent Researcher, Dortmund, Germany
8Independent Researcher, Boston, MA, USA
Luis de Miranda is also affiliated to Center for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Corresponding author:
Luis de Miranda, Institute for Advanced Studies, University of Turku, FI-20014, Turku, Finland.
Email: luis.demiranda@utu.fi
Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Introduction
This paper introduces the Philosophical Health Compass
(PHC), a newly developed questionnaire designed to com-
plement the SMILE_PH protocol of dialog and counsel-
ing (Sense-Making Interviews Looking at Elements of
Philosophical Health) previously introduced in this jour-
nal (de Miranda, 2023). The PHC evaluates six
dimensions—or ‘‘senses’’—of philosophical wellbeing
identified through previous qualitative research: bodily
sense, sense of self, sense of belonging, sense of the possi-
ble, sense of purpose, and philosophical sense. Building
on recent developments in philosophical health research
and practice, particularly the SMILE_PH interview meth-
odology, we present the theoretical framework and initial
development of this new and more quantitative assess-
ment tool. The PHC offers researchers and practitioners a
fine-grained approach to evaluating philosophical health,
defined as ‘‘a state of fruitful coherence between a per-
son’s ways of thinking and speaking and their ways of
acting, such that the possibilities for a sublime life are
increased and the need for self- and intersubjective flour-
ishing satisfied.’’ (de Miranda, 2022: 1003).
The concept of philosophical health has gained increas-
ing attention in recent years as researchers and practi-
tioners seek to understand the relationship between
individuals’ philosophical perspectives and their overall
wellbeing (de Miranda, 2024). While qualitative methods
like the SMILE_PH protocol have provided valuable
insights into philosophical health, there remains a need
for a structured assessment tool that can complement
these in-depth interviews. If qualitative approaches excel
at capturing individual narratives, their limitations in
standardization and scalability may constrain systematic
research and outcome measurement, where requested. A
quantitative instrument facilitates comparative analysis
across populations and allows to integrate philosophical
health into the discourse of established wellbeing models.
The Philosophical Health Compass (PHC) represents a
significant step toward addressing this need by offering a
structured approach to evaluating philosophical well-
being. The PHC builds on the SMILE_PH methodology
by offering structured and quantifiable insights that com-
plement the depth of its qualitative dialogues. As a com-
plement to SMILE_PH’s semi-structured format (de
Miranda, 2023), the PHC further structures the 6 elements
of philosophical health (body, self, belonging, possibility,
purpose and worldview, enabling scalability and pattern
identification across populations.
Contemporary approaches to health assessment have
focused primarily on physical and psychological dimen-
sions often behaviorally considered, while the philosophi-
cal aspects of wellbeing have remained largely unmeasured
(Kingma, 2019; Tyreman, 2011). While the healing aspect
of self-examination and the easing dimension of cogito-
based dialogue (inspired by Descartes’ ‘‘I think, therefore I
am’’) is undeniable in unstructured interviews, one might
wonder if the philosophical health approach should aspire
to a more quantitative approach. Purists of philosophical
counselling might answer negatively, but we believe in
experimentation before dismissal. The PHC aims not to
replace but to complement existing qualitative approaches
by providing a more standardized—thus collectively
comparable—way to explore and document people’s
engagement with fundamental philosophical questions
and existential challenges. Unlike tools focused on clinical
mental health, behavioral variations, or general life satis-
faction, the PHC interconnects multiple dimensions such
as bodily sense, sense of the possible and philosophical
sense, bridging existential inquiry with structured assess-
ment (Ryff and Singer, 2008; Steger et al., 2006).
This paper outlines the theoretical underpinnings,
structural framework, and potential applications of this
new instrument, preparing the ground for validation stud-
ies to establish its utility and reliability.
Theoretical framework
The Philosophical Health Compass emerges from con-
temporary developments in philosophical health research.
Its structure reflects the six fundamental dimensions iden-
tified through the SMILE_PH methodology (body, self,
belonging, possibility, purpose, and philosophical sense),
which was developed by Luis de Miranda through exten-
sive philosophical counseling practice and validated for
instance through a pilot study with persons living with
spinal cord injury (de Miranda, 2023). Like the
SMILE_PH method, the PHC’s theoretical framework is
organized around six interconnected dimensions of philo-
sophical wellbeing, each representing a crucial aspect of
how individuals make sense of their existence and engage
with the world.
Bodily sense
The foundation of philosophical health interviews begins
with our embodied experience. As Merleau-Ponty (1968)
argued, we are intertwined sensing bodies within a com-
mon ‘‘flesh of the world.’’ The bodily sense dimension
examines an individual’s awareness of and relationship
with their physical being. This includes experiences of
vitality, comfort with one’s body, awareness of bodily sig-
nals, and connection to nature both within oneself and in
one’s surroundings. The SMILE_PH interviews demon-
strated that even in cases of severe physical limitation,
individuals can develop new ways of sensing themselves
and integrating their bodily experience into a coherent
and eudynamic sense of being and becoming (de
Miranda, 2024).
2 Methodological Innovations 00(0)
Sense of self
The sense of self dimension explores how individuals
understand and maintain their identity. This includes the
consistency of self across different situations, depth of
self-understanding, recognition of personal uniqueness,
and the ability to take responsibility for self-development.
The theoretical grounding for this dimension draws from
both phenomenological traditions and contemporary
research on identity and authenticity. A unified sense of
self seems to be crucial for navigating significant life
changes or challenges (Dweck, 1999; Erikson, 1968;
Owens, 1993).
Sense of belonging
This third dimension acknowledges our fundamental
social nature while recognizing the importance of main-
taining autonomy from groupthink. The sense of belong-
ing phase of the interview examines meaningful
connections with others, engagement with communities,
connection to shared human experience and ideas, and
the balance between independence and group participa-
tion. The theoretical basis for this dimension integrates
insights from social philosophy with practical findings
from philosophical counseling sessions, highlighting the
importance of what de Miranda (2020) terms ‘‘well-
belonging.’’
Sense of the possible
This dimension represents a central aspect of philosophi-
cal health, examining how individuals perceive and
engage with potential futures and opportunities. It draws
from existential philosophy and phenomenology, particu-
larly Binswanger’s notion of ‘‘repossibilization’’—the pro-
cess of helping people rediscover and reclaim their
potential ways of being-in-the-world that have become
closed off through both physical and mental illness,
trauma, or life circumstances. This dimension explores
belief in possibilities during difficult circumstances, recog-
nition of opportunities beyond current limitations, and
the ability to turn obstacles into opportunities for enrich-
ment. The SMILE_PH interviews revealed this sense as
particularly significant for bridging psychological resili-
ence with personal philosophical growth.
Sense of purpose
The fifth dimension investigates how individuals develop
and maintain meaningful life directions. This includes
inspiration from personal values, commitment to higher
purposes, alignment between actions and ideals, and con-
sideration of how one’s purpose benefits others. This
dimension draws theoretical support from existential
philosophy’s emphasis on authentic project-making while
incorporating insights from contemporary research on
meaning and purpose in life.
Philosophical sense
The final dimension examines the individual’s capacity
for conceptual thinking and meaning-making, as well as
for holding a personal cosmology. This includes the abil-
ity to think holistically, notice patterns in life experiences,
consider diverse perspectives, and link daily actions to
broader principles, values, and worldviews. This dimen-
sion represents the integration point where practical wis-
dom meets theoretical understanding, reflecting what
ancient philosophers termed phronesis or practical
wisdom.
Methodology of the PHC and its background
The development of the Philosophical Health Compass
emerged from the proposal to complement (but not
replace) the qualitative insights gained through the
SMILE_PH interview methodology with a more struc-
tured and scalable assessment approach. The question-
naire was conceived and inititally drafted by Luis de
Miranda, and then refined in dialogue with the co-
authors of the present article. Its development followed
directly from extensive philosophical counselling practice
conducted by de Miranda between 2018 and 2024. The
formulation of specific questionnaire items emerged from
systematic analysis of counselling session narratives,
where recurring themes and client experiences were
synthesized into a defined number of stances, one that we
believe is sufficiently comprehensive even if it should not
be seen as exhausting the nuanced nature of singular phi-
losophical dialogue.
The SMILE_PH methodology provided the founda-
tional framework for understanding how individuals
make sense of their philosophical wellbeing. de Miranda’s
extensive practical experience in philosophical interviews,
combined with theoretical insights from first-person phe-
nomenology and existential philosophy, informed the cre-
ation of the questionnaire items. The Sense-Making
Interviews Looking at Elements of Philosophical Health
follow six elements in a systematic order, typically reser-
ving 45 minutes of one-on-one dialogue for each element:
1 – bodily sense, 2 – sense of self, 3 – sense of belonging, 4
– sense of the possible, 5 – sense of purpose and 6 – philo-
sophical sense. In the begining and the end of the proto-
col, 2 sessions of 45 minutes introduce and conclude the 8
sessions of dialogue. There is today a worldwide distribu-
tion of practitioners, most of them holding a PhD and
half of them working in academia, who are certified in the
SMILE_PH method after having followed an intensive
training with Luis de Miranda: in Sweden, the USA,
de Miranda et al. 3
Germany, Australia, the UK, Danemark, Finland and
India. This network is called Philosophical Health
International.
The Philosophical Health Compass consists of 48
stances, with eight statements for each of the six dimen-
sions. These statements were crafted to capture alterna-
tively positive and negative aspects of each dimension,
allowing for a nuanced assessment of an individual’s phi-
losophical health profile. The questionnaire employs a 5-
point rating scale—Completely untrue (1), Rarely true
(2), Undecided (3), Often true (4), and Completely True
(5), incorporating alternating positive and negative item
formulations to mitigate response biases such as social
desirability and acquiescence, thereby enhancing the
instrument’s reliability. The scale enables respondents to
indicate the degree to which each statement reflects their
typical recent experience over the past 4–6weeks.
Each dimension is explored through statements that
address various aspects of that particular sense. For
example, the ‘‘Bodily Sense’’ includes items assessing
vitality, awareness of bodily signals, and connection to
nature. The Sense of Self dimension examines consistency
across situations, self-understanding, personal responsi-
bility, and the recognition of strengths and weaknesses.
This comprehensive approach ensures that each dimen-
sion is evaluated hollistically through multiple facets of
experience. We review below the 48 stances, starting with
the bodily sense:
A. Bodily sense
1. I feel full of vitality.
2. I feel discomfort with my body.
3. I experience my body as a source of joy.
4. I don’t feel grateful for being in my body.
5. I am aware of and act on my body’s signals.
6. I feel disconnected from nature, both within myself and
in my surroundings.
7. I move with fluidity around the physical world.
8. I find it difficult to gain insights from my body’s
experiences.
The foundation of philosophical health begins with
our embodied experience. The bodily sense dimension
examines an individual’s awareness of and relationship
with their physical being through eight carefully selected
statements, each grounded in philosophical and empirical
research.
The first statement, ‘‘I feel full of vitality,’’ draws for
instance from Bergson’s (1907/2007) concept of e´lan vital
and contemporary vitality research. Stern’s (2010) work
on vitality forms demonstrates how the experience of
being alive manifests in dynamic bodily states. This fun-
damental aspect of embodied existence serves as a pri-
mary indicator of philosophical health, reflecting what
Spinoza (1677/1996) termed conatus, the essential striving
to persist in earthly being.
The second statement, ‘‘I feel discomfort with my
body,’’ addresses the phenomenology of bodily alienation
described by Fuchs (2005). This negative formulation cap-
tures what Leder (1990) calls ‘‘dys-appearance,’’ where
the body becomes problematically present rather than
seamlessly integrated into experience. Research in embo-
died cognition (Gallagher, 2005) suggests that bodily
comfort significantly influences cognitive and emotional
wellbeing.
The third statement, ‘‘I experience my body as a source
of joy,’’ builds on Nietzsche’s (1883–1885/2006) celebra-
tion of embodied existence and Spinoza’s theory of
affects, joie de vivre being the mother of all emotions.
Contemporary research by Sheets-Johnstone (2011) on
the primacy of movement demonstrates how bodily joy
forms a foundation for psychological flourishing.
The fourth statement, ‘‘I don’t feel grateful for being in
my body,’’ explores the relationship between embodiment
and gratitude, inspired by phenomenological perspectives
on the gift of existence (Marion, 2002) and research on
embodied gratitude practices (Emmons and McCullough,
2003).
The fifth statement, ‘‘I am aware of and act on my
body’s signals,’’ reflects Gendlin’s (1978) concept of focus-
ing and contemporary research on interoception (Craig,
2015). This awareness represents a crucial bridge between
bodily experience and decision-making, supported by neu-
robiological studies of embodied cognition (Damasio,
1994).
The sixth statement, ‘‘I feel disconnected from nature,
both within myself and in my surroundings,’’ addresses
eco-phenomenology (Brown and Toadvine, 2003) and
research on nature-connectedness (Schultz, 2002). This
dimension recognizes the body as our primary means of
connecting with the natural world, a perspective sup-
ported by deep ecology (Naess, 1973) and environmental
philosophy.
The seventh statement, ‘‘I move with fluidity around
the physical world,’’ draws from Merleau-Ponty’s (1945/
2012) analysis of motor intentionality and contemporary
research on kinesthetic consciousness (Sheets-Johnstone,
2011). This proprioceptive aspect of bodily sense reflects
what Dreyfus (1996) describes as skilled coping, where
expertise manifests as fluid, responsive engagement with
the environment.
The eighth statement, ‘‘I find it difficult to gain insights
from my body’s experiences,’’ addresses embodied knowl-
edge and somatic learning (Johnson, 2007). This metacog-
nitive dimension reflects recent work in embodied
cognition suggesting that bodily experiences provide cru-
cial information for decision-making and understanding
(Clark, 2015).
4 Methodological Innovations 00(0)
These eight statements were selected and refined after
extensive philosophical practice. Together, they provide a
comprehensive assessment of bodily sense that encom-
passes vitality, comfort, joy, gratitude, awareness, nature-
connection, movement, and bodily insight. The combina-
tion of positively and negatively worded items helps mini-
mize response bias (blurring—although not completely
preventing—injunctions of desirability or normativity)
while capturing the multifaceted nature of embodied
experience.
B. Sense of Self
1. I tend to be the same person in all situations.
2. I struggle to recognize what makes me unique.
3. I believe I understand myself deeply.
4. I am confused about certain aspects of myself.
5. I take responsibility for shaping who I am.
6. I find it difficult to recognize my inner wisdom.
7. I achieve success while staying true to who I am.
8. I find it challenging to differentiate my strengths from
my weaknesses.
The sense of self dimension explores how individuals
understand and maintain their identity through eight
statements, each anchored in philosophical tradition and
contemporary research.
The first statement, ‘‘I tend to be the same person in all
situations,’’ addresses the philosophical problem of per-
sonal identity persistence. This draws for instance from
Ricoeur’s (1992) concept of narrative identity, which illu-
minates how selfhood emerges through the ongoing work
of maintaining coherence across time and varied life con-
texts. Contemporary research by McAdams (2001) on
narrative psychology supports the importance of main-
taining a consistent self-story while adapting to different
social contexts. However, this consistency should not be
confused with rigidity; rather, it reflects what Erikson
(1968) termed integrity or identity synthesis.
The second statement, ‘‘I struggle to recognize what
makes me unique,’’ examines individual distinctiveness
and self-knowledge. This negative formulation draws
from Taylor’s (1989) work on the sources of self and
authenticity. Modern research on self-concept clarity
(Campbell et al., 1996) demonstrates how the ability to
recognize one’s uniqueness correlates with psychological
well-being and decision-making capacity.
The third statement, ‘‘I believe I understand myself
deeply,’’ reflects the Socratic imperative of self-knowledge
and Heidegger’s (1927/1962) concept of authenticity. This
metacognitive aspect of self-understanding has been sup-
ported by research on psychological mindedness (Beitel
et al., 2005) and its relationship to personal growth and
adaptation.
The fourth statement, ‘‘I am confused about certain
aspects of myself,’’ acknowledges the inherent complexity
of selfhood described for instance by Jung’s (1928/1966)
work on individuation. This statement recognizes what
Kierkegaard (1849/1983) identified as the necessary ten-
sion between self-knowledge and self-mystery, supported
by contemporary research on self-complexity (Linville,
1987).
The fifth statement, ‘‘I take responsibility for shaping
who I am,’’ draws from Sartre’s (1943/1992) existential
philosophy of radical responsibility and agency. Modern
research on psychological ownership (Pierce et al., 2001)
and personal agency (Bandura, 2006) confirms the impor-
tance of actively engaging in self-development and self-
creation.
The sixth statement, ‘‘I find it difficult to recognize my
inner wisdom,’’ addresses the philosophical concept of
practical wisdom or phronesis (Aristotle, 2009). This con-
nects to contemporary research on intuitive decision-
making (Kahneman and Klein, 2009) and embodied cog-
nition (Varela et al., 1991), highlighting the importance of
accessing internal guidance.
The seventh statement, ‘‘I achieve success while staying
true to who I am,’’ explores the relationship between
authenticity and achievement. This draws from
Heidegger’s concept of Eigentlichkeit (authenticity) and is
supported by research showing the positive outcomes of
authentic self-expression (Kernis and Goldman, 2006).
The eighth statement, ‘‘I find it challenging to differ-
entiate my strengths from my weaknesses,’’ examines self-
evaluation capacity. This echoes James’s (1890/1981) clas-
sical work on self-concept and modern research on accu-
rate self-assessment (Dunning et al., 2004), highlighting
the importance of balanced self-perception in philosophi-
cal health.
Together, these statements evaluate key aspects of self-
relation: consistency, uniqueness, understanding, com-
plexity, responsibility, wisdom, authenticity, and self-
assessment. The mix of positive and negative formula-
tions is meant to help capture the nuanced nature of self-
experience while reducing response bias.
C. Sense of Belonging
1. I experience meaningful connections with others
2. I feel disconnected from the communities around me.
3. I feel a strong sense of connection to the shared human
experience.
4. I struggle to feel connected to something greater than
myself.
5. I consider life in general as a familiar domain.
6. I struggle to balance time for myself with time spent
connecting with others.
7. I maintain my independence while belonging to groups.
8. I don’t feel free to express my thoughts in groups.
The sense of belonging dimension examines how indi-
viduals experience and navigate their connections to
de Miranda et al. 5
others and to broader communities. Each of the eight
statements in this dimension reflects crucial aspects of
social existence and communal life, grounded in philoso-
phical scholarship and empirical research.
The first statement, ‘‘I experience meaningful connec-
tions with others,’’ reflects Buber’s (1923/1970) I-Thou
relationship, where one transcends utilitarian interactions
to encounter others in their full humanity. Contemporary
research by Baumeister and Leary (1995) or Allen (2020)
confirms that the need for meaningful social bonds repre-
sents a fundamental human motivation. This statement
captures what phenomenologists like Schu¨tz (1967)
described as the intersubjective nature of human
experience.
The second statement, ‘‘I feel disconnected from the
communities around me,’’ explores the negative experi-
ence of social alienation described in Marx’s early writ-
ings and elaborated by critical theorists of the Frankfurt
School. Modern research on social isolation by Cacioppo
and Hawkley (2009) demonstrates how disconnection
from community impacts both physical and mental
health. This negative formulation helps identify barriers
to what To¨nnies (1887/2001) termed Gemeinschaft, or
authentic community life. It captures the essential tension
between individualism and esprit de corps in contempo-
rary life (de Miranda, 2020).
The third statement, ‘‘I feel a strong sense of connec-
tion to the shared human experience,’’ draws from philo-
sophical anthropology, particularly Heidegger’s concept
of Mitsein (being-with) and Levinas’s (1961/1969) ethics
of alterity. Research on common humanity recognition
(Neff, 2003) supports the importance of feeling connected
to broader human experience for psychological well-
being.
The fourth statement, ‘‘I struggle to feel connected to
something greater than myself,’’ addresses what
Durkheim (1912/1995) identified as the human need for
transcendent social connection. This relates to contempo-
rary research on meaning in life (Steger et al., 2006) which
emphasizes the importance of feeling part of something
larger than oneself. This stance announces the subsequent
exploration into the sense of purpose.
The fifth statement, ‘‘I consider life in general as a famil-
iar domain,’’ reflects the phenomenological concept of life-
world (Lebenswelt) developed by Husserl and elaborated by
Schu¨tz (1967). This sense of being ‘‘at home’’ in the world
connects to research on ontological security (Giddens,
1991) and its importance for psychological well-being.
The sixth statement, ‘‘I struggle to balance time for
myself with time spent connecting with others,’’ addresses
what Simmel (1908/1971) identified as the fundamental
tension between individuation and sociation. Modern
research on work-life balance and social integration
(Greenhaus and Powell, 2006) confirms the ongoing chal-
lenge of managing this dialectic.
The seventh statement, ‘‘I maintain my independence
while belonging to groups,’’ explores what de Miranda
(2020) terms ‘‘well-belonging’’—the capacity to partici-
pate in community while maintaining individual auton-
omy. This reflects research on optimal distinctiveness
theory (Brewer, 1991), which suggests humans need to
balance uniqueness and inclusion.
The eighth statement, ‘‘I don’t feel free to express my
thoughts in groups,’’ examines what Habermas (1984)
termed communicative action—the ability to participate
authentically in social discourse. Contemporary research
on group dynamics and psychological safety
(Edmondson, 1999), along with Yalom’s (1995) work on
group cohesion, demonstrates how the freedom to express
oneself authentically enhances both individual and collec-
tive well-being while preventing groupthink.
Together, these statements evaluate key aspects of
belonging: meaningful connection, community integra-
tion, human universality, transcendence, social comfort,
balance, autonomy, and expression. Here again, the com-
bination of positive and negative formulations helps cap-
ture the complex nature of social experience while
controlling for response bias. Moreover, from the philo-
sophical health perspective, there are no optimal answers,
but rather, a variety of possible eudynamic combinations
between the senses such that different forms of life can be
made to become compossible.
D. Sense of the Possible
1. I believe many possibilities exist even in difficult
circumstances.
2. I doubt my potential to create positive change in my
life.
3. I recognize opportunities beyond current limitations.
4. I avoid engaging with creative challenges.
5. I turn obstacles into opportunities for enrichment.
6. I find it difficult to recognize opportunities in uncertain
situations.
7. I believe in our shared ability to create positive change.
8. I struggle to balance new opportunities with existing
responsibilities.
The sense of the possible dimension examines how
individuals perceive and engage with potential futures
and opportunities. This sense is where research on crea-
lectics (de Miranda, 2021) is connected with work on
philosophical health. This dimension is particularly cru-
cial as it echoes what Binswanger (1960) termed
Wiederermo¨glichung or ‘‘repossibilization’’—the restora-
tion of one’s sense of life’s possibilities. Each statement
has been carefully formulated to capture different
aspects of how individuals relate to possibility and
potential. They evaluate key aspects of possibility: belief
in possibilities, sense of agency, recognition of opportu-
nities, creative engagement, obstacle transformation,
6 Methodological Innovations 00(0)
uncertainty navigation, collective possibility, and possi-
bility management.
The first statement, ‘‘I believe many possibilities exist
even in difficult circumstances,’’ addresses what Sartre
(1943/1992) identified as the fundamental structure of
human consciousness—its orientation toward possibilities
beyond the bad faith of overestimating past or received
obstacles. This statement reflects Heidegger’s (1927/1962)
concept of Mo¨glich-sein (being-possible) and connects to
contemporary research on faith or hope theory (Snyder,
2002). Studies have demonstrated that maintaining a
sense of possibilities during adversity correlates strongly
with resilience and psychological well-being.
The second statement, ‘‘I doubt my potential to create
positive change in my life,’’ explores what Bandura (1997)
terms self-efficacy, connecting to philosophical discus-
sions of agency and free will. This negative formulation
reveals barriers to dynamis—Aristotle’s concept of the
potential to effect change—which in its positive expres-
sion manifests as eudynamia (de Miranda, 2022).
Research by Dweck (2006) on growth mindset demon-
strates how beliefs about one’s potential to change signifi-
cantly impact behavior and outcomes.
The third statement, ‘‘I recognize opportunities beyond
current limitations,’’ which proposes a nuance on the first
statement, draws for instance from Ernst Bloch’s (1954/
1986) philosophy of hope and his post-psychoanalytic
concept of the ‘‘not-yet-conscious.’’ This capacity to envi-
sion possibilities beyond current constraints connects to
research on prospection and mental time travel (Seligman
et al., 2013). Studies show that the ability to imagine alter-
native futures plays a crucial role in planning and
motivation.
The fourth statement, ‘‘I avoid engaging with creative
challenges,’’ addresses what Bergson (1907/2007) identi-
fied as the creative aspect of possibility—the capacity to
bring forth genuinely new solutions and approaches.
Modern creativity research (Kaufman and Sternberg,
2010) confirms that willingness to engage with creative
challenges correlates with both psychological flexibility
and life satisfaction.
‘‘I turn obstacles into opportunities for enrichment,’’
aligns with Nietzsche’s amor fati—love of fate—and reso-
nates with modern positive psychology research on post-
traumatic growth (Tedeschi and Calhoun, 2004). This
statement exemplifies research on ‘‘crealectic intelli-
gence’’—the capacity to transform limitations into com-
possibilities, harmoniously and dynamically coexisting
possibilities (de Miranda, 2021).
The sixth statement, ‘‘I find it difficult to recognize
opportunities in uncertain situations,’’ examines what
Kierkegaard (1844/1980) described as anxiety before pos-
sibility. Contemporary research on tolerance of uncer-
tainty (Carleton, 2016) demonstrates how the ability to
recognize opportunities amid ambiguity impacts decision-
making and well-being.
The seventh statement, ‘‘I believe in our shared ability
to create positive change,’’ addresses what Arendt (1958)
termed ‘‘natality’’—the human capacity to bring new
beginnings into the world. This collective dimension of
possibility connects to research on collective efficacy
(Bandura, 2000) and social change beliefs.
The eighth statement, ‘‘I struggle to balance new
opportunities with existing responsibilities,’’ explores
what James (1890/1981) called the ‘‘multiverse’’ of possi-
bilities and the practical challenges of navigating them.
Modern research on opportunity costs and decision-
making (Shepard and Bardakci, 2020) confirms the
importance of effectively managing multiple possibilities
within frames of duty, necessity, or obligation.
E. Sense of Purpose
1. I am inspired by values that are meaningful to me.
2. I lack a strong sense of purpose or direction in life.
3. I remain committed to my chosen purpose even in chal-
lenging situations.
4. I sense that my goals are focused primarily on my own
success.
5. I can clearly articulate my higher purpose.
6. I find it difficult to align my actions with my ideals.
7. I make an effort to understand other people’s purposes.
8. I do not consider how my purpose benefits others.
The sense of purpose dimension examines how individ-
uals develop and maintain meaningful life directions. This
dimension echoes Frankl’s (1946/2006) insight that the
search for meaning represents a fundamental human
motivation. Each statement in this dimension has been
carefully formulated to capture different aspects of how
individuals understand and pursue purpose in their lives.
The first statement, ‘‘I am inspired by values that are
meaningful to me,’’ addresses what Taylor (1989) calls
‘‘strong evaluation’’—the capacity to make distinctions
about the worth of different desires and purposes based
on qualitative assessments. This connects to contempo-
rary research on values-based living by Hayes et al.
(2012), which demonstrates how alignment with personal
values contributes to psychological flexibility and well-
being. The emphasis on inspiration rather than mere rec-
ognition reflects Maslow’s (1971) work on self-
actualization through value realization.
The second statement, ‘‘I lack a strong sense of purpose
or direction in life,’’ addresses what Frankl (1946/2006)
termed the ‘‘existential vacuum’’ or what Kierkegaard
(1849/1983) more dramatically described as ‘‘despair’’—
the fundamental crisis of meaning and selfhood. Modern
research on purpose in life by Ryff and Singer (2008) con-
firms that the absence of purpose correlates strongly with
de Miranda et al. 7
decreased psychological well-being and increased vulner-
ability to mental health challenges. This negative formula-
tion helps identify the presence of what Maddi (1967)
termed existential neurosis, distinguished by chronic
meaninglessness, teleonomic apathy, and aimlessness.
The third statement, ‘‘I remain committed to my cho-
sen purpose even in challenging situations,’’ draws for
instance from Nietzsche’s concept of amor fati and the
Stoic tradition of maintaining purpose through adversity.
Contemporary research on grit and perseverance
(Duckworth et al., 2007) demonstrates how commitment
to long-term purposes correlates with achievement and
life satisfaction. This statement captures what the philoso-
phical tradition calls practical wisdom (phronesis)—the
capacity to maintain ethical direction amid life’s complex-
ities. Phronesis arises from ongoing reflection on values
as one moves through life. This thoughtful, observant
way of being brings people a fluency in judging their per-
ceptions of the world and making sound choices when
needed. It is of the first importance in living a meaningful,
authentic life. Some people achieve it only in restricted
spheres: for example, one might have phronesis as a phy-
sician, making expert diagnoses as a result of keeping up
with medical science and astutely studying many particu-
lar cases. Philosophical health is more interested in holis-
tic purpose and existential phronesis, rather than
fragmented expertise.
The fourth statement, ‘‘I sense that my goals are
focused primarily on my own success,’’ examines what
MacIntyre (1981) identified as the tension between indi-
vidual achievement and broader social goods. Research
on eudaimonic well-being (Ryan and Deci, 2001) demon-
strates that goals focused solely on personal gain rarely
yield lasting satisfaction, making this statement crucial
for assessing whether an individual’s sense of purpose
transcends self-interest.
The fifth statement, ‘‘I can clearly articulate my higher
purpose,’’ reflects the philosophical tradition of examined
living exemplified for instance by Socrates. Modern
research on meaning in life (Steger et al., 2006) demon-
strates that the ability to articulate one’s overall purpose
correlates with life satisfaction and psychological well-
being. This metacognitive aspect of purpose connects to
what Taylor (1989) calls ‘‘strong evaluation’’—the capac-
ity to reflect on and articulate our fundamental
commitments.
The sixth statement, ‘‘I find it difficult to align my
actions with my ideals,’’ addresses what Frankfurt
(1971) termed the relationship between first-order
desires and second-order volitions. Contemporary
research on value-behavior consistency (Sheldon and
Elliot, 1999) shows how misalignment between ideals
and actions can lead to decreased well-being and life
satisfaction. This statement helps identify practical chal-
lenges in purpose realization.
The seventh statement, ‘‘I make an effort to under-
stand other people’s purposes,’’ explores the intersubjec-
tive dimension of purpose described by phenomenologists
like Schu¨tz (1967). Research on empathy and perspective-
taking (Davis, 1983) demonstrates how understanding
others’ purposes and theory of mind contributes to social
cohesion and mutual understanding. This statement
reflects the social embeddedness of purpose-formation.
The eighth statement, ‘‘I do not consider how my pur-
pose benefits others,’’ probes what Singer (1981) and
other moral philosophers describe as the critical expan-
sion of ethical concern beyond self-interest to encompass
wider human welfare. This was also Kant’s concern when
conceiving the universal categorical imperative. Modern
research on prosocial purpose (Damon et al., 2003) shows
how aims to benefit others tend to provide more lasting
satisfaction than purely self-focused goals. This negative
formulation helps identify limitations in the scope of
one’s purpose orientation.
Together, these stances evaluate key aspects of pur-
pose: value inspiration, purpose presence, commitment,
scope, articulation, implementation, understanding, and
beneficence. The combination of positive and negative
formulations helps here once more to capture the complex
nature of purpose while partially controlling for response
bias.
F. Philosophical Sense
1. I face problems via conceptual thinking.
2. I don’t think about situations from a holistic pers-
pective.
3. I notice patterns that help me make sense of life.
4. I rarely consider diverse perspectives when making
decisions.
5. I link my daily actions to broader principles and values.
6. I struggle to make meaning out of my experiences.
7. I recognize how my worldview influences my decisions.
8. I struggle to stay reflective during challenging mo-
ments.
The philosophical sense dimension examines how indi-
viduals engage with conceptual thinking and meaning-
making in their lives. This final dimension represents the
integration point where practical wisdom meets theoreti-
cal understanding, reflecting what the ancient Greeks
termed sophia—the highest form of wisdom. Each state-
ment has been carefully formulated to capture different
aspects of philosophical engagement with experience.
The first statement, ‘‘I face problems via conceptual
thinking,’’ addresses what Kant (1781/1998) for instance
identified as the fundamental human capacity for abstract
thought and category formation. Modern cognitive sci-
ence research on conceptual processing (Barsalou, 2008)
aligns with Kant’s (1781/1998) understanding of the
transcendental unity of apperception, demonstrating how
8 Methodological Innovations 00(0)
this ability underpins both comprehension and problem-
solving. This negative formulation reveals barriers to
what Piaget termed formal operational thinking—the
capacity to manipulate abstract concepts and ideas,
beyond mere perceptions or emotional responses.
The second statement, ‘‘I don’t think about situations
from a holistic perspective,’’ explores what Hegel (1807/
1977) termed speculative thinking—the ability to grasp the
interconnected whole of experience. Contemporary research
on systems thinking (Senge, 2006) confirms how holistic
perspective-taking enables understanding of complex situa-
tions and adaptive decision-making. As Bowen (1978)
noted, the systems way of thinking includes both the emo-
tional and intellectual perspectives, aligning with what phe-
nomenologists call the horizon structure of experience—the
broader context within which particular experiences make
sense. This is also where the Leibnizian idea of compossible
intelligence plays a role (de Miranda, 2024).
The third statement, ‘‘I notice patterns that help me
make sense of life,’’ draws for instance from gestalt psy-
chology and philosophical work on pattern recognition,
as well as Wittgenstein’s (1953/2009) concept of ‘‘seeing
as.’’ Recent research on meaning-making processes (Park,
2010) demonstrates how pattern recognition contributes
to coherent life narratives and psychological well-being.
This statement captures what hermeneutic philosophers
call the interpretive dimension of human understanding.
De Miranda speaks of ‘‘proprioconception,’’ the capacity
to feel one’s thinking in spacetime through an intercrea-
tive dialogue with the world.
The fourth statement, ‘‘I rarely consider diverse per-
spectives when making decisions,’’ addresses what for
instance Mill (1859/2003) identified as the importance of
considering multiple viewpoints. Modern research on
perspective-taking and cognitive flexibility (Davis, 1983)
shows how considering diverse viewpoints leads to better
decision-making and more nuanced understanding. This
negative formulation helps identify limitations in philoso-
phical openness.
The fifth statement, ‘‘I link my daily actions to broader
principles and values,’’ reflects what MacIntyre (1981)
termed practical rationality—the capacity to connect par-
ticular actions with general principles. Research on
values-based living (Hayes et al., 2012) demonstrates how
this connection between abstract principles and concrete
actions contributes to psychological coherence and well-
being. The alignment between action and thought is a
core tenet of the philosophical health approach.
The sixth statement, ‘‘I struggle to make meaning out
of my experiences,’’ examines what phenomenologists call
sense-making—the fundamental human activity of inter-
preting and finding significance in experience.
Contemporary research on meaning-making (Baumeister
and Vohs, 2002) shows how this capacity influences resili-
ence and life satisfaction. This statement helps identify
challenges in what Dilthey called the hermeneutic dimen-
sion of human life. The process of sense-making is the
backbone of the SMILE_PH method.
The seventh statement, ‘‘I recognize how my worldview
influences my decisions,’’ explores what philosophers of
science term theory-ladenness—the inherent way our fun-
damental assumptions shape our perceptions and choices,
beyond simple positive or negative valuation. Modern
research on metacognition and decision-making (Flavell,
1979) confirms the importance of understanding our own
interpretive frameworks. This statement reflects the reflex-
ive dimension of philosophical thinking. An explicit per-
sonal cosmology or worldview can mitigate the damage of
the hidden ideologies that structure human societies.
The eighth statement, ‘‘I struggle to stay reflective during
challenging moments,’’ addresses what the Stoics termed
philosophical practice—the application of wisdom in diffi-
cult situations. Research on both mindfulness and metacog-
nition (Bishop et al., 2004) demonstrates how maintaining
reflective awareness during challenges contributes to better
outcomes and psychological regulation. Inspired by
Aristotle, philosophical health allows for the composition
of a second character, one that reduces the affect-based
character inherited from the first decades of life.
Together, these eight statements evaluate key aspects
of philosophical sense: conceptual thinking, holistic per-
spective, pattern recognition, viewpoint consideration,
principle application, sense-making, worldview aware-
ness, and reflective capacity. This final dimension com-
pletes the Philosophical Health Compass by examining
the cognitive and meaning-making capacities that allow
individuals to integrate their experience across all previ-
ous dimensions. The philosophical sense serves as both a
capstone to the assessment and a meta-perspective on the
other five dimensions, reflecting the recursive nature of
philosophical health.
Questionnaire administration
The PHC is designed to be self-administered, with clear
instructions provided to respondents regarding the time-
frame they should consider when rating each statement.
The questionnaire begins with explicit guidance about
considering one’s typical recent experience over the past
4–6weeks, emphasizing the importance of reflecting on
how frequently or consistently each statement applies dur-
ing this period. The 4–6weeks timeframe seems psycho-
metrically sound for several key reasons: it is long enough
to identify stable patterns rather than temporary states; it
allows for observation across multiple life situations; it is
recent enough for accurate recall and reduces retrospec-
tive bias compared to longer periods. Moreover, it pro-
vides sufficient duration to notice shifts in patterns and
allows time for reflection on patterns of thinking.
de Miranda et al. 9
To ensure the questionnaire’s clarity and relevance, a
feedback document may accompany the assessment tool,
which also encourages further self-reflection via co-cre-
ation. This document can solicit detailed responses about
the comprehensibility of items, the manageability of the
questionnaire’s length, respondent engagement, and the
personal relevance of the items. The feedback protocol
could include specific sections for each dimension, allow-
ing respondents to identify any items that may be confus-
ing, redundant, or uncomfortable to answer. The PHC has
been used in SMILE_PH dialogue sessions, emphasizing
the fact that rather than correct answers it is the reflection
on the answers that matters most to cultivate philosophical
health. It would be a mistake to consider the PHC as nor-
mative, as it is not meant to indicate what form of life is
better than others but rather to encourage singular and
personal work on what matters eudynamically.
An additional feedback document may also explore
broader aspects of the questionnaire’s effectiveness,
including: overall clarity and ease of understanding;
appropriateness of the questionnaire’s length; level of
engagement during completion; personal relevance of the
items; specific feedback for each dimension; and sugges-
tions for improvement.
Discussion and application
In combination with the SMILE_PH method, the PHC
serves as a complementary assessment tool that prepares
for in-depth semi-structured interviews and enables com-
parative analysis. The SMILE_PH protocol is a sequential
step-by-step inquiry into personal philosophy of life. This
protocol is advantageous over other inquiry methods into
personal philosophies of life in that it prevents overwhelm-
ing the interviewee with abstract conceptions—an issue
that frequently occurs when philosophical questions initi-
ate conversations. The SMILE_PH protocol functions as
an innovative tool for structuring in-depth semi-structured
interviews because it enables capturing personal narratives
by establishing a framework with semi-structured flexibil-
ity, allowing for adaptation to participants’ responses.
As a qualitative method, SMILE_PH contributes to
research on philosophical health by informing reproduci-
ble and comparable interview design on personal philoso-
phy of life that can be used with populations lacking
formal philosophical training (de Miranda, 2023).
However, the benefits for research in philosophical health
reach limitations regarding standardization and scalabil-
ity, which limits scientific development and interdisciplin-
ary advance. The PHC compensates for this gap in
quantitative research methodology. This quantitative
instrument enables outcome tracking and thereby opens a
new field of philosophically-grounded comparative stud-
ies on wellbeing.
Quantitative instruments in research, such as the PHC,
could enable comparative analysis across large-scale
groups, and consequently integrate philosophical health
into established wellbeing frameworks by measuring phi-
losophical flourishing. As established previously, the
PHC offers a significant step toward this desideratum. By
carefully typologizing specific dimensions of philosophi-
cal health within the SMILE_PH methodology, the PHC
makes it possible to scale data collection and identify pat-
terns across wider populations.
The PHC may then serve as a tool for investigating
relationships between philosophical health and other
dimensions of wellbeing, such as examining correlations
between sense of purpose and psychological resilience, or
exploring how bodily sense relates to physical health out-
comes. The structured format of the questionnaire could
facilitate larger-scale studies than are possible with purely
qualitative approaches, potentially enabling researchers
to identify patterns and correlations that might not be
apparent through individual interviews alone.
Traditional models of mental and emotional wellbeing
often neglect or minimize philosophical dimensions, and
tend to still rely on behaviorism. With PHC providing
validated measures, philosophical wellbeing can offer a
more holistic view of overall health. Additionally, a stan-
dardized tool enables repeated measures over time and
thus facilitates longitudinal research to explore how phi-
losophical wellbeing evolves, whether it responds to inter-
ventions, and if it correlates with other mental health or
quality-of-life indicators.
Educational applications represent another potential
implementation area for research. The PHC could serve
as a tool for helping students develop greater self-
awareness and philosophical reflection. Its structured
approach to examining different aspects of philosophical
health might prove valuable in courses on personal devel-
opment, philosophy, or healthcare humanities.
While the questionnaire provides a structured frame-
work for evaluation, it should be viewed as one compo-
nent within a broader toolkit for understanding and
supporting philosophical health. Because six dimensions
assessed by the PHC align with the progressive structure
of the SMILE_PH interviews, this allows for triangula-
tion between quantitative and qualitative data. This inte-
gration of methods could provide richer insights into the
nature of philosophical health and its development over
time.
Limitations, challenges, and future
directions
Potential limitations of the current version of the PHC
must be acknowledged, but they are not exceptional.
First, as a newly developed instrument, it requires
10 Methodological Innovations 00(0)
extensive validation studies to establish its psychometric–
or rather, philometric–properties. The relationship
between questionnaire responses and actual philosophical
health outcomes needs to be carefully investigated
through empirical and qualitative research.
The self-report nature of the questionnaire presents
another typical limitation. Individuals’ ability to accu-
rately assess their own states of mind may vary consider-
ably, and responses could be influenced by various forms
of bias, including social desirability bias and current emo-
tional states. The degree to which questionnaire responses
reflect stable traits versus temporary states also requires
investigation. This usual limitation of scales is less impor-
tant within the Philosophical Health framework, because
of the primary importance it gives to dialogue rather than
relying heavily on measurements.
Cultural considerations present another significant
challenge. The PHC has been developed within a primar-
ily Western philosophical framework, and its applicability
across different cultural contexts needs careful examina-
tion. The very concepts underlying each dimension may
be understood differently in various cultural traditions.
Having said this, the long experience of philosophical dia-
logue upon which Luis de Miranda conceived the PHC
includes +1000 participants from all regions and socio-
spheres of the world: experience shows that humans feel
the need to engage in meaning-making even when the
Western level of material comfort is not individually
attained.
As noted earlier, there is a risk of normativity in the
PHC approach, which may conflict with the openness of
philosophical dialogue. This is why we insist in combining
the questionnaire with the original SMILE_PH method of
semi-structured interviews, to preserve individuality and
discursive freedom. Inevitably, the questionnaire, being a
quantitative tool, if used in isolation, may miss innumer-
able aspects of our ways of making sense of our existential
enrichment or impoverishment. Ignoring the SMILE_PH
dialogues to favor only the questionnaire might damage
the spirit of philosophical interviewing, which focuses on
people’s discursive freedom, existential uniqueness, and
cognitive singularity, rather than the statistical aspect of
their psychology. There is not one unique way of being
philosophically healthy.
Nevertheless, the development of the PHC opens sev-
eral important avenues for future research and develop-
ment. Validation studies represent the most immediate
priority, particularly cross-cultural validation to assess
the PHC’s applicability across diverse populations, con-
struct validation to confirm theoretical dimensions, and
longitudinal studies to examine the instrument’s sensitiv-
ity to change over time. Such studies should examine and
question both the psychometric or philometric properties
of the instrument and its practical utility in various
applications.
Longitudinal studies will be important for under-
standing how philosophical health, as measured by the
PHC, may change over time and in response to various
interventions. Such research could help establish the
questionnaire’s sensitivity to change and its utility in
measuring outcomes in philosophical counseling and
other interventions.
Further refinement of the questionnaire items based on
systematic feedback from users and practitioners may be
essential, with particular emphasis on co-creation
approaches involving participants from diverse cultural
contexts to ensure the PHC’s inclusivity and cross-
cultural adaptability. Interviews may be performed with
counselees to discuss how they interpreted the statements
when completing the survey. A feedback mechanism built
into the questionnaire can provide a foundation for this
ongoing development process and a dynamic approach
that might reduce its normativity by introducing elements
of co-creation with the interviewees.
Conclusion
The Philosophical Health Compass represents a poten-
tially important development in the field of philosophical
health assessment in particular and applied research in
general, offering a structured approach to systematically
and collectively evaluating the six key dimensions identi-
fied through the SMILE_PH methodology to discuss phi-
losophical wellbeing. By providing a framework for
assessing aspects of bodily sense, sense of self, sense of
belonging, sense of purpose, sense of the possible, and
philosophical sense, the PHC opens new possibilities for
more quantitative research to support practice in philoso-
phical health.
However, the true value, very positive or less so, of the
PHC will ultimately be determined through its practical
application and empirical validation. While the theoreti-
cal framework and structure of the questionnaire are
grounded in both classical philosophical traditions and
contemporary research, substantial work is now requested
and invited to establish its psychometric or philometric
properties and practical utility across different contexts
and populations.
The introduction of the PHC should be viewed not as
an endpoint but as the beginning of a new direction in
philosophical health research and practice, one that might
allow for a quantitative science of the wisdom of the
crowd. It invites further investigation, refinement, and
development while offering a concrete tool for advancing
our understanding of collective philosophical health and
its relationship to human wellbeing. A significant risk lies
in the compass becoming a pharmakon—simultaneously
remedy and disease—if it suggests philosophical health is
a normative ideal achievable through a fixed set of quali-
ties. The essential pluralism of philosophical health, its
de Miranda et al. 11
openness to diverse forms of life, must be preserved, and
this can be done through dialogue and deep listening.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this arti-
cle: This project has received funding from the European
Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation program
under the Marie Sk1odowska-Curie Actions grant agreement
No. 101081293.
ORCID iD
Luis de Miranda https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5875-9851
References
Allen K-A (2020) The Psychology of Belonging. London:
Routledge.
de Miranda L (2020) Ensemblance: A Transnational Genealogy
of Esprit de Corps. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
de Miranda L (2021) Crealectic intelligence. In: Gla˘veanu V,
(ed) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible. Cham: Pal-
grave: 251–258.
de Miranda L (2022) Philosophical health. In: Gla˘veanu V, (ed)
The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible. Cham: Palgrave:
1003–1007.
de Miranda L (2023) Introducing the SMILE_PH method:
Sense-making interviews looking at elements of philosophical
health. Methodological Innovations 16(2), 163–177. https://
doi.org/10.1177/20597991231179336.
de Miranda L (2024) Philosophical Health: a Practical Introduc-
tion. London: Bloomsbury.
Arendt H (1958) The Human Condition. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Aristotle (2009) Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by D. Ross.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New
York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura A (2000) Exercise of human agency through collective
efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science 9(3):
75–78.
Bandura A (2006) Toward a psychology of human agency. Per-
spectives on Psychological Science 1(2): 164–180.
Barsalou LW (2008) Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psy-
chology 59: 617–645.
Baumeister RF and Leary MR (1995) The need to belong:
Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental
human motivation. Psychological Bulletin 117(3): 497–529.
Baumeister RF and Vohs KD (2002) The pursuit of meaningful-
ness in life. In: CR Snyder, & SJ Lopez (eds) Handbook of
Positive Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp.608–618.
Beitel M, Ferrer E and Cecero JJ (2005) Psychological minded-
ness and awareness of self and others. Journal of Clinical Psy-
chology 61(6): 739–750.
Bergson H (2007) Creative Evolution. Translated by A. Mitchell.
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. (Original work pub-
lished 1907)
Binswanger L (1960) Daseinsanalyse und psychotherapie II.
Acta Psychoterapeutica et Psychosomatica 8(4): 251–260.
Bishop SR, Lau M, Shapiro S, et al. (2004) Mindfulness: A pro-
posed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science
and Practice 11(3): 230–241.
Bloch E (1986) The Principle of Hope. Translated by N. Plaice,
S. Plaice, P. Knight. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original
work published 1954)
Bowen M (1978) Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. New York,
NY: Jason Aronson.
Brewer MB (1991) The social self: On being the same and differ-
ent at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-
tin 17(5): 475–482.
Brown CS and Toadvine T (eds) (2003) Eco-phenomenology:
Back to the Earth Itself. Albany: SUNY Press.
Buber M (1970) I and Thou. Translated by W. Kaufmann. New
York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons. (Original work published
1923)
Cacioppo JT and Hawkley LC (2009) Perceived social isolation
and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13(10): 447–454.
Campbell JD, Trapnell PD, Heine SJ, et al. (1996) Self-concept
clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural
boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
70(1): 141–156.
Carleton RN (2016) Into the unknown: A review and synthesis
of contemporary models involving uncertainty. Journal of
Anxiety Disorders 39: 30–43.
Clark A (2015) Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the
Embodied Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Craig AD (2015) How Do You Feel? An interoceptive Moment
With Your Neurobiological Self. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Damasio AR (1994) Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the
Human Brain. New York, NY: Putnam.
Damon W, Menon J and Bronk KC (2003) The development of
purpose during adolescence. Applied Developmental Science
7(3): 119–128.
Davis MH (1983) Measuring individual differences in empathy:
Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology 44(1): 113–126.
Dreyfus HL (1996) The current relevance of Merleau-Ponty’s
phenomenology of embodiment. The Electronic Journal of
Analytic Philosophy 4(Spring). https://ejap.louisiana.edu/
ejap/1996.spring/dreyfus.1996.spring.html
Duckworth AL, Peterson C, Matthews MD, et al. (2007) Grit:
Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology 92(6): 1087–1101.
Dunning D, Heath C and Suls JM (2004) Flawed self-assess-
ment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest 5(3): 69–106.
Durkheim E (1995) The Elementary Forms of Religious Life.
Translated by K. E. Fields. New York, NY: Free Press.
(Original work published 1912)
12 Methodological Innovations 00(0)
Dweck CS (1999) Self-theories: Their Role in Motivation, Person-
ality, and Development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Dweck CS (2006)Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New
York, NY: Random House.
Edmondson A (1999) Psychological safety and learning beha-
vior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(2):
350–383.
Emmons RA and McCullough ME (2003) Counting blessings
versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude
and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 84(2): 377–389.
Erikson EH (1968) Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York, NY:
Norton.
Flavell JH (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A
new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psy-
chologist 34(10): 906–911.
Frankfurt HG (1971) Freedom of the will and the concept of a
person. The Journal of Philosophy 68(1): 5–20.
Frankl VE (2006) Man’s Search for Meaning. Boston: Beacon
Press. (Original work published 1946)
Fuchs T (2005) Corporealized and disembodied minds: A phe-
nomenological view of the body in melancholia and schizo-
phrenia. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 12(2): 95–107.
Gallagher S (2005) How the Body Shapes the Mind. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gendlin ET (1978) Focusing. New York, NY: Everest House.
Giddens A (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society
in the Late Modern Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Greenhaus JH and Powell GN (2006) When work and family
are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of
Management Review 31(1): 72–92.
Habermas J (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1.
Translated by T. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hayes SC, Strosahl KD and Wilson KG (2012) Acceptance and
Commitment Therapy: The Process and Practice of Mindful
Change, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hegel GWF (1977) Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by A.
V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work
published 1807)
Heidegger M (1962) Being and Time. Translated by J. Macquar-
rie, E. Robinson. New York, NY: Harper & Row. (Original
work published 1927)
James W (1981) The Principles of Psychology. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1890)
JohnsonM (2007) TheMeaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human
Understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jung CG (1966) Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. Prince-
ton: Princeton University Press. (Original work published
1928)
Kahneman D and Klein G (2009) Conditions for intuitive expertise:
A failure to disagree. American Psychologist 64(6): 515–526.
Kant I (1998) Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by P. Guyer,
A. W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(Original work published 1781)
Kaufman JC and Sternberg RJ (2010) The Cambridge Handbook
of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kernis MH and Goldman BM (2006) A multicomponent con-
ceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology 38: 283–357.
Kierkegaard S (1980) The Concept of Anxiety. Translated by R.
Thomte. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Original
work published 1844)
Kierkegaard S (1983) The Sickness Unto Death. Translated by
H. V. Hong, E. H. Hong. Princeton: Princeton University
Press. (Original work published 1849)
Kingma E (2019) Health and disease: Beyond normativism and
naturalism. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 9(2):
1–15.
Leder D (1990) The Absent Body. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Levinas E (1969) Totality and Infinity. Translated by A. Lingis.
Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press. (Original work pub-
lished 1961)
Linville PW (1987) Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against
stress-related illness and depression. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 52(4): 663–676.
McAdams DP (2001) The psychology of life stories. Review of
General Psychology 5(2): 100–122.
MacIntyre A (1981) After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory.
Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Maddi SR (1967) The existential neurosis. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology 72(4): 311–325.
Marion J-L (2002) Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of
Givenness. Translated by J. L. Kosky. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Maslow AH (1971) The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. New
York, NY: Viking Press.
Merleau-Ponty M (1968) The Visible and the Invisible. Trans-
lated by A. Lingis. Evanston: Northwestern University
Press.
Merleau-Ponty M (2012) Phenomenology of Perception. Trans-
lated by D. A. Landes. London: Routledge. (Original work
published 1945)
Mill JS (2003) On Liberty. New Haven: Yale University Press.
(Original work published 1859)
Naess A (1973) The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology
movement. Inquiry 16(1–4): 95–100.
Neff K (2003) Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization
of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity 2(2):
85–101.
Nietzsche F (2006) Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Translated by A.
Del Caro. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original
work published 1883-1885)
Owens TJ (1993) Accentuate the positive-and the negative:
Rethinking the use of self-esteem, self-deprecation, and self-
confidence. Social Psychology Quarterly 56(4): 288–299.
Park CL (2010) Making sense of the meaning literature: An inte-
grative review of meaning making and its effects on adjust-
ment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin 136(2):
257–301.
Pierce JL, Kostova T and Dirks KT (2001) Toward a theory of
psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Man-
agement Review 26(2): 298–310.
Ricoeur P (1992) Oneself as Another. Translated by K. Blamey.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ryan RM and Deci EL (2001) On happiness and human poten-
tials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-
being. Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 141–166.
de Miranda et al. 13
Ryff CD and Singer BH (2008) Know thyself and become what
you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being.
Journal of Happiness Studies 9(1): 13–39.
Sartre g (1992) Being and Nothingness. Translated by H. E.
Barnes. New York, NY: Washington Square Press. (Original
work published 1943)
Schultz PW (2002) Inclusion with nature: The psychology of
human-nature relations. In: P Schmuck, & WP Schultz (eds)
Psychology of Sustainable Development. Boston: Springer,
pp.61–78.
Schu¨tz A (1967) The Phenomenology of the Social World. Trans-
lated by G. Walsh, F. Lehnert. Evanston: Northwestern Uni-
versity Press.
Seligman ME, Railton P, Baumeister RF, et al. (2013) Navigat-
ing into the future or driven by the past. Perspectives on Psy-
chological Science 8(2): 119–141.
Senge PM (2006) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of
the Learning Organization, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Cur-
rency Doubleday.
Sheets-Johnstone M (2011) The Primacy of Movement, 2nd edn.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sheldon KM and Elliot AJ (1999) Goal striving, need satisfac-
tion, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(3):
482–497.
Shepard J and Bardakci M (2020) Opportunity costs and non-
scale-free capabilities: Profit maximization, corporate
scope, and profit margins. Management Science 66(10):
4720–4738.
Simmel G (1971) On Individuality and Social Forms (D. N.
Levine, ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original
work published 1908)
Singer P (1981) The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and
Moral Progress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Snyder CR (2002) Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psycho-
logical Inquiry 13(4): 249–275.
Spinoza B (1996) Ethics. Translated by E. Curley. London: Pen-
guin. (Original work published 1677)
Steger MF, Frazier P, Oishi S, et al. (2006) The meaning in life
questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for
meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology 53(2):
80–93.
Stern DN (2010) Forms of Vitality: Exploring Dynamic Experi-
ence in Psychology, the Arts, Psychotherapy, and Develop-
ment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor C (1989) Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern
Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tedeschi RG and Calhoun LG (2004) Posttraumatic growth:
Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychologi-
cal Inquiry 15(1): 1–18.
To¨nnies F (2001) Community and Civil Society. Translated by J.
Harris, M. Hollis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(Original work published 1887)
Tyreman S (2011) The happy genius of my household: Phe-
nomenological and poetic journeys into health and ill-
ness. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 14(3):
301–311.
Varela FJ, Thompson E and Rosch E (1991) The Embodied
Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Wittgenstein L (2009) Philosophical Investigations. Translated
by G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker, J. Schulte. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell. (Original work published 1953)
Yalom ID (1995) The Theory and Practice of Group Psychother-
apy, 4th edn. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Author biographies
Luis de Miranda, PhD in philosophy, is a philosophical
practitioner and senior fellow researcher at the Turku
Institute for Advanced Studies of the Turku University,
Finland, an affiliated researcher at the Center for
Research Ethics and Bioethics of Uppsala University,
Sweden, and an affiliated researcher at the Center for
Wellbeing, Welfare and Happiness of the Stockholm
School of Economics. He is the founder and president of
the Philosophical Health International network and the
creator of the SMILE_PH Method (Sense-Making
Interviews Looking at Elements of Philosophical Health),
which was introduced in the present journal in 2023.
Charlotta Ingvolstad Malmgren, PhD, a certified coun-
sellor in the SMILE-PH method, is an associate
Professor in medical genetics at Karolinska University
and a Certified Genetic Counsellor in Sweden.
Jonathan Eric Carroll, PhD, is a Philosophical
Practitioner and Existential Psychotherapist in the US,
with a special interest in palliative care. He is certified in
the SMILE_PH method.
Caroline S Gould, PhD, is a Distinguished Senior
Fellow at Center for Future Mind, in the Brain Institute
at Florida Atlantic University, USA. She is a philosophi-
cal counsellor certified in the SMILE_PH method.
Rodney King, PhD, certified in the SMILE_PH method,
founder of Coaching Philosophia, is an educator and
practitioner specializing in the integration of applied phi-
losophy, nature-based therapy, and human flourishing
science.
Christian Funke, PhD, is a Philosophical Practitioner in
Germany, certified in the SMILE_PH method, working
on the logic and effectiveness of the Sense-Making
Interviews Looking at Elements of Philosophical Health.
Sena Arslan, Ph.D. is a specialist in the Philosophy of
Mind and Philosophical Psychology, and is a
SMILE_PH certified counsellor. She is the founder of
Podiva Counsel.
14 Methodological Innovations 00(0)