The Philosophy of Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (2010)
Stoic Philosophy as Rational and Cognitive Psychotherapy
Published August 2010 by Karnac- ISBN 13 : 9781855757561
- ISBN 10 : 1855757567
- RRP £22.99
Why should modern psychotherapists be interested in philosophy, especially ancient philosophy? Why should philosophers be interested in psychotherapy? There is a sense of mutual attraction between what are today two thoroughly distinct disciplines. However, arguably it was not always the case that they were distinct.
Donald Robertson, the author, takes the view that by reconsidering the generally received wisdom concerning the history of these closely-related subjects, we can learn a great deal about both philosophy and psychotherapy, under which heading he includes potentially solitary pursuits such as “self-help” and “personal development”.
“The philosopher’s school”, said Epictetus, “is a doctor’s clinic.” The Philosophy of CBT is the first comprehensive review of the relationship between modern cognitive-behavioural therapies and classical philosophy. The founders of cognitive therapy and REBT, Aaron Beck and Albert Ellis, both refer to Stoicism in particular as the main precursor of the modern cognitive approach. This book elaborates in detail upon the historical relationship between different schools of ancient philosophy and modern psychotherapy. It places particular emphasis on the specific therapeutic strategies and techniques employed in Stoicism and other Hellenistic philosophies and explores the potential for integrating them within modern psychological therapies. For example, the central principle of Stoicism was that emotional disturbance is linked to placing excessive value upon things outside of our direct control while neglecting things we can more easily change, especially our cognitions and behaviour. Visualisation techniques such as “The View from Above” and Stoic mindfulness practices are explained as part of a “forgotten” armamentarium of therapeutic methods. The author argues that certain aspects of these ancient schools of philosophical psychotherapy may well deserve to be rehabilitated within the modern psychotherapeutic framework. This book opens up a new forum for dialogue between philosophers and psychotherapists, focusing on the practical dimension of Socratic philosophy and its relationship with the cognitive-behavioural tradition.
Hi Elen, of course, that’s absolutely fine. You have my permission. I’ll take a look at your book shortly. Looking forward to reading it.
Regards,
Donald Robertson
Hi Donald
I wondered whether or not you had some time to read may book…but you must be very busy. I can send you the book by mail if you wish..
Kindest regards
Hi Elen,
Sorry, I have been very busy. My wife’s recently had a baby so I’ve not had much time to read. If you want to send me a paper copy of the book by mail, I’d be happy to read it. Email me at don@londoncognitive.com and I’ll send you the postal address.
Regards,
Donald Robertson
Hello Elen,
Glad you like The Philosophy of CBT. I’d be interested in reviewing your book when it’s ready for publication. I think that there are probably several Greek philosophical terms which could be translated in better ways, making it easier to highlight connections with modern ideas and discussion. That could be done differently for ordinary readers or psychotherapists, who have their own jargon. For example, simply making more liberal use of the words “cognition” and “cognitive” would probably make Stoic writings much more appealing to cognitive therapists!
I have a script of the view from above on another site but I’ve now posted it here as well, on the page below,
http://philosophy-of-cbt.com/2011/08/13/the-view-from-above-stoic-meditation-script/
Regards,
Donald Robertson
Hello Donald
Thank you for the script. Do do authorise me to give a duplication of this script to my student of the college of stoic philosophers ? Mention of your copyright should be duly reproduced as well
Here is the like to the lulu page where the book is now available (roll down til the end to find it). I would be extremely glad to read your review. We have some technical problems to solve before the book is available on websites such as Amazon and the like
http://stores.lulu.com/keithseddon
The text is still using traditional translation of greek term…this book was almost completed when I read yours so I only had time to refer to you view from above script
Regards
Elen
Hello
I am about to publish my own book “Stoic spiritual exercices” with the help of Keith Seddon.
I have to say that I am much enjoying your “The philosophy of cognitive behavioural therapy”. I am finding in this book some good suggestions or remarks such as:
- translating “pathê” by “emotional disturbances ” instead of the traditionnal “passion”. Do you have some others ?
- some good remarks about: the praemeditatio exercice
- I very much liked he way you have described the three disciplines
- the chapter about rational emotion (a way to update the old debate fot stoic student)
- the chapter about stoic fatalism.
- The way you described the stoic god on page 56 as “being not a mythical superhuman being but rather a way of looking at the world, conceiving the universe itself, in its absolute entirety, as if it were godlike, as being divine, mystical and sacrec in its entirety”
-etc
BTW Where can I get the oral transcription of your ” view from above” exercice ?
Regards
I agree, in part, with regard to what you say about Epictetus; it is certainly likely that he couldn’t emphasise strongly enough the importance of studying the ancients, especially one’s philosophical predecessors; but this was long part of the philosopher-in-training’s remit—one is reminded that Zeno was given that very wise advice by the oracle, namely, that to attain the best life he should take on ‘the complexion of the dead’.
Moreover, I agree with you if by ‘study’ you mean (for the most part) ‘application’ or ‘practical application’—or perhaps ‘field studies’ is best—since this seems to be the import of what Epictetus means by the term, that is, his words suggest that study is not only about attending lectures and seminars, reading appropriate literature, attending the theatre, and writing on the subject of such-and-such, but also very much about the student putting into effect what he has learned from the philosophers and in the classroom—mere academic study is not enough if the student is to make progress.
And of course Stockdale was afforded the opportunity of putting into effect what he’d learned in the classroom—military as well as academic; but, then, who doesn’t have such an opportunity in this life? School must exist for some purpose—otherwise why are we sent there? Maybe, as Foucault points out, school and the military life are not so very different when it boils down to it.
We may not all be banged up in a North Vietnamese prison and tortured—the imagery is striking but I don’t think Epictetus would have been particularly impressed—but we all meet with adversity of some sort; we all have to deal with difficulties at some time or other in our lives; few of us escape. The difference is, you will say, Stockdale consciously took his Epictetean principles into prison with him; I think, even as he was dropping from the sky in his parachute he told himself, Here comes what thus far you’ve only ever talked about, now let’s see what you’re made of!
Actually, I would say there are thousands, probably tens of thousands, of individuals who have studied the teachings of Epictetus and come to various wise realisations as a result sufficient to enable them somehow to cope and make the best of things; such are in my opinion as worthy of study as Stockdale. Why should Epictetus choose to be interested in him and not all the others? Because he is relatively famous?
Obviously, all credit to the man, Stockdale found Epictetus, as many before him have done, something of a revelation. No doubt he went so far as to identify himself with this Cynic-Stoic master—and there is nothing strange in that: that’s part of the studies we’ve been talking about, if you will—we all identify to a greater or lesser extent with and model ourselves upon the characters, heroes, even anti-heroes, that seem exemplary to us, that we come across in life, in our reading, in our watching, or in our studies.
But perhaps it might be argued that a little too much is made of this matter of Stockdale’s application of Stoic principles in adversity, which does after all sound a little grandiose, a little vainglorious, a little pretentious, even a little pompous—for there are many, many, many, unsung military heroes abroad who have acted stoically in the face of difficulties: check out for instance the Commonwealth War Graves Commission who manage cemeteries in which vast numbers of dead from the First World War alone lie buried.
We might also give consideration to the idea that this ‘application of Stoic principles in adversity’ was perhaps Stockdale’s (or his advisers’, or publishers’,) attempt to find retrospective meaning in what turned out to be an essentially meaningless and unwinnable war; and although you might accuse me of being cynical the fact is he was honour-bound, obliged, because of his high military rank to publicly affirm his belief in the righteousness of the US, that is, arch-capitalism with its attendant freedoms as against the lack of freedoms and rights in the communist Soviet bloc; Cold War hostilities took many forms but the freedom spoken of by the Americans was surely very different from the inward freedom that ‘maketh the man’ Epictetus spoke of.
Perhaps Stockdale was ‘guilty’ of rationalising his own misguided patriotism—as evidenced in his refusal to countenance the idea that US military involvement in Vietnam was not merely imperialistic and anti-communistic but horrendously criminal in intent and consequences—think: napalm, for instance; what happened to cosmopolitanism? But finally, why do I get the feeling that it is almost as if he believes God is on his side and God will save America above all when the truth is, and this is perhaps nowhere more evident than in war, God is on no-one’s side?
But maybe I’m being harsh; maybe confused and rambling; but I don’t see Epictetus and Stockdale as having much in common; it looks like one way traffic to me.
That’s an interesting point about the quote from Epictetus. However, by contrast, he also advocates repeatedly throughout his lectures that Stoics, at least novices, should study the lives of the ancient sages and learn from their example. Epictetus had clearly studied other philosophers himself. So it can’t be entirely true that he had no interest whatsoever in the lives of others. That leaves open the question as to whether he would be interested specifically in Stockdale’s story. I think it’s reasonable to speculate that he’d want to know more about the guy. I’m sure I never said that Epictetus would necessarily endorse his political views or somehow idealise Stockdale, just that he might be particularly interested in him as a modern example of someone trying to apply Stoic principles in adversity. I think Stockdale’s account of his own suicide attempt was that he felt it was his only realistic option to avoid being used for propoganda by his captors.
I don’t see why Epictetus should necessarily have to be churlish simply because he might quite naturally not have any interest in newsworthy stories such as that of Admiral Stockdale’s. What other men get up to is after all their own business — business which is really none of the true philosopher’s concern — which makes for selfishness, I agree, but that is the nature of the beast. Besides, he [Epictetus] says [III. xviii. 1--2.] that, “News, on any subject, never falls within the sphere of the moral purpose.” Unlike Stockdale, Epictetus had no interest in publishing his thoughts, or in letting the world know of his vainglorious (or whatever) pursuits; we only really know of Epictetus thanks to his pupil Arrian; moreover it seems he made no big deal when his leg got twisted and broken by some cruel master (assuming the story is true) whereas Stockdale, on the other hand, incarcerated with his troop, was about to commit suicide until his wife came to the rescue. Of course, Epictetus had no wife with friends in high places to come to the rescue.
Regards,
Peter
Read this in one of the Blog Articles on your site:
“If the Stoic philosopher Epictetus were alive in modern times, the first person he would want to be introduced to would probably be Stockdale himself.”
You may possibly be right, since it appears Epictetus at some point sold out to the lumpenproletariat class he came from and sided with the class of his aristocratic masters upon whom he depended for his living — or did he? Perhaps also if Diogenes the Cynic were alive in modern times he would have wanted first, before any other, to have been introduced to Stockdale — but no, hang on, that can’t be right! It was Alexander that wanted to meet with Diogenes and when he found him the latter told him he wanted nothing from him except that he stand out of his light. Presumably, then, since Epictetus’ ideal was Diogenes he too would have had no interest in chasing after a worthless and troubled man such as Stockdale, but on the contrary Stockdale might well have sought out Epictetus in his hovel . . . Let’s not put Stockdale on the same level as Epictetus.
Maybe he’d want to be introduced to Stockdale to tell him what you’ve said. I wouldn’t put Stockdale on the same level as Epictetus. I think if Epictetus were around he’d be pretty churlish not to be interested in Stockdale’s story and his use of Stoicism in the face of adversity.
Regards,
Donald Robertson