The Origin Of Emotions

[Minneserenity]

Hello all:

I've recently become aware of the striking similiarities of Epictetus, Buddhism & modern cognitive behavior therapy: Theory & practice insofar as what causes our thoughts, emotions and subsequent behaviors, and how to improve them.

Any thoughts?

M.

[Thomas Knierim]

Hm, interesting. Do you see similarities between Buddhism and Epictetus in particular or the Stoic thought in general?

The underlying principle of CBT is the idea (I believe it was also explicitly phrased by Freud) that the uncovering and realisation of (pathological) patterns effects positive change. But this thought isn't new. Many of the ancient philosophical schools had the same idea. The "Gnóthi seautón" inscription of Delphi is based on the same principle.

Cheers, Thomas

[Minneserenity]

<<Hm, interesting. Do you see similarities between Buddhism and Epictetus in particular or the Stoic thought in general?>>

Insofar as Buddhism is concerned, many feel that the most important treatment developments in recent years has been the theoretical and empirical elaboration of mindfulness and acceptance into evidence-based, cognitive-behavioral protocols.

Along with other concepts grounded in the practice of certain forms of Buddhism, mindfulness seems to be particularly useful. Western psychologists have recently learned that this state of mind is particularly conducive to the accomplishment of cognitive behavioral therapy, or CBT: an active mode of psychological treatment that attempts to recognize and counter negative thoughts and behaviors before they lead to debilitating psychological conditions.

However the philosophic origins of Rational Emotive Therapy are generally attributed to the Stoic philosophers, including Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. Epictetus wrote in The Enchiridion, "Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them."

Epictetus believed that the primary job of philosophy is to help ordinary people effectively meet the everyday challenges of daily life, and to deal with life’s inevitable major losses, disappointments and griefs. He was a moral teaching stripped of sentimentality, piousness, and much of the latter day Western brand of New Age mumbo-jumbo and/or armchair theorizing at the expense of real-world practical application that seems to hinder some other would-be psychotherapeutic systems. (Note: I draw a sharp distinction between classical mysticism and what is now loosely termed as New Age spirituality. The latter often inappropriately equates "feelings" with intuition. But as CBT and REBT clearly reveal, feelings can be a poor gauge of either inner or outer reality.)

<<The underlying principle of CBT is the idea (I believe it was also explicitly phrased by Freud) that the uncovering and realisation of (pathological) patterns effects positive change. But this thought isn't new. Many of the ancient philosophical schools had the same idea. The "Gnóthi seautón" inscription of Delphi is based on the same principle.>>

The modern psychotherapist most influential to the development of Rational Emotive Therapy was Alfred Adler (who developed Individual Psychology). Adler, a neo-Freudian, stated, "I am convinced that a person's behavior springs from his ideas." Ellis was also influenced by behaviorists, such as John Dollard, Neal Miller, and Joseph Wolpe, and George Kelly (psychology of personal constructs).

It is sometimes alleged that REBT is too crassly hedonistic and that it teaches people to enjoy themselves at the expense of their deeper or more rewarding commitments. This is a false charge, since one of the main tenets of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy is the Stoic principle of long-range rather than short-range pleasure.

Cognitive therapy is also based on the cognitive model, which is, simply that the way we perceive situations influences how we feel emotionally. For example, one person reading this might think, "Wow! This sounds good, it's just what I've always been looking for!" and feels happy. Another person reading this information might think, "Well, this sounds good but I don't think I can do it." This person feels sad and discouraged.

So it is not a situation which directly affects how a person feels emotionally, but rather, his or her thoughts in that situation. When people are in distress, they often do not think clearly and their thoughts are distorted in some way. Cognitive therapy helps people to identify their distressing thoughts and to evaluate how realistic the thoughts are. Then they learn to change their distorted thinking. When they think more realistically, they naturally feel better and their behaviors naturally improve as well. The emphasis is also consistently on solving problems and initiating behavioral change rather than theory.

While I am not a student of Buddhism, from my limited reading of Buddhism, Epictetus and CBT, I get the impression that they all share a pragmatic focus on the causes of human suffering and practical methods to alleviate them.

For anyone interested in a lay person's user-friendly introduction/application CBT book, I recommend David Burns', MD, best-selling self-help book, Feeling Good.

Regards,

M.

[Thomas Knierim]

Minneserenity: Insofar as Buddhism is concerned, many feel that the most important treatment developments in recent years has been the theoretical and empirical elaboration of mindfulness and acceptance into evidence-based, cognitive-behavioral protocols.

As previously mentioned, this is nothing new at all. I am quite surprised that Western psychology is surprised at it. It only seems like the formalisation of ancient knowledge. Of course I may have a different perspective. I live in Asia where Buddhism and the idea of mindfulness are commonplace (well, not entirely, but certainly well known to the educated class). The West has viewed mind as something rather mysterious until recently and psychology did not become a science until the late 19th century. The East, however, has had a science of mind for a really long time.

The baffling thing about mindfulness, CBT, and similar approaches is that mind does have this self-healing property. It is really quite amazing. A mere realisation, an event where a previously unconscious part of the mind suddenly becomes self-conscious, can have a self-correcting and often far-reaching effect. It is a property of consciousness and we have some degree of control over it. Not the causal chain is baffling, but the existence of such a possibility.

Minneserenity: Epictetus wrote in The Enchiridion, "Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them."

Incidentally, this is the very statement that got me interested in philosophy when I was a teenager. It wasn't Epictetus, but Seneca the younger who said: "It's not the things that trouble men, but their imagination of the things." It seems that either Epictetus had copied Seneca on this account or that both copied from the same source. Either way the saying appears to be a standard Stoic "incantation", and a very powerful one at that.

I always thought that there are a good many similarities between Stoicism and Buddhism and I recall a discussion with a Mahayana practitioner a few years ago about whether Marcus Aurelius was a Western Bodhisattva. -I guess we will never know.- But Aurelius came as close to Plato's philosopher king ideal, a worldly Bodhisattva if you want, as could be imagined. Unfortunately, the Western world took a different turn after the time of Epictetus and Aurelius. Stoicism, atomism, and Ionian philosophy soon sank into oblivion.

It's difficult to image where Western civilisation would have gone, if the Pythagorean-Platonist-Christian web of doctrines hadn't taken over the world of thought in the Roman Empire.

Minneserenity: It is sometimes alleged that REBT is too crassly hedonistic and that it teaches people to enjoy themselves at the expense of their deeper or more rewarding commitments.

This allegation is quite silly. You cannot love anything if you cannot love yourself. You cannot enjoy anything if you cannot enjoy being yourself. As small babies we are all crassly hedonistic. It is the aforementioned mindset which is responsible for the divulgement such self-denying nonsense. Although I think that the theoretical foundation of REBT is overly simplistic, it is a valid and powerful method.

Cheers, Thomas

[Minneserenity]

Hello Thomas,

I'll reply in a day or two to your posts here and in the science section. Tonight I don't have time to give either an appropriate response right now so I'll have to take a rain check.

Regards,

M.

[Minneserenity]

Hi Thomas,

<<As previously mentioned, this is nothing new at all. I am quite surprised that Western psychology is surprised at it. It only seems like the formalisation of ancient knowledge. Of course I may have a different perspective. I live in Asia where Buddhism and the idea of mindfulness are commonplace (well, not entirely, but certainly well known to the educated class). The West has viewed mind as something rather mysterious until recently and psychology did not become a science until the late 19th century. The East, however, has had a science of mind for a really long time.>>

Yes, you are correct. But it's interesting that science is finally recognizing so much of this. Also it vindicates both my late mother and myself who sort of pioneered things of this nature in our family and neighborhood. When the "local yokels" found out I was doing Hatha yoga one might have thought that I'd sprouted horns and a tail.

<<The baffling thing about mindfulness, CBT, and similar approaches is that mind does have this self-healing property. It is really quite amazing. A mere realisation, an event where a previously unconscious part of the mind suddenly becomes self-conscious, can have a self-correcting and often far-reaching effect. It is a property of consciousness and we have some degree of control over it. Not the causal chain is baffling, but the existence of such a possibility.>>

I was intensely interested in cognitive behavior psychology and biofeedback as an undergrad. I was fortunate enough to do some interesting experiments and papers on both. It's quite remarkable that simply the act of writing down cognitive distortions, defining them and substituting rational cognitions has had over 3o years of successful clinical application that surpasses even that of psychotropic drugs. More recent neuroscience has revealed that the human brain can still rewire itself even later in life much like the neural net software and genetic algorithm software that create simulated neurons or bacteria. Then based on how they perform in context, some are allowed to continue or breed and the remainder are killed off and so on... This may have something to do with the follow-up studies that have revealed the resilience of CBT treatments.

<<Minneserenity: Epictetus wrote in The Enchiridion, "Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them."

Incidentally, this is the very statement that got me interested in philosophy when I was a teenager. It wasn't Epictetus, but Seneca the younger who said: "It's not the things that trouble men, but their imagination of the things." It seems that either Epictetus had copied Seneca on this account or that both copied from the same source. Either way the saying appears to be a standard Stoic "incantation", and a very powerful one at that.>>

I can say from first hand experience via CBT that that is the most empowering statement I've ever heard. I rarely make either-or statement, but I think it's safe to say that we are either endowed with self-determination or we are subject to nothing but randomness with only the illusion of control. To me Epictetus' statement is an affirmation of the former. However many who scoff at CBT theory may not realize it, but they are also voting for learned helplessness--psychological and spiritual. When they first hear CBT theory they obstinately insist that their feelings create their thoughts, and declare something like this: "If my house was burning, simply changing my thoughts wouldn't change how I feel!"

So in other words "I feel therefore I am, riiiight?"

Absolutely not!

The trouble with that belief is that it substantiates learned helplessness. And such individuals clearly cannot or will not understand that the foundation of CBT is that only rational thoughts cause rational feelings & behaviors, and irrational thoughts cause the converse.

From a CBT perspective feeling distraught about a burning home is perfectly rational so CBT wouldn't even be relevant there and a poor example for refuting CBT. However if the burning house caused the owner to have severe feelings of depression that lead to attempts of suicide, then that would be an example of where CBT would be appropriate. Or if the event caused the owner to have severe anxiety that sabotaged subsequent attempts to get on with their life in a reasonable fashion, then there again is another example. Or if the owner acted on irrational beliefs and lashed out in violence at a perceived arsonist who really wasn't, then again is yet another example...

<<I always thought that there are a good many similarities between Stoicism and Buddhism and I recall a discussion with a Mahayana practitioner a few years ago about whether Marcus Aurelius was a Western Bodhisattva. -I guess we will never know.- But Aurelius came as close to Plato's philosopher king ideal, a worldly Bodhisattva if you want, as could be imagined. Unfortunately, the Western world took a different turn after the time of Epictetus and Aurelius. Stoicism, atomism, and Ionian philosophy soon sank into oblivion.>>

I only have the most surperficial knowledge of Greek and Buddhist philosophy & practice since my primary focus has been and remains in this context practical application of CBT. Although I'd be interested in books devoted primarily to the philosophic relationships between CBT and them just for my own edification eventually.

<<It's difficult to image where Western civilisation would have gone, if the Pythagorean-Platonist-Christian web of doctrines hadn't taken over the world of thought in the Roman Empire.>>

Elaine Pagels speculated that without the imposition of Orthodox Christianity, Christianity might have died out.

<<Minneserenity: It is sometimes alleged that REBT is too crassly hedonistic and that it teaches people to enjoy themselves at the expense of their deeper or more rewarding commitments.

This allegation is quite silly. You cannot love anything if you cannot love yourself. You cannot enjoy anything if you cannot enjoy being yourself. As small babies we are all crassly hedonistic. It is the aforementioned mindset which is responsible for the divulgement such self-denying nonsense. Although I think that the theoretical foundation of REBT is overly simplistic, it is a valid and powerful method.>>

Yes! Yes!! Yes!!!

Here again is an additional way as to how I choose to interpret "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "Do unto others"

Mental/emotional anguish, just like physical anguish, can have dire effects on our willingness to be reasonable, tolerant, loving, forgiving, apologetic,and etc.

For example, CBT teaches the depressed/lonely person not only that they need to first love themselves before they can ever love another or be loved by others, but HOW and WHY!
Mindfulness in this context is twofold: First you learn how to detect, define and then replace the irrational cognitions (negative self-talk) that precedes the trigger (person, thing or event), and second you learn that it's helpful to be more mindful during your day, for I've noticed in my own life that the converse--mindlessness--seems to make one particularly susceptible to the subtle influences of irrational cognitions.

Ditto with irrational issues of guilt, entitlement, anxiety and several other issues that plague even so-called "normal" people.

What really galls me about so many Orthodox religious and even some self-professed New Age approaches is how they never actually tell one how! How!! HOW!!! to cure one's suffering. Instead they either Bible thump one over the head and inflict a guilt/anxity fest, or with expressions consipated "spirituality," they wallow in an endless succession of quotations, flowery platitudes and "feel-goodisms." Either way, it seems like when either approach fails, they both blame the would-be patient rather than the so-called healing system as being responsible. It's far easier to accuse the patient of being negative or unrepentant than maybe think objectively and fairly about what they're doing.

I like CBT' theory and methology because they don't insist on indulging in that sort of self-righteous rhetoric and pseudo therapy. Instead in CBT you learn accept yourself where you are first without recriminations, and then you systematically analyze and change what needs to be changed. No hyseria. Just helping. And it works. I've seen it time and time again.

While the designers of CBT seem to be somewhat unsympathetic to the mystical aspects of Greek and Buddhist thought, nevertheless they do seem to have managed to glean and fashion something that is nonsectarian and thus unoffensive to at least reasonable dogmatists, and whoever has ears that can hear.

M.