Philosophy is Dangerous for Twelve Step

A bit of reflection upon reading The Fallacy of the ‘Hijacked Brain’ - the NY Times' Philosophy column.

The paradox of x anonymous meetings (A.A.; N.A.) turns around the fact that part of the treatment has as its essence the requirement that the addict seeking help understand that fundamentally, they have been overtaken by the disease of addiction, and have been powerless; the first step in the twelve being admission of this powerlessness. But this is useless for healing addiction without the accompanying requirement: "Choose differently." There is a different way to live your life; make that choice, work the steps, rid yourself of the vestiges of your life in addition (very much in line with Sartre's view of free will here). Hence the paradox. But not just any paradox - the pragmatist in me is stirred: it's a paradox that works. In what sense can we say that it 'works'? What kind of effect in the world does this logical inconsistency have? It helps people free themselves of drug-saturated existence, and in many cases, saves their lives.

Explicit connections between Philosophy and twelve step have made themselves evident in more ways than one over the course of my studies, one that I am surprised more people don't know about is the tremendous influence - in terms of philosophy and ideas - of William James on the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, Bill W. 

In any philosophical writings that begin to weave their way into the realm of spirituality (Pierre Hadot, for instance), one will easily find commonalities with twelve step ideology. 

The problem for me has always been that it seems mutually exclusive to subscribe 100% to the twelve step model and at the same time maintain a completely intellectually open-mind. Imagine that the article above had been a report on the recent neurological/psychological data that debunked the deterministic, 'disease' model of addition, and imagine it were true. The twelve stepper who has experienced success and life-improvement and most importantly, freedom from addition in x anonymous programs would then have a choice: accept the data, and have their entire system of thought be proven untrue, and admit that the one thing that improves the situation for them as far as addiction is concerned requires deluding him/herself - OR they can deny the data, pretend it isn't true, decline to accept it, and keep on living the life of the program. This was my dilemma in any case. Philosophy is a dangerous subject for a recovering/recovered drug addict who has found success in 12 step programs.